Show simple item record

Partner choice in ectomycorrhizal mutualism.

dc.contributor.authorKummel, Miroslav
dc.contributor.advisorGoldberg, Deborah E.
dc.contributor.advisorRathcke, Beverly J.
dc.date.accessioned2016-08-30T15:31:23Z
dc.date.available2016-08-30T15:31:23Z
dc.date.issued2004
dc.identifier.urihttp://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&res_dat=xri:pqm&rft_dat=xri:pqdiss:3121979
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/124112
dc.description.abstractMycorrhizae are a mutualism between fungi and plants, where fungi transfer nutrients to plants and plants provide photosynthate to the fungi. I addressed mechanisms that structure mycorrhizal fungal community along a light-intensity gradient, and the consequence of the community structure to plant growth. I hypothesized that, in each light environment plants choose the species composition of fungi that maximizes their growth. First I formalized this 'plant choice' hypothesis in an economics model, where maximizing fitness requires that plants equalize marginal costs of trading with different species of fungi. If this occurs, and the carbon payment that fungi require for nutrient delivery increases disproportionately with increasing amounts of nutrient delivered, then plant choice fosters fungal coexistence, structures fungal communities, and changes fungal community structure with changing light availability. Second, I tested five predictions of the plant choice hypothesis, using the association between <italic>Abies balsamea</italic> seedlings and two co-dominant species of ectomycorrhizal fungi (<italic>Cenococcum</italic> sp. and <italic>Lactarius</italic> sp). (1) Fungal community structure should be correlated with, and caused by light availability to the plant. (2) Plant should be colonized by a non-random light-dependent subset of available fungi. (3) Mycorrhizal fungi should negatively interact with each other. (4) Plants should not choose mycorrhizal fungi that act as parasites. (5) Plant should associate with the fungi that support the highest plant growth. Predictions 1--3 were supported: (1) <italic>Cenococcum</italic> relative abundance significantly decreased, and <italic>Lactarius</italic> relative abundance significantly increased in response to increasing light availability in field surveys and experiments. (2) Relative abundance of <italic>Cenococcum</italic> on the seedlings did not reflect <italic>Cenococcum </italic> availability in the soil, and <italic>Cenococcum</italic> was over-represented on shaded seedlings. (3) In a controlled experiment, the presence of <italic> Lactarius</italic> strongly inhibited <italic>Cenococcum</italic> colonization of unshaded seedlings. However, predictions 4--5 were strongly rejected: <italic>Cenococcum </italic> behaved as a parasite when in high abundance, and <italic>Lactarius </italic>-dominated seedlings had below average growth in high light where <italic> Lactarius</italic> was the dominant fungus. Therefore, plant choice was rejected as the dominant fungal community-structuring mechanism, because the composition of fungal community was not optimal for plant growth. Instead, I hypothesize that the fungal community is structured by fungal competition.
dc.format.extent155 p.
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoEN
dc.subjectEctomycorrhizal
dc.subjectMutualism
dc.subjectNorthern Hardwoods
dc.subjectPartner Choice
dc.titlePartner choice in ectomycorrhizal mutualism.
dc.typeThesis
dc.description.thesisdegreenamePhDen_US
dc.description.thesisdegreedisciplineBiological Sciences
dc.description.thesisdegreedisciplineEcology
dc.description.thesisdegreegrantorUniversity of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/124112/2/3121979.pdf
dc.owningcollnameDissertations and Theses (Ph.D. and Master's)


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.