See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/226087506

Hydroponic culture of the mycorrhizal fungus Glomus mosseae with Linum

usitatissimum L., Sorghum bicolor L. and Triticum aestivum L

Article  in  Plant and Soil · September 1997

DOI: 10.1023/A:1004271417469

CITATIONS READS

31 432

2 authors:

Heidi Hawkins Eckhard George

Conservation International Leibniz-Institute of Vegetable and Ornamental Crops
34 PUBLICATIONS   425 CITATIONS    109 PUBLICATIONS   4,022 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SiEUGreen View project

Nutrition and specialized roots of the Proteaceae View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Heidi Hawkins on 27 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Hydroponic culture of the mycorrhizal fungus Glomus mosseae with Linum usitatissimum L.,
Sorghum bicolor L. and Triticum aestivum L.
Author(s): H.-J. Hawkins and E. George
Source: Plant and Soil, Vol. 196, No. 1 (September 1997), pp. 143-149
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42948158 .
Accessed: 27/01/2015 13:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Plant and Soil.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 137.158.158.60 on Tue, 27 Jan 2015 13:34:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PlamandSoil196:143-149,
1997. 143
© 1997KluwerAcademic
Publishers.
Printed
intheNetherlands.

Hydroponie culture of the mycorrhizal fungus Glomus mosseae with Linum

usitatissimum L., Sorghum bicolor L. and Triticum aestivum L.

H.-J. Hawkins and E. George1

Institute
ofPlantNutrition
(330), Hohenheim , 70593 Stuttgart
University , Germany author*
; Corresponding

Received
3 April
1997. inrevised
Accepted form
5 August
1997

Keywords:arbuscular
mycorrhiza, wheat
linseed,sorghum,
hydroponics,

Abstract

Linumusitatissimum , Sorghumbicolorand Triticum aestivumplantswerefurther colonisedby the arbuscular

mycorrhizal fungus, Glomus mosseae , duringa fourweek of
period hydroponie culture aftera pre-cultureperiod
of threeweekswiththefungusin perlitesubstrate. The viabilityof mycorrhizal colonisationof T aestivumwas
indicatedby an initialexperiment whereG. mosseaefrommycorrhizal plantscolonisednon-mycorrhizal plants
whentheplantswere growntogether in the same hydroponie containerusingmodifiedLong Ashtonnutrient
solution.Intermittantaerationoftheplantroots(2 h periods,fourtimesperday)provideda compromise between
adequateaerationand minimaldisturbance of thefungus.In a secondexperiment, twonutrient media,modified
Long Ashtonandmodified KnopplusHoaglandmediumwerecomparedforculturing G. mosseaeon T. aestivum .
A significantly
higher root dryweight was found forthemycorrhizal versus thenon-mycorrhizal wheat plantsin
modifiedLong Ashtonnutrient medium,whichcontained10 ¡¿M P and an organicbuffer. ModifiedKnop plus
Hoaglandnutrient mediumcontaineda highP concentration (0.9 mM) and did notproduceviable culturesof
mycorrhizal colonisation. In a thirdexperiment, modified
Long Ashtonmediumwas used forhydroponie culture
of mycorrhizal L. usitatissimum , S. bicolorand T. aestivum.The rootcolonisationpercentages forT. aestivum
(73%), 5. bicolor(36%) and L. usitatissimum (65%) werewithintherangeof colonisationratesobtainedwith
solid substrate
culturein perlite.Viabilityof themycorrhizal structures in hydroponie culturewas assessedby
monitoring of
activity fungal succinate dehydrogenase and found to be similarto culturesin perlite.No difference
in theP concentration of mycorrhizal and non-mycorrhizal plantswas observed,possiblyowingto thelack of
diffusionlimitsforP in hydroponie solution.This reportdescribesa systemfortheviablecultureof G. mosseae
withdifferentplantspecieswherea highmycorrhizal colonisationratewas producedunderconditions of a short
cultureperiodusingintermittent aeration, a low concentrationofP supplyandan organicbuffer.

KHNS - modified
Abbreviations: Knop andHoaglandnutrient solution,LANS - modified
Long Ashtonnutrient
MES - /3-morpholino-ethane
solution, sulfonicacid,SDH - succinatedehydrogenase.

Introduction (Ruiz-Lozanoet al., 1995) andphytohormone balance

(Duan et al., 1996). The mechanismsinvolvedare
Therootsofmostplantspeciesareoftencolonisedwith to elucidatedue to limitations
difficult in theculture
endomycorrhizal fungi when grown in natural soils. of
systems mycorrhizas.
Thissymbiotic relationshiphas existedsincetheearly Therehas beenno successin cultivating endomy-
Devonian(Tayloret al., 1995).Endomycorrhizas play corrhizal
fungiindependently of thehostplantunder
a rolenotonlyin nutrient transfertoplants(Georgeet axenicconditions. It is possiblehowever,to produce
al., 1995) butalso inplantresistanceagainstsoil-borne largeamountsofsporesandmycelium fromcolonised
pathogens(Newshamet al., 1995),drought resistance shearedroots(Diop et al., 1994) and colonisedtrans-
* FAXNo:+4971 formedrootcultures(St. Arnaudet al., 1996). These
14593295.E-mail:
george@uni-hohenheim.de

This content downloaded from 137.158.158.60 on Tue, 27 Jan 2015 13:34:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
144

methodswill contribute substantially to understand- colonisedplantswereplaced either2 to 4 cm apart

ing theregulation of the symbiosis are at present
but or theplanthypocotyls wereplacedtogether in foam
restricted to a fewhostplant-fungal isolatecombina- rubber.Colonisation ofthemycorrhizal andoriginally
tions.To date,mostphysiologicalstudiesof mycor- non-mycorrhizal plantswas determined at theend of
rhizashave come fromsoil-based,wholeplantsys- thehydroponie cultureperiod.In the secondexper-
tems.These studiesare limitedin thatratesof nutri- iment,mycorrhizal and non-mycorrhizal plantswere
entsupplyat therootsurfacecannotbe manipulated culturedinseparatehydroponie containerswhileinthe
easily and the rootand funguscannotbe harvested thirdexperiment onlymycorrhizal plantswereused.
without significantdamage.Also,suchrootsareoften The secondexperiment testedtwo nutrient solutions
unsuitableformolecularstudies,whichrequiresoil- (LANS and modifiedKnop plus Hoagland nutrient
less preparations, or forstudying nutrient metabolism solution,KHNS, see below)in termsof suitability for
ofroots. hydroponie cultureof T. aestivumwithG. mosseae.
Mycorrhizal plantscanalso be cultured inaeropon- The nutrient solutionsdiffered withrespectto P con-
ics (HungandSylvia,1988; SylviaandHubbel,1986) centration,micronutrients and buffering source.The
and in a nutrient flow system(Mosse and Thomp- thirdexperiment testedtheculturesystem on threedif-
son, 1984). Aeroponiccultureof mycorrhizal plants ferentplantspeciescolonisedwithG. mosseaeusing
has beencommercially used in nurseries (Jarstferand LANS: Linumusitatissimum L. cv. Atlante(linseed),
Sylvia, 1995). While requiringsome investment in Sorghum bicolorL. cv.Tesa (sorghum) andT.aestivum
materials, bothofthesesystems canbe usefulforstudy- L. cv.Hano.The plantsandfungusweregrownunder
ingnutrient utilisationby mycorrhizal roots.In addi- the same conditionsin all experiments as described
tionto aeroponicand nutrient flowculturesystems, below.
hydroponie cultureof mycorrhizal plantsprovidesa
controlled nutrientenvironment andallowstheharvest Plantandfungusculture
of mycorrhizal plantsfreefromsoil forthepurpose
of physiologicaland molecularstudies.Hydroponics Seeds were pre-germinated overnightin 7.5 mM
are,however,infrequently referred to as a methodfor CaSC>4 and planteddirectly 150 ml potscontain-
into
growingand studying mycorrhizal plants. ingperlite inoculum( 10% ofpotvolume)orperlite
and
Hydroponiecultureof mycorrhizalfungi was andinoculumfiltrate paper,Schleich-
(Blue Bandfilter
reportedfirstby Peuss (1958) forGlomusmosseae er and SchuellLtd.,Dassel, Germany)and grownfor
withNicotiana tabacum. Mycorrhizalplantswere threeweeks.Perlite(1-3 mm)was preparedbywash-
grownalso in nutrient solutionculturebyCresset al. ingin tapwaterovera 1 mmmeshsieve,sun-drying
(1979; 1986) and Karunaratne et al. (1986). Recent- and thenheattreating for24 h at 110°C. Perlitewas
ly,Dugassa et al. (1995) reported a cultureofGlomus mixeduniformly theinoculum(formycorrhizal
with
intraradices withLinumusitatissimum. However,G. plants)or theinoculumfiltrate (fornon-mycorrhizal
mosseaeremainsuncharacterised withrespecttonutri- plants). The mycorrhiza inoculumcomprisedloess
entsupplyandfungalviability in hydroponie culture. soil containingG. mosseaesporesandZea maysroot
pieces,where50% oftherootlengthwas colonisedby
G. mosseae.The funguswas originally isolatedbyE.
Materialsand methods Sieverdingfroma Luvisol nearGöttingen, Germany
(51° 30' N, 9° 55' E) andpropagated severaltimeson
Experiments maize grownon loess soil in a greenhouseforeight
weeks.Plantsin potswereirrigated dailywith40 ml
Threeexperiments were conducted.The firsttested LANS (see below).Afterthreeweeks,therootlength
andviability
theinfectivity ofGlomusmosseae(Nicol, andpercentage colonisedrootweredetermined inaddi-
andGerd.)Gerd,andTrappewhencolonisingTriticum tionaltestplants.Plantswerethereaftertransferredinto
aestivumL. cv.Hano(wheat)inhydroponics. Thiswas hydroponics tobe cultivatedforanotherfourweeks.In
accomplishedby growingcolonisedplantstogether orderto transplant, thepotsweresubmerged in deion-
withinitiallyuncolonisedplants(froma pre-culture ized water,therootscarefully separatedfrom theper-
periodin perlite,see below) in thesame hydropon- liteand theplantsplaced intoblack 5 L hydroponie
ie containercontainingmodifiedLong Ashtonnutri- containers (fiveplantspercontainer). Rootlengthand
entsolution(LANS, see below).The uncolonisedand percentage colonisedrootweredetermined againatthe

This content downloaded from 137.158.158.60 on Tue, 27 Jan 2015 13:34:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 145

timeofharvest.Rootsoftheindividualplantscouldbe everythreedays. Aerationof the nutrient solutions

easily
separated attheend ofthegrowth period,except was suppliedfroman air pumpvia aquariumstones
inthecase ofsorghum which
roots(thirdexperiment), thatproduceda finestreamof bubbles.The airpump
wereseparatedwitha needle.Shootsand rootswere was connectedto a timeswitchso as to aeratefor2 h
harvestedfordryweightand P concentration deter- periods,fourtimesperday.
minationaftersamplingformycorrhizal colonisation.
The experimentswerecarriedoutin a growthcham- determination
Phosphorus
berwitha PAR of 500-600/zmol m-1 s-1 (Mercury
halidelamps,OsramPowerstar HQI-T-2000W/D),a Phosphorusconcentrationwas determinedusingthe
day/nighttemperatureof 25 °C/ 18°C and a relative molybdo-Pblue assay (Murphyand Riley,1962) on
humidityof60%. thathadbeendry
dried,milledshootandrootmaterial
ashed.
Nutrient
media
and rootlength
rootcolonisation
Mycorrhizal
The plants in perliteculturewere supplied with
1/100LANS (Hewitt,1966) forthefirstthreedays Percentage ofrootlengthcolonisedbyG. mosseaeand
in all experiments and thereafter with a modified totalrootlengthweredetermined usingthegridline-
half strengthLANS, which consistedof the fol- intersect method(Giovannetti andMosse, 1980) with
lowing macronutrients (mM): Ca(NC>3)2.4H20(2); rootsstainedeitherin trypanblue (Koske and Gem-
NaH2P04.2H20 (0.0094); Na2HP04.12H20 (0.006); ma, 1989) or for succinatedehydrogenase activity
K2S04 (1); MgS04.7H20 (0.75); CaCl2.2H20 (2) (Schafferand Peterson,1993). The lattermethodis
andmicronutrients (ļiM): H3BO3 (69); MnS04.4H20 a counterstaining procedureinvolving first
staining for
(10.4); ZnS04.7H20 (1.2); CuS04.5H20 (1.7); fungal succinate dehydrogenase (SDH) activityand
NaMo04.2H20 (0.13) and FeEDDHA (0.3). A pH of thenforall fungalstructures using0.01% (w/v)acid
6.0 was maintainedby 0.15 mM MES-KOH. Long fuchsin in75% lacticacidand5% glycerol(Kormanik
Ashtonnutrient solutionhas beenusedpreviously as a and McGraw,1984). The purpleformazanpigment,
nutrientsolutionforsandculture ofmycorrhizal plants formedwhenelectronsare donatedto thenitro-blue
(Cressetal., 1979;Davis et al., 1992). tetrazolium saltin theassaymediumbySDH activity,
PlantsweresuppliedwitheitherLANS or KHNS is visibleagainstthepinkfuchsin background andindi-
(Dugassa et al., 1995) forhydroponie culturein the cates whererespiratory activityhas occurred.In this
secondexperiment. Molybdenum was added toKHNS way themethod,herereferred to as counterstaining,
since Mo is requiredfor fungalgrowth(Epstein, distinguishes betweenviable and non-viable mycor-
1972). The KHNS nutrient solutionconsistedof the rhizalstructures (Schafferand Peterson,1993). Sam-
following macronutrients (mM): Ca(N03)2.4H20 (2); ples for thedetermination ofmycorrhizal colonisation
KNO3 (1.2); KH2P04 (0.9); KCl (0.8); MgS04. 7H20 wererepresentative ofthewholeroot.
(0.5) and micronutrients (/iM): A12(S04)3(0.18); KI
(0.2); KBr (0.25); Ti02 (0.75); SnCl2.2H20 (0.13); Statistics
LiCl (0.71); MnCl2.2H20(2.0); H3BO3 (9.7); ZnS04
(0.21); CuS04.5H20 (0.24); NiS04.6H20 (0.23); Tenreplicatespertreatment wereusedin thefirstand
Co(N03)2.6H20 (0.21); NaMo04.2H20 (0.13) and secondexperiments andeightin thethirdexperiment.
FeEDTA (0.1). The pH of thesolutionwas 6.5. The Plantcontainers wereplacedrandomly in thegrowth
pH was checkedeverythirddayinbothofthenutrient chamberand thepositionof thecontainerswas var-
solutions(LANS andKHNS) andifnecessary, adjust- ied eachtimeafterreplacingthenutrient solution.The
ed with2 N HCl. The nutrient solutionswerechanged Student's andone-wayanalysisofvariancewere
t-test
wheneithertheN concentration ortheP concentration appliedto determine differencesdue to typeof nutri-
droppedbelow0.6 mM or5 ¡jlMrespectively inLANS entsolutioninthesecondexperiment andmycorrhizal
and 1 mM or 0.45 mM respectively in KHNS. The N colonisationoftheplantspeciesinthethird experiment
and P concentrations weremeasuredusingtheNC>3~ respectively.Percentagerootcolonisationdata were
Quiektest(Merck)and molybdo-Pblue assay (Mur- normalised byarcsinsquareroottransformation before
phyand Riley,1962) respectively. The nutrientsolu- performing one-way analysisof variance. Resultsin
tionshad to be changedafterone weekandthereafter thetablesandtextaregiven± standard deviation.

This content downloaded from 137.158.158.60 on Tue, 27 Jan 2015 13:34:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
146

Results Afterfourweeksof hydroponie culturein LANS

medium, the total root colonisationpercentage
Firstexperiment remained highcomparedto theinitialpercentage root
colonisedinperlite(Table1). Plantswhichweregrown
Therootlengthofmycorrhizal wheatafterthreeweeks inhydroponics withKHNS mediumhada muchlower
in perliteculturewas 3.3 ± 0.6 m. The averageini- totalrootcolonisation percentage. ofthis
The viability
tial colonisationof mycorrhizal in
plants perlite cul- root colonisation on KHNS medium was essentially
turewas 59.6 ± 6% forboththe firstand second zero as determined by SDH activity(formazanpre-
experiments, theplantsof whichweregrownat the in thecounterstaining
cipitation) procedure(Table 1).
same time(Table 1). Non-mycorrhizal wheatplants In comparison,theviablerootcolonisationpercent-
whichwereplaced in close associationwithmycor- age on LANS accountedforoverhalfofthetotalroot
rhizalplantsin hydroponics had a totalcolonisation colonisation.
percentage of 8.8 ± 3.6% afterfourweeks.Morethan Colonisationof plantswas testedusingthecom-
halfofthetotalcolonisation was viableas determined monlyappliedtrypanblue methodto comparewith
bythecounterstaining method(4.87 ± 0.27%). Those thecounterstaining method(Table 1). The significant
non-mycorrhizal plantsculturedinthesame hydropon- difference between resultsusingthetwo methodsin
ie tankbutspaced2 to 4 cm fromthenearestmycor- the perliteculture(p = 0.0395, Studentt-test)was
rhizalplantwerenotcolonised. mostlikelya resultof theslightoverestimation due
to background staining,whichcan occurwhenusing
Secondexperiment thecounterstaining method.
Shoot and root P concentrations were not sig-
The shoot dry weightsof mycorrhizaland non- nificantlydifferent between mycorrhizaland non-
mycorrhizal plantsgrown in eitherLANS or KHNS mycorrhizal plants when plantsweregrowninthesame
werenotsignificantly (Table2). Mycorrhizal nutrient
different medium(Table2). The P concentration in the
plantsgrownin LANS mediumhad a significantly shootsand rootsof mycorrhizal and non-mycorrhizal
higherrootdryweightcomparedto thecorrespond- plantsgrownon KHNS mediumwas greater compared
ing non-mycorrhizal plants(p < 0.001). No signif- to thosein LANS.
icantdifference in rootdryweightbetweenmycor-
rhizalandnon-mycorrhizal plantswas observedwhen Thirdexperiment
KHNS mediumwas used.Afterfourweeksin LANS
and KHNS media,therootlengthsofthemycorrhizal In thethirdexperiment whereonlymycorrhizal plants
plantswere13.6db3.9 m and 11.0 ± 2.6 mrespective- wereused,theplantdryweightdecreasedintheorder:
ly. S. bicolor> T. aestivum> L. usitatissimum (Table 3).

Table1. Viable
andtotal ofT.aestivum
rootcolonisation with
colonised G.mosseaeas
determined method
bya counterstaining andtotal bythe
as determined
rootcolonisation
bluemethod.
trypan Theplantsweregrowninitially forthree
inperlite weeks in
andthen
for
hydroponics weeks.
four Letters statistical
indicate between
difference media
hydroponie
(p< 0.05,Student's Dataarethemean
t-test). deviation
± standard
of10observations
Culture (%root
Colonisation length)
method
Counterstaining Trypanblue
method
Viable Total : non- Total
Viable
ratio colonisation
colonisation colonisation viable
(initial 31.18± 7.70 67.98± 8.46 0.97±0.52 59.61± 6.09
Perlite
colonisation)
Hydroponics
LANSmedium36.00a ±5.19 1.19a
± 3.60 66.36a ±0.11 56.11a
±13.06
KHNSmedium 0.60b±0.46 10.70" ± 5.64 0.05"±0.03 8.66b±3.32

This content downloaded from 137.158.158.60 on Tue, 27 Jan 2015 13:34:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 147
Table
2. Dryweight
andphosphorus ofT.aestivwn
concentration after
plants three
weeks inperlite
ofpre-culture andsubsequent
culture
for wee
four
intwodifferent nutrient
hydroponie media(LANSandKHNS)with (+AM)orwithout(-AM)arbuscular colonisation
mycorrhizal byG.mossec
indicate
Letters statistical
difference +AMand-AMshoots
between androots
within
eachnutrient (p < 0.05,Student's
treatment Dataareť
t-test).
mean ± standard
of10and8observations for
deviation dry andP concentration
weight respectively
~
Dryweight
(g) (mgg 1dry
P concentration weight)
Shoot Root Shoot Root
Medium -AM +AM -AM +AM -AM +AM -AM +AM
LANS 0.43± 0.15a 0.54± 0.12a 0.09± 0.02a 0.17±0.04b 0.27± 0.12a 0.24± 0.06a 0.17± 0.09a 0.16± 0.07a
KHNS 0.58± 0.15a 0.67± 0.16a 0.13± 0.04a 0.17± 0.06a 1.70± 0.35a 1.39± 0.45a 1.30± 0.33a 0.94± 0.53a

S. bicolorhad a higherroot:shootratiocomparedto thirdexperiments and (c) by colonisationof initially

T. aestivumandL. usitatissimum. The averageinitial roots
non-mycorrhizal by adjacentmycorrhizal roots
colonisationof mycorrhizal plantsin perliteculture in the firstexperiment. Only thosenon-mycorrhizal
was 48 to 76% (Table 3). Viable colonisationwith rootswhichwerein directcontactwiththerootsys-
G. mosseaewas maintained overa fourweekperiodin temsofmycorrhizal plantswerecolonisedwhilethose
hydroponics forall threespecieswithtotalcolonisation non-mycorrhizal plantswhichwere2 to 4 cm away
percentages between36% and73% (Table3). A higher frommycorrhizal plantsinthesamecontainer werenot
percentage ofviableinfective was foundin
structures colonised.Thisindicatesthatexternal hyphaegrowing
T. aestivumcomparedto S. bicolorand L. usitatissi- in nutrientsolutiondid notgrowaway fromtheroot
mum, whilethetotalrootcolonisationpercentages in butwereattachedto therootsurfaceor thosehyphae
T. aestivumandL. usitatissimum werehigherthanin growingawayfromtherootcouldnotcoloniseother
S. bicoloras determined bythecounterstaining proce- roots.
dure. The colonisationofwheatwithG. mosseaeresult-
ed in a higherroot dryweightcomparedto non-
mycorrhizal plantswhengrownon LANS mediumin
Discussion thesecondexperiment (Table2). The P concentration
in non-mycorrhizal and mycorrhizal plantsgrownin
Thefungalstructures inthemycorrhizal rootsofwheat LANS was similar(Table 2). Therefore, thegrowth
secondandthirdexperiments),
(first, sorghum andlin- stimulation in therootsof themycorrhizal plantsrel-
seed (thirdexperiment) were active. This is shown ativeto thenon-mycorrhizal rootswas probablynot
ratesofrootsevenafter
by (a) hightotalcolonisation relatedto increasedP uptakebut to non-nutritive
vigorousrootgrowth innutrient
solution,(b) measure- fungus-mediated effectson, forexample,shoot:root
mentsof viable rootcolonisationin the secondand carbohydrate allocation.Glomusmosseaemaintained

3.Drymassandviable
Table plustotal
colonisation method)
(counterstaining ofS.bicolor
, T.
aestivwn
andL. usitatissimum
colonisedwith
G.mosseae grown inperlite
initially forthree
weeksandtheninhydroponics
forfourweeksinLANSmedium. Letters
indicate
statistical
difference
between (p< 0.05,pair-wise
thespecies range
multiple Tukey Dataarethe
Test).
mean ± standard
of8 observations deviation
Colonisation
(%rootlength)
Culture S.bicolor T.aestivum L. usitatissimum
Perlite total
(initial 48± 6.02
colonisation) 75±2.13 76± 5.45
Hydroponics
Viable
colonisation 23.24a
± 11.02 48.33b± 16.80 22.07a±18.18
Total
colonisation ± 10.20 73.13b
36.34a ± 14.40 65.46b± 5.88
Viable:non-viable
ratio 1.49a±0.78 1.80a±0.88 0.72b± 0.70

Plant
dry
weight
(g) 1.16a±0.42 1.04a± 0.20 0.54b±0.16

This content downloaded from 137.158.158.60 on Tue, 27 Jan 2015 13:34:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
148

a colonisation of66% in wheatplantsgrowninhydro- but also sorghumand linseedin hydroponie culture

ponics usingLANS but a muchlowercolonisation (Table 3). Wheathad a higherrootcolonisationper-
whenKHNS mediumwas used (Table 1). The KHNS centagecomparedto sorghum andlinseed.The range
mediumwas used in thecultureof L. usitatissimum ofcolonisation ratesinall threeplants(36 to73%) was
withG. intraradices(Dugassa et al., 1995). The P within therangeofreported colonisationsinsolid,low-
concentration in theKHNS mediumwas as described P substrates. Considering that G. mosseae colonised
in theoriginalKnop plus Hoaglandnutrient solution threedifferent in
plantspecies hydroponics, itis like-
(Urbach et al., 1983), thisbeing 0.9 m M P, which rep- ly that the method described here would be usefulas
resentsa 90-foldincreasecomparedtoLANS medium a basis forthecultivation of otherplantspecieswith
( 10 ļiM). ThesolutionP concentration wasmeasured at G. mosseae.The suitability of thismethodforgrow-
regularintervals (see Materialsandmethods)to avoid ingmycorrhizal fungiotherthanG. mosseaemustbe
depletionof P below a certainthreshold leadingto testedin furtherexperiments.
uncontrolled periodsofP deficiency (McDonaldetal., A difference comparedto previousreportsof the
1996).A lowerP concentration was usedinLANS and cultureofmycorrhiza in hydroponics, besidestheuse
thisP concentration is also within therangeofconcen- oflow P concentration andthebuffer MES, is theuse
trations (1 to 50 (lM P) usuallyfoundin soil solutions of a longeraerationperiod.The totalaerationtime
(Barber,1995). The organicbufferMES (buffering of 8 h was longerthantheperiodsuggestedbyPeuss
range:5.8-6.5) was used to maintaina stablepH due (1958) and Dugassa et al. (1995), i.e. 10 and 30 min
to thelow P concentration usedin LANS. The P con- daily,respectively.The latterauthorsaeratedforshort
centration in KHNS mediumwas sufficient to buffer periods in orderto reducetheamountof movement
pH at 6.5 (50 mM to 0.5 mM KH2PO4 solution plus in the nutrient mediumwhichwould disturbfungal
NaOH buffers betweenpH 5.8 and 8.0) and as a P growth. The aerationconditions describedhere,which
source.Most likely,thepoor colonisationof wheat werechosenas a compromise betweengood aeration
withG. mosseae usingKHNS mediumunderthese andreducedwatermovement, apparently had no neg-
experimental conditions was due totherelatively high ativeeffect on rootcolonisation bythefungusrelative
P concentration in thismedium,whichinhibited root to previousreports. Thoroughaerationof thenutrient
colonisation. solutionmaybe necessary toprevent plantinjuriesdue
There was no statisticaldifference betweenthe to hypoxia(MorardandSilvestre,1996).
P concentration in non-mycorrhizal and mycorrhizal In conclusion,theseresultsoutlinea methodfor
wheatwhengrownin eitherLANS or KHNS media thecultureof threeplantspecieshavingvaryingroot
(Table2). Sinceplantsgrownin KHNS nutrient medi- morphologies in a dilutednutrient mediumwithinter-
umwerepractically freeofactivemycorrhiza afterfour mittent aerationandpH control usingan organicbuffer
weeksin hydroponics (Table 1), a lack of difference (inLANS). Viablecolonisation oftherootswas shown
intheP concentration ofplantswithandwithout myc- to be greaterin LANS comparedto KHNS medium.
orrhizalinoculation was to be expected.Plantsgrown The colonisationlevels and viabilityof culturesin
in LANS mediumwere,however,heavilycolonised. LANS compared favourably tosolidsubstrate cultures.
Presenceof mycorrhizal colonisationin hydroponics Hydroponie cultureofendomycorrhizas is ofpotential
was,in contrast to manyobservations in soil,without use forinvestigating theeffectsof endomycorrhizas
consequencefortheP acquisitionof theplants,tis- on nutrient metabolism and energybalancein plants,
sue P concentration beinglow in bothcontrolandtest as well as forthe purposesof harvesting rootsand
treatments. Thereasonforthismaybe that,incontrast fungalpropagules without contamination from a solid
to thesituation in soil,P in nutrient solutionsis freely substrate.
available.Thiswouldmake,forexample,thegrowth of
external hyphae redundant in terms of P acquisitionof
themycorrhizal root.A particular drawbackofhydro- Acknowledgements
ponics(and aeroponics)is thatthenutrients thatare
relatively immobilein thesoil arefreelyavailableand The firstauthorthankstheFoundationforResearch
so themechanismby whichmycorrhizal hyphaenor- and Development(SouthAfrica)fortheawardof a
mallyimpart benefit to thehost would be neutralised. doctoralbursary
during ofwhichthepresent
thetenure
UsingtheLANS mediumin thethirdexperiment, was
investigation out.
carried
G. mosseae was shownto colonisenot onlywheat

This content downloaded from 137.158.158.60 on Tue, 27 Jan 2015 13:34:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 149

References Kormanik P P andMcGraw A-C1982Quantification ofvesicular-

arbuscularmycorrhizae inplant roots.InMethods andPrinciples
BarberS A 1995Soilnutrient bioavailability.John Wiley andSons, ofMycorrhizal Research. Ed.NC Schenk, pp37-45. TheAmer-
Inc.,NewYork, USA.90p. icanPhytopathologicalSociety, St.Paul,Minnesota, USA.
WA,Throneberry
Cress GOandLindsey D L 1979Kinetics ofphos- KoskeRE andGemma JN 1989Amodified procedureforstaining
phorus absorbtion bymycorrhizal andnonmycorrhizal tomato rootstodetectVAmycorrhizas. Mycol. Res.92,486-505.
roots.PlantPhysiol 64,484-487. McDonald AJS,Ericsson T andLarsson C-M1996Plant nutrition,
WA,Johnson
Cress GV andBarton L L 1986Theroleofendomy- drymatter gainandpartitioning atthewhole-plant level.
J.Exp.
corrhizalfungiiniron uptake byHilaria jamesii. J.Plant Nut.9, Bot.47,1245-1253.
547-556. MorardP andSilvestre J1996Plant injuryduetooxygen deficiency
DavisF T Jr,PotterJR andLinderman R G 1992Mycorrhiza and intheroot environment ofsoillessculture:A review.PlantSoil
repeateddrought exposureeffectdrought resistanceandextrarad- 184,243-254.
icalhyphae development ofpepper plants independent ofplant MosseB andThompson JP 1984Vesicular-arbuscular endomyc-
sizeandnutrient J.Plant
content. Physiol. 139,289-294. orrhizalinoculum production. I. Exploratory experimentswith
DiopT A,Plenchette C andStrullu D G 1994Invitro cultureof beans (Phaseolusvulgaris) innutrient flow Can.J.Bot.
culture.
sheared mycorrhizal roots.
Symbiosis 17,217-227. 62,1523-1530.
DuanX,Neuman D S, Reiber JM,Green C D, Saxton A M and Murphy JandRiley JP 1962Amodified singlesolutionmethodfor
Augé R M 1996Mycorrhizal influenceon hydraulic andhormonal thedetermination of phosphate in natural waters.Anal.Chem.
factorsimplicatedinthecontrol ofstomatal conductance during Acta27,31-36.
drought.J.Exp.Bot.47,1541-1550. Newsham K K,Fitter A H andWatkinson A R 1995Arbuscular
DugassaD G,Grunewaldt-Stöcker GandSchönbeck F 1995Growth mycorrhiza protectanannual grassfrom root pathogenic
fungiin
ofGlomus intraradicesanditseffect onlinseed (Linum usitatis- thefield.J.Ecol.
83, 991-1000.
simum L.)inhydroponie culture.Mycorrhiza 5,279-282. PeussH 1958Untersuchungen zurÖkologie undBedeutung der
E 1972Mineral
Epstein nutritionofplants: Principles andperspec- Tabakmycorrhiza. Arch. Microbiol. 29,112-142.
John
tives, Wiley andSons, Inc.,NewYork, USA.pp60-61. Ruiz-Lozano J M, AzcónR andGomezM 1995Effects of
George E, Marschner H and Jakobsen I 1995 Role of arbuscular arbuscular-mycorrhizal Glomus species on drought tolerance:
mycorrhizal fungi inuptake ofphosphorus andnitrogen from Physiologicalandnutritional plant responses. Appl.Environ.
soil.Crit.
Rev.Biotech. 15,257-270. Microbiol.61,456-460.
GiovannettiM andMosseB 1980Anevaluation oftechniques for SchafferGF andPeterson RL 1993Modifications toclearingmeth-
measuring vesicular-arbuscular
mycorrhizal infection in roots. ods used in combination with vital stainingof rootscolonized
NewPhytol. 84,489-500. with vesicular-arbuscular
mycorrhizal fungi.Mycorrhiza4,29-
HewittE J1966Sandandwater culture methods usedinthestudy 35.
ofplant 2ndrevised
nutrition, edition,Commonwealth Bureau of St.Arnaud M,Hamel C,Vimard B,Caron M andFortin JA 1996
HorticultureandPlantation East
Crops, Mailing, Technical Com- Enhanced hyphalgrowth and spore production ofthearbuscular
munication No.22,pp.431-432. Commonwealth Agriculture mycorrhizal fungus Glomus intraradicesinaninvitro systemin
Bureau, Farnham Royal,U.K. theabsence ofhost roots.Mycol. Res.100,328-332.
HungL-LandSylvia D M 1988Production ofvesicular-arbuscular SylviaD M andHubbel D H 1986Growth andsporulationof
mycorrhizal fungus inoculum inaeroponic culture. Appl. Envi- vesicular-arbuscularmycorrhizal fungi in aeroponicand mem-
ron.Microbiol. 54,353-255. brane systems.Symbiosis 1,259-267.
A G andSylvia
Jarstfer D M 1995Aeroponic culture ofVAMfun- T N,Remy
Taylor W,HassH andKerpH 1995Fossilarbuscular
gi.InMycorrhiza - Structure,
Function, Molecular Biology and mycorrhizae from theEarly Devonian. Mycologia 87,560-573.
Biotechnology.Ed.AVarma andB Hock, pp428-441. Springer- Urbach W,Rupp WandSturm H 1983Praktikum zurStoffwechsel-
Verlag,Berlin,Germany. physiologie derPflanzen, pp330-331. Thieme, Ger-
Stuttgart,
KarunaratneS,Baker JH andBarker A V 1986Phosphorus uptake many.
bymycorrhizal andnonmycorrhizal roots ofsoybean. J.Plant
Nut.9,1303-1313. Section
editor:JH Graham

This content downloaded from 137.158.158.60 on Tue, 27 Jan 2015 13:34:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
View publication stats