[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: <Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com>
- Subject: Re: fungus
- From: Thomas Barr <tcbiii at earthlink_net>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:37:47 -0800
- In-Reply-To: <200110292048.f9TKmC214350 at actwin_com>
- User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
> Tom Barr wrote:
>> I've heard this baloney for some time that says "there are no
>> myhcorrhiza on aquatic plants"
> I find the idea of talking baloney quite disturbing :)
Don't work late nights in a deli.
> But seriously....I seem to remember from basic Biology that over 95% of
> *all* vascular plants have mycorrhizae.
That's land plants. Aquatics are known _not_ to have fugal associations(or
very rarely). One reason is that the fungus tends to need aerobic
environments from what I've heard and discussed with a soils ecologist.
Fungus gets carbohydrates and the plant gets minerals.
But the existence of aerhynchyma (to transfer air/O2 to the roots) in
plant's roots may provide adequate aerobic needs for fungus also. When these
fungus die(ie the plant gets stressed and cannot push O2 down there->
photosynthesis declines) bacteria move in and takes it's place. Seems likes
what's happening but still a total plausible guess.
> I'd imagine any aquatic plant with
> roots that grow in and draw nutrients from soil, especially the heavy root
> feeders, would have the potential for them. Nice job of debunking the
> baloney, Tom. Very interesting stuff.
Not sure if I'd call it debunking. Nothing has been proved except that they
do exist in Bolbitis fern. But it lends itself to a whole bunch of new
questions rather than those dead end roads. And some interesting ideas about
aquatic plants......."the whales" of the plant world.
> Chuck Huffine