Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: saprobic mycorhiza

Expand Messages
  • debbieviess
    Nice link, Norm. Buried within the text are remarks that say that a good bit of what we believe to be true about fungal nutritional strategies was based on
    Message 1 of 16 , May 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Nice link, Norm.

      Buried within the text are remarks that say that a good bit of what we believe to be true about fungal nutritional strategies was based on agricultural studies (follow the money), and apparently created a bias in our research. Plus, we do so love our neat little categories...life in all of its glorious complexity is never quite so tidy.

      Here's the salient quote:

      "Unfortunately, and probably under the influence of the
      extensive agricultural literature, research carried out through
      much of the last century emphasised the roles of mycorrhizas
      in the capture of mineral nutrient ions (see Harley & Smith,
      1983). The possibility that fungal symbionts might be themselves
      involved in direct attack upon nutrient containing
      organic polymers, with the exception of the visionary speculation
      of Frank who proposed the `Organic Nitrogen Theory'
      in 1894 (Frank, 1894), was largely ignored until the mid-
      1980s. As a result a view has emerged which sees two entirely
      separate functional groups of fungi in soil, one, the decomposers,
      being alone involved in destruction of organic
      substrates and release of any nutrients contained in them and
      the other, the fungal mutualists, which absorb mineral ions
      released by the decomposition processes.
      Research over the last two decades has begun to throw considerable
      doubt both on the validity of any such functional
      separation between decomposers and mutualists, and upon
      the view that mycorrhizal fungi have access only to mineral
      nutrient ions."

      The paper also emphasizes that there is a gradient of MR ability to break down organic sources of P and N, with the greatest saprobic abilities of MR seen in highly acidic soils and their complement of ericaceous plants, such as those found in heath habitats, and less so in our more temperate forests, which already have an abundance of inorganic N and P sources.

      Amanitarita

      --- In MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com, "norman" <n.andresen@...> wrote:
      >
      > an interesting article concerning that thin and hazy line between , is it Saprotrophic nutrition or mycorhizal life style
      >
      > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00704.x/pdf
      >
    • Dimitar Bojantchev
      Yes, thanks to Norm for tickling our brain cells with this article, an exercise that we need from time to time - the article is very technical and not easy to
      Message 2 of 16 , May 1, 2011
      • 1 Attachment
      • 115 KB

      Yes, thanks to Norm for tickling our brain cells with this article, an exercise that we need from time to time – the article is very technical and not easy to digest without some preparation. The fundamental entry knowledge that has to have when reviewing such articles mycorrhizal is to have a cursory understanding of what substances really support life and take part of the metabolic exchange.

      The article co-author D.J. Read is co-author of one of the fundamental volumes that you’ll see on the sleves of the students in this discipline (I saw 2-3 copies in Bruns’ Lab) – Mycorrhizal Symbiosis Smith & Read

      http://www.amazon.com/Mycorrhizal-Symbiosis-Third-Sally-Smith/dp/0123705266

      where they in great depth on all of the various mycorrhiza types, methods of colonization, substance exchanges, etc.

      The key part in the introduction states that there is spectrum of possibilities between mutualism and parasitism (attached snippet, highlighting mine).

                  D.


      Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 9:27 AM
      Subject: [MT] Re: saprobic mycorhiza

       

      Nice link, Norm.

      Buried within the text are remarks that say that a good bit of what we believe to be true about fungal nutritional strategies was based on agricultural studies (follow the money), and apparently created a bias in our research. Plus, we do so love our neat little categories...life in all of its glorious complexity is never quite so tidy.

      Here's the salient quote:

      "Unfortunately, and probably under the influence of the
      extensive agricultural literature, research carried out through
      much of the last century emphasised the roles of mycorrhizas
      in the capture of mineral nutrient ions (see Harley & Smith,
      1983). The possibility that fungal symbionts might be themselves
      involved in direct attack upon nutrient containing
      organic polymers, with the exception of the visionary speculation
      of Frank who proposed the `Organic Nitrogen Theory'
      in 1894 (Frank, 1894), was largely ignored until the mid-
      1980s. As a result a view has emerged which sees two entirely
      separate functional groups of fungi in soil, one, the decomposers,
      being alone involved in destruction of organic
      substrates and release of any nutrients contained in them and
      the other, the fungal mutualists, which absorb mineral ions
      released by the decomposition processes.
      Research over the last two decades has begun to throw considerable
      doubt both on the validity of any such functional
      separation between decomposers and mutualists, and upon
      the view that mycorrhizal fungi have access only to mineral
      nutrient ions."

      The paper also emphasizes that there is a gradient of MR ability to break down organic sources of P and N, with the greatest saprobic abilities of MR seen in highly acidic soils and their complement of ericaceous plants, such as those found in heath habitats, and less so in our more temperate forests, which already have an abundance of inorganic N and P sources.

      Amanitarita

      --- In MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com, "norman" <n.andresen@...> wrote:

      >
      > an interesting article
      concerning that thin and hazy line between , is it Saprotrophic nutrition or mycorhizal life style
      >
      >
      href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00704.x/pdf">http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00704.x/pdf
      >

    • debbieviess
      And it all boils down to the fact that successful organisms have flexible survival strategies. No technical expertise of any kind is needed to understand that
      Message 3 of 16 , May 1, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        And it all boils down to the fact that successful organisms have flexible survival strategies. No technical expertise of any kind is needed to understand that simple concept, nor fancy University degrees nor expensive textbooks.

        Debbie

        --- In MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Dimitar Bojantchev" <dimitar@...> wrote:
        >
        > Yes, thanks to Norm for tickling our brain cells with this article, an exercise that we need from time to time - the article is very technical and not easy to digest without some preparation. The fundamental entry knowledge that has to have when reviewing such articles mycorrhizal is to have a cursory understanding of what substances really support life and take part of the metabolic exchange.
        >
        > The article co-author D.J. Read is co-author of one of the fundamental volumes that you'll see on the sleves of the students in this discipline (I saw 2-3 copies in Bruns' Lab) - Mycorrhizal Symbiosis Smith & Read
        >
        > http://www.amazon.com/Mycorrhizal-Symbiosis-Third-Sally-Smith/dp/0123705266
        >
        > where they in great depth on all of the various mycorrhiza types, methods of colonization, substance exchanges, etc.
        >
        > The key part in the introduction states that there is spectrum of possibilities between mutualism and parasitism (attached snippet, highlighting mine).
        >
        > D.
        >
        >
        >
        > From: debbieviess
        > Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 9:27 AM
        > To: MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [MT] Re: saprobic mycorhiza
        >
        >
        >
        > Nice link, Norm.
        >
        > Buried within the text are remarks that say that a good bit of what we believe to be true about fungal nutritional strategies was based on agricultural studies (follow the money), and apparently created a bias in our research. Plus, we do so love our neat little categories...life in all of its glorious complexity is never quite so tidy.
        >
        > Here's the salient quote:
        >
        > "Unfortunately, and probably under the influence of the
        > extensive agricultural literature, research carried out through
        > much of the last century emphasised the roles of mycorrhizas
        > in the capture of mineral nutrient ions (see Harley & Smith,
        > 1983). The possibility that fungal symbionts might be themselves
        > involved in direct attack upon nutrient containing
        > organic polymers, with the exception of the visionary speculation
        > of Frank who proposed the `Organic Nitrogen Theory'
        > in 1894 (Frank, 1894), was largely ignored until the mid-
        > 1980s. As a result a view has emerged which sees two entirely
        > separate functional groups of fungi in soil, one, the decomposers,
        > being alone involved in destruction of organic
        > substrates and release of any nutrients contained in them and
        > the other, the fungal mutualists, which absorb mineral ions
        > released by the decomposition processes.
        > Research over the last two decades has begun to throw considerable
        > doubt both on the validity of any such functional
        > separation between decomposers and mutualists, and upon
        > the view that mycorrhizal fungi have access only to mineral
        > nutrient ions."
        >
        > The paper also emphasizes that there is a gradient of MR ability to break down organic sources of P and N, with the greatest saprobic abilities of MR seen in highly acidic soils and their complement of ericaceous plants, such as those found in heath habitats, and less so in our more temperate forests, which already have an abundance of inorganic N and P sources.
        >
        > Amanitarita
        >
        > --- In MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com, "norman" <n.andresen@> wrote:
        > >
        > > an interesting article concerning that thin and hazy line between , is it Saprotrophic nutrition or mycorhizal life style
        > >
        > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00704.x/pdf
        > >
        >
      • Boletebill
        That was an interesting article about a fascinating subject:  I have just a slight disagreement, mostly semantical, about the phrase Debbie use flexible
        Message 4 of 16 , May 2, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          That was an interesting article about a fascinating subject:  I have just a slight disagreement, mostly semantical, about the phrase Debbie use "flexible survival strategies". Organisms don't have strategies, survival or otherwise. They do have genetic variation and mutations that HAPPEN to result in changes that HAPPEN to result in better survival in the face of changing conditions. It may be that organisms that have lots of variation may AT SOME TIMES have a better chance of survival than comparable organisms without as much variation but there's no strategy involved. There may well be times in earth history when lots of variation is NOT a competitive advantage. Strategy implies forethought or planning and although I know what Debbie means by the phrase "flexible survival strategy" I can assure you that High School students and young naturalist DO NOT know what that means, they literally think organisms strategize survival. The language that we're almost forced to use when talking about evolution propels us to use these shorthand phrases that end up causing confusion among those that don't already have a background in Biology. This is especially true with plants and plant science since it seems that plants have "multiple strategies" for successful reproduction depending on environmental conditions, i.e. sexual, vegetative, dormancy and the fact is that they do have the potential for these alternate responses to conditions that allow for increased "fitness" when things, (like the climate) are changing. So in the end it seems like success was the result of mutiple "strategies" but really it was just the potential, in the genome, to respond to environmental cues, both short-term and long-term, in different ways.
             This is a minor, picky-picky point and as I said semantical, but it's one I come up against time after time with students who wonder what mushrooms will "do" to survive if things change. What will ectomycorrhizal mushrooms DO if they lose their host trees? They won't DO anything but they may survive.
           
          Bill Yule
          CT
           
          "For those who hunger after the earthly excrescences called mushrooms."

          --- On Sun, 5/1/11, debbieviess <amanitarita@...> wrote:

          From: debbieviess <amanitarita@...>
          Subject: [MT] Re: saprobic mycorhiza
          To: MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Sunday, May 1, 2011, 1:40 PM

           
          And it all boils down to the fact that successful organisms have flexible survival strategies. No technical expertise of any kind is needed to understand that simple concept, nor fancy University degrees nor expensive textbooks.

          Debbie

          --- In MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Dimitar Bojantchev" <dimitar@...> wrote:
          >
          > Yes, thanks to Norm for tickling our brain cells with this article, an exercise that we need from time to time - the article is very technical and not easy to digest without some preparation. The fundamental entry knowledge that has to have when reviewing such articles mycorrhizal is to have a cursory understanding of what substances really support life and take part of the metabolic exchange.
          >
          > The article co-author D.J. Read is co-author of one of the fundamental volumes that you'll see on the sleves of the students in this discipline (I saw 2-3 copies in Bruns' Lab) - Mycorrhizal Symbiosis Smith & Read
          >
          > http://www.amazon.com/Mycorrhizal-Symbiosis-Third-Sally-Smith/dp/0123705266
          >
          > where they in great depth on all of the various mycorrhiza types, methods of colonization, substance exchanges, etc.
          >
          > The key part in the introduction states that there is spectrum of possibilities between mutualism and parasitism (attached snippet, highlighting mine).
          >
          > D.
          >
          >
          >
          > From: debbieviess
          > Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 9:27 AM
          > To: MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [MT] Re: saprobic mycorhiza
          >
          >
          >
          > Nice link, Norm.
          >
          > Buried within the text are remarks that say that a good bit of what we believe to be true about fungal nutritional strategies was based on agricultural studies (follow the money), and apparently created a bias in our research. Plus, we do so love our neat little categories...life in all of its glorious complexity is never quite so tidy.
          >
          > Here's the salient quote:
          >
          > "Unfortunately, and probably under the influence of the
          > extensive agricultural literature, research carried out through
          > much of the last century emphasised the roles of mycorrhizas
          > in the capture of mineral nutrient ions (see Harley & Smith,
          > 1983). The possibility that fungal symbionts might be themselves
          > involved in direct attack upon nutrient containing
          > organic polymers, with the exception of the visionary speculation
          > of Frank who proposed the `Organic Nitrogen Theory'
          > in 1894 (Frank, 1894), was largely ignored until the mid-
          > 1980s. As a result a view has emerged which sees two entirely
          > separate functional groups of fungi in soil, one, the decomposers,
          > being alone involved in destruction of organic
          > substrates and release of any nutrients contained in them and
          > the other, the fungal mutualists, which absorb mineral ions
          > released by the decomposition processes.
          > Research over the last two decades has begun to throw considerable
          > doubt both on the validity of any such functional
          > separation between decomposers and mutualists, and upon
          > the view that mycorrhizal fungi have access only to mineral
          > nutrient ions."
          >
          > The paper also emphasizes that there is a gradient of MR ability to break down organic sources of P and N, with the greatest saprobic abilities of MR seen in highly acidic soils and their complement of ericaceous plants, such as those found in heath habitats, and less so in our more temperate forests, which already have an abundance of inorganic N and P sources.
          >
          > Amanitarita
          >
          > --- In MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com, "norman" <n.andresen@> wrote:
          > >
          > > an interesting article concerning that thin and hazy line between , is it Saprotrophic nutrition or mycorhizal life style
          > >
          > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00704.x/pdf
          > >
          >

        • debbieviess
          You cut to the chase there Bill, since I was indeed speaking from the overall viewpoint of a zoologist and behaviorist...and my bias tends to bring that
          Message 5 of 16 , May 3, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            You cut to the chase there Bill, since I was indeed speaking from the overall viewpoint of a zoologist and behaviorist...and my bias tends to bring that language to my new-found fungal friends.

            Now whether fungi have sentience or volition is a whole nuther topic for research...remember the book, "The Secret Life of Plants?"
            Over the decades I have also watched the viewpoint of the animal behaviorists' world change from believing animals to be little more than mere automatons to acknowledging that they are sentient beings in their own right. I never had any doubts, myself.

            Our ignorance is vast. But plants, animals and even fungi that have the ability to switch their hosts, diets, habitats, times of fruiting, flowering/breeding etc., innate flexible behaviors if you will, are the ones that will survive a rapidly changing world.

            Debbie

            --- In MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com, Boletebill <boletebill@...> wrote:
            >
            > That was an interesting article about a fascinating subject:  I have just a slight disagreement, mostly semantical, about the phrase Debbie use "flexible survival strategies". Organisms don't have strategies, survival or otherwise. They do have genetic variation and mutations that HAPPEN to result in changes that HAPPEN to result in better survival in the face of changing conditions. It may be that organisms that have lots of variation may AT SOME TIMES have a better chance of survival than comparable organisms without as much variation but there's no strategy involved. There may well be times in earth history when lots of variation is NOT a competitive advantage. Strategy implies forethought or planning and although I know what Debbie means by the phrase "flexible survival strategy" I can assure you that High School students and young naturalist DO NOT know what that means, they literally think organisms strategize survival. The language that we're
            > almost forced to use when talking about evolution propels us to use these shorthand phrases that end up causing confusion among those that don't already have a background in Biology. This is especially true with plants and plant science since it seems that plants have "multiple strategies" for successful reproduction depending on environmental conditions, i.e. sexual, vegetative, dormancy and the fact is that they do have the potential for these alternate responses to conditions that allow for increased "fitness" when things, (like the climate) are changing. So in the end it seems like success was the result of mutiple "strategies" but really it was just the potential, in the genome, to respond to environmental cues, both short-term and long-term, in different ways.
            >    This is a minor, picky-picky point and as I said semantical, but it's one I come up against time after time with students who wonder what mushrooms will "do" to survive if things change. What will ectomycorrhizal mushrooms DO if they lose their host trees? They won't DO anything but they may survive.
            >  
            > Bill Yule
            > CT
            >  
            > "For those who hunger after the earthly excrescences called mushrooms."
            >
            > --- On Sun, 5/1/11, debbieviess <amanitarita@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > From: debbieviess <amanitarita@...>
            > Subject: [MT] Re: saprobic mycorhiza
            > To: MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com
            > Date: Sunday, May 1, 2011, 1:40 PM
            >
            >
            >  
            >
            >
            >
            > And it all boils down to the fact that successful organisms have flexible survival strategies. No technical expertise of any kind is needed to understand that simple concept, nor fancy University degrees nor expensive textbooks.
            >
            > Debbie
            >
            > --- In MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Dimitar Bojantchev" <dimitar@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Yes, thanks to Norm for tickling our brain cells with this article, an exercise that we need from time to time - the article is very technical and not easy to digest without some preparation. The fundamental entry knowledge that has to have when reviewing such articles mycorrhizal is to have a cursory understanding of what substances really support life and take part of the metabolic exchange.
            > >
            > > The article co-author D.J. Read is co-author of one of the fundamental volumes that you'll see on the sleves of the students in this discipline (I saw 2-3 copies in Bruns' Lab) - Mycorrhizal Symbiosis Smith & Read
            > >
            > > http://www.amazon.com/Mycorrhizal-Symbiosis-Third-Sally-Smith/dp/0123705266
            > >
            > > where they in great depth on all of the various mycorrhiza types, methods of colonization, substance exchanges, etc.
            > >
            > > The key part in the introduction states that there is spectrum of possibilities between mutualism and parasitism (attached snippet, highlighting mine).
            > >
            > > D.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > From: debbieviess
            > > Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 9:27 AM
            > > To: MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com
            > > Subject: [MT] Re: saprobic mycorhiza
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Nice link, Norm.
            > >
            > > Buried within the text are remarks that say that a good bit of what we believe to be true about fungal nutritional strategies was based on agricultural studies (follow the money), and apparently created a bias in our research. Plus, we do so love our neat little categories...life in all of its glorious complexity is never quite so tidy.
            > >
            > > Here's the salient quote:
            > >
            > > "Unfortunately, and probably under the influence of the
            > > extensive agricultural literature, research carried out through
            > > much of the last century emphasised the roles of mycorrhizas
            > > in the capture of mineral nutrient ions (see Harley & Smith,
            > > 1983). The possibility that fungal symbionts might be themselves
            > > involved in direct attack upon nutrient containing
            > > organic polymers, with the exception of the visionary speculation
            > > of Frank who proposed the `Organic Nitrogen Theory'
            > > in 1894 (Frank, 1894), was largely ignored until the mid-
            > > 1980s. As a result a view has emerged which sees two entirely
            > > separate functional groups of fungi in soil, one, the decomposers,
            > > being alone involved in destruction of organic
            > > substrates and release of any nutrients contained in them and
            > > the other, the fungal mutualists, which absorb mineral ions
            > > released by the decomposition processes.
            > > Research over the last two decades has begun to throw considerable
            > > doubt both on the validity of any such functional
            > > separation between decomposers and mutualists, and upon
            > > the view that mycorrhizal fungi have access only to mineral
            > > nutrient ions."
            > >
            > > The paper also emphasizes that there is a gradient of MR ability to break down organic sources of P and N, with the greatest saprobic abilities of MR seen in highly acidic soils and their complement of ericaceous plants, such as those found in heath habitats, and less so in our more temperate forests, which already have an abundance of inorganic N and P sources.
            > >
            > > Amanitarita
            > >
            > > --- In MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com, "norman" <n.andresen@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > an interesting article concerning that thin and hazy line between , is it Saprotrophic nutrition or mycorhizal life style
            > > >
            > > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00704.x/pdf
            > > >
            > >
            >
          • Dimitar Bojantchev
            I think it is fair to say that with the higher and rapidly evolving organisms, behavior patterns and evolution cannot be viewed only through the scope of a
            Message 6 of 16 , May 3, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
               

              I think it is fair to say that with the higher and rapidly evolving organisms, behavior patterns and evolution cannot be viewed only through the scope of a bunch of random genetic mutations, some of which produce favorable outcomes. For the lower organisms, there is a debate still, but I do think that random mutations do play much more significant role. With the mushrooms that probably is the case too. In that context there is one more interesting book to plough through – not an easy one to digest in all chapters, but still fun -- "Molecular Markers, Natural History, and Evolution" by John C. Avise et al.

              http://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Markers-Natural-History-Evolution/dp/0878930418#_

                      D.

              Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 9:39 AM
              Subject: [MT] Re: saprobic mycorhiza

               

              You cut to the chase there Bill, since I was indeed speaking from the overall viewpoint of a zoologist and behaviorist...and my bias tends to bring that language to my new-found fungal friends.

              Now whether fungi have sentience or volition is a whole nuther topic for research...remember the book, "The Secret Life of Plants?"
              Over the decades I have also watched the viewpoint of the animal behaviorists' world change from believing animals to be little more than mere automatons to acknowledging that they are sentient beings in their own right. I never had any doubts, myself.

              Our ignorance is vast. But plants, animals and even fungi that have the ability to switch their hosts, diets, habitats, times of fruiting, flowering/breeding etc., innate flexible behaviors if you will, are the ones that will survive a rapidly changing world.

              Debbie

              --- In MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com, Boletebill <boletebill@...> wrote:

              >
              > That was an interesting
              article about a fascinating subject:  I have just a slight disagreement, mostly semantical, about the phrase Debbie use "flexible survival strategies". Organisms don't have strategies, survival or otherwise. They do have genetic variation and mutations that HAPPEN to result in changes that HAPPEN to result in better survival in the face of changing conditions. It may be that organisms that have lots of variation may AT SOME TIMES have a better chance of survival than comparable organisms without as much variation but there's no strategy involved. There may well be times in earth history when lots of variation is NOT a competitive advantage. Strategy implies forethought or planning and although I know what Debbie means by the phrase "flexible survival strategy" I can assure you that High School students and young naturalist DO NOT know what that means, they literally think organisms strategize survival. The language that we're
              > almost forced to use when talking about evolution propels us to
              use these shorthand phrases that end up causing confusion among those that don't already have a background in Biology. This is especially true with plants and plant science since it seems that plants have "multiple strategies" for successful reproduction depending on environmental conditions, i.e. sexual, vegetative, dormancy and the fact is that they do have the potential for these alternate responses to conditions that allow for increased "fitness" when things, (like the climate) are changing. So in the end it seems like success was the result of mutiple "strategies" but really it was just the potential, in the genome, to respond to environmental cues, both short-term and long-term, in different ways.
              >    This is a minor, picky-picky point and as
              I said semantical, but it's one I come up against time after time with students who wonder what mushrooms will "do" to survive if things change. What will ectomycorrhizal mushrooms DO if they lose their host trees? They won't DO anything but they may survive.
              >  
              > Bill Yule
              >
              CT
              >  
              > "For those who hunger after the earthly excrescences
              called mushrooms."
              >
              > --- On Sun, 5/1/11, debbieviess
              <amanitarita@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > From: debbieviess
              <amanitarita@...>
              > Subject: [MT] Re: saprobic mycorhiza
              > To:
              MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com
              >
              Date: Sunday, May 1, 2011, 1:40 PM
              >
              >
              >  
              >
              >
              >
              > And it all boils down to the fact that successful
              organisms have flexible survival strategies. No technical expertise of any kind is needed to understand that simple concept, nor fancy University degrees nor expensive textbooks.
              >
              > Debbie
              >
              > --- In
              href="mailto:MushroomTalk%40yahoogroups.com">MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Dimitar Bojantchev" <dimitar@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Yes,
              thanks to Norm for tickling our brain cells with this article, an exercise that we need from time to time - the article is very technical and not easy to digest without some preparation. The fundamental entry knowledge that has to have when reviewing such articles mycorrhizal is to have a cursory understanding of what substances really support life and take part of the metabolic exchange.
              > >
              > > The article co-author D.J. Read is co-author of one of the
              fundamental volumes that you'll see on the sleves of the students in this discipline (I saw 2-3 copies in Bruns' Lab) - Mycorrhizal Symbiosis Smith & Read
              > >
              > >
              href="http://www.amazon.com/Mycorrhizal-Symbiosis-Third-Sally-Smith/dp/0123705266">http://www.amazon.com/Mycorrhizal-Symbiosis-Third-Sally-Smith/dp/0123705266
              > >
              > > where they in great depth on all of the various mycorrhiza
              types, methods of colonization, substance exchanges, etc.
              > >
              > > The key part in the introduction states that there is spectrum of
              possibilities between mutualism and parasitism (attached snippet, highlighting mine).
              > >
              > > D.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > From: debbieviess
              > > Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 9:27
              AM
              > > To:
              href="mailto:MushroomTalk%40yahoogroups.com">MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com
              > > Subject: [MT] Re: saprobic mycorhiza
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Nice link, Norm.
              > >
              > > Buried
              within the text are remarks that say that a good bit of what we believe to be true about fungal nutritional strategies was based on agricultural studies (follow the money), and apparently created a bias in our research. Plus, we do so love our neat little categories...life in all of its glorious complexity is never quite so tidy.
              > >
              > > Here's the salient
              quote:
              > >
              > > "Unfortunately, and probably under the
              influence of the
              > > extensive agricultural literature, research
              carried out through
              > > much of the last century emphasised the roles
              of mycorrhizas
              > > in the capture of mineral nutrient ions (see Harley
              & Smith,
              > > 1983). The possibility that fungal symbionts might be
              themselves
              > > involved in direct attack upon nutrient
              containing
              > > organic polymers, with the exception of the visionary
              speculation
              > > of Frank who proposed the `Organic Nitrogen
              Theory'
              > > in 1894 (Frank, 1894), was largely ignored until the
              mid-
              > > 1980s. As a result a view has emerged which sees two
              entirely
              > > separate functional groups of fungi in soil, one, the
              decomposers,
              > > being alone involved in destruction of organic
              > > substrates and release of any nutrients contained in them and
              > >
              the other, the fungal mutualists, which absorb mineral ions
              > >
              released by the decomposition processes.
              > > Research over the last two
              decades has begun to throw considerable
              > > doubt both on the validity
              of any such functional
              > > separation between decomposers and
              mutualists, and upon
              > > the view that mycorrhizal fungi have access
              only to mineral
              > > nutrient ions."
              > >
              > > The
              paper also emphasizes that there is a gradient of MR ability to break down organic sources of P and N, with the greatest saprobic abilities of MR seen in highly acidic soils and their complement of ericaceous plants, such as those found in heath habitats, and less so in our more temperate forests, which already have an abundance of inorganic N and P sources.
              > >
              > > Amanitarita
              > >
              > > --- In
              href="mailto:MushroomTalk%40yahoogroups.com">MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com, "norman" <n.andresen@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > an
              interesting article concerning that thin and hazy line between , is it Saprotrophic nutrition or mycorhizal life style
              > > >
              > > >
              href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00704.x/pdf">http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00704.x/pdf
              > > >
              > >
              >

            • debbieviess
              Gotta personal lending library, Dimi? I d be glad to borrow, but not buy, this book. Be assured that I always return my borrowed books, altho the converse is
              Message 7 of 16 , May 3, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Gotta personal lending library, Dimi? I'd be glad to borrow, but not buy, this book. Be assured that I always return my borrowed books, altho the converse is not true for our personal lending library, alas! And worse yet, we never remember to write down who borrows what, foolishly trusting souls that we are.

                In fact, if my old friends from the MSSF are reading this, I'd sure like to get back my copy of Sonny Barger's book, "Hell's Angel, the Autobiography"; one of you fellas has it. It's a great read, and where we found one of our fun and fitting BAMS mottos (thanks to our truly Bad Boy Oakland neighbors): "We don't recruit, we recognize!" ;)

                Feel free to just drop it on my porch, or better yet, ring the bell. 'Bout time to bury the old hatchet, eh? Heck, even Sonny, murderous old biker that he was, evolved beyond hate...

                Peace and shrooms.

                Debbie

                --- In MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Dimitar Bojantchev" <dimitar@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > I think it is fair to say that with the higher and rapidly evolving organisms, behavior patterns and evolution cannot be viewed only through the scope of a bunch of random genetic mutations, some of which produce favorable outcomes. For the lower organisms, there is a debate still, but I do think that random mutations do play much more significant role. With the mushrooms that probably is the case too. In that context there is one more interesting book to plough through - not an easy one to digest in all chapters, but still fun -- "Molecular Markers, Natural History, and Evolution" by John C. Avise et al.
                >
                > http://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Markers-Natural-History-Evolution/dp/0878930418#_
                >
                > D.
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.