Negligible Physiological Responses to Water Deficit in Endophyte-Infected and Uninfected Perennial Ryegrass

Barker, D. J.; Hume, D. E.; Quigley, P. E.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-0271-9_20

Cited by 36 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…1989 ; Bacon 1993; Elmi & West 1995; West 1994; West et al . 1993 ), results of our study agree with those of others who have been unable to find a consistent effect of endophytes in perennial ryegrass on both morphological and physiological parameters ( Barker et al . 1997 ; Cheplick et al .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…In a review of the physiology and drought tolerance of endophyte‐infected grasses, West (1994) noted that ‘an enhancing effect of endophyte on ryegrass yield appears not to be as consistent as with tall fescue’. Thus the putative mutualism found in some endophyte–host systems may, in L. perenne , be highly contingent on environmental conditions ( Barker, Hume & Quigley 1997; Cheplick 1997; Cheplick et al . 1989 ; Clay, Marks & Cheplick 1993; Lewis 1992; Lewis et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of drought on the growth of Lolium perenne genotypes with and without fungal endophytes

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary 1.Grass leaves are often inhabited by fungal endophytes that can enhance host growth. In some forage species, endophytes improve host resistance to, and recovery from, drought. 2. Our objective was to determine if the growth of genotypes of Lolium perenne L. was improved by endophytes during recovery from drought. 3. Thirteen infected genotypes were cloned into ramets. Half were treated with a systemic fungicide to eliminate the endophyte (E-); half were untreated and retained high endophyte levels (E+). In a glasshouse, half of all E-and E+ ramets were watered regularly, whilst half were exposed to a 2 week drought on two occasions, each followed by a 3 week recovery period. 4. After the first drought and recovery period, endophytes significantly reduced tiller production in the drought-stressed group. 5. After the second drought and recovery period, effects of drought on live leaf area and dry mass were highly dependent on host genotype, but not endophytes. The mean tiller mass of E+ ramets after drought was significantly less than that of watered E+ ramets, but this was not true in E-ramets. For six genotypes there was greater mass allocation to storage in the tiller bases of E-ramets after drought. 6. This perennial ryegrass population showed marked genotypic variation in the ability to recover from drought stress, but endophytes played little or no role in this ability. For some host genotypes there may be a metabolic cost of harbouring endophytes during environmentally stressful conditions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of drought on the growth of Lolium perenne genotypes with and without fungal endophytes

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Total herbage accumulation on L (low endophyte infection) pastures was similar to H (high endophyte infection) throughout the trial, confirming recent New Zealand work (Hume 1993;Barker et al 1997). However, Mortimer et al (1982) showed that regrowth after grazing was superior for H pastures The only time the ryegrass component of the pastures was influenced by the treatments was after the start of the second spring (September 1994), as white clover slowly became established in +C treatments (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…42 (Hume 1993. New Zealand field work has not shown that endophyte infection enhances ryegrass growth under stressful conditions (e.g., Barker et al 1997), although irrigation may slow losses of endophyte-free ryegrass plants from pasture (Francis & Baird 1989). Work in the USA with endophyte-infected tall fescue has shown some positive agronomic effects such as increased yield and drought tolerance (e.g., Read & Camp 1986), as has work with perennial ryegrass in France (Ravel et al 1997), Spain (Oliveira et al 1997), and Australia (van Heeswijck & McDonald 1992).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Growth, persistence, and alkaloid levels of endophyte‐infected and endophyte‐free ryegrass pastures grazed by dairy cows in northern New Zealand

Thom¹,

Clark²,

Waugh³

1999

New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A farm-scale trial was conducted over three years at the Dairying Research Corporation, Hamilton, New Zealand to compare the growth and persistence of endophyte-infected and endophytefree perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) pastures established with or without white clover (Trifolium repens), when rotationally grazed by dairy cows. Endophyte-free ryegrass areas were also undersown with endophyte-free seed in March and April of the second and third years, respectively. Average total herbage yields were similar for all treatments in each of the three years, ranging from 12.8 to 13.9 t DM ha -1 . Pasture growth rates in all treatments were lowest in the first summer/autumn after drilling, averaging 17 kg DM ha -1 day -1 for 90 days, coinciding with the highest herbage concentrations of lolitrem B (2.37 to 3.04 µg g -1 DM) in the highendophyte ryegrass. Ergovaline herbage concentrations rarely exceeded 1 µg g -1 DM and were highest (1.6 µg g -1 DM) in high-endophyte ryegrass pastures at the start of the third summer (December 1995), probably because of a high seed-head content (30% of DM). Contamination of endophyte-free ryegrass areas with volunteer endophyte-infected ryegrass was rapid, averaging 26, 41, and 50% of plants after the first, second, and third years from sowing, respectively. Further research is required to identify sources of this contamination and A 98065Received 21 December 1998; accepted 6 May 1999 management strategies to maintain purity of endophyte-free ryegrass or ryegrass containing novel endophytes.

show abstract

“…1991; Clay et al. 1993; Barker, Hume & Quigley 1997). The endophyte does not appear to generally confer drought resistance in perennial ryegrass (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neotyphodiuminteractions with a wild grass are driven mainly by endophyte haplotype

Morse

Faeth²,

Day

2007

Functional Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary1. Strong mutualistic associations are expected to arise between host and microbial symbionts when symbionts lose sexuality, and rely strictly on their host for reproduction via vertical transmission. The Neotyphodium endophyte is a vertically transmitted, asexual symbiont of pooid grasses. In agronomic grasses, Neotyphodium typically interacts mutualistically with its host by increasing drought resistance and other properties. However, the interaction likely depends on host and endophyte genotypic variation, yet little is known how this variation influences host physiological and morphological responses, especially in wild grasses. 2. We used four different Neotyphodium -infected maternal lines of a wild grass, Arizona fescue ( Festuca arizonica ). Two lines harboured one haplotype and two lines harboured a different haplotype. We experimentally removed the endophyte from some ramets of the four lines. We grew infected (E+) and uninfected (E − ) plants in a greenhouse under varying water availability. 3. We examined the effect of endophyte infection, endophyte and host plant maternal genotype, and water availability on traditional growth parameters. We also measured leaf net photosynthesis and dark respiration, leaf conductance to water vapour, leaf water potential, leaf rolling and stomatal density to provide explanations for differences in biomass production and relative growth rates (RGR). 4. Our general findings show that Neotyphodium infection, Neotyphodium haplotype and its interaction with host maternal genotype, and varying water availability influence Arizona fescue physiology, growth and biomass production. Based only on infection status, the direction of interaction between endophyte and host is not mutualistic in terms of host growth. Overall, endophyte haplotype and its interaction with host maternal genotype is the most critical, and consistent factor in influencing host growth and physiological outcomes. Variation due to endophyte haplotype in terms of growth and physiological parameters is often greater than that between infected and uninfected hosts. 5. Endophyte-host interactions are likely to be enormously complex because of the genetic and environmental variation that exists in natural populations. The outcome of these interactions in natural grass-endophyte systems is exceedingly difficult to predict based simply on the presence or absence of the endophyte.

show abstract

Negligible Physiological Responses to Water Deficit in Endophyte-Infected and Uninfected Perennial Ryegrass

Cited by 36 publications

References 0 publications

Effect of drought on the growth of Lolium perenne genotypes with and without fungal endophytes

Effect of drought on the growth of Lolium perenne genotypes with and without fungal endophytes

Growth, persistence, and alkaloid levels of endophyte‐infected and endophyte‐free ryegrass pastures grazed by dairy cows in northern New Zealand

Neotyphodiuminteractions with a wild grass are driven mainly by endophyte haplotype

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About