Hyphal contribution to water uptake in mycorrhizal plants as affected by the fungal species and water status

Abstract

Vesicular‐arbuscular mycorrhizae may increase resistance of plants to drought by a number of mechanisms, such as increased root hydraulic conductivity, stomatal regulation, hyphal water uptake and osmotic adjustment. However, a substantial contribution of vesicular‐arbuscular mycorrhizal (VAM) hyphae to water uptake has not been demonstrated unequivocally. The objective of this investigation was to examine the contribution of hyphae from two VAM fungi to water uptake and transport by the host plant. Lettuce ( Lactuca sativa L.) plants were grown in a container divided by a screen into two compartments. One was occupied by roots, the other only by VAM hyphae, which the screen permitted to pass. Roots were colonized by the VAM fungi Glomus deserticola or Glomus fasciculatum , or were left uninoculated but P‐supplemented. Water was supplied to the hyphal compartment at a distance of 10 cm from the screen (root). CO 2 exchange rate, water‐use efficiency, transpiration, stomatal conductance and photosynthetic phosphorus‐use efficiency of VAM or P‐amended control plants were evaluated at three levels of water application in the hyphal compartment. Results indicate that much of the water was taken up by the hyphae in VAM plants. VAM plants, which had access to the hyphal compartment, had higher water and nutrient contents. G. deserticola functioned efficiently under water limitation and mycelium from G. fasciculatum ‐colonized plants was very sensitive to water in the medium. This discrepancy in VAM behaviour reflects the various abilities of each fungus according to soil water levels. Different abilities of specific mycelia were also expressed in terms of nutritional and leaf gas‐exchange parameters. G. fasciculatum caused a significant increase in net photosynthesis and rate of water use efficiency compared to G. deserticola and P‐fertilized plants. In contrast, the G. deserticola treatment was the most efficient affecting N, P and K nutrition, leaf conductance and transpiration. Since no differences in the intra‐ and extra‐radical hyphal extension of the two endophytes were found, the results demonstrate that mycorrhizal hyphae can take up water and that there are considerable variations in both the behaviour of these two VAM fungi and in the mechanisms involved in their effects on plant water relations.