Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5f56664f6-w4vgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-08T06:52:33.145Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Out of sight, underground: forest health, edaphic factors, and mycorrhizae

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
R.D. Briggs  and
T.R. Horton
Edited by
John D. Castello  and
Stephen A. Teale
R.D. Briggs
Affiliation:
State University of New York
T.R. Horton
Affiliation:
State University of New York
John D. Castello
Affiliation:
State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry
Stephen A. Teale
Affiliation:
State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The introductory chapter recognizes that tree mortality is both inevitable and desirable in a functioning forest. Imagining the development of a forest in the absence of mortality leads to the implausible scenario in which thousands of stems initially present attain increasingly larger diameters and grow outward to the point where they physically begin to interfere with their neighbors. The finite resources (sunlight, air, water, nutrients) available to individual trees would be insufficient to support continued growth and development. Severe competition between stems would constrain growth because all of the carbon fixed would be allocated for maintenance respiration, “freezing” the stand at this maximum attainable stem size in perpetuity – the ultimate stagnation. In reality, competition among individual trees leads to decline and ultimate death of those unable to compete. Site resources are focused on a smaller number of more vigorous competitors, and the implausible scenario is averted.

As the less competitive stems succumb to mortality and the stand thins out, the slope of the relationship (described in Chapters 1–3) between number of stems plotted against diameter (logarithmic scale) approaches −3/2. The multiple factors that contribute to mortality do not dissipate; a tenuous balance between site resources and the number of competing stems manifests itself through a sustainable diameter distribution. Catastrophic disturbances such as fire, windstorms, and attack by pests and pathogens may periodically upset the balance. As those disturbances subside and time passes, the balance tends to be re-established.

Type
Chapter
Information
Forest Health
An Integrated Perspective
 , pp. 163 - 194
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Amacher, M. C., O'Neil, K. P., and Perry, C. H. 2007. Soil vital signs: A new soil quality index (SQI) for assessing forest soil health. Research Paper RMRS-RP-65WWW. Fort Collins, CO, USDA Forestry Service Rocky Mountains Research Station.Google Scholar
Arnolds, E. 1991. Decline of ectomycorrhizal fungi in Europe. Agriculture Ecosystem & Environment 35: 209–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avis, P. G., McLaughlin, D. J., Dentinger, B. C., and Reich, P. B. 2003. Long-term increase in nitrogen supply alters above- and below-ground ectomycorrhizal communities and increases the dominance of Russula spp. in a temperate oak savanna. New Phytologist 160: 239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum, J. D., Klaue, A., Nezat, C. A., et al. 2002. Mycorrhizal weathering of apatite as an important calcium source in base-poor forest ecosystems. Nature 417: 729–731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Briggs, R. D. 1994. Site classification field guide. CFRU Tech. Note 6, Maine Ag. and For. Exp. Stn. Misc. Pub. 724. University of Maine, Orono.Google Scholar
Brundrett, M., Bougher, N., Dell, B., et al. 1996. Working with Mycorrhizas in Forestry and Agriculture. ACIAR Monograph, Canberra.Google Scholar
Burger, J. A., 1994. Cumulative effects of silvicultural technology on sustained forest productivity. In: Assessing the Effects of Silvicultural Practices on Sustained Productivity. Proceedings of the IEA/BE Workshop'93, May 16–22, Fredericton, NB, Canada. IEA/BA Task IX, Activity 4, Report 3, Info. Rep. M-X-191. Mahendrappa, M. K., Simpson, C. M., and Smith, C. T. (Compilers). Canadian Forest Service – Maritimes Region, Natural Resources Canada, Fredericton, NB.Google Scholar
Duchesne, L., Ouimet, R., Moore, J. D., and Paquin, R. 2005. Changes in structure and composition of maple-beech stands following sugar maple decline in Quebec, Canada. Forest Ecology & Management 208: 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulmer, K, 2006. Mycorrhizal Associations of American Chestnut Seedlings: a Lab and Field Bioassay, Environmental and Forest Biology. W. S. thesis SUNY-ESF, Syracuse, New York.Google Scholar
Duncan, M. J., Baker, T. G., Appleton, R., and Stokes, R. C. 2000. Growth of Eucalypt plantation species across twelve sites in Gippsland, Victoria. CFTT Report No.:99/056, Department of Natural Resources and Environment.
,Environment Canada. 2008. Models The Second Generation Coupled Global Climate Model (CGCM2)http://www.cccma.bc.ec.gc.ca/models/cgcm2.shtml [Accessed November 2010].
Ferwerda, J. A. and Young, H. E. 1981. The relationship between spruce and fir biomass production and four soil series of a major soil catena in Maine. In: Proceedings of the 1981 IUFRO World Congress Kyoto, Japan, 6–17 September.
Fisher, R. F. and Binkley, D. 2000. Ecology and Management of Forest Soils. 3rd edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York.Google Scholar
Flato, G. M., Boer, G. J., Lee, W. G., et al. 2000: The Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis Global coupled model and its climate. Climate Dynamics 16: 451–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Florence, R. G. 1996. Ecology and Silviculture of Eucalypt Forests. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, VIC.Google Scholar
Grove, T. S. and Tacon, F. 1993. Mycorrhiza in plantation forestry. Advances in Plant Pathology 23: 191–227.Google Scholar
Hobbie, E. A. and Colpaert, J. V. 2003. Nitrogen availability and colonization by mycorrhizal fungi correlate with nitrogen isotope patterns in plants. New Phytologist 157: 115–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbie, E. A., Jumpponen, A., and Trappe, J. 2005. Foliar and fungal 15N:14N ratios reflect development of mycorrhizae and nitrogen supply during primary succession: testing analytical models. Oecologia 146: 258–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horsley, S. B. and Long, R. P. (eds.). 1999. Sugar Maple Ecology and Health: Proceedings of an International Symposium. USDA Forest Service, NE Res. Stn., GTR NE-261.
Horsley, S. B., Long, R. P., Bailey, S. W., et al. 2002. Health of eastern North American sugar maple forests and factors affecting decline. Northern Journal Applied Forestry 19: 34–44.Google Scholar
Horsley, S. B., Bailey, S. W., Ristau, T. E., et al. 2008. Linking environmental gradients, species composition, and vegetation indicators of sugar maple health in the northeastern United States. Canadian Journal Forest Research 38: 1761–1774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton, T. R. and Bruns, T. D. 1998. Multiple-host fungi are the most frequent and abundant ectomycorrhizal types in a mixed stand of Douglas fir (Pseudostuga menziesii) and bishop pine (Pinus muricata). New Phytologist 139: 331–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton, T. R. and Bruns, T. D. 2001. The molecular revolution in ectomycorrhizal ecology: peeking into the black-box. Molecular Ecology 10: 1855–1871.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horton, T. R., Bruns, T. D., and Parker, T. 1999. Ectomycorrhizal fungi associated with Arctostaphylos contribute to Pseudotsuga menziesii establishment. Canadian Journal Botany 77: 93–102.Google Scholar
Horton, T. R. and Heijden, M.G.A. 2008. The role of symbiosis in seedling establishment and survival. In: Seedling Ecology and Evolution. Leck, M., Parker, V. T., and Simpson, B. (eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Houston, D. R. 1999. History of sugar maple decline. In: Sugar Maple Ecology and Health: Proceedings of an International Symposium. Horsley, S. B. and Long, R. P. (eds.). USDA Forest Service, NE Res. Stn., GTR NE-261.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. L., Ambrose, S. H., Bassett, T. J., et al. 1997. Meanings of environmental terms. Journal Environmental Quality 26: 581–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, N. C. 1993. Can fertilization of soil select less mutualistic mycorrhizae. Ecological Applications 3: 749–757.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karlen, D. J., Mausbauch, M. J., Doran, J. W., et al. 1997. Soil quality: A concept definition, and framework for evaluation. Soil Science Society America Journal 61: 4–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kretzer, A., Dunham, S., Molina, R., and Spatafora, J. W. 2004. Microsatellite markers reveal the below ground distribution of genets in two species of Rhizopogon forming tuberculate ectomycorrhizas on Douglas fir. New Phytologist 161: 313–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerat, S., Rachel, R., Catford, J. G., et al. 2002. 14C transfer between the spring ephemeral Erythronium americanum and sugar maple saplings via arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in natural stands. Oecologia 132: 181–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lian, C. L., Narimatsu, M., Nara, K., and Hogetsu, T. 2006. Tricholoma matsutake in a natural Pinus densiflora forest: correspondence between above- and below-ground genets, association with multiple host trees and alteration of existing ectomycorrhizal communities. New Phytologist 171: 825–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Likens, G. E., Driscoll, C. T., and Buso, D. C. 1996. Long-term effects of acid rain: response and recovery of a forest ecosystem. Science 272: 244–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lilleskov, E. A., Fahey, T. J., Horton, T. R., and Lovett, G. M. 2002. Belowground ectomycorrhizal fungal community change over a nitrogen deposition gradient in Alaska. Ecology 83: 104–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, Y. and Augspurger, C. K. 2008. Long-term spatial dynamics of Acer saccharum during a population explosion in an old-growth remnant forest in Illinois. Forest Ecology Management 256: 922–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, D. H. 1969. The influence of ectotrophic ectomycorrhizal fungi on the resistance of pine roots to pathogenic infections. I. Antagonism of mycorrhizal fungi to pathogenic fungi and soil bacteria. Phytopathology 59: 153–163.Google Scholar
Mejstrik, V. 1989. Ectomycorrhizas and forest decline. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 28: 325–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, F. H. 1988. Ectomycorrhiza and decline of trees. In: Ectomycorrhiza and Acid Rain. Jansen, A. E., Dighton, J., and Bresser, A.H.M. (eds). Berg en Dal.Google Scholar
Molina, R., Massicotte, H., and Trappe, J. M. 1992. Specificity phenomena in mycorrhizal symbioses: Community-ecological consequences and practical implications. In: Mycorrhizal Functioning an Integrative Plant-fungal Process. Allen, M. F. (ed.). Chapman and Hall, New York.Google Scholar
Molina, R. and Trappe, J. M. 1982a. Lack of mycorrhizal specificity by the ericaceous hosts Arbutus menziesii and Arctostaphylos uva-ursi. New Phytologist 90: 485–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molina, R. and Trappe, J. M. 1982b. Patterns of ectomycorrhizal host specificity and potential among pacific northwest conifers and fungi. Forest Science 28: 423–458.Google Scholar
Moore, J. D. and Ouimet, R. 2006. Ten-year effect of dolomitic lime on the nutrition, crown vigor, and growth of sugar maple. Canadian Journal Forest Research 36: 1834–1841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, E. C. 2003. How does fertility of the substrate affect intraspecific competition? Evidence and synthesis from self thinning. Ecological Research 18: 287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,NRCS. 1999. Soil Quality Test Kit Guide. USDA Agricultural Research Service, Natural Resource Conservations Service, Soil Quality Institute. August 1999.Google Scholar
Nuñez, M.T.A., Horton, T. R., and Simberloff, D. 2009. Lack of belowground mutualisms hinders Pinaceae invasions. Ecology 90: 2352–2359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parrent, J. L. and Vilgalys, R. 2007. Biomass and compositional responses of ectomycorrhizal fungal hypahe to elevated CO2 and nitrogen fertilization. New Phytologist 176: 164–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, D. A., Amaranthus, M. P., Borcher, J. G., et al. 1989. Bootstrapping in ecosystems. BioScience 39: 230–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peter, M., Ayer, F., and Egli, S. 2001. Nitrogen addition in a Norway spruce stand altered macromycete sporocarp production and below-ground ectomycorrhizal species composition. New Phytologist 149: 311–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, L. R., Massicotte, H. B., and Melville, L. H. 2004. Mycorrhizas: Anatomy and Cell Biology. NRC Research Press, Ottawa, Ontario.Google Scholar
Quinn, R. Q., Canham, C. D., Weathers, K. C., and Goodale, C. L. 2010. Increased tree carbon storage in response to nitrogen deposition in the U.S. Nature Geoscience 3: 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redecker, D., Szaro, T. M., Bowman, R. J., and Bruns, T. D. 2001. Small genets of Lactarius xanthogalactus, Russula cemoricolor and Amanita francheti in late-stage ectomycorrhizal successions. Molecular Ecology 10: 1025–1034.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schimel, J. P. and Bennett, J, 2004. Nitrogen mineralization: challenges of a changing paradigm. Ecology 85: 591–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiltz, H. M. and Grisi, B. F. 1980. Soil-site Relationships of Spruce-Fir Stands on the Chesuncook Catena Soils. Soil Conservation Service, Orono, Maine, USA.Google Scholar
Seybold, C. A., Dick, R. P., and Pierce, F. J. 2001. USDA Soil quality test kit: Approaches for comparative assessments. Soil Survey Horizons 42: 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simard, S. W., Jones, M. D., Durall, D. M., et al. 1997a. Reciprocal transfer of carbon isotopes between ectomycorrhizal Betula papyrifera and Pseudotsuga menziesii. New Phytologist 137: 529–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simard, S. W., Perry, D. A., Jones, M. D., et al. 1997b. Net transfer of carbon between ectomycorrhizal tree species in the field. Nature 388: 579–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sims, R. A., Baldwin, K. A., Kershaw, H. M., and Wange, Y. 1996. Tree species in relation to soil moisture regime in northwestern Ontario, Canada. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 39: 471–484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, D. B. 2009. Geochemical studies of North American soils: Results from the pilot study phase of the North American Soil Geochemical Landscapes Project. Applied Geochemistry 24: 1355–1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, S. E. and Read, D. J. 1997. Mycorrhizal Symbiosis. 2nd edition. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Sojka, R. E. and Upchurch, D. R. 1999. Reservations regarding the soil quality concept. Soil Science Society America Journal 63: 1039–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, E. L. 1984. Site quality and site treatment. In: Forest Soils and Treatment Impacts. Proc. of the Sixth North American Forest Soils Conference, Knoxville, TN. Stone, E. L. (ed.).
,SSSA. 1997. Glossary of soil science terms 1996. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
Tichelen, K.K., Colpaert, J. V., and Vangronsveld, J. 2001. Ectomycorrhizal protection of Pinus sylvestris against copper toxicity. New Phytologist 150, 203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trappe, J. M., 2005. On the nutritional dependence of certain trees on root symbiosis with belowground fungi [Translation of Frank A. B. (1885) Ueber die auf Wurzelsymbiose beruhende Ernährung gewisser Bäume durch unterirdische Pilze. Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellshaft 3: 128–145.]Mycorrhiza 15: 267–275.Google Scholar
Tugel, A. J., Wills, S. A., and Herrick, J. E.. 2008. Soil change guide: Procedures for soil survey and resource inventory, version 1.1. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE. http://soils.usda.gov/technical/soil_change/ [Accessed November 2011].Google Scholar
Vozzo, J. A and Hacskaylo, E, 1971. Inoculation of Pinus caribaea with ecomycorrhizal fungi in Puerto Rico. Forest Science 17: 239–245.Google Scholar
Warkentin, B. P. 1992. Soil science for environmental quality- how do we know what we know?Journal Environmental Quality 21: 163–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westoby, M. 1984. The self-thinning rule. Advances in Ecological Research 14. Macfadyen, A. and Ford, E. D. (eds). Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Williams, R. A. 1986. Comparison of site index and biomass production on four soil drainage classes from the Chesuncook catena for spruce-fir stands in northwestern Maine. PhD dissertation, University of Maine, Orono.Google Scholar
Young, H. E. 1954. Forest soils-site index studies in Maine. Soil Science America Proc 18: 95–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×