Paper · 2005 · Mycologia

The response of ectomycorrhizal fungal inoculum to long-term increases in nitrogen supply

P. G. Avis; I. Charvat

10
claims
22
verbatim quotes
20
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The inoculum of ectomycorrhizal (EM) fungi was examined in a 16 y long nitrogen fertilization experiment maintained in a temperate oak savanna. To measure EM fungal inoculum, bur oak seedlings were grown in three types of bioassays: (i) intact soil cores that measure inoculum such as spores, mycelia and mycorrhizal roots; (ii) resistant propagule bioassays that measure inoculum types resistant to soil drying; and (iii) previously mycorrhizal root bioassays that measure the ability of EM fungi to colonize new roots from mycorrhizal roots. Colonization of bur oak seedlings was characterized by morphotyping and where necessary by restriction analysis and internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequencing. Fourteen morphotypes were found in intact soil core bioassays with species of Cortinarius, Cenococcum and Russula abundant. Five morphotypes were found in resistant propagule bioassays with Cenococcum, a thelephoroid morphotype and a Wilcoxina-like ascomycete abundant and frequent. In intact soil core bioassays total percent root colonization and number of morphotypes were not affected by N supply in 2000 and 2001. However the composition of EM fungi colonizing oak seedling roots was different with increased N supply such that Russula spp. (primarily Russula aff. amoenolens) were most abundant at the highest level of N supply. Dominant Russula spp. did not colonize any roots in resistant propagule bioassays but did colonize oak seedling roots from previously mycorrhizal roots. Results suggest that in this savanna N supply can influence the kinds of inoculum propagules present and thereby might affect the dynamics of ectomycorrhizal communities by differentially influencing reproductive and colonization strategies.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 10

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fourteen ectomycorrhizal morphotypes were found in intact soil core bioassays.

Interactor
ectomycorrhizal (EM) fungie0symbiont
Outcome
morphotypese6
Value
Fourteene6
Qualifier
intact soil core bioassayse6

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Quercus macrocarpa
Quercus macrocarpa · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The inoculum of ectomycorrhizal (EM) fungi was examined in a 16 y long nitrogen fertilization experiment maintained in a temperate oak savanna”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–142 · show in text ↑
e1

“bur oak seedlings were grown in three types of bioassays”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 175–231 · show in text ↑
e6

“Fourteen morphotypes were found in intact soil core bioassays”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 706–767 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Five ectomycorrhizal morphotypes were found in resistant propagule bioassays.

Interactor
ectomycorrhizal (EM) fungie0symbiont
Outcome
morphotypese7
Value
Fivee7
Qualifier
resistant propagule bioassayse7

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Quercus macrocarpa
Quercus macrocarpa · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The inoculum of ectomycorrhizal (EM) fungi was examined in a 16 y long nitrogen fertilization experiment maintained in a temperate oak savanna”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–142 · show in text ↑
e1

“bur oak seedlings were grown in three types of bioassays”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 175–231 · show in text ↑
e7

“Five morphotypes were found in resistant propagule bioassays”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 830–890 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Increased N supply did not affect total root colonization or morphotype number of bur oak in intact soil cores in 2000 and 2001.

Treatment
N supplye2
Outcome
total percent root colonization and number of morphotypese2
Direction
not affectede2

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Quercus macrocarpa
Quercus macrocarpa · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“bur oak seedlings were grown in three types of bioassays”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 175–231 · show in text ↑
e2

“In intact soil core bioassays total percent root colonization and number of morphotypes were not affected by N supply in 2000 and 2001”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 989–1123 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The composition of EM fungi colonizing oak roots was different under increased N supply.

Treatment
increased N supplye3
Outcome
composition of EM fungi colonizing oak seedling rootse3
Direction
differente3

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Quercus macrocarpa
Quercus macrocarpa · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“bur oak seedlings were grown in three types of bioassays”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 175–231 · show in text ↑
e3

“the composition of EM fungi colonizing oak seedling roots was different with increased N supply such that Russula spp. (primarily Russula aff. amoenolens) were most abundant at the highest level of N supply”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1133–1339 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Russula spp. were most abundant at the highest level of N supply.

Treatment
highest level of N supplye3
Interactor
Russula spp.Russulae3symbiont
Outcome
Russula spp.e3
Direction
most abundante3

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Quercus macrocarpa
Quercus macrocarpa · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Russula
Russula · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Debivort at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“bur oak seedlings were grown in three types of bioassays”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 175–231 · show in text ↑
e3

“the composition of EM fungi colonizing oak seedling roots was different with increased N supply such that Russula spp. (primarily Russula aff. amoenolens) were most abundant at the highest level of N supply”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1133–1339 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dominant Russula spp. did not colonize any roots in resistant propagule bioassays.

Interactor
Russula spp.Russulae4symbiont
Outcome
colonize any rootse4
Qualifier
in resistant propagule bioassayse4

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Quercus macrocarpa
Quercus macrocarpa · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Russula
Russula · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Debivort at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“bur oak seedlings were grown in three types of bioassays”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 175–231 · show in text ↑
e4

“Dominant Russula spp. did not colonize any roots in resistant propagule bioassays but did colonize oak seedling roots from previously mycorrhizal roots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1341–1492 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dominant Russula spp. did colonize oak seedling roots from previously mycorrhizal roots.

Interactor
Russula spp.Russulae4symbiont
Outcome
colonize oak seedling rootse4
Qualifier
from previously mycorrhizal rootse4

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Quercus macrocarpa
Quercus macrocarpa · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Russula
Russula · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Debivort at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“bur oak seedlings were grown in three types of bioassays”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 175–231 · show in text ↑
e4

“Dominant Russula spp. did not colonize any roots in resistant propagule bioassays but did colonize oak seedling roots from previously mycorrhizal roots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1341–1492 · show in text ↑
Associationauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors suggest that N supply can influence the kinds of inoculum propagules present in this savanna.

Treatment
N supplye5
Outcome
kinds of inoculum propagulese5
Setting
this savannae5

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Quercus macrocarpa
Quercus macrocarpa · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“bur oak seedlings were grown in three types of bioassays”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 175–231 · show in text ↑
e5

“Results suggest that in this savanna N supply can influence the kinds of inoculum propagules present”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1494–1594 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cortinarius, Cenococcum and Russula were abundant species in intact soil core bioassays.

Interactor
Cortinarius, Cenococcum and RussulaRussulaCenococcumCortinariuse7symbiont
Outcome
speciese7
Qualifier
abundante7

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Quercus macrocarpa
Quercus macrocarpa · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Russula
Russula · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Debivort at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Cenococcum
Cenococcum · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Cwfernandez · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Cortinarius
Cortinarius · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)JJ Harrison ( https://www.jjharrison.com.au/ ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“bur oak seedlings were grown in three types of bioassays”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 175–231 · show in text ↑
e7

“Fourteen morphotypes were found in intact soil core bioassays with species of Cortinarius, Cenococcum and Russula abundant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 706–828 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cenococcum and a Wilcoxina-like ascomycete were abundant and frequent in resistant propagule bioassays.

Interactor
CenococcumCenococcume7symbiont
Outcome
morphotypese7
Qualifier
abundant and frequente7

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Quercus macrocarpa
Quercus macrocarpa · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Cenococcum
Cenococcum · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Cwfernandez · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“bur oak seedlings were grown in three types of bioassays”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 175–231 · show in text ↑
e7

“Five morphotypes were found in resistant propagule bioassays with Cenococcum, a thelephoroid morphotype and a Wilcoxina-like ascomycete abundant and frequent”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 830–987 · show in text ↑

nitrogen · disease · Quercus macrocarpa (bur oak)Results agree

2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. no effect
See all 2 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.