|User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||15.64||3||(shroomydan,Noah)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
and I think it is with Russula too … I have shot photos myself too this year but there were no fruitbodies around at this time except yellow chanterelles …
I just added observation #23462, which probably shows what Gerhard named ‘yellow one’ from Europe. However, I don’t know with which fungus and whether at all Monotropa hypophegea is associated.
“But mycorrhizal (fungus root)? Shouldn’t that be mycorsaprophytic, if they are, in fact, parasites on the fungus?”
Myco-heterotrophy is the term used to describe the relationship.
In Eastern North America I believe the “victim” or associate is usually Lactarius or Russula Spp.
Especially the association with hardwoods in your area. In mine, they are nearly species specific with Douglas-fir. I saw several clusters fruiting on 7/11, but did not photograph them.
But mycorrhizal (fungus root)? Shouldn’t that be mycorsaprophytic, if they are, in fact, parasites on the fungus? As I understand it, sugars given to the mycorrhizal associate (Rhizopogon) are changed to trehelose, a sugar which is available to the fungus, but is not available to share with the host plant in time of need. I know of no beneficial relationship to Rhizopogon from Monotropa. Isn’t Monotropa parasitic on Rhizopogon, but not directly linked to a host tree except through the fungal liason?
But they are not associated with conifers. These are popping up by the hundreds right now, in Ohio under mixed hardwoods. The specimens shown here are larger and pinker than the little white ones I usually find. It is my understanding that these plants are not saprophytes. They are parasites on mycorrhizal fungi, so they ultimately receive their nutrition from sugars produced in the leaves of the host tree. I do not know if mating studies have been done, but using a basic morphological species concept, one could probably describe several species of Indian Pipes. Because they appear to be associated with a number of different trees and a number of fungal intermediaries, using an ecological species concept, many more species could probably be described.
Non-photosynthetic mycorrihizal plants blur the naive distinction between plants and fungi.
This cluster was pretty enough to publish, so here they are for your viewing pleasure :)
but plants. Apparently they are saprophytic or saproprobic on a fungus 100% of the time, usually Rhizopogons. M. uniflora is said to be associated with Rhizopogon vinicolor, I believe, which in turn is most commonly associated with Douglas-fir and Pinus species. So this is a plant without chlorophyll growing from a fungus which associates mostly with conifers. Which would be the appropriate tie-in to posting this photo at Mushroom Observer. Right?
Created: 2009-07-20 02:15:44 CEST (+0200)
Last modified: 2009-07-20 02:15:44 CEST (+0200)
Viewed: 303 times, last viewed: 2017-06-06 07:49:22 CEST (+0200)