4.7 Article

Mycorrhizal associations in the Patagonian steppe, Argentina

Journal

PLANT AND SOIL
Volume 233, Issue 1, Pages 13-29

Publisher

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/A:1010372604116

Keywords

exotics; hydrophytes; marsh; mycorrhizas; mycorrhizal status; Patagonia; steppe

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The mycorrhizal status of plant species in north-west Patagonia was examined. Communities representative of Patagonian steppe and marshes were compared with respect to the mycorrhizal status of their species. Most of both native and exotic plant species sampled were arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM). The percentage of species with mycorrhizal association was higher for perennial herbs and shrubs than for annual herbs. The higher ratio of mycorrhizal/nonmycorrhizal (NM) species found for dicotyledons than for monocotyledons, could reflect the presence of a considerable number of NM monocotyledons in the marsh. The mycorrhizal status of plants differed slightly between the steppe and the marsh. In the steppe, native AM species were more frequent than in the marsh. In contrast, in the marsh, the NM species were proportionally more represented than in the steppe. The Juncaceae and Cyperaceae, which include hydrohytic NM plants, accounted for many of these differences. Moreover, the dominant species in the marshes, Juncus arcticus, is a NM species. In the present study, most of species belonging to the same taxonomic family tended to have the same mycorrhizal associations, in agreement with studies on plants from other regions. Exceptions to this general behaviour were observed in the families Cyperaceae, Scrophulariaceae, Berberidaceae and Amaryllidaceae. The most represented families in which mycorrhizal behaviour differed between species of the same family were Asteraceae, Fabaceae and Poaceae. Senecio neaei (Asteraceae) and Boopis australis (Calyceraceae) showed facultative mycorrhizal behaviour.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available