[compost_tea] Re: Michael Martin Melendrez

From: evanfolds <evan_at_progressearth.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:31:19 -0000

Thanks, Jeff. I'm admitedly a little loose on the verbaige there. The expla=
nation below wore me out! But was appreciated..

evan

--- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "Tim Wilson" <thegoodjob_at_...> wrote:
>
> Here is an excerpt from a review with an interesting verbage on names. Pl=
ease note one of the authors is the mother of AM
>
> Roger T. Koide · Barbara Mosse
> A history of research on arbuscular mycorrhiza
> Received: 9 November 2003 / Accepted: 9 March 2004 / Published online: 16=
 April 2004
>
> The giving of names
>
> Frank (1885) gave the name "mycorhiza" to the peculiar
> association between tree roots and ectomycorrhizal fungi.
> A thorough discussion of the derivation of the word
> "mycorrhiza", including the incorporation of the second
> r is given by Kelley (1931, 1950). In another publication,
> Frank (1887) recognized a distinction between ectotrophic
> and endotrophic mycorrhizas, which included
> at the time only ericaceous and orchid mycorrhizas. The
> name for the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis has
> changed through the years. The symbiosis was once frequently
> called "phycomycetous endomycorrhiza" to distinguish
> it from the endomycorrhizal symbioses formed
> between members of the Ericaceae or Orchidaceae and
> higher fungi. The name "Phycomycete", however, no
> longer carries any systematic significance. As previously
> mentioned, Janse (1897) called the intramatrical spores
> "v_sicules" and Gallaud (1905) called the other commonly
> observed intracellular structures "arbuscules".
> Thus the name "vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza" was
> established and persisted until recently. The recognition
> that not all fungi formed vesicles led to the proposal that
> this symbiosis should be renamed arbuscular mycorrhiza.
> This change is now widely accepted, but in some of these
> associations the fungi may not even produce proper arbuscules
> (Smith and Smith 1997). Moreover, one must
> agree that some hosts of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi do
> not house the fungi in true roots at all, and therefore that
> the name "mycorrhiza" is not correctly used in those
> cases (Lohman 1927; Kelley 1931). If we continue with
> the line of reasoning that dropped the "vesicular" from the
> "vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza", we must also drop the
> "arbuscular" and, if we wish to be more inclusive of associations
> involving these fungi, we must also drop the "-
> rhiza". We would then be left only with "myco-" and that
> is useless. Perhaps "phycomycetous endomycorrhiza"
> was not such a bad choice after all. We are having fun
> here, of course, but it is interesting to note the continual
> problem we have had with names. Although it is no
> laughing matter, one might be amused to count the times
> we have questioned what should even be considered a
> mycorrhiza in the first place (Boullard 1982; Allen 1996;
> Trappe 1996; Jones and Smith 2003; Massicotte and
> Peterson 2003)!
>
> The naming of organisms and the establishment of
> their evolutionary relationships are of great importance in
> any field of biology. At the 1974 Leeds meeting (Sanders
> et al. 1975), the name Endogone was used by many in
> attendance to describe the "phycomycetous endomycorrhizal"
> fungi. Another outdated name for arbuscular mycorrhizal
> fungi, Rhizophagus, was also in use at the time
> and continued to be used until about 1977. Thus, as recently
> as 25 years ago the nomenclature of the arbuscular
> mycorrhiza fungi had not been firmly established.
>
> The history of the naming of our fungi is certainly an
> interesting one. Link (1809, cited in Gerdemann 1971),
> established the genus Endogone. Tulasne and Tulasne
> (1844) were the first to describe the genus Glomus, known
> only from spore clusters found in the soil. No connection
> to the mycorrhizal symbiosis had yet been suggested. The
> Tulasne brothers considered Glomus to be closely related
> to Endogone. Fries (1849) established the Endogonaceae,
> placing it in the Tuberales, but the family was transferred
> to the Mucorales by Bucholtz (1912). Dangeard (1896)
> was the first to describe an arbuscular mycorrhiza, which
> happened to have formed from poplar roots. He regarded
> this as a disease and named the fungus Rhizophagus
> populinus (Dangeard 1900), provisionally placing it within
> the Chytridiales. In 1922 Thaxter revised the Endogonaceae,
> placing the Glomus of Tulasne and Tulasne into
> Endogone. He considered Endogone to contain both zygosporic
> (notably Endogone lactiflua) and chlamydosporic
> species, observing that at least one species apparently
> produced both kinds of spores. In 1939 Butler, in
> reviewing the identity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi,
> classified them as probable imperfect members of the
> Endogonaceae. He nevertheless accepted the name Rhizophagus
> for such fungi because of the earlier naming by
> Dangeard.
>
> The extraction of spores from soil is necessary for their
> classification. Routine extraction from soil was made
> possible by wet sieving and decanting, a method commonly
> used to extract nematodes from soil and adapted to
> arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi by Gerdemann (Gerdemann
> 1955a; Gerdemann and Nicolson 1963). Mosse (1953),
> Gerdemann (1955a, 1961, 1965) and Gerdemann and
> Nicolson (1962, 1963) added more species to Peyronel's
> (1924, 1937) existing list of Endogone, whose spores
> could produce typical arbuscular mycorrhizas. Gilmore
> (1968) further added to the list by describing six spore
> types, E2–E7, found in pot cultures. All these "species"
> based on spore type seem to have little in common except
> that they produced aseptate multinuclear hyphae, extramatrical
> spores, intracellular arbuscules or hyphal coils,
> and could not be cultured. At this point it seemed time
> to attempt some classification or method of recognition
> of all arbuscular mycorrhizal spore types. Nicolson and
> Gerdemann, both plant pathologists by training, decided
> on the classical system with Latin names. Mosse (a plant
> anatomist) and Bowen (an ecologist) attempted a more
> descriptive system based mainly on spore wall structure
> and color, and cytoplasmic characteristics (Mosse and
> Bowen 1968). Nicolson and Gerdemann (1968) divided
> the fungi into two groups of Endogone, one forming extramatrical
> azygospores/zygospores arising from the tip of
> a swollen hyphal suspensor but producing no intramatrical
> vesicles, corresponding to the bulbous vacuolate and
> bulbous reticulate types of Mosse and Bowen (1968), and
> the other forming extramatrical chlamydospores and intramatrical
> vesicles corresponding to the yellow vacuolate
> and red brown laminate spores of Mosse and Bowen
> (1968). There was thus some correspondence between the
> two attempts at classification. Because spores possessed
> so few distinguishing features, which were frequently
> affected by age and environment, the naming of new
> species became quite a popular pursuit, but the E3 type of
> Gilmore, which is quite common in nature, did not and
> has not since found a home anywhere.
>
> In the early 1970s it became clear to Gerdemann and
> Trappe (Gerdemann and Trappe 1974) that Endogone,
> which now contained a wide variety of species, needed
> further revision. They split the old Endogone sensu
> lato into seven genera including Endogone, Modicella,
> Glaziella (nonmycorrhizal genera), and four mycorrhizal
> genera including Glomus (which they resurrected, and
> which had also previously been referred to as Rhizophagus),
> a previously described mycorrhizal genus, Sclerocystis,
> and two new genera Gigaspora and Acaulospora,
> which corresponded to the honey-colored sessile spores of
> Mosse and Bowen (1968). These were all placed in the
> Endogonaceae, Endogonales, Zygomycetes.
>
> Trappe and Schenck (1982) recognized another mycorrhizal
> genus, Entrophospora. In 1987, Walker also
> recognized five arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal genera,
> having dropped Sclerocystis and added Scutellospora. In
> 1990, Morton and Benny placed the five genera of Walker
> (1987) into three families (Glomaceae, Acaulosporaceae,
> Gigasporaceae) and two suborders (the Glomineae and
> the Gigasporineae), both of which were then placed in a
> new order, the Glomales. Later, Morton and Benny (2001)
> recognized two other families, the Archaeosporaceae and
> Paraglomaceae, with two new genera, Archaeospora and
> Paraglomus.
>
> In 2001 Sch_ßler et al. used molecular data to establish
> the relationships among arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and
> between arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and other fungi.
> The group of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi was elevated
> to the level of phylum (Glomeromycota), which was
> shown to be as distinct from other fungi as the Ascomycota
> are from the Basidiomycota. Little did the early researchers
> know that they were studying an entirely new
> phylum of fungi! The Zygomycota were shown to be
> polyphyletic, and Endogone did not group near the
> Glomeromycota nor did it group with the Mucorales.
> Geosyphon pyriforme was added to the Glomeromycota,
> which may have far reaching effects on our understanding
> of the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis.
>
> The effect of continual revision of the taxonomy of the
> fungi had an exasperating effect on many colleagues not
> directly concerned with the taxonomy. Schenck (1985)
> was sensitive to this issue and gave voice to the concerns
> of many at the 6th North American Conference on Mycorrhizae.
> His comments about this make amusing reading.
>
> The methods employed by taxonomists have become
> increasingly sophisticated. Initially, of course, taxonomies
> were based upon morphological and anatomical characteristics
> of the fungi. Later, methods based on serology
> (Aldwell and Hall 1987), isozyme variation revealed by
> gel electrophoresis (Hepper 1987) and fatty acid variation
> (Bentivenga and Morton 1994) were introduced. Systematists
> have come to rely increasingly on DNA-based
> methods (Cummings 1990; Davidson and Geringer 1990;
> Simon et al. 1990, 1992, 1993; Redecker 2000). While
> DNA variation may be the best measure of genealogical
> relationships among organisms, it is amazing the extent to
> which anatomical and DNA-based methods have yielded
> similar results. Routine identification of arbuscular mycorrhizal
> fungi will probably continue to be based primarily
> on structural characters and thus an increased appreciation
> of the relationship between anatomy and DNA
> will be important.
>
> The ability to properly name the fungi, avoid duplication
> of names and relate the species to one another
> depends heavily on collections such as those held by
> INVAM, the International Culture Collection of Arbuscular
> and Vesicular-arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi, and
> the BEG, International Bank for the Glomeromycota.
> Schenck created INVAM in 1985. Since 1990 the collection
> has been curated by Morton at West Virginia
> University (http://invam.caf.wvu.edu/). The BEG/IBG is
> an international collaborative effort that provides registration
> of individual isolates of fungi for research purposes
> (http://www.kent.ac.uk/bio/beg/). This will insure a
> higher degree of certainty of the identity of the fungi in
> use by researchers around the world."
>
>
>
> --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, Jeff Lowenfels <jeff_at_> wrote:
> >
> > VAM is endomycorrhizal fungi....doesn't include ectomycorrhizal fungi, =
so the answer is a half yes!
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > Sent from my ipad...Please plant a row for the hungry in your garden. A=
sk me how!
> >
> > On Apr 26, 2011, at 10:43 AM, "Stephen Steyn" <ssteyn_at_> wrote:
> >
> > > Jeff:
> > >
> > > Is that the stuff they used to call VAM?
> > >
> > > SS
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com [mailto:compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com=
] On Behalf Of Jeff Lowenfels
> > > Sent: 26 April 2011 17:01
> > > To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: [compost_tea] Re: Michael Martin Melendrez
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Evan, you mean mycorrhizal fungi...not mycorrhizae....the later is th=
e relationship tween roots and fungi....the former is the fungi! Sorry, I a=
m a stickler on this....even corrected Michael Melendrez during a lecture.=
....
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jeff l
> > >
> > > Sent from my ipad...Please plant a row for the hungry in your garden.=
 Ask me how!
> > >
> > >
> > > On Apr 26, 2011, at 8:38 AM, "evanfolds" <evan_at_> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Agreed. I can provide some insight with lawns. We have a natural lawn=
 care company called A Natural Approach and have been in business for over =
3 years. At first we used basically compost tea only, combined with bringin=
g in bulk compost and soil testing to balance mineral ratios.
> > >
> > > Based on results, over time we have moved to less compost tea up fron=
t, and more humates and myccorhizae. We have found that if the soil is not =
ready to build a soil food web that compost tea is not as effective up fron=
t. One of MMM's points. Mycco's don't need healthy soil to thrive, only the=
 plant to feed off of. Humates catalyze the creation of healthy soil and in=
crease the CEC to hold nutrients better when they are added each winter.
> > >
> > > I think this is where MMM. I would add "energetic" to the healthy soi=
l scenario Mike gave. It is often overlooked because we do not learn about =
it in school, and many times it is unmeasureable and unobservable except th=
rough results, but is vital in creating synergy amongst the physical, miner=
al, and biological components of soil.
> > >
> > > BioDynamic Ag respects this factor. Many BD farmers question the need=
 to "brew" tea in the first place. Using a vortex to potentize the solution=
, and the BD preps BD500 and BD501, one can stir for an hour and use homeop=
athic dilutions to effect large tracts of land. The BD preps are putting ou=
t the precursor pattern energies of the microbes and inviting them in to li=
ve, rather than growing and distributing.
> > >
> > > Sounds TOO simple, until you try it and experience it. ;)
> > >
> > > --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "mikethewormguy" <mikethewormguy_at_=
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > BC,
> > > >
> > > > Based upon my experience with the PROCESS called 'activated compost=
 tea' I would agree with MMM on the issue of 'garbage in / garbage out'. It=
 takes alot more that the use of one tool, like ACT, to bring about a chang=
e in soils/plants.
> > > >
> > > > I think what MMM found out, over time, is using only one PROCESS ba=
sed tool will not bring about the positive changes that he sought. He neede=
d a more combined approach.
> > > >
> > > > You need a combination of physical, biological, chemical, delivery,=
 and timing approaches to bring about effective positive change to soils/pl=
ants.
> > > >
> > > > Why limit yourself to using only a hammer....... ?
> > > >
> > > > My 2 cents......
> > > >
> > > > Mike Flynn
> > > > Green Quest LLC
> > > > BioSpecific LLC
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "barley.corn" <barley.corn_at_> wr=
ote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I have just read the comments from MMM in this months ACRES magaz=
ine about compost tea. He seems pretty damning about its effectiveness. I w=
as just wondering why he seems to have had such bad results after all the w=
ork that he did with it, and whether others are starting to share his views=
?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No virus found in this message.
> > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > > Version: 10.0.1321 / Virus Database: 1500/3597 - Release Date: 04/25/=
11
> > >
> > >
> >
>




Received on Wed Apr 27 2011 - 13:47:19 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 13:58:09 EST