Talk:Arbuscular mycorrhiza

plural
Unless someone objects with good reasoning, I'll soon move this article to reflect the standard plural for mycorrhiza, which is mycorrhizae. The majority of references I've been able to find use this form, not "mycorrhizas" as the plural. Even those who use "mycorrhizas" almost always use the standard pluralization for one of the major features of the organism: its hyphae. A Google search turned up only 10 results using both "mycorrhizas" and "hyphas." All the rest use hypha for the singular and hyphae for the plural, so why not follow the same pattern for the mycorrhizae? At some point when I have more time I also plan to expand the article so it's no longer a stub, but first it should have a sensible name. Victor Plenty 12:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that "mycorrhizae" is the most often used plural term, but "mycorrhizas" is also used quite often by Australian and British authors. In either case, I moved the page to Arbuscular mycorrhiza because it makes more sense to use the singular form, as is done with most other biology articles. I have included both plural forms in the article, but I always use mycorrhizae in my own writing. Now we just need to add a whole lot more content. Mycota 00:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

"Mycorrhiza" (plural = "mycorrhizas") is the term used and accepted by just about any researcher not from the United States. "Mycorrhizae" is a incorrect application of latin to greek, but it makes some people happy. "Mycorrhizaes" is bizarre (an incorrect application of English to incorrectly applied Latin), but entertaining! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.130.115.145 (talk • contribs).

Schüßler writes in
I have changed some things, there were some mistakes (e.g., Diversisporales is not one of the ancestral orders). Also some mis citations are in the text. I don't have the time to make it in the best way just now, but you should be careful with the data. Arthur —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.83.98.80 (talk • contribs).

Hi all, which are interested in the mycorrhoza topic. I think we should get through the article. It contains a lot of information, but some details were / are outdated, and my main concern is that there arte several mistakes. E.g. in the beginning it was stated AMF are >1 billion years with citing Simon - this is not correct. Also, 10 mM Phosphate are not possible in soil solutions (see my comment). Many authors were/are written incorrectly. So, my question: would the originator of the article go through it and correct such things? If not, can I feel free to do so and change the things, when I find time? All the best, Arthur Schüßler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.103.214 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 8 October 2006
 * If you are the A. Schubler (incorrectly written ?) mentioned in the references of this article, then the help of an expert in this field would be most welcome. The bulk of the text was written by a contributor who certainly knew what he/she was writing about. My contributions were mostly in wikifying the text and making it better readable. But I'm certainly not an expert. So go ahead, and make this article up-to-date. It has the potential of becoming an A class article.  JoJan 12:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

phytoremediation
Hi there, there's something about mycor. in Phytoremediation at pargrph "Mycorrhizal associations", but I don't quite know where you would place it in here - possibly in the pargrph which I renamed 'Phytoremediation'? Also a few interesting notes in each hyperaccumulators' table, inside the tables and at the bottom of them. Basicdesign 03:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The stub article phycoremediation was saying that it's about algal remediation. I've changed that into fungi remediation. Is that correct? Basicdesign 04:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Washington
It says here: http://mason.gmu.edu/~pdonovan/Fungi_pg/myco.html that "mycorrhiza relationships can be very large and cover great areas as the one in Washington state that is many square miles in area and considered the largest single living organism in the world." Is that reliable info? 86.53.51.164 06:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

criticism
“black box” of soil biomass etc -- what does this mean? most people would not understand this term —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.184.50.38 (talk • contribs).

This is a pretty bad article on the subject, & someone needs to pare back about half of what's entered: eg, "Paleobiology is a field of inquiry dealing with the biological and ecological functions that can be deduced from fossils...The fossilized plants containing mycorrhizal fungi were preserved in silica. They are prepared for observation by cementing pieces of the rock to microscope slides and then grinding the rock with carbide powder to a thickness of 50-150 µm." ...75% of that's useless. This is not an article on histology - just say "have been observed." We don't want to have the entire instructions for preparing a slide & using a microscope here as well. 70.61.22.110 14:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Ubiquitousnewt

It is difficult for advanced writers to know how technical or simplified to get on Wikipedia, but in my humble opinion, this is too technical. I don't always argue for simplifying an article, as I argued against simplifying Localizer, but in this case I think this article has a serious issue with being understandable. Maybe there Wikipedia has a guideline for this type of thing? MarshallKe (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This definitely needs more basic material, for example, simply defining the subject entities so, say, a high-school biology student could get something out of the article. This reads as if someone is PoV-pushing for recognition of the importance of this class of fungi and the need to reform agricultural practice.  Probably true, but this should not lead to a failure to do the basic job of explaining the subject. DCDuring (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Glomeromycetes
Some of this stuff could be moved to glomeromycetes, esp. the phylogenetics. Bendž|Ť 17:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Arbuscular mycorrhiza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808095819/http://www.agro.ar.szczecin.pl:80/~jblaszkowski/ to http://www.agro.ar.szczecin.pl/~jblaszkowski/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Wrong Angle
Hey everybody,

I am a graduate student studying arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. I hope to contribute to this page, because it already has a lot of good information, but it needs work. My strongest criticism is that the focus of the article is off - I think it should be around arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi as a group of organisms. As it currently reads, the focus of the article seems to be the mycorrhizal symbiosis, which could be its own page, but makes more sense as a component of a page dedicated to AMF.

Cheers, Alden

I noticed that there is an article for Glomeromycota, which would be considered the page for arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. This phylum is no longer recognized, which is one problem. Another problem is when one searches "arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi" you don't get the Glomeromycota page, just the Arbuscular mycorrhiza page, which, as I stated above, is focused on the symbiosis rather than the group of organisms. When I type arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi into Google, I would like to see a Wikipedia page for those fungi. What is the most logical way to do this? I would suggest to transform this page into the Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi page, with information on phylogeny, symbiosis, etc. found here, not spread out across multiple pages.

Alden

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arbuscular mycorrhiza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509170441/http://mycorrhiza.ag.utk.edu/ to http://mycorrhiza.ag.utk.edu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

German
could someone add https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbuskul%C3%A4re_Mykorrhizapilze to the list of other language articles? I don't know how to do that 2001:A61:2B7D:2B01:20AE:5163:1155:7DF1 (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Please fix the references
Today https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arbuscular_mycorrhiza&oldid=1181177057 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arbuscular_mycorrhiza&oldid=1181177491 I added some links and references but I am getting confused about when a same citation appears more than once, how should I format them so that in the reflist they do not become redundant. Also some red colour syntax errors in reflist. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * See Help:Footnotes for how to reuse a reference multiple times. If you're not already, I suggest using WP:REFTOOLBAR as this makes it super easy to generate a reference from a Digital object identifier (doi). Lastly, please be very careful citing your own research - see WP:SELFCITE. It does not appear necessary to include in this article and I have removed it. It may be appropriate to briefly summarise it in the Macrotyloma uniflorum article though. SmartSE (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Smartse Thank you for informing me about necessary changes RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Add image if possible
I am looking for the following images in the Wikimedia Commons under public use license but I am unable to find one.

1. Fossil petrographic section of prehistoric arbuscular mycorrhizae, showing one TS of rhizome and one LS showing arbuscles. 2. WGA-FITC/ WGA-alexafluor stained arbuscular mycorrhizae with a bit broader image with a scale bar. 3. Nuclear dynamics fluorescent image like this one https://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/56de0bf3-fa27-41b6-abf4-4927ee865bc4/gr1_lrg.jpg (https://www.cell.com/trends/plant-science/fulltext/S1360-1385%2820%2930168-0)

There are plenty of them used in research papers but I could not found any of the images with a public use license. So I request to the readers and editors of this page to add these images if possible and improve this article.

Regards RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Should I create a separate page on CSSP?
Should I create a page on 'Common Symbiotic Signaling Pathway'? because there seems to be a boom of information to difficult to pack within the article for Arbuscular mycorrhiza. For people who are quite unfamiliar with CSSP, a good start for this topic is https://academic.oup.com/plcell/article/29/10/2319/6100438? (Plant Signaling and Metabolic Pathways Enabling Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Symbiosis) by Bravo and McLean (2017), doi=10.1105/tpc.17.00555 RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have enough material yes. If not then a section here would be good. I agree we need coverage of CSSP somewhere. There is Special:Search/"Common+Symbiotic+Signaling+Pathway" none at present. Invasive Spices (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Symbiotic_Signaling_Pathway I have started working on Common Symbiotic Signaling Pathway. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Applied Plant Ecology Winter 2024
— Assignment last updated by Warmedforbs (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)