Plant and Soil

, Volume 159, Issue 1, pp 133–140 | Cite as

The functioning of ectomycorrhizal fungi in the field: linkages in space and time

  • M. P. Amaranthus
  • D. A. Perry
Article

Abstract

Individual trees, either of the same or different species, can be linked spatially and temporally by the hyphae of ectomycorrhizal (ECM) fungi that allow carbon and nutrients to pass among them and promote forest establishment following disturbance. Spatial and temporal linkages between plants influence the function of ECM fungi in the field. Studies indicate that ECM linkages can reduce plant competition for resources, promote forest recovery, and influence the pattern of plant succession. The degree of influence depends on many factors, including the composition and arrangement of the vegetative community and soil and climatic conditions. Management practices that create intense disturbance and loss of organic matter or promote the introduction of non-ectomycorrhizal host species can decrease the ability of plants to form linkages with ECM fungi. Management practices that retain living trees and shrubs and input of organic matter provide the energy source and substrate necessary for ECM linkages. More research is needed to determine the degree to which ECM fungal linkages occur in the field and their role in ecosystem function and long-term health.

Key words

disturbance grass seeding hyphal linkages hardwoods Rhizopogon succession site preparation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AmaranthusM P and PerryD A 1987 Effect of soil transfer on ectomycorrhiza formation and the survival and growth of conifer seedlings in disturbed forest sites. Can. J. For. Res. 17, 944–950.Google Scholar
  2. AmaranthusM P and PerryD A 1989 Interaction effects of vegetation type and Pacific madrone soil inocula on survival, growth and mycorrhiza formation of Douglas-fir. Can. J. For. Res. 19, 550–556.Google Scholar
  3. AmaranthusM P, PerryD A and BorchersS L 1987 Reduction of native mycorrhizae reduce growth of Douglas-fir seedlings. In Mycorrhizae in the Next Decade: Practical Applications and Research Priorities, Proc. 7th NACOM. Eds. D MSylvia and J HGraham. p 80. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.Google Scholar
  4. Amaranthus M P, Parrish D and Perry D A 1989 Decaying logs as moisture reservoirs following drought and wildfire. In: Stewardship of Soil, Air and Water Resources. Proc. Watershed 89, Juneau, Alaska. Ed. E Alexander. USDA Forest Service, Region 10. R10-MB-77.Google Scholar
  5. AmaranthusM.P, LiC Y and PerryD A 1990a Influence of vegetation type and madrone-soil inoculum on associative nitrogen fixation in Douglas-fir rhizosperes. Can. J. For. Res. 20, 368–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. AmaranthusM P, MolinaR and PerryD A 1990b Soil organisms, root growth and forest regeneration. In: Forestry on the Frontier—Proc. National Society of American Foresters National Convention. Spokane, WA. pp 89–93.Google Scholar
  7. BorchersS L and PerryD A 1990 Growth and ectomycorrhiza formation of Douglas-fir seedlings grown in soils collected at different distances from pioneering hardwoods in southwest Oregon clear-cuts. Can. J. For. Res. 20, 712–721.Google Scholar
  8. BjorkmanE 1960 Monotropa hypopitys L. an epiparasite on tree roots. Physiol. Plant. 13, 308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cazares E and Trappe J M 1993 Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae in the Pinaceae. New Phytol. (in press).Google Scholar
  10. CastellanoM A, TrappeJ M and MolinaR 1985 Inoculation of container-grown Douglas-fir seedlings with basidiospores of Rhizopogon vinicolor and R. colossus: effects of fertility and spore application rate. Can. J. For. Res. 15, 10–13.Google Scholar
  11. FerrierR C and AlexanderI J 1985 Persistence under field conditions of excised fine roots and mycorrhizas of spruce. In Ecological interactions in soil. Eds. A HFitter, DAtkinson, D JRead and M AUsher. pp 175–179 Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
  12. FinlayR D and ReadD J 1986 Translocation of CO2-labelled carbon between plants interconnected by a common mycelium. New Phytol. 103, 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. FrancisR and ReadD J 1984 Direct transfer of carbon between plants connected by vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizal mycelium. Nature 307, 53–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. FriedmanJ, HutchinsA, LiC Y and PerryD A 1989 Actinomycctes inducing phytotoxic or fungistatic activity in a Douglas-fir forest and in an adjacent area of repeated regeneration failure in southwestern Oregon. Biol. Plant. 31, 487–495.Google Scholar
  15. HacksayloE. 1973. Carbohydrate physiology of ectomycorrhizae In Ectomycorrhizae: their Ecology and Physiology. Eds. G CMarks and T TKozlowski. pp 207–230. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  16. HarleyJ L and SmithS E 1983 Mycorrhizal Symbiosis. Academic Press, London. 483 p.Google Scholar
  17. HarveyA E, LarsenM J and JurgensenM F 1979 Compariative distribution of ectomycorrhizae in soils of three western Montana forest habitat types. For. Sci. 25, 350–360.Google Scholar
  18. JasperD A, AbbottL K and RobsonA D 1989a. Hyphae of a vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus maintain infectivity in dry soil, except when the soil is disturbed. New Phytol. 112, 101–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. JasperD A, AbbottL K and RobsonA D 1989b The loss of mycorrhizal infectivity during bauxite mining may limit the growth of Acacia pulchella. Aust. J. Bot. 37, 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. LynchJ M and BraggE 1985 Microorganisms and soil aggregate stability. Adv. Soil Sci 2, 133–171.Google Scholar
  21. Massicote H, Molina R, Amaranthus M and Smith J 1993 Assessment of ectomycorrhizal fungal diversity and ecological specificity in association with 4 Pacific Northwest forest species. New Phytol. (in press).Google Scholar
  22. MeyerJ R and LindermanR G 1986 Selective influence on populations of rhizosphere or rhizoplane bacteria and actinomycetes by mycorrhizas formed by Glomus fasciculalum. Soil Biol. Biochem. 18, 191–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MeyerJ, SchneiderB, WerkK S, OrenR and SchulzeE D 1988 Performance of two Picea abies stands at different stages of decline—Root tip and ectomycorrhiza development and their relation to above-ground and soil nutrients. Oecologia 77, 7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. MolinaR and TrappeJ M 1982. Lack of mycorrhizal specificity by the ericaceous hosts Arbutus menziesii and Arctostaphylos uva-ursi. New Phytol. 90, 495–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. MolinaR, MassicoteH, and TrappeJ M 1992 Specificity phenomena in mycorrhzial symbioses:community-ecological consequences and practical implications. In Mycorrhizal Functioning. Ed. M FAllen. pp 357–423. Chapman Hall, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Parke J L 1982 Factors affecting the inoculum potential of VA and ectomycorrhizal fungi in forest soils of southwest Oregon and northern California. Ph.D. thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA.Google Scholar
  27. ParkeJ L, LindermanR, and BlackC 1983 The role of ectomycorrhizas in drought tolerance of Douglas-fir seedlings. New Phytol 95, 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Perry D A and Rose S L 1983 Soil biology and forest productivity: opportunities and constraints. In IUFRO Symposium on Forest Site and Continuous Productivity. Eds. R Ballard and S P Gessel. pp 221–228. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-163.Google Scholar
  29. PerryD A, MargolisH, ChoquetteC, MolinaR and TrappeJ M 1989a Ectomycorrhizal mediation of competition between coniferous tree speeies. New Phytol. 112, 501–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. PerryD A, AmaranthusM P, BorchersJ, BorchersS and BrainerdR. 1989b Bootstrapping in Ecosystems. BioScience 39, 230–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. PilzD P and PerryD A 1984 Impact of clearcutting and slash burning on ectomycorrhizal associations of Douglas-fir. Can. J. For. Res. 14, 94–100.Google Scholar
  32. RambelliA 1973 The rhizosphere of mycorrhizae. In Ectomycorrhizae: their Ecology and Physiology. Eds. A CMarks and TKozlowski. pp 229–249. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  33. ReadD J 1988 Development and function of mycorrhizal hyphae in soil. In Mycorrhizae in the Next Decade, Practical Applications and Research Priorities, Proc. 7th NACOM. Eds. D MSylvia, L LHung and J HGraham. pp 176–180. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.Google Scholar
  34. ReadD J FrancisR and FinlayR D 1985 Mycorrhizal mycelia and nutrient cycling in plant communitics. In Ecological Interactions in Soil. Eds. A HFitter, D JRead and M BLusher. pp 193–217. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
  35. SchoenbergerM M and PerryD A 1982 The effect of soil disturbance on growth and ectomycorrhizae of Douglas-fir and western hemlock seedlings: a greenhouse bioassay. Can. J. For. Res. 12, 343–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. SuttonJ C and SheppardB R 1976 Aggregation of sand-dune soil by endomycorrhizal fungi. Can. J. Bot. 54, 326–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. TrappeJ M 1988 Lessons from alpine fungi. Mycologia 80, 1–10.Google Scholar
  38. TrappeJ M and FogelR 1977 Ecosystematic functions of mycorrhizae. In The Below-Ground Ecosystem. pp 205–214. Colorado State University, Range Science Department Scientific Series, Fort Collins, Colorado.Google Scholar
  39. WarcupI H. 1988 Mycorrhizal associations and seedling development in Australian Lobelioideae. Aust. J. Bot. 36, 461–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. WhittinghamJ and ReadD J 1982 Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizas in natural vegetation systems. Nutrient transfer between plants with mycorrhizal interconnections. New Phytol. 90, 277–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. WrightE and TarrantR F 1958 Occurrence of mycorrhizae after logging and slash burning in the Douglas-fir forest type. Research Note PNW-160. Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. P. Amaranthus
    • 1
  • D. A. Perry
    • 2
  1. 1.Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research StationUnited States Department of AgriculturePortlandUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forest Science, College of ForestryOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations