Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br />l! <br />1 <br /> <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br /> <br />Microbial Status Study -Final Report <br />For whatever reason these plants ended up in a nonmycorrhizal state. They have subsequently <br />become mycorrhizal over the period of one to two yeazs by inoculum migrating back on the <br />Seneca II site from surrounding sources. I must caution however that the colonization numbers <br />found are based on three samples. I feel that a good recommendation shouldn't be based on <br />anything less than l0 samples (in the case of greenhouse studies) and in the case of surveys in <br />the field probably 15 to 20 samples should be taken. This requires the destructive sampling of at <br />least 60 plants per site (20 Serviceberry, 20 Chokecherry, and 20 Gambels Oaks). <br />The possibility that plants used at Seneca II were improperly inoculated at BNG will be <br />addressed. I have been culturing and reseazching mycorrhizal fungi for 16 years and specialized <br />in the interaction between these fungi and plants through an academic career that includes a <br />masters and a doctorate. I cannot say for certainty if these plants left our facilities as <br />nonmycorrhizal or if edaphic conditions at Seneca II are such that transplants from 1995 went <br />into a more hostile soil. <br />LITERATURE CITED <br />Allen, M. F. 1991. The Ecology of Mycorrhizae. Cambridge Studies [n Ecology. Cambridge <br />University Press. Cambridge. pp. 66-68. <br />4 <br /> <br />