|
Post by Apoplast on Feb 11, 2015 20:38:04 GMT -5
Hi all - So this summer I got into a new group of plants, epiphytic Ericaceae. Yes, there are tropical blueberry relatives that are not only ephiphytic but many of them also form a tuberous caudex too. Who wouldn't fall in love! Well, now I have a few. They are small so it will be a while before they bloom, but those are great too. This is my little collection as it looks right now: The first one to do anything worth photographing is my Cavendishia micayensis, which has flowers that look like this. Mine is still much smaller, but even the new growth looks pretty awesome. But you can decide for yourself: They are a bit fussy, and come from cloud forests. I'm hoping they do okay. I'll post photos if they eventually do bloom, though they are slow. Wish me luck! Thanks for looking.
|
|
|
Post by lloyd on Feb 11, 2015 21:27:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hal on Feb 11, 2015 22:03:25 GMT -5
Interesting plants!
The were a lot of big words in that article Lloyd, but I learned something. Is there a standard "Botany for Dummies" book or website out there? I did a correspondence course in plant biology about 25 years ago, pre-Interwebs. It was with the University of Waterloo and they sent a book, slides and audio tapes. Other than the word "oomycete", I don't remember much of it.
|
|
|
Post by lloyd on Feb 12, 2015 13:46:51 GMT -5
"We propose the term 'cavendishioid mycorrhiza'. This subcategory is most likely specific for the Andean clade of Ericaceae."
Try saying 'cavendishioid mycorrhiza' 3 times quickly.
|
|
|
Post by Apoplast on Feb 12, 2015 20:32:53 GMT -5
Hi Lloyd - Thanks for the link to the paper! I'd not seen that one. Technically not saprophytic per se, but certainly mycorrhizal. Though not typically in that subfamily, the Vaccinioideae, some Ericaceae are so dependent on mychrrhizae for their nutrition they don't really form root hairs. The group of fungi they associate with are often called Ericoid mycorrhizae. Interestingly, the tuberous sundews, many of which don't form significant root hairs, were thought for a time to form mycorrhizal mutualisms, but the best evidence now suggests they do not. Perhaps that's not a surprise, given that mycorrhizal associations allow plants to concentrate nutrients from soils, which seems an almost alternate nutrient acquisition strategy in low nutrient soils from that of carnivory. Hi Hal - Thanks, and sorry for all the technical jargon above.
|
|
|
Post by lloyd on Feb 12, 2015 22:01:59 GMT -5
Also the tuberous sundews live in environments which dry out and fungi would die or survive as spores so the mycorrhizal connections would have to regrow every year. Also not much other plant life for the fungi to get their nutrients from. Mostly the fungi get their nutrients from trees and the saprophyte gets it from the fungus.
|
|
|
Post by Apoplast on Feb 13, 2015 20:45:04 GMT -5
Hi Lloyd - Actually, there are a number of mycorrhizal Ericaceae in the epacrid group that co-occur with many of the tuberous dews, so they are there and the mutulism works in that environment. In fact Ericoid mycorrhizae are really good saprotrophs. They can break down tissues better than most types of mycorrhizal fungi. It means they can access the low amounts of nutrients locked in the peat. It's pretty cool!
A nit-picky detail point, but in mycorrhizal mutulisms, the fungi get carbohydrates from the plants (because the plants photosynthesize) and they trade that for the soil nutrients they are better at gathering than the plant would be. The networks of the fungi and the amount of carbs shunted underground in forests to feed them can be really impressive!
|
|
|
Post by lloyd on Feb 13, 2015 22:52:09 GMT -5
I didn't know the mycorrhizal Ericaceae lived in Australia too, I thought they were in South America. That's interesting that they can do well in such severe, low nutrient areas. I agree about the mycorrhizal-plant symbiosis but some saprophytes "cheat" and seem to just be parasites on the fungus (like some orchids).
|
|
|
Post by Apoplast on Feb 14, 2015 10:16:29 GMT -5
Hi Lloyd - Ah, I think I see what you are saying. So technically, the plants that are feeding off of the fungi aren't saprotrophs, because they are not the ones breaking down the dead material, the fungi are still doing that. Plants that are taking their carbohydrates from mycorrhizae are called myco-heterotrophs. And you are totally correct that there are a number of plants that do this, including orchids, notably in North America the genus Corallorhiza. This relationship has evolved multiple times in different lineages of plants, many of which are those that are highly associated with mycorrhizae (perhaps no surprise there). In fact, Ericaceae has an entire subfamily, Monotropoideae, that are myco-heterotrophs. The whole group lacks chlorophyll and was previously thought to be parasitic on plants; though they may technically be, just with a fungal intermediary, the data are not yet conclusive on that one. There is a horticultural challenge for you. Grow any member of the monotropes. You will certainly need to cultivate the fungus first, and depending on whether the fungus is surviving off leaf litter, or off carbon from a mycorrhizal relationship with another plant, you might have to grow that other plant too. I am not sure if anyone will be able to successfully grow those plants. As a quick aside, my spell checker program hated this post!
|
|
|
Post by lloyd on Feb 14, 2015 22:44:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Apoplast on Feb 15, 2015 19:59:09 GMT -5
You know, Lloyd, if anyone could do it - I'd bank on it being you!
|
|
|
Post by lloyd on Feb 15, 2015 20:03:29 GMT -5
If I had a lot of money, I would raze all the houses around me, make a nice greenhouse, and a nice forested area with all sorts of weird and wonderful saprophytes, parasites, CP's and green things in general. Only other plant people would be allowed in, maybe members of WWF and Greenpeace, too.
|
|
|
Post by Apoplast on Feb 17, 2015 20:51:46 GMT -5
Hi Lloyd - Have you informed the neighbors of your intentions? It seems sporting to give them some warning.
|
|
|
Post by lloyd on Feb 18, 2015 4:55:42 GMT -5
I don't have enough money.
|
|
|
Post by Apoplast on Mar 8, 2015 14:18:48 GMT -5
Hi all - I thought I'd post an update on my little collection of epiphytic Ericaceae (an update on my tuberous dews will hopefully be coming in a few days). To start with, the new pink growth on the Cavendishia micayensis turned out to, in fact, be an inflorescence. I took a few sots so you could see the flowers. On this one you can see that the two growths are expanding and opening: Here is a shot of the lower one, where you can see the individual, green-tipped flowers emerging: And a similar shot of the upper one, where you can see that the flowers themselves are really mostly white in this species, and the hummingbird attracting reds are only provided by the extensive system of bracts: I hope you like the shots of the flower buds, because they are no more. The plant has 4 leaves, so I didn't want it to bloom itself to death, and I chopped off the inflorescences after I took the pictures. I didn't take a shot of them sitting on the compost pile, it was too sad. The other update with these plants is that I have had to move them out of under the fluorescent lights. They have been growing so quickly that they grew into the lights. So today, I rearranged the rack shelf heights to install my first LED grow light. The room so so much cooler, it's amazing! Here is a shot of the light hanging above the plants; still not a lot of room to grow, but I'll deal with that when the time comes: And here is a shot of the plants under the light: They aren't attractive under them, and now I have a horrible pink room. LED lights make you think about why you grow plants: is it for display or to have the species? I've never been into plant shows, never really understood the point. I don't mean to disparage the people who grow plants for shows. It's an impressive undertaking, and quite the display of dedication. I only bring this up because for me the answer was pretty clear. I find the pants I grow to be interesting for what they are, not just how they look. So, if I have to have a room that looks like it's a 1980's art deco rehash nightmare, and turn on a white like to see my plants, then so be it. Now, I just hope the light works. Thanks for looking!
|
|