Mycorrhizal Inoculation Is Extremely Important For Achieving Higher Growth Rates

Horticultural experts all agree that one of the best things that you can do to improve overall soil health and to help plants uptake nutrients is to add soil ammendments that have a high percentage of mycorrhizal fungus in them. We particularily like a variety of products like MycoApply and Nutricast that we blend in with our soils to help increase a plants root growth. For those of you who might have found themselves daydreaming in biology class I am going to roughly break down how mycorrhizae function.

"Mycor" - "rhiza" literally means "fungus" - "root" and defines the mutually beneficial relationship between the plant root and fungus. These specialized fungi colonize plant roots and extend far into the soil resource. Mycorrhizal fungal filaments in the soil are truly extensions of root systems and more effective in nutrient and water absorption than the roots themselves.

These fungi increase the surface absorbing area of roots 10 to 100x thereby greatly improving the ability of the plants to utilize the soil resource. Estimates of amounts of mycorrhizal filaments present in soil associated with plants are astonishing. Several miles of fungal filaments can be present in less than a thimbleful of soil! But mycorrhizal fungi increase nutrient uptake not only by increase the surface absorbing area of roots, they also release powerful chemicals into the soil that dissolve hard to capture nutrients such as phosphorous , iron and other "tightly bound" soil nutrients. This extraction process is particularly important in plant nutrition and explains why non-mycorrhizal plants require high levels of fertility to maintain their health. Mycorrhizal fungi form an intricate web that captures and assimilates nutrients, thus conserving the nutrient capital in soils. In non mycorrhizal conditions much of this fertility is wasted or lost from the system.

Mycorrhzial fungi are involved with a wide variety of other activities that benefit plant establishment and growth. The same extensive network of fungal filaments important to nutrient uptake is also important in water uptake and storage. In non-irrigated conditions, mycorrhizal plants are under far less drought stress compared to non-mycorrhizal plants.

Mycorrhizal fungi also improve soil structure. Mycorrhizal filaments produce humic compounds and organic "glues" (extracellular polysaccharides) that bind soils into aggregates and improves soil porosity. Soil porosity and soil structure positively influence the growth of plants by promoting aeration, water movement into soil, root growth, and distribution. In sandy or compacted soils the ability of mycorrhizal fungi to promote soil structure may be more important than the seeking out of nutrients.

Since, most of the soil that is available on the marketplace is relatively sterile and most designers only specify around 10% organic material the soils are relatively poor in both nutrient content and beneficial mycorrhizae. In the fall, after the plantings have been installed we apply a generous amount of "worms castings" on top of the soil. Circle Organics (http://www.circleorganics.com/) carries pelletized castings that can be easily spread the same way that you would apply a "slow release fertilizer". We like to use a hand spreader that will allow us to specify the appropriate application rate. The nutricast product they carry contains a lot of the beneficial mycorrhizae fungus and since plants will put a majority of their energy in growing their plant roots over winter as the castings slowly degrade they release the mycorrihizae into the soil allowing the plants to fix larger concentrations of potassium and phosporous which then increases the root growth. By the time spring rolls around the expansive root system then can support much more top growth and helps the plants fill in anywhere between 25-50% faster than if no soil ammendments were added.

Higher coverage rates thus helps to reduce the weed pressure and thereby reduces the amount of maintenance that is required. So, hopefully, on your next project you will consider using a product with mycorrhizae in it and for designers I would recommend adding that you your specifications to improve the general performance and health of the green roof system!

Replies to this Topic

Ben

Teaming with microbes is a good read.  It is very basic but lays down a solid foundation for the utilization of ecology for plant growth.  I think that perhaps one reason people have not seen conclusive results with ecological innoculations is that green roof media is designed to grow tolerant plants and not necessarily  healthy soil ecology.  The marketed visual appearence of a lush green full blooming sedum roof is impossible to accomplish without the regular addition of fertilizer and extensive roofs are not so good at holding on to fertilizer for very long.  Has anyone been monitoring nutrient run-off from a fertilized roof?  If a roof is unmolested it will become an ecologically supported roof.  With standard green roof substrate systems, the eventual ecologic equalibrium tends to be very simple and promotes moss coverage.  I think that to support higher plant species ecologically, a different substrate system (and different plant species) must be utilized.  The quick drying extensive systems with very low organic content may grow sedums, but a healthy diverse soil ecology is a different story.  I think that a system more similar to the ones used by Paul Mankiewicz would show greater results with bio-innoculants.  He uses much higher organic content and slows evaporation loss with mulching.  Here is an interesting read i found last week.  I am sure many have read this but i found it interesting.  It talks about nutrient run-off and moss colinization amoung other things.

http://diss-epsilon.slu.se/archive/00001088/01/Tobias_Emilsson_epsilon.pdf

 

very interesting posts.

 

Ben

Hi Ben,

Happy you're back in a discussion. It certainly is interesting and the more I read the more it comes to what I mentioned earlier: "Today we know that many techniques, materials and tools were never used before in the US and so there is no standardize description or word for it - everybody is using a different word for the same thing but triggers a different picture in a third person's mind. These different pictures are now the main problem in many discussions." So, when some body says the word green roof to 10 people you generate 50 pictures in their minds (5 of each).

I saw many great pictures in your comments but not sure whether they are th same. With standardized products you are able to cover all your pictures and ideas. It is up to the installer (i.e. on the site) to make custom adjustments for special needs or special plant needs with all options - if necessary. This is much easier (and standard horticultural work i.e in nurseries). It's also much safer than reinventing things and using the client's roof as a guinea pig green roof since every roof would be a new test. The roof slope, drainage and fabrics also have a high influence and require adjustments in each case when using customized soils. With that said you would start from scratch on each roof even when it is 40 sft. That didn't work in the past.

Regarding fertilizer: It is the task and responsibility of the GRP to fertilize accordingly, environmental friendly and without wasting resources. It is essential to consider Justus von Liebig http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justus_von_Liebig or so called Liebig's Law of the Minimum  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%27s_Law_of_the_Minimum   

However this guy was German and so it doesn't work in the US (this is a joke!).

Jorg

Tom

Ben,

 Very good link. Notice that Thomas Emilsson references the 'quality of Storm water run off'. I believe that this is extremely important when judging the performance of a green roof. Vegetative cover is a performance objective but should not be the primary one.

 It is really about water. This is where I differ in approach to successful systems with Jorg. He makes his point about the complexites of building green roofing over and over with regard to the vegetation and to be fair this is his back ground. Sedum varieties are chosen for their perfiormance in the environment. So let them perform.

Problem with too much moss are not caused by biological soil deficiencies but rather by poor drainage. Low slope roof designs require the green roofer to manage drainage more effectively than higher sloping roofs. Sedum are drought tolerant but intolerent of having their little feet wet all of the time.

 I think I am using a common language here and hope that all can understand my terminology. (A little joke for my friend)

All- Good discussion.

Mycorhyizzae are just a small part of the microbe food chain.  In their bodies, they preserve many nutrients from leaching.  The 5% OM we incorporated at Pioneer Park Nature Center extensive green roof has had labile nutrient leached, but it also goes into supporting microbes and growing roots and shoots.  As the roots and shoots die and turn over in decay they make nutrients available again.  It is my view that once you get an plant community and rhizosphere working that minimal amounts of nutrients are needed.  Atmospheric nitrogen and dust are deposited, and with the use of leguminous plants nitrogen can be fixed.  

Our idea at PPNC was to create as close as possible an ecosystem, so we used native plants, legumes, and inoculated with soil slurry to add microbes.  The roof was adjacent to a prairie, so it became quickly inoculated with mycorhizzae spores.  Hence we saw little growth difference in year 2.  The same may not be true for urban areas lacking nearby inoculum.  

We are taking the long view and establishment phases are, 1) plant survival (Yes, we irrigated to begin with but will only do so in the future in drought).  We will not fertilize because of the tendency for well-drained roof media to allow leaching. 2) Canopy closure is the next stage of establishment. 3) we are seeing short-lived nutrient demanding species waning and being replaced by seedlings recruits from maturing plants on the roof. Weeding is not a critical requirement after canopy closure. Now with a set amount of water from precipitation and relatively fixed (and limiting) amount of nitrogen, grow is becoming reduced. 4)  We will probably see limitations of other macro and micro-nutrients in the future.  Because we do not harvest or remove biomass from the roof; it decays the microbes will recycle it.  That's what microbes do.

If you wish to see my 2008 GRHC paper go to the following link:

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/preview.cgi?article=1013&context=arch_land_facu

The North American Great Plains are quite different climatically from Europe.  We need long term research here under local conditions to begin to understand what goes on in the media and planted surface of extensive green roofs.  In steady state systems energy goes into maintenance not biomass production.  I'm guessing that it will be at least a dozen years before the PPNC extensive green roof becomes more steady state. Even then there will be flucuations.

Richard Sutton, Ph. D., FASLA, GRP


 

Ben

Leibig's Law is great for green roofs and can limit run-off.  Even a smartly fertilized roof will leach a fair amount of nutrients if the weather is moist and warm.  It is still looking at a roof in a reductionist agricultural/horticultural light as are most/all  commercial green roof products and installations.  Let us not forget that this reductionist view of nature was the first "re-invention of the wheel".  Moss does not grow because of poor soil drainage.  Poor drainage (constantly moist conditions) can speed up the growth of the ecology which supports the moss, but moss grows because it is a primary succession species.  It is the start of a natural ecological assembly of organisms.  Moss can establish in very harsh conditions including rock outcrops and sidewalks, and it begins building soil, increasing soil nutrients, and allowing for moisture retention which sets  the ecology up for more diversity.  When maintenance and fertilization is ceased on a green roof it begins to revert to a steady ecological state which is self supported (when this is allowed to happen we think that the roof is "crashing" because our target species, sedum, cannot be sustained at the desired densities).  Have a look at these couple papers.

http://www.bioed.org/ibscore/journal/Articles_all/1999/IBS%20core%20Research%20paper-Davin%20Ringen.htm

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r267r588441430v0/

I have a good amount of experience buidling tropical planted exhibits behind glass.  If you do not clean a section of glass you can observe the succession of organisms.  It starts with a bioplaque made of bacteria and algae then the fungi move in followed by moss growing from spores.  I have had a few systems reach the 10 year mark and a sheet of glass if not cleaned can be a lush fully vegetated plane filled with mosses, ferns, and even bromeliad and orchid seedlings.  I would not reccomend trying to "sell" this type of system because of the expectations which have been set by the industry to provide a lush flowering "lawn" of plants on the roof, but i dont think that these alternative systems should be outright discounted.  Here is a shot of a slime mold running up the glass feasting on the residue of bacteria which had colonized the glass previously.  Slime molds move very quickly and you could actually see it pulsing and moving across the glass.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/secret_creek/DSCN0081.jpg

 

Looking at a roof as a living system instead of a technology supported plant coverage system may not be marketable or accepted but should be discussed and investigated.

Tom

Awesome, Ben! I stand corrected. Great research. Clearly we have the know how domestically to build successful green roofs.

All-

  Here are more useable links to my papers.

Mycorhizzae Experiment:

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/arch_land_facultyschol/14

Shortgrass Praiire Analog:

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/arch_land_facultyschol/15

 

R i c h a r d

I agree: green roofs are a living systems never have been anything else. That's what we all talking about and it looks we are all talking about the same thing.

Certainly I also can see that the knowledge is here. I might see differences in definitions and pictures - as said earlier. I am sure we will iron that out.

The Hungarian green roof association might know more about green roofs in the "puszta" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puszta - goes far beyond the mentioned national park with the same praiire climate pattern.

Do you see the praiire as the big market for extensive green roofs with mainly Sedums?

Ungarischer Verband für Bauwerksbegrünung
Villányi út 35-43
H-1118 Budapest
Tel:  0036-1385-0666/6459
Fax: 0036-1372-6333
zeosz@omega.kee.hu

Jorg

Richard, have you published yet the results of species differences from your 2008 experiment (Green Rooftops for Sustainable Communities). From the results table I see you found significant diffeerences between species. I am interested in knowing which of them were effectively infected by the VAM. Thanks.

Lorelly-

All the grasses in both the inoculated and uninnoculated were infected.  The soil microbiologist I worked with prepared and read the roots.  The inoculated roots had about 3X more VAM than the roots from the uninoculated plots.   We did not examine for VAM in year 2 because there were no plant differences and if the VAM were there they would have reach saturation by then.  We did not look at other species.  The plots contained no Sedum.  Also remember that the GR sat in the middle of a prairie, so lots of VAM spore in the air.

 

R--

Hi Richard, thanks for the extra details! So.. just to confirm,  do all of the species mentioned in page 5 were infected? ( Artemisia frigida (forb), Aster fendleri (forb); Bouteloua curtipendula (grass), Bouteloua gracilis (grass), Bouteloua hirsute (grass), Carex heliophila (sedge), Calyophillus serrulata (forb), Dicanthelium scribnerianum (grass), Kpeleria macrantha (grass), Schizachyrium scoparium (grass) and Tradescantia bracteata (forb)).  

Why do you have such a low P value in the table 3 for the species comparison if all of them were infected? Is this because of the level of infection...?

Sorry for asking so much... I am performing my role, as a student. Bye!

 

Lorelly-

I was measuring plant vigor as the dependent variable, not VAM infection. As I discussed the level of infection may have made some difference, but notice tha tthe interaction between poly gel and inoculum was signifcantly greater.  Whereas the innoculum alone was not significantly different.  The poly gel interaction clouds the picture, but POLY X Innoc vs Control had a lower P than Poly alone.

Good questions most people skim over the statistical tables and interactions are hard to definitively state significance

 

R-

Post Reply

You must be a member of this Groupsite in order to post a reply to this topic.
Click here to join this group.