Skip to main content
Log in

Frankia growth and activity as influenced by water potential

  • Short Communications
  • Published:
Plant and Soil Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Growth responses of Frankia isolates to decreasing water potential were monitored in systems where potentials were controlled by KCl, NaCl and Polyethylene glycol. The highest potential tested was −2 bar (basal medium). The general pattern emerging was that isolates fromAlnus glutinosa, A. viridis andComptonia peregrina showed declining growth at potentials below −2 to −5 bar. AMyrica gale isolate showed declining growth with decreasing potential. All isolates were more sensitive to decreases in potential in a matric controlled than an osmotic controlled system. They all showed approximately 50 percent growth reduction at −5 to −8 bar, and meagre growth at −16 bar after 35 days. The Comptonia isolate was the most vigorous at low potentials. Nitrogen fixation ability was monitored for two isolates. Highest specific activities were observed between −3 and −5 bar for the Myrica isolate and between −5 and −7.5 bar for theA. glutinosa isolate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. Adebayo A A and Harris R F 1971 Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 35, 465–469.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alexander M 1977 Introduction to Soil Microbiology. Second ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 467 p.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bumbieris M and Lloyd A B 1967 Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 20, 103–112.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Burggraaf A J P and Shipton W A 1982 Plant and Soil 69, 135–147.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen A W C and Griffin D M 1966 Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc. 49, 419–426.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cole P I and Alston A M 1974 Plant and Soil 40, 243–247.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cook R J and Papendick R I 1972 Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 10, 349–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cook R J et al. 1972 Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 36, 78–82.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Duniway J M 1979 Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 17, 431–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Griffin D M 1963 Biol. Rev. 38, 141–166.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Griffin D M 1972 Ecology of Soil Fungi. Chapman and hall, London, 193 p.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jensen H L 1943 Linn. Soc. N. S. W. Proc. 68, 67–71.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kouyeas V 1964 Plant and Soil 20, 351–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lapwood D H 1966 Ann. Appl. Biol. 58, 447–456.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lawlor D W 1973 New Phytol. 72, 297–305.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lewis B G 1970 Ann. Appl. Biol. 66, 83–88.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Newman E I 1966 New Phytol. 65, 273–283.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Nye P H and Tinker P B 1977 Solute Movement in the Soil-Root System. Blackwell Scientific Publications Oxford, 342 p.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Orpurt P A and Curtis J T 1957 Ecology 38, 628–637.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Poole R F 1925 Phytopathology 15, 287–293.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Postgate J R 1971 Methods in Microbiology 6B. Acad. Press, London, New York, 342–356.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Scott W J 1953 Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 6, 549–564.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sommers L E et al. 1970 Phytopathology 60, 932–934.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Steuter A A et al. 1981 Plant and Physiol. 67, 64–67.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Stover R H 1953 Can. J. Bot. 31, 693–696.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Szabo I et al. 1964 Pedobilogia 4, 43–66.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Szabo I 1974 Microbial Communities in a Forest-Rendzina Ecosystem. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, 415 p.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Waksman S 1950 The Actinomycetes. Chronica Botanica Company, Waltham, Massachusetts, 230 p.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shipton, W.A., Burggraaf, A.J.P. Frankia growth and activity as influenced by water potential. Plant Soil 69, 293–297 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02374525

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02374525

Key words

Navigation