Southern sawg  mycorrhizal fungi 2014
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Southern sawg mycorrhizal fungi 2014

on

  • 231 views

Sustainable Agriculture.

Sustainable Agriculture.
Management and Utilization of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi.
Take advantage of mycorrhizal fungi for improved soil fertility and plant health.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
231
Views on SlideShare
230
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://192.168.33.10 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Southern sawg  mycorrhizal fungi 2014 Southern sawg mycorrhizal fungi 2014 Presentation Transcript

  • Mycorrhizal Fungi for Improved Soil Fertility and Plant Health (or “Management and Utilization of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi”) David Douds USDA-ARS Eastern Regional Research Center david.douds@ars.usda.gov
  • Introduction   Structure Function Management of AM fungi On-farm production and utilization of inoculum Field trials
  • Arbuscular Mycorrhizal [AM] fungi  Arbuscule (L. “small tree”)  Mycorrhiza (Gr. “fungus root”)
  • - exudate + exudate
  • Development of an arbuscule Kinden and Brown, 1979
  • Function of mycorrhizas
  • Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
  • Other benefits To the plant:   Enhanced water relations Enhanced pest resistance To the soil:  Stability of soil aggregates (glomalin)
  • How does the AM fungus benefit? AM fungi are “obligate symbionts” They must live in symbiosis with plants to complete their life cycles  Why?     Metabolic division of labor among the structures of the fungus Only the fungus within the root can absorb sugars for energy and make lipids necessary for storage and growth Germinating spores can only grow as long as their stored lipids hold out
  • How can we take advantage of the AM symbiosis in agriculture? 1. Manage the AM fungi indigenous to the soil (row crop farms) 2. Inoculate with effective isolates (horticulture crops, vegetable farms, labor intensive farms)
  • I. Farm management practices that influence indigenous AM fungi Fertilization  Pesticide application  Over wintering cover crops  Crop rotation  Tillage  Farming System  Cooperative research with The Rodale Institute
  • 1. Over wintering cover crops  Used for:      Erosion control Nutrient management Organic matter Weed management Fringe benefit:   Build populations of AM fungi Function as a ‘mini’ crop rotation
  • Over wintering crop of hairy vetch increased the AM fungus inoculum present in the soil
  • Long fallow disorder
  • Similar to bare fallows:   Flooded soil syndrome Stale weed seed bank treatments
  • 2. Crop rotation     Some AM fungi are more prolific when grown with a particular host plant The AM fungi most prevalent after growth of one crop may not be the ones most beneficial to that crop AM fungi may play a role in yield decline characteristic of continuous monoculture Implications for a big switch to continuous corn for ethanol production?
  • 3. Tillage  Tillage interferes with two functions of the extraradical mycelium of AM fungi: 1. As infective propagules
  • 2. As nutrient absorbing organs of the symbiosis Fairchild and Miller, 1990 S h o o t d r y w t (g ) No added P 0.9 Undisturbed Disturbed 0.8 0.7 a. Corn grown for 4 wks in inoculated soil 0.6 0.5 b. Harvest shoot only 0.4 0.3 1 2 3 Cycle S h o o t d r y w t (g ) + 160 µgP g-1 Soil 0.9 0.8 c. Disturb soil in half of pots, replant 0.7 0.6 d. Repeat cycle 0.5 0.4 1 2 Cycle 3
  • 6. Farming system  The Farming Systems Trial ®
  • Soils from the organic rotations have a higher AM fungus inoculum potential
  • … and greater spore populations
  •  Largely due to the over wintering cover crops, the organic farming systems have live plant cover 70% of the year vs. 40% for the conventional farming system.
  • II. Inoculation with AM fungi Options: commercially available inocula produce it yourself Target farmers: vegetable producers who grow their own seedlings labor intensive farms
  • On-farm inoculum production Materials compost vermiculite grow bags Transplant: Bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) seedlings precolonized by AM fungi Weed and water for one growing season (remove flowers in mild climates) Inoculum is ready for use the following spring Details in the web article on the handout
  • Considerations  Introduce pathogens?    Introduce weeds?    Compost has pathogen suppressive qualities Bahiagrass unlikely to share pathogens with eventual crop host Bahiagrass is frost killed (temperate climates) Some weeds are present in the compost Functional diversity of AM fungi
  • 7 gallon “grow bags”
  • Inoculum of AM fungi  Spores  Infective hyphae  Colonized roots
  • Production of propagules of AM fungi in 1:4 [v/v] mixtures of yard clippings compost and vermiculite. Results of MPN bioassays. Inoculated AM fungus Propagules cm-3 bag (x106) Glomus mosseae Glomus etunicatum Glomus geosporum Glomus claroideum 120 2.4 750 15.0 120 2.4 365 7.3
  • Spore production varies with dilution
  • Modifications to on-farm inoculum production system  Propagate indigenous isolates of AM fungi    Add field soil to compost+ vermiculite mix Pre-inoculate bahiagrass with field soil Use of alternate “inert” diluents   Horticultural potting media Perlite
  • Modifications to on-farm system Diluents Field soil
  • Where to collect the soil- top 2-4 inches Means of 3 years 100 -3 Conv P r o p a g u le s c m 80 Legume Manure 60 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Soil Depth Rodale Farming Systems Trial
  • Utilization of inoculum in the greenhouse Goal: produce a well-colonized seedling via organic practices, of comparable size to a conv.-grown seedling.  Manipulation of media, N P availability 
  • R o o t le n g th c o lo n iz e d (% ) Response of colonization to P level for tomato, pepper, and bahiagrass 70 Tomato (Crista) Pepper (Lafayette) Bahiagrass 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 P concentration (ppm) 60 70
  • How does this happen?  Roots growing in high P exude less of the hyphal branching signal   Roots release less sugar to the fungus already within the root   This leads to less spread of colonization Less carbohydrate supplied to the fungus   This leads to less new colonization This leads to decreased spore production An important factor for the utilization of AM fungi in the greenhouse
  • Organic media experiment 1. Conventional (Premier pro mix + Hoag (0.31 ppm P) 3X /wk) Rodale potting mix (20% compost) 2. No N addition 3. + Blood Meal (add all at once, 9 g/flat) 4. + Fish (added 3X /wk) Sunshine Mix #1 (SunGro Horticulture) 5. No N addition 6. + Blood Meal (add all at once) 7. + Fish (added 3X /wk)
  • Results with leek cv. Musselburgh Conv Rodale 0N BM Fish Sunshine 0N BM Fish Shoot wt (g) Shoot %P Colon % 0.09 c 0.15 c 27.7 ab 0.08 c 0.25 a 0.16 abc 0.35 ab 0.40 ab 0.42 a 27.8 ab 3.2 c 16.6 bc 0.12 bc 0.19 ab 0.19 ab 0.36 ab 0.29 b 0.33 ab 34.2 a 5.7 c 16.2 bc
  • C o lo n iz a tio n (% r o o t le n g t h ) C o lo n iz e d r o o t le n g t h (c m ) Follow-up experiment 30 Blood Meal 3x/wk Blood Meal To A 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 36 30 B 24 18 12 6 0 0 1 2 3 4 2 3 4 In fe c tio n U n its 35 30 C 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 1 Weeks Leek cv. Musselburgh in the growth chamber  Single addition of blood meal did not inhibit early colonization, but inhibited subsequent spread of colonization.  Hoag -P
  • Tomato cv. BHN 589 Treatment Shoot Dry Wt (g) Nonmycorrhizal 1. Conv 0.68 ± .04 Colon (%) Treatment  Shoot Dry Wt (g) Colon (%) 0 Mycorrhizal 1. Conv 0.62 ± .03 15.0 ± 1.2 Rodale Mix 2. 0 N 3. Blood meal 4. Fish 0.52 ± .03 0.92 ± .06 0.87 ± .09 0 0 0 Rodale Mix 2. 0 N 0.27 ± .02 3. BM 1.00 ± .08 4. Fish 0.76 ± .03 6.7 ± 1.3 3.7 ± 0.8 10.3 ± 2.0 Sunshine Mix 5. 0 N 6. Blood Meal 7. Fish 0.12 ± .01 0.18 ± .05 0.17 ± .02 0 0 0 Sunshine Mix 5. 0 N 0.11 ± .01 6. BM 0.57 ± .03 7. Fish 0.34 ± .05 1.2 ± 0.6 5.3 ± 1.4 8.4 ± 1.4 ANOVA (full model Pr>F) Myc 0.2404 Tmt <0.0001 MXT <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
  • Pepper cv. Revolution  Nonmycorrhizal 1. Conv Rodale Mix 2. 0 N 3. BM 4. Fish  0.39 ± .02 0.25 ± .02 0.79 ± .05 0.56 ± .04 Sunshine Mix 5. 0 N 0.13 ± .01 6. BM 0.36 ± .04 7. Fish 0.21 ± .02 ANOVA (full model Pr>F) Myc Tmt MXT <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.6185 0.6185 Mycorrhizal 0 1. Conv 0.31 ± .024 2.0 ± 0.5 0 0 0 Rodale Mix 2. 0 N 0.22 ± .01 3. BM 0.57 ± .06 4. Fish 0.34 ± .05 1.8 ± 0.8 1.8 ± 0.6 1.5 ± 0.5 Sunshine Mix 5. 0 N 0.09 ± .01 6. BM 0.42 ± .01 7. Fish 0.19 ± .02 2.2 ± 0.7 2.1 ± 0.3 0.8 ± 0.3 0 0 0
  • Pepper cv. Revolution yield (Rodale) Nonmycorrhizal 1. Conv kg/plant - Rodale Mix 2. 0 N 3. Blood meal 4. Fish 1.61 ± .10 1.73 ± .12 Sunshine Mix 5. 0 N 6. Blood Meal 7. Fish 1.48 ± .25 1.39 ± .14 1.59 ± .24 1.59 ± .27 ANOVA (full model Pr>F) Myc 0.7162 Tmt 0.2565 MXT 0.7484 Mycorrhizal 1. Conv kg/plant - Rodale Mix 2. 0 N 3. Blood meal 4. Fish 1.49 ± .18 1.74 ± .16 1.74 ± .14 Sunshine Mix 5. 0 N 6. Blood Meal 7. Fish 1.25 ± .16 1.59 ± .0 1.80 ± .10 *The average yield/plant at local conv. farm= 1.4 - 1.7 kg/plant
  • Pepper cv. Revolution yield (conv) Nonmycorrhizal 1. Conv kg/4plants 7.39 ± 1.07 Rodale Mix 2. 0 N 3. Blood meal 4. Fish 8.04 ± .76 7.21 ± .79 6.65 ± .91 Sunshine Mix 5. 0 N 6. Blood Meal 7. Fish 5.61 ± .96 6.64 ± 1.14 6.93 ± 1.12 ANOVA (full model Pr>F) Myc 0.0394 Tmt 0.7928 MXT 0.4314 Mycorrhizal 1. Conv kg/4plants 8.48 ± .79 Rodale Mix 2. 0 N 3. Blood meal 4. Fish 7.00 ± 1.13 7.33 ± .80 8.08 ± .42 Sunshine Mix 5. 0 N 6. Blood Meal 7. Fish 7.77 ± .46 9.43 ± .73 7.54 ± 1.11
  • Tomato cv. BHN (Rodale) Treatment Nonmycorrhizal 1. Conv Rodale Mix 2. 0 N 3. Blood meal 4. Fish Sunshine Mix 5. 0 N 6. Blood Meal 7. Fish Mkt Term (kg/2 pl) Treatment Mkt Term (kg/2 pl) Mycorrhizal 1. Conv - 1.9 ±.2 7.6 ±.3 2.8 ±.5 8.9 ±.5 2.9 ±.4 6.9 ±.8 Rodale Mix 2. 0 N 3. Blood meal 4. Fish 2.4 ±.6 2.2 ±.3 3.1 ±.4 6.8 ±.7 7.5 ±.5 8.1 ±.9 1.7 ±.3 7.3 ±.7 2.9 ±.7 6.5 ±.74 2.4 ±.4 7.7 ±.9 Sunshine Mix 5. 0 N 6. Blood Meal 7. Fish 1.6 ±.5 3.0 ±.3 2.2 ±.4 6.9 ±.5 7.6 ±1.4 7.3 ±1.1 - ANOVA (full model Pr>F) Myc Tmt MXT 0.9374 0.0324 0.8615 0.7956 0.7435 0.5358 Termination after 5 harvests due to late blight.
  • Tomato cv. BHN yield (conv. farm) Treatment Nonmycorrhizal 1. Conv Rodale Mix 2. 0 N 3. Blood meal 4. Fish Sunshine Mix 5. 0 N 6. Blood Meal 7. Fish Marketable (kg/3 plants) Mycorrhizal 1. Conv 15.5 ± 2.3 15.4 ± 1.7 16.5 ± 1.6 15.8 ± 1.4 14.9 ± 1.6 20.7 ± 2.6 19.5 ± 1.5 ANOVA (full model Pr>F) Myc 0.3353 Tmt 0.2038 MXT 0.4535 19.8 ± 1.2 Rodale Mix 2. 0 N 3. Blood meal 4. Fish 18.2 ± 2.2 16.3 ± 1.3 18.0 ± 0.9 Sunshine Mix 5. 0 N 6. Blood Meal 7. Fish 15.6 ± 1.2 18.0 ± 1.6 18.5 ± 1.9 No early termination
  • Using the inoculum in the field  General considerations:    Responsiveness of the plant Health of the background population of AM fungi Available Phosphorus level in the soil     Mustards, spinach are not mycorrhizal Generally inversely proportional to the fineness of the roots Hard to measure Critical level >50 ppm, but varies
  • Health of background AM fungus population
  • Is this inoculum effective?
  • Potatoes 2002 Y ie ld (g p e r p la n t) 700 600 Conventional Compost 500 400 300 200 100 0 Control MYKE On-farm cv. Superior
  • Total yield of potatoes- 2003 Y ie ld (g p e r 3 p la n ts ) 1400 Compost Conventional 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Control MYKE OF-YCC Treatment OF-DMLC
  • Potatoes Yield (kg per 4m row) Cultivar Red Norland Red Gold Blue Yukon Gold Mycorrhizal 6.1 9.5 6.0 4.9 ± ± ± ± 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 Nonmycorrhizal 4.9 8.5 5.4 5.0 ± ± ± ± 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.4 Somerton Tanks Farm, Philadelphia, PA 2005 Response 24% 12% 12% -0.9%
  • Strawberry (cv. Chandler) Yield (kg per 10 plant subplot) Mycorrhizal Nonmycorrhizal 5.50 ± 0.15 4.71 ± 0.32 Response Shenk’s Berry Farm, Lititz, PA 2005 17%
  • Tomatoes Cultivar Daybreak Empire Florida San Marzano Yield (kg per 4 plant subplot) Mycorrhizal Nonmycorrhizal 24.1 ± 0.8 30.0 ± 1.1 22.9 ± 1.1 26.5 ± 0.9 30.0 ± 1.7 20.3 ± 0.6 (kg per bed) 156.1 ± 9.2 154.1 ± 11.9 Response -9% 0% 12% 2% Eagle Point Farm, Kutztown, PA and Covered Bridge Farm, Oley, PA 2005
  • Yield response of bell peppers, Eagle Point Farm, Kutztown PA Cultivar 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Boynton Bell 10.7 11.4 -0.05 14.0 9.4 Colossal 3.4 24.7 0.7 8.4 Delirio 15.4 Green Puffin -1.3 King Arthur 10.7 Lafayette 8.1 -6.4 -1.0 3.5 -7.0 -8.0 9.6 Orange Sun 0.2 Queen -1.2 Revolution -3.1 -0.3 8.1 Valencia 3.3 6.5 -1.9 12.0 11.9 Whopper -0.7 -5.1 X3R Red Knight 7.7 X3R Wizard 1.1 -2.1 10.2 6.0 ____________________________________________________________________________ 1 Mycorrhizal Yield Response= 100% x ((Myc-Nonmyc)/Nonmyc)
  • Leeks cv. Lancelot Shenk’s Berry Farm 2009
  • Inoculation of sweet potatoes with AM fungus inoculum produced on-farm  Inoculation method  Inoculum into planting hole   2009, 2010 Inoculate potting media and grow in GH for 2 wks  2012, 2013
  • Sweet potatoes, cv. Beauregard YEAR 2009 2010 2012 2013a 2013b % increase 14.3 9.1 6.5 7.9* 7.7* *= cv. Covington