1972
DOI: 10.2307/2484235
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Hebelomas as Mycorrhizal Fungi

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
10
0
1

Year Published

1974
1974
1999
1999

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
1
10
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Unlike R. roseolus, S. punctipes, and the ectendotrophic species, R. ochraceorubens has not yet been shown to form mycorrhizae (E. Hacskaylo, private communication). There is good evidence that 19 of the Hebeloma species are capable of being mycorrhizal (3). Therefore, our data combined with that of others (1, 2) comprise a mixed picture as to the possibility that cytokinin production by the fungus is fundamental in the mycorrhizal relationship.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 69%
“…Unlike R. roseolus, S. punctipes, and the ectendotrophic species, R. ochraceorubens has not yet been shown to form mycorrhizae (E. Hacskaylo, private communication). There is good evidence that 19 of the Hebeloma species are capable of being mycorrhizal (3). Therefore, our data combined with that of others (1, 2) comprise a mixed picture as to the possibility that cytokinin production by the fungus is fundamental in the mycorrhizal relationship.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 69%
“…Most of the ectomycorrhizal fungi do not usually fruit in pure culture or even when cultivated in the presence of the host plant. Of those showing a tendency to fruit, most belong to the genus Hebeloma (Hacskaylo & Bruchet, 1972;Bruchet, 1973;Debaud, Pepin & Bruchet, 1981a, b) or to the Boletaceae (Modess, 1941;Pantidou, 1961Pantidou, , 1962Pantidou, , 1964MacLaughlin, 1964MacLaughlin, , 1970. Some of the boletes associated with birch formed primordia and immature fruit bodies in pure culture.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…, 10, 17~, 15, 34, 36, 38, 42 h, 48, 53, 56, 57, 58, 62, 65, 6fj, 68; B =02, 10, 23, 37, 38, 62, 65; C=37, 58, (59, 70 A--16, 17,, 62 Alvarez and Cobb (1977) 7 Ammirati et al (1987) 8 Bi et al (1987) 9 Bills (1986a) 10 Bills et al (1986) 11 Bills and Miller (1987) 12 Brunner and Horak (1988) 13 Bryan and Zak (1961) 14 Cotter (1987) 15 Croghan (1984) 16 Danielson (1984) 17 Danielson et al (1985) 18 Dighton (1983) 19 Doak (1934) 20 Ekwebelam (1973) 21 Froidevaux (1975) 22 Froidevaux and Amiet (1975) 23 Godbout and Fortin (1983) 24 Godbout and Fortin (1985) 25 Hacskaylo (1951) 26 Hacskaylo and Bruchet (1972) 27 Hacskaylo and Palmer (1955) 28 Hacskaylo and Vozzo (1967) 29 Harvey et al (1976) 30 Hatch and Hatch (1933) 31 Homola and Mistretta (1977) 32 Jacobson (1990) 33 Krangauz (1955) 34 Kropp and Trappe (1982) 35 Largent et al (1980) 36 Lee et al (1987) 37 Leon and Guzman (1980) 38 Maas and Stuntz (1969) 39 Marx and Davey (1969) 40 McAfee and Fortin (1986) 41 McArdle (1932) 42 Mejstrik (1973) 43 Melin (1923) 44 Melin (1924) 45 Melin (1925a) 46 Melin (1925b...…”
Section: Lactarius Corrugismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The number of fungi that have been associated with the ectomycorrhizae of Virginia pine has increased since Trappe's 1962 survey (Bills 1986b(Bills , c, 1989Bills and Miller 1984;Hacskaylo 1965;Hacskaylo and Bruchet 1972;Marx and Bryan 1970;Miller et al 1986;Schramm 1966;Stankis 1984), as has the number associated with pitch pine (Berry 1982;Bills 1986cBills , 1989Lee 1984;Marx and Bryan 1970;Schramm 1966;Stankis 1984;Tullose 1984). However, except for the report of Stankis (1984), little new information has been recorded for Table Mountain pine, which is endemic in the Appalachian Mountains with limited distribution elsewhere (Zobel 1969).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%