Search
Search Results
-
Comparison of macrofungi communities anti examination of macrofungi-plant interactions in forest stands in North Hungary
101-103.Views:147Parallel phyto- and mycocoenological investigations have been made since 2001 in all characteristic forest types in Borzsony Mts., North Hungary. The main aim of this work was the examination of similarities between plant and fungal communities, as well as the plant—fungi connections within certain habitats. Among the total 381 macrofungi species documented, 330 occurred in the investigated 7 forest stands. Wood-inhabiting fungal communities of coniferous stands can be separated unambiguously from those of deciduous stands. Communities of deciduous stands can be divided into two subgroups: those fructifying in wet and in semidry stands. The main factors which influence the composition of wood inhabiting fungal communities seem to be, in decreasing order: (1) crown layer composition; and (2) soil properties (probably only humidity). Wood-inhabiting fungal communities do not show any relation with the underwood layer of particular plant associations. Amongst soil inhabiting fungal communities, three groups can be separated: (1) those of coniferous stands and alderwood; (2) those of the two climax stands; and (3) those of the two edaphic deciduous stands. Classification of these communities is similar to classification of plants of underwood layers. Probably both are dependent upon soil properties (humidity and pH) of particular habitats, but the range of mycorrhizal partners is also decisive for macrofungi communities. All investigated stands are under forestry management, with low quantity of dead and infected wood, so forestry management type may have a great influence in composition of both wood and soil saprotrophic fungal communities.
-
Nectar production of pear (Pyrus communis L.) cultivars
67-75.Views:281Detailed studies were made on the nectar production of 44, 16 and 18 pear cultivars, respectively, in a cultivar collection of pear during three consecutive years with highly different weather in the blooming. Results clearly show that pear does not necessarily produce small amount of nectar as stated in the world literature. In fact, pear can produce extremely high amount of nectar sometimes much higher than other temperate zone fruit trees species but its nectar production is highly subjected to weather, first of all to air temperature. Low nectar production seems to be more frequent than high one and cold weather can prevent its nectar production at all. On the other hand, results corroborate to the earlier statements on the low sugar concentration of pear nectar. There is a highly significant negative correlation between the amount of nectar produced by pear flowers and its sugar concentration (r = -0.52, n = 291, p< 0.001 for 1996, r = -0.34, n = 197, p< 0.001 for 1998). Sugar concentration in individual flowers may be up, to 40% in exceptional cases but generally it is well below 20%. Very high figures for sugar concentration in pear nectar at the literature seem to be incomprehensible. In contrast of some earlier statement in the literature no real difference could be established in the nectar production of pear cultivars, based on much more measurements than in earlier studies. Very low sugar concentration in pear nectar can explain the fact that the overwhelming majority of honeybees are pollen gatherers at pear trees even in the case of exceptionally high nectar production.
-
Fruit set and yield of pear cultivars as affected by reduced bee pollination period
11-16.Views:210Results of our experiments prove that pear is more or less sensitive to the reduced bee pollination period. However, the reaction (or the sensitivity) of cultivars may be different to the reduced bee pollination. Most cultivars produce much less yield under reduced bee pollination or no yield with the exclusion of bees but in the case of some cultivars total exclusion of bees does not prevent the yield formation and what is more sometimes reduced bee pollination can be resulted in somewhat higher yield than open pollination. Typical reaction, however, is a significant yield reduction with reduced bee pollination. Pear seems to be somewhat less sensitive to the partial reduction of bee pollination period than apple or quince. The first half of the flowering period seems to be more important in yield formation because usually higher yield was resulted when pear cultivars received open pollination in the first than in the second half of the blooming period. Based on our experimental results no definite relationship between parthenocarpic capacity of cultivars and the yield under reduced bee pollination can be established. So reduced bee pollination does not seem to contribute the parthenocarpic fruit formation in pear.