Informative article!!....but keep in mind the author (well known in his field) has been gone from Oregon State and USDA for many years,he sells this stuff for a living. Recent research work at Clemson University showed many easy to get hold of mycorrhizal products (9 of them) failed to establish on the host plants.

Schmoo

gimme a break. everyone gets so carried away with this. First, this isn't a scholarly article in an academic journal. It's a sales pitch originally published in a trade magazine. Why ask the online community to read a sales pitch?

Yes, plants in their native habitats benefit from symbiotic relationships with certain fungi. There's no arguing about that. But those relationships could be very specific and sensitive and may not work in a cultivated environment. There are a lot of reasons to suspect they would not.

What species of fungi are purportedly contained in the product? You know there is more than one mycorrhizal fungus right? Are those species specifically known to coexist with the plant species you are growing? Are they effecitvely delivered by the product? If so, can they persist in the cultivated environment (plastic pot, exotic climate, etc.) And even if the answer to those questions is yes, do they really help a plant that is already watered and fertilized with water soluble nutrients?

I really doubt it makes a difference for most people most of the time. Bunch of snake oil. waste of time.

I was at one time very enthusiastic about trying to introduce mycorrhizal fungi, but have since learned that there are at least two basic issues--probably more--that make their application "iffy," at best. First, the fungi needed to make trees grow well are almost always available everywhere in the soil. There are some exceptions, and that is where the other issue comes in--just which fungi work with which trees, and/or interact with other fungi, may be complicated.

One or two of the seedling growers I have ordered from, for a year or two, advertized Mycorrhizal fungi treated seedlings, but soon dropped them, probably because the results were poor, or no better than untreated seedlings. But I do believe that continued research may produce some useful knowledge.

I did some "experiments" of my own, and could confirm no benefits from anything I did--probably because the fungal spores I collected and applied were in the soil already.

--Spruce

Right on.

Dax

spruceman,

"almost always available everywhere in the soil."
Most of the time true, but not always in the "concentration" to get it/them established on a plant quickly, so you end up with the results that are claimed. Think of the spores as marbles....put 5 in one gallon pot and 50 in the other pot..which one will a root come into contact with quickly so the given "fungi" gets established on a plant and does what is known it can do?? The science of what "they" can do is known (down to the genus & species of what is the most adaptable to a wide variety of enviroments), the delivery system of enough active "spores" to create quick establishment is what seems to be the problem for introducing the stuff and getting "possibly" the results that are claimed.

Schmoo

Ah, I'm back for the sake of not being able to keep my mouth shut...

Plants 77, you got it wrong, bud. I've been reading about this obsessively for the past 8 months or so...and, most mycorrhizal fungus is pretty general, that is...they "infect" a wide array of different species, and most species of plant appear to take what they can get. I'm not sure where this idea came from that certain plants are picky and can only pair up with certain fungi...it seems to be nonsense. The only thing that seems to matter in terms of specifics is whether the plant family associates with endo or ecto-mycorrhizal associates...

Pines/Firs/Spruces/Larches use ectomycorrhizal fungal associations - that is you can visibly see the fungal association, called the "Hartig Net", much the same way that you can visibly see the bacterial nitrogen-fixing nodules on a legume root.

Cupressaceae and Ginkgo use "endomycorrhizal" associations, or "vesicular-arbuscular" associations.

Whether the spores in solution end up germinating or not, the b-vitamins and other additives in the root dip gel greatly reduce mortality and transplant shock, and that seems a no-brainer. So it actually appears NOT to be snake-oil.

The one thing that appears to inhibit fungus becoming established on a plant is an abundance of phosphorus in the soil (i.e. being fertilized) in a form that is readily available to the plant through it's root, thereby negating the necessity of needing the fungus to acquire the phosphorus for the plant (phosphorus is one of the main nutrients that the mychorrizae seems to gather and exchange with the plant for sugars created during photosynthesis).

As far as the container issue goes...I see no reason why being in a plastic pot would make any difference...there are still nutrients in inaccessible forms in the soil that cannot be used by the plant until they are broken down by fungal enzymes. The only thing which might make a difference is black pot in direct sun, in which case, that's not good for either the roots or the fungus.

Fungus, whether saprophytic or mycorrhizal, seems to play a HUGE beneficial role in terms of root nutrition, and I think the main reason that many people are excited about this is because not until the 90's did this field start to become more readily explored, and the technology available to offer spore-cultures, root gels, etc.

There are a number of books on the truffle industry - the fact that truffles, which are the fruiting bodies of a few species of ectomycorrhizal fungi and the production of which can be controlled, albeit with much work, seems to dispell somewhat the "snakeoil" myth - which are quite fascinating and worth taking a look at, most notably "TAMING THE TRUFFLE" by Ian Hall.

Truffles are so strong-smelling (said to stink up a room, however I cannot say for sure as I've never had the 5 grand laying around to indulge myself in them) and attractive to animals (including humans) as a method of spore dispersal - a wild hog or rodent will dig up the fruiting body, eat it, and disperse the spores in it's feces. Boletes, milk caps, chanterelles, Lactarius species, and various deadly Amanitas are all the fruiting bodies of mycorrhizal fungi.

So anyway, with all the ridiculous things people spend money on, I'd hardly say that spending five bucks on a root dip gel with 9 different species of endo and ecto mycorrhizal fungi on it is buying "snake oil". If anything, the gel itself prevents moisture loss, and that's a huge PLUS when potting-up or planting transplants.

endo or ecto-mycorrhizal associates...

You got it spruce. I wasn't going to waste my breathe on what I knew would be a brick fight.

Dax

Thanks much for the stickers lawndestroyer. I put one on the back window of my pickup truck and one on my refridgerator. Those are awesome.

Obviously I thought spruceman for some reason wrote the reply. My apolgies Spruce....

Dax

RE: Plants 77, you got it wrong, bud. I've been reading about this obsessively for the past 8 months or so...and, most mycorrhizal fungus is pretty general, that is...they "infect" a wide array of different species, and most species of plant appear to take what they can get. I'm not sure where this idea came from that certain plants are picky and can only pair up with certain fungi...it seems to be nonsense

WHY? because you said so. OK since you said so.... then fine I believe you. Especially if you and gardner 365 BOTH said so .... then it must be true....

reading about something obsessively for 8 months on the internet doesn't make you an authority. I think I and the other poster mentioned some legitimate questions and doubts. If they have been addressed in a controlled study published in a peer reviewed journal (as oppsoed to an infomercial or advertisment) then please direct me to that authority. But don't think for a second I care about your admittedly amateurish, overly certain opinion.

NOR AM I IMPRESSED WITH ALL CAPS. THESE ARE NOT IMPRESSIVE. THESE DO NOT MAKE YOU SMART. THESE DO NOT MAKE BOOKS ABOUT TRUFFLES RELEVANT TO A QUESTION ABOUT THE EFFICACY OF BENEFICIAL FUNGUS PRODUCT'S EFFECT ON TRANSPLANTING / PROPAGATING CONIFERS OR OTHER WOODY PLANTS. THESE RELATIVELY BIG LETTERS DO NOT COMPENSATE FOR YOUR SMALL PARTS AND INABILITY TO MATE.

Plants77

You haven't provided anything "scholarly" to support your point of view either, just in case you haven't noticed. So quit acting like an authority yourself and quit flaming people.

K4

I'm done arguing with angry little men and their ego disturbances on the internet.

'Nuff said.

Stickers??? How come I didn't get any stickers?

plants77

place bald head in bucket

stand upside down, insert top 1/3 into hole

hope your hair grows.

Dax

Plants77
You haven't provided anything "scholarly" to support your point of view either, just in case you haven't noticed. So quit acting like an authority yourself and quit flaming people.

I'm not the one who was reccomending something or emphatically insisting it works. I was just voicing my reasoned skepticism. And skepticism is the default scientific position.

And I'm not bald....instead of telling me where to put my head maybe focus on pulling yours out

...what fun????.....

Schmoo

Like a bunch of little kids. Plants 7 the only word I recognized in all your "opinion" was the word, "opinion."

I think it's good stuff and if you're a scientist, fine. Kick my ass around.

I'll be back in a few years to publish my results, here.... not for money, not for fame, not for anyone but myself.

Thanks for your ultimate understanding.

Dax

Look what I found:

181. Hall, T.J.; Bowes, S.A. 1984. Mycorrhizas and container-grown hardy ornamental nursery stock (HONS) production. In: 1982 annual report of the Glasshouse Crops Research Institute. West Sussex, UK: Littlehampton: 113-114.

Plants of Juniperus virginiana cultivar Skyrocket inoculated with a VA mycorrhiza, probably Glomus fasciculatus (G. fasciculatum), were 39 percent taller than non-mycorrhizal plants after 14 months when grown with half the recommended rate of slow-release fertilizer (2 g/l) and 14 percent taller than uninoculated controls receiving 4 g of fertilizer. With Magnolia soulangiana, the mean total stem length of VA-inoculated plants was 43 percent greater than that of control plants receiving 4 g of fertilizer.

Take THAT you doubters!

Barbara

They should have given them all the same rate of fertilizer. Maybe there were more combinations tried than are mentioned in this synopsis. Otherwise, they have left open the possibility that the higher rate of fertilizer had an inhibiting effect, rather than the fungus having a stimulating effect.

Yes bboy. Another instance where it would be helpful to have access to the entire study rather than just a two sentence summary.

Barbara

If you can't access the whole thing on the internet or at a library here then all you have to do is fly to England and look for it in institutions there.

I can't help but be amused at how resistant some of the people on this forum are to the idea that inoculating plants with mycorrhizae could be beneficial. It's not just a point of disagreement, it seems to actually make them angry...especially when you point out that there seems to be more evidence against their argument than against yours...

Just got a shipment of Arctostaphylos Uva-Ursi in plug form that was LACED with the stuff. I thought the white mycelium was rot so I called the director of the nursery and she told me that it was mycorrhizae that showed up on some of their plants (they grow them from seed), and they realized that the ones that had it grew three times as fast and as big as the ones without it, so now they inoculate all their stock of this species with it. Pretty fascinating...

Good to hear from you stiffy...oops...I mean destroyer.

After purchasing some Myco at our local hydro shop finally read the label's fine print after weeks of using it; "compatible with NON-conifer plant species". Go figure. This reinforces the importance of having the correct myco for inoculation of specific types of plants. The nursery growing Arctostaphylos got lucky by having theirs (most probably) naturally introduced by the seed.

So the question is: which fungi is the most beneficial for conifers? Should I simply trust Treehaven's to have the correct strains?

Barbara

Cupressaceae = VAM (vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae)
Pinaceae = Ectomycorrhizae
Podocarps = ?
Araucariaceae = VAM

VAM are usually generalists, meaning that they associate with most trees and are not host-specific. Not sure about the pine family and the ectos, though.

Got more stickers if you want some, too.

Stiffie...your back...welcome

Dave

LD, I WANT myco's to work. It is an area I am fascinated by. And what I mean by that statement is, I well realize that in nature, mycos are everywhere doing their thing with plant roots. But I want there to be products that work. It's just that, in the research I've seen so far, most results have been disappointing. Probably twenty years ago by now, I read of studies showing clear benefits in mine reclamation sites and the like, where the "soil" in which there was an attempt to establish plants was essentially sterile. But beginning with that study, right up to the most recent ones I've reviewed, I can't recall anything showing similar benefits in more typical soils.

Quite frankly, I'd enjoy checking out anything that anyone is aware of showing benefits in more normal soil situations.

+oM

In my younger days i was starting a new azalea bed and old friend of mine who had an old friend who owned a nursery for many years suggested to find an establised azalea planting and take a little soil for it to add to the new bed.As i have said before when i grew orchids at repotting time i add a little bit of the old potting mix to seed the new mix at the advice of a lot of experts that read.In my opinon i belive that seeding the soil with Fungus or bacteria that help break down dead and rotting material is very use.Today they have natural bottled microbes to help in the process of making decaying material in to food the plants can absorb.So inhancing the growth of certain bacteria i.e nitrifying bacteria ia belive is a good thing.However confirming the effacy of a product is somthing left to scientist. Joe