Mycorrhizae is making a fair amount of noise in the maple world
"outre pond," I'm wondering if anyone on the rational side is using
it. This is symbiotic fungus, essentially, although there are many
different forms available.

I'm considering trying with this spring's plantings. Any experts recommend
a brand available by internet?

Thanks!

-E

--
Emery Davis
You can reply to ecom
by removing the well known companies
Questions about wine? Visit http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

In article ,
Emery Davis writes:
|
| Mycorrhizae is making a fair amount of noise in the maple world
| "outre pond," I'm wondering if anyone on the rational side is using
| it. This is symbiotic fungus, essentially, although there are many
| different forms available.

Yes, they are used for a few plants which don't grow well without
mycorrhiza, and where the fungus is relatively tractable. Blackwood
(a type of eucalypt) is one, if I recall. You can also regard
truffles as mycorrhiza, and some of them are cultivated.

| I'm considering trying with this spring's plantings. Any experts
| recommend a brand available by internet?

You have been reading too much transpondian New Age drivel, haven't
you? :-)

Some fungi associate with many plants, and some plants associate with
many fungi (birch is the classic), but only a few combinations will
work. Some plants don't form mycorrhizal associations at all (e.g.
yew), and some are almost impossible to induce artificially (e.g.
many terrestrial orchids).

The first question is to ask what you want it for, the second is
whether those plants form mycorrhizal associations, the third is
whether it has been induced naturally, and the fourth is whether
that species is available. Only fifthly worry about the brand!

Sorry, but ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Hi Nick,

On 22 Feb 2008 22:39:59 GMT
(Nick Maclaren) wrote:


In article ,
Emery Davis writes:
|
| Mycorrhizae is making a fair amount of noise in the maple world
| "outre pond," I'm wondering if anyone on the rational side is using
| it. This is symbiotic fungus, essentially, although there are many
| different forms available.

Yes, they are used for a few plants which don't grow well without
mycorrhiza, and where the fungus is relatively tractable. Blackwood
(a type of eucalypt) is one, if I recall. You can also regard
truffles as mycorrhiza, and some of them are cultivated.

| I'm considering trying with this spring's plantings. Any experts
| recommend a brand available by internet?

You have been reading too much transpondian New Age drivel, haven't
you? :-)


Well, possibly, possibly.

Some fungi associate with many plants, and some plants associate with
many fungi (birch is the classic), but only a few combinations will
work. Some plants don't form mycorrhizal associations at all (e.g.
yew), and some are almost impossible to induce artificially (e.g.
many terrestrial orchids).

The first question is to ask what you want it for, the second is
whether those plants form mycorrhizal associations, the third is
whether it has been induced naturally, and the fourth is whether
that species is available. Only fifthly worry about the brand!


I could be more specific. What I want it for is to increase verticillium
resistance, via stress reduction, in various Acer taxa. These plants
are well known to form such symbiotic relationships, hence the
discussion in the maple community (including the Maple Society,
which I can attest is reasonably serious about the subject).

Maple growers often "juice" rootstock with mycorrhizae. It appears
that endomycorrhizae is preferred for the genus but some references
do appear to cite ecto.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "induced naturally," the fungus
is almost certainly present in the soil here in places, but I may have
introduced it via plantings.

By "that species" do you mean fungus or plant? Americans in the
maple trade have mentioned www.mycoapply.com as their source,
there is anecdotal evidence there that these work well with A. palmatum
anyway. My collection is much wider ranging, so I'm thinking about
using the stuff across a wide variety of the genus. But some of
the plants I expect to receive this spring (A. diabolicum, A. distylum)
are really extremely rare, I am hesitant to try anything new with them.
(In fact I don't expect diabolicum in particular to have a verticillium
problem, but various other issues like pseudomonas are always a
problem in our wet climate, and I do find that general robustness
helps a lot with any sorts of cambium sickness.)

And so, I am asking about the brand, and if anyone in our climate
uses the stuff!

-E

--
Emery Davis
You can reply to ecom
by removing the well known companies
Questions about wine? Visit http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

[]

This film is in aid of pushing the companies products, but does have
some interesting background on mycorrhizae.

http://www.pixelsoftfilms.com/index....36&Itemi d=47

(I'm in no way affiliated with these people, nor can I vouch for the efficacy of their
products. As I said, just interested if anyone over here is using the stuff.)

-E
--
Emery Davis
You can reply to ecom
by removing the well known companies
Questions about wine? Visit http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

In article ,
Emery Davis writes:
|
| I could be more specific. What I want it for is to increase verticillium
| resistance, via stress reduction, in various Acer taxa. These plants
| are well known to form such symbiotic relationships, hence the
| discussion in the maple community (including the Maple Society,
| which I can attest is reasonably serious about the subject).

Ah. Not, THAT makes a LOT more sense. But you should always make it
clear that it is Acer you are talking about.

| I'm not quite sure what you mean by "induced naturally," the fungus
| is almost certainly present in the soil here in places, but I may have
| introduced it via plantings.

Oops. I meant "induced artificially".

| By "that species" do you mean fungus or plant? Americans in the
| maple trade have mentioned www.mycoapply.com as their source,
| there is anecdotal evidence there that these work well with A. palmatum
| anyway. ...
|
| And so, I am asking about the brand, and if anyone in our climate
| uses the stuff!

Fine. But, if I were to refer you to something that I was using for
blackwood, oak, beech, or growing truffles, it wouldn't help you at all.
I am not, but I thought about it and looked into it a little.


Aside (not to you): God. British botanical loons, again. So ignorant
that they pluralise the obviously Greek-derived word "mycorrhiza" to
"mycorrhizae". And the OED confirms that it is precisely a British
botanical delusion.

I still remember a speeling test at my first prep. school that foxed
everyone with "hippopotami" (he pronounced it "-MY". No, that is not
the correct plural, as several of us (aged 7) knew. Of course, it was
a common local wild animal, and not an exotic.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote:

Aside (not to you): God. British botanical loons, again. So
ignorant that they pluralise the obviously Greek-derived word
"mycorrhiza" to "mycorrhizae". And the OED confirms that it is
precisely a British botanical delusion.


Seems that mycorrhizae is in common use. Probably far more so than
mycorrhizas. (Would you prefer "mycorrhizata"?)

I haven't trusted the OED since "monied" was disallowed on Countdown...

--
Jeff
(cut "thetape" to reply)

On 23 Feb 2008 17:05:43 GMT
(Nick Maclaren) wrote:

Why the hell that usage couldn't have continued is beyond me. But
the whole way that the British botanical loons attempt to abuse the
English language is ridiculous.

Bring back the rope!



-E
--
Emery Davis
You can reply to ecom
by removing the well known companies
Questions about wine? Visit http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

In article ,
"Jeff Layman" writes:
|
| Aside (not to you): God. British botanical loons, again. So
| ignorant that they pluralise the obviously Greek-derived word
| "mycorrhiza" to "mycorrhizae". And the OED confirms that it is
| precisely a British botanical delusion.
|
| Seems that mycorrhizae is in common use. Probably far more so than
| mycorrhizas. (Would you prefer "mycorrhizata"?)

I think that you will find that "mycorrhiza" was both singular and
plural until some, er, considerably sub-genius decided to Latinize it.
The earliest plural of that form I can see is "pileorrhize".

Why the hell that usage couldn't have continued is beyond me. But
the whole way that the British botanical loons attempt to abuse the
English language is ridiculous.

After all, the very concept of singularity and plurality is completely
alien to mycorrhiza - yes, there is the concept of a single species
versus multiple species, but you need to say "species of mycorrhiza"
to disambiguate it anyway. And then the number is associated with
the word "species" :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In message , Jeff Layman
writes
Nick Maclaren wrote:

Aside (not to you): God. British botanical loons, again. So
ignorant that they pluralise the obviously Greek-derived word
"mycorrhiza" to "mycorrhizae". And the OED confirms that it is
precisely a British botanical delusion.


Seems that mycorrhizae is in common use. Probably far more so than
mycorrhizas. (Would you prefer "mycorrhizata"?)

About 2 to 1 on the evidence of Google. (198,000 vs 92,300.)

I haven't trusted the OED since "monied" was disallowed on Countdown...


--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In article ,
Emery Davis writes:
|
| Why the hell that usage couldn't have continued is beyond me. But
| the whole way that the British botanical loons attempt to abuse the
| English language is ridiculous.
|
| Bring back the rope!

Well, perhaps, but this is more comparable to railing against the
rigid pub opening hours, which were an attempt to tackle a social
problem by legislation. And, of course, it was totally counter-
productive, but that hasn't stopped people claiming that the only
problem with it was that it wasn't draconian enough.

Upon checking, Ramsbottom (Keeper of Botany at the National History
Museum from 1930-1950) used "mycorrhiza" for both singular and
generic, and "mycorrhizas" for plural. The use of "mycorrhizae"
came at the same time, and probably from the same stable, that
perpetrated "alpine bartsia" and attempts to claim that established
uses of common names (like bluebell, north of the Border) are wrong.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley writes:
| In message , Jeff Layman
| writes
|
| Seems that mycorrhizae is in common use. Probably far more so than
| mycorrhizas. (Would you prefer "mycorrhizata"?)
|
| About 2 to 1 on the evidence of Google. (198,000 vs 92,300.)

I wonder which way it is going :-)

| I haven't trusted the OED since "monied" was disallowed on Countdown...

That's Countdown's error, not the OED. It's there. Both the Second
Edition (1989) and the New Edition (currently in draft) make it quite
clear that it is in current use.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote:

I still remember a speeling test at my first prep. school that foxed
everyone with "hippopotami" (he pronounced it "-MY".

Whereas all Flanders and Swann fans know that it rhymes with Army

.....a regular army
of hippopotami
all singing this haunting refrain
Mud , mud glorious mud..



--
CTC Right to Ride Rep. for Richmond upon Thames

Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
"Jeff Layman" writes:

Aside (not to you): God. British botanical loons, again. So
ignorant that they pluralise the obviously Greek-derived word
"mycorrhiza" to "mycorrhizae". And the OED confirms that it is
precisely a British botanical delusion.

Seems that mycorrhizae is in common use. Probably far more so than
mycorrhizas. (Would you prefer "mycorrhizata"?)

I think that you will find that "mycorrhiza" was both singular and
plural until some, er, considerably sub-genius decided to Latinize it.
The earliest plural of that form I can see is "pileorrhize".

Why the hell that usage couldn't have continued is beyond me. But
the whole way that the British botanical loons attempt to abuse the
English language is ridiculous.

After all, the very concept of singularity and plurality is completely
alien to mycorrhiza - yes, there is the concept of a single species
versus multiple species, but you need to say "species of mycorrhiza"
to disambiguate it anyway. And then the number is associated with
the word "species" :-)


English is popular because it doesn't appear to need many rules, and adapts
readily. Things get accepted as the norm without much thought if their
usage is very common. How many times do you hear the word "datum"? Not too
many, so "data" is now used in the singular.

Nothing is simple; what about "stigma"? Botanically, the common plural
usage is "stigmas". But if applied to witchcraft, it is "stigmata"? Why?
they are both from the same singular word (although you never hear its use
in the singular with respect to the latter. Heh - I can see us ending up
with "a stigmata". Or worse, "a stigmatum"...).

I see that you used the word "singularity" to describe a concept (relating
to mycorrhiza). There you are - that use is rare today. Talk about
"singularity" and in popular use most people would assume you are talking
about a black hole!

Perhaps that's where you want to put the botanical loons...

--
Jeff
(cut "thetape" to reply)

In article ,
"Jeff Layman" writes:
|
| English is popular because it doesn't appear to need many rules, and adapts
| readily. Things get accepted as the norm without much thought if their
| usage is very common. How many times do you hear the word "datum"? Not too
| many, so "data" is now used in the singular.

Indeed, and that is one of my points. Academic pedants like me will
use the word "datum" and "data are", but only dogmatists will claim
either that "data is" is wrong or that it is compulsory. Please note
that I am NOT someone who spends much time pointing out people's
terminological errors!

| Nothing is simple; what about "stigma"? Botanically, the common plural
| usage is "stigmas". But if applied to witchcraft, it is "stigmata"? Why?
| they are both from the same singular word (although you never hear its use
| in the singular with respect to the latter. Heh - I can see us ending up
| with "a stigmata". Or worse, "a stigmatum"...).

Quite. And that is PRECISELY what is being foisted on us with
"mycorrhizae"! I am pretty sure that it was originally used as a
collective noun up until the lunatics took over the asylum (in the
early 1950s). Correctly, the singular should probably be
"mycorrhizon", though I am no Greek scholar.

Please note that I expect slightly higher standards of education
from those who proclaim themselves the academic experts, and who
claim that they are empowered to tell other people what the correct
terminology is, than from the hoi polloi who merely use it. And it
is the claim of such authority by the botanical loons that gives me
the right to rail against them!

I am not saying that ordinary users of English are wrong to use
"mycorrhizae", but am damning the botanical loons for their ignorance.
You are welcome to post in sheddi or ebonics, if either if the dialect
you use normally, but you may not get understood on this group :-)

| I see that you used the word "singularity" to describe a concept (relating
| to mycorrhiza). There you are - that use is rare today. Talk about
| "singularity" and in popular use most people would assume you are talking
| about a black hole!

Indeed - but, as I said, I am an academic pedant and even my more
colloquial usage tends to be rather old-fashioned. You surely don't
expect me to use the sort of English they perpetrate for Sun readers?
Forsooth - the very idea! :-)

| Perhaps that's where you want to put the botanical loons...

A lovely idea - though I am not a follower of the Black Hole
religion (prophet: Stephen Hawkins) ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

E - you're gonna need a combination of endo and ecto mycorrhizae for maple. if you go to this website reforest.com/forestry_habitat_products.php (it's not the best website, i had some difficulty navigating around on it) they have just the thing. i think they're canadian or something, so they know what they're doing. they also ship internationally (got me my stuff here in germany)
good luck

Alan