The Chestnut Blight and Its Relation to the Principle of Disease Resistance

Kelley, Arthur Pierson

doi:10.1126/science.91.2360.290

Cited by 3 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Pecan forms spreading clusters of mycorrhizal short-roots in light or sandy soils but fan-like clusters in firm-textured soils such as the heavy red clay subsoils of northern Georgia (Woodroof, 1933 upon size of the space in which it develops. In duff the mycorrhizal short-roots of Populus were found to be clustered into nodules while in sand they were betuloid in type, being ordinarily dark in coloui except where growth is renewed (Kelley, 1937). Where a layer of humus overlaid clay, Kelley (1941) found seedling pine with mycorrhizal short-roots in the humus but rootlets that had penetrated into the clay beneath were transformed into pseudomycorrhizae.…”

Section: Mycorrhizae Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Harley (1937) agrees in that he says the form of mycorrhizae in beech and extent of infection is correlated with soil type. Kelley (1941) studied mycorrhizae of Pinus virginiana in four soil series,-Chester (granitic), Conowingo (serpentine), Dekalb (sandstone), and Sassafras (Cretaceous gravel); and he found characteristic differences in each of the soil series. The mycorrhizae were coral-branched in sandy soils and racemose or elongate in clay soils, while pseudomycorrhizae predominated in wet clay soils.…”

Section: Lecture VI Mycotrophic Plants and Their Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In duff the mycorrhizal short-roots of Populus were found to be clustered into nodules while in sand they were betuloid in type, being ordinarily dark in coloui except where growth is renewed (Kelley, 1937). Where a layer of humus overlaid clay, Kelley (1941) found seedling pine with mycorrhizal short-roots in the humus but rootlets that had penetrated into the clay beneath were transformed into pseudomycorrhizae. (Peyronel, 1922).…”

Section: Mycorrhizae Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mycotrophy in plants; lectures on the biology of mycorrhizae and related structures

Kelley¹

1950

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mycotrophy Forest tree mycorrhizae receive continued attention from two of the principal investigators of mycotrophy. Rayner (1941) has summarized her own and related researches on the effect of composts on tree growth. Melin's (1946) attention has been turned especially to growth and anti-bacterial substances with respect to mycotrophy. Recently fallen leaf-litter was found to contain water-soluble substances that promoted the growth of litter-decomposing and mycorrhizal fungi. Cognate studies have been made by Harley but his latest paper was not available at this writing. Early Studies on Root Hairs:-Early observers were perhaps influenced by knowledge of circulation of blood in animal bodies and were doubtless expecting to find vessels in plants. When Malpighi found root-hairs on elm, black poplar, and willow roots, he assumed that these structures took up crude sap and passed it on to vessels. Grew, publishing about the same time (1682) had decided that spongy ends of roots served admirably for absorption of water and food from the soil; and Hales in 1727 and de la Baisse in 1733 tried to show experimentally that the greater quantity of water used by the plant was taken up through ends of the root-tips and that root-hairs were only incidental phenomena. To these hypotheses was added in 1768 that of S. Simon, who stated that roots, at least the noduliferous, are merely excretionary organs which serve to eliminate excess elaborated sap from the plant. In the earliest years of the nineteenth century, Garradori showed that root-hairs are wanting in water, from which fact he concluded that root hairs serve for absorption of moisture from the air and not for absorption of liquid water, which, he concluded, must be taken up by the spongy ends of roots. But, according to Moldenhawer, root-hairs may be compared to druse-hairs of leaves : they secrete a liquid which serves Kelley-2-Mycotrophy to dissolve food materials somewhat as saliva does in animals. It was F. Meyen, in 1838, who came to the modern view that root-hairs serve merely to increase the outer surface area of the root. By such studies attention was focused on root-hairs until Botany was firmly moulded to the view that higher plants are nourished by a root-hair mechanism. So positive had Botany become that by 1883, Frank Schwarz (from whom we have quoted much of the preceding paragraph) was able to state without exciting contradiction: "From my researches it may be stated that root-hairs are present on most plants, and when a plant fails to produce root-hairs it may be counted an exception." He listed as exceptions : water and swamp plants, and those the water and salt requirements of which are met in a special way, as in conifers, noduHferous plants and in part by parasites. Early Study of Nodules:-Thus it was, not by extended observation or study of plants in nature but by sheer dogmatism that root-hairs came to be regarded as the predominate root structures of higher plants. Hairless roots were considered exceptional, but they were constantly being note...

show abstract

Section: Mycorrhizae Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Lecture VI Mycotrophic Plants and Their Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mycorrhizae Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mycotrophy in plants; lectures on the biology of mycorrhizae and related structures

Kelley¹

1950

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of chestnut, mycorrhizae were described on the European species by earlier students who thought to find in them a cause of disease of that economic tree. Chestnut provided Kelley (1940) with his material for discovering the essential similarity between blight and mycorrhizal infection. But the Californian Castanopsis and Lithocarpus, with many species in Asia, are yet untouched.…”

Section: Kelley -26 -Mycotrophymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Harley (1937) agrees in that he says the form of mycorrhizae in beech and extent of infection is correlated with soil type. Kelley (1941) (Henry, 1903).…”

Section: Kelleymentioning

confidence: 99%

Mycotrophy in Plants. Lectures on the Biology of Mycorrhizae and Related Structures

M.¹,

Kelley²

1951

Mycologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

MycotrophyForest tree mycorrhizae receive continued attention from two of the principal investigators of mycotrophy. Rayner (1941) has summarized her own and related researches on the effect of composts on tree growth. Melin's (1946) attention has been turned especially to growth and anti-bacterial substances with respect to mycotrophy. Recently fallen leaf-litter was found to contain water-soluble substances that promoted the growth of litter-decomposing and mycorrhizal fungi. Cognate studies have been made by Harley but his latest paper was not available at this writing. that root-hairs were only incidental phenomena. To these hypotheses was added in 1768 that of S. Simon, who stated that roots, at least the noduliferous, are merely excretionary organs which serve to eliminate excess elaborated sap from the plant. In the earliest years of the nineteenth century, Garradori showed that root-hairs are wanting in water, from which fact he concluded that root hairs serve for absorption of moisture from the air and not for absorption of liquid water, which, he concluded, must be taken up by the spongy ends of roots. But, according to Moldenhawer, root-hairs may be compared to druse-hairs of leaves : they secrete a liquid which serves Kelley -2 -Mycotrophy to dissolve food materials somewhat as saliva does in animals. It was F. Meyen, in 1838, who came to the modern view that root-hairs serve merely to increase the outer surface area of the root.By such studies attention was focused on root-hairs until Botany was firmly moulded to the view that higher plants are nourished by a root-hair mechanism. So positive had Botany become that by 1883, Frank Schwarz (from whom we have quoted much of the preceding paragraph) was able to state without exciting contradiction:"From my researches it may be stated that root-hairs are present on most plants, and when a plant fails to produce root-hairs it may be counted an exception." He listed as exceptions : water and swamp plants, and those the water and salt requirements of which are met in a special way, as in conifers, noduHferous plants and in part by parasites. Early Study of Nodules: -Thus it was, not by extended observation or study of plants in nature but by sheer dogmatism that root-hairs came to be regarded as the predominate root structures of higher plants. Hairless roots were considered exceptional, but they were constantly being noted. Malpighi, early microscopist that he was, had described and figured nodules while du Hamel du Monceau in 1758 had stated that such structures were generally found on leguminous plants. Even Meyen, in 1829, who has been accredited with discovery of mycorrhizae, simply described nodules of the alder. Alder nodules were more carefully studied by Woronin in 1867 but his inadequate facilities led him to confuse bacterial strands with fungal hyphae. Even to this day there is confused thought about root-nodules for some investigators assert them to be purely bacterial while others consider them fungal. Nutrition of Monotropa: -Besides nodulous...

show abstract

Regarding Periodic Phenomena

Iberall¹

1970

Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

of those patients" to ensure the diagnoses of schizophrenia. However, he did not utilize the more detailed criteria described by Schneider and Fish (5), which is the only guarantee of selecting a similar sample. Melges also expressed the view, not shared by me, that research in "schizophrenia per se" should not be undertaken as the diagnostic category is too broad and inclusive. The use of Schneider and Fish's criteria increase the homogenicity of any sample of schizophrenics. Melges and I agree that the problem of chronicity is pertinent to the difference in our samples. Practically all the women he studied were having an acute, short-lived psychotic episode, whereas my sample included only chronically ill individuals (hospitalized more than 3 years following the postpartum psychoses). Protheroe (6) reports the long-term outcome to be poor in process schizophrenia developing in the postpartum period. These differences in diagnostic criteria and in chronicity of illness may have resulted in Melges' selecting a patient sample not comparable to my own, that is, reactive (psychological) instead of process (organic) schizophrenics. Whether a variable offspring sex ratio could result from such a sample difference must await further investigation.

show abstract

The Chestnut Blight and Its Relation to the Principle of Disease Resistance

Cited by 3 publications

References 4 publications

Mycotrophy in plants; lectures on the biology of mycorrhizae and related structures

Mycotrophy in plants; lectures on the biology of mycorrhizae and related structures

Mycotrophy in Plants. Lectures on the Biology of Mycorrhizae and Related Structures

Regarding Periodic Phenomena

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About