Plant and Soil

, Volume 230, Issue 2, pp 161–174

Does origin of mycorrhizal fungus or mycorrhizal plant influence effectiveness of the mycorrhizal symbiosis?

  • Elisabeth W. Van der Heijden
  • Thomas W. Kuyper
Article

Abstract

Mycorrhizal effectiveness depends on the compatibility between fungus and plant. Therefore, genetic variation in plant and fungal species affect the effectiveness of the symbiosis. The importance of mycorrhizal plant and mycorrhizal fungus origin was investigated in two experiments. In the first experiment, clones (cuttings) of Salix repens L. from three different origins (two coastal dune and one inland ecosystem) were inoculated with three mycorrhizal fungi (the ectomycorrhizal fungi Hebeloma leucosarx and Paxillus involutus; the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus mosseae) on two soils with different nutrient availabilities. In the second experiment, homogeneous plant material (one clone of S. repens) was inoculated with four isolates of H. leucosarx, all found in association with S. repens. Plant origin had a large effect on symbiotic effectiveness, assessed by three different criteria (shoot biomass, shoot N-content, shoot P-content). This effect was probably mediated through genetic differences in root parameters. There was also a large plant origin×soil type interaction, with the plants from the nutrient-poor habitat performing better on the poorest soil. The plants from the more nutrient-rich habitat performed better on the relatively rich soil. Effects of plant origin on symbiotic effectiveness were also fungal-species specific. Fungal origin had only a minor effect on symbiotic effectiveness. Studies concerning the ecological significance of mycorrhizal symbiosis should be more explicit about both mycorrhizal plant and fungus origin and compatibility.

arbuscular mycorrhiza ectomycorrhiza plant- or fungal origin Salix repens symbiotic effectiveness 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aanen D K and Kuyper Th W 1999 Intercompatiblity tests in the Hebeloma crustuliniforme complex in northwestern Europe. Mycologia 91, 783–795.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander I J and Bigg W L 1981 Light microscopy of ectomycorrhizas using glycol methacrylate. Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc. 77, 425–429.Google Scholar
  3. Bowen G D 1984 Tree roots and the use of soil nutrients. In Nutrition of Plantation Forests. Eds. GD Bowen and KS Nambiar, pp147–179. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  4. Brundrett M, Bougher N, Dell B, Grove T and Malajczuk N 1996 Working with mycorrhizas in forestry and agriculture. ACIAR Monograph 32, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
  5. Burgess T and Malajczuk N 1989 The effect of ectomycorrhizal fungi on reducing the variation of seedling growth of Eucalyptus globules. Agric. Ecosyst. Environm. 28, 41–46.Google Scholar
  6. Burgess T, Dell B and Malajczuk N 1994 Variation in mycorrhizal development and Growth stimulation by 20 Pisolithus isolates inoculated on to Eucalyptus grandis W. Hill ex Maiden. New Phytol. 127, 731–739.Google Scholar
  7. Dixon R K, Garrett H E and Stelzer H E 1987 Growth and ectomycorrhizal development of loblolly pine progenies inoculated with three isolates of Pisolithus tinctorius. Silvae Genetica 36, 240–245.Google Scholar
  8. Dosskey M G, Linderman R G and Boersma L 1990 Carbon-sink stimulation of photosynthesis in Douglas fir seedlings by some ectomycorrhizae. New Phytol. 115, 269–274.Google Scholar
  9. Fitter A H 1985 Functional significance of root morphology and root system architechture. In Ecological interactions in soil; plants, microbes and animals. Eds. Fitter AH, Atkinson D, Read D J and Usher M B, pp 87–106. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
  10. Habte M and Byappanahalli M N 1994 Dependency of cassava (Manihot esculenta) on vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Mycorrhiza 4, 241–245.Google Scholar
  11. Heijden E W van der 2000 Mycorrhizal symbioses of Salix repens: Diversity and functional significance. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  12. Janos D P 1993 Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae of epiphytes. Mycorrhiza 4, 1–4.Google Scholar
  13. Kesava Rao P S, Tilak, K V B R and Arunachalam, V 1990 Genetic variation for VA mycorrhizal-dependent phospate mobilization in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Plant Soil 122, 137–142.Google Scholar
  14. Krishna K R, Shetty K G, Dart P J and Andrews D J 1985 Genotype dependent variation in mycorrhizal colonization and response to inoculation to pearl millet. Plant Soil 86, 113–125.Google Scholar
  15. Kropp B R 1997 Inheritance of the ability for ectomycorrhizal colonization of Pinus strobus by Laccaria bicolor. Mycologia 89, 578–585.Google Scholar
  16. Lamhamedi MS, Fortin J A, Kope H H and Kropp B R 1990 Genetic variation in ectomycorrhiza formation by Pisolithus arhizus on Pinus banksiana. New Phytol. 115, 689–697.Google Scholar
  17. Martin F, Delaruelle C and Ivory M 1998 Genetic variability in intergenic spacers of ribosomal DNA in Pisolithus isolates associated with pine, eucalypts and Afzelia in lowland Kenyan forests. New Phytol. 139, 341–352.Google Scholar
  18. McGonigle T P, Miller M H, Evans D G, Fairchild D L and Swan G A 1990 A new method which gives an objective measure of colonization of roots by vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol. 115, 495–501.Google Scholar
  19. Mercy M A, Shivashankar G and Bagyaraj D J 1990 Mycorrhizal colonization in cowpea is host dependent and heritable. Plant Soil 121, 292–294.Google Scholar
  20. Miller D D, Domoto P A and Walker C 1985 Colonization and efficacy of different endomycorrhizal fungi with apple seedlings at two phosphorus levels. New Phytol. 100, 393–402.Google Scholar
  21. Molina R 1979 Ectomycorrhizal colonization of containerized Douglas-fir and Lodgepole pine seedlings with six isolates of Pisolithus tinctorius. For. Sci. 25, 585–590.Google Scholar
  22. Newsham K K, Fitter A H and Watkinson A R 1995 Multifunctionality and biodiversity in arbuscular mycorrhizas. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10, 407–411.Google Scholar
  23. Newman E I 1966 A method of estimating the total length in a root sample. J. Appl. Ecol. 3, 139–145.Google Scholar
  24. Phillips J M and Hayman D S 1970 Improved procedure for clearing roots and staining parasitic and vesicular-arbuscular fungi for rapid assessment of infection. Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc. 55, 158–161.Google Scholar
  25. Plenchette C, Fortin J A and Furlan V 1983 Growth response of several plant species to mycorrhizae in a soil of moderate P-fertility I. Mycorrhizal dependency under field conditions. Plant Soil 70, 199–209.Google Scholar
  26. Smith S E and Read D J 1997 Mycorrhizal symbiosis. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  27. Smith S E, Robson A D and Abbott L K 1992 The involvement of mycorrhizas in assessment of genetically dependent efficiency of nutrient uptake and use. Plant Soil 146, 169–179.Google Scholar
  28. Sokal R R and Rohlf F J 1995 Biometry, 3rd edition. Freeman and company, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  29. Thomson J, Matthes-Sears U and Peterson R L 1990 Effects of provenance and mycorrhizal fungi on early seedling growth in Picea mariana. Can. J. For. Res. 20, 1739–1745.Google Scholar
  30. Tonkin C M, Malajczuk N and McComb J A 1989 Ectomycorrhizal formation by micropropagated clones of Eucalyptus marginata inoculated with isolates of Pisolithus tinctorius. New Phytol. 111, 209–214.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisabeth W. Van der Heijden
    • 1
  • Thomas W. Kuyper
    • 2
  1. 1.Seed-technology laboratoryBejo ZadenWarmenhuizenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Wageningen University, Department of Environmental Sciences, Subdepartment of Soil QualityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations