21.03.2015 Views

Introduction to Fungi, Third Edition

Introduction to Fungi, Third Edition

Introduction to Fungi, Third Edition

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

536 HOMOBASIDIOMYCETES<br />

Breeding of Agaricus bisporus<br />

The development of new strains of A. bisporus<br />

with superior qualities such as more efficient<br />

substrate conversion rates, rapid fruiting, higher<br />

yield, resistance <strong>to</strong> disease, ease of picking,<br />

extended shelf-life, better appearance, flavour<br />

or consistency is actively pursued by the mushroom<br />

industry (see Raper, 1985; Sonnenberg,<br />

2000). This task is difficult but worthwhile in<br />

view of the high commercial value of the crop,<br />

and various techniques are being used:<br />

1. Selection of strains collected in the field<br />

and arising during cultivation.<br />

2. Hybridization. The small amount of variation<br />

in the gene pool of commercial s<strong>to</strong>cks of<br />

A. bisporus creates little scope for recombination.<br />

However, a search for new genetic resources<br />

within wild Agaricus populations, the Agaricus<br />

Resource Program (ARP), has made available<br />

novel germ plasm which will prove useful in<br />

breeding (Kerrigan, 1996). Of particular interest<br />

is the discovery in the Sonoran desert (California)<br />

of tetrasporic populations, named A. bisporus var.<br />

burnettii, which are completely interfertile with<br />

commercial lines (Kerrigan et al., 1994; Kerrigan,<br />

1995). Agaricus bisporus var. eurotetrasporus,<br />

another four-spored variety, has been discovered<br />

in Europe. Whilst var. burnettii is amphithallic<br />

and predominantly heterothallic, var. eurotetrasporus<br />

is homothallic (Callac et al., 2003).<br />

3. Pro<strong>to</strong>plast fusion. The fusion of pro<strong>to</strong>plasts<br />

from different homokaryons is an alternative <strong>to</strong><br />

the conventional hybridization technique involving<br />

the pairing of compatible homokaryotic<br />

mycelia.<br />

4. Transformation (genetic modification)<br />

using Agrobacterium as a vec<strong>to</strong>r for the transforming<br />

DNA is also possible, but genetically modified<br />

food products are unpopular with consumers<br />

and certain political parties.<br />

Macrolepiota (30 spp.)<br />

The best-known species of Macrolepiota are the<br />

parasol M. procera (Fig. 19.14b) and the shaggy<br />

parasol M. rhacodes, both of which grow in parks,<br />

pastures and woodland. They are saprotrophs.<br />

The pale brown fruit bodies are large and<br />

generally considered good <strong>to</strong> eat, although<br />

those of M. rhacodes may cause gastric upsets.<br />

A feature of both species is that the ring<br />

is detachable and is free <strong>to</strong> move up and<br />

down the stem. Macrolepiota procera and<br />

M. rhacodes have been separated from Lepiota,<br />

and Vellinga et al. (2003) have proposed that they<br />

should be separated from each other as well,<br />

with M. procera showing affinities with<br />

Leucoagaricus and Leucocoprinus, and M. rhacodes<br />

with Agaricus.<br />

There are concerns about the ability of<br />

M. procera <strong>to</strong> concentrate mercury absorbed<br />

from the soil in<strong>to</strong> the basidiocarp tissues, with<br />

values in the caps as high as 13 mgg 1 reported<br />

from various sites in Poland. The mercury<br />

content of the caps and stalks was generally<br />

independent of the soil substrate concentration,<br />

suggesting a remarkable ability of the M. procera<br />

mycelium <strong>to</strong> bioconcentrate mercury (Gucia &<br />

Falandysz, 2003).<br />

Coprinus<br />

Molecular evidence indicates a relationship<br />

between lepio<strong>to</strong>id fungi and two species of<br />

Coprinus, namely C. comatus and C. sterquilinus<br />

(Hopple & Vilgalys, 1999; Redhead et al., 2001).<br />

Although it is now possible, with hindsight, <strong>to</strong><br />

recognize other features shared by these species<br />

and other Agaricaceae, e.g. the shaggy surface of<br />

the cap or the moveable annulus (Fig. 19.14c), we<br />

will discuss them in the context of the many<br />

biological features uniting them with their<br />

former allies (see below).<br />

19.4.2 Coprinaceae (now Psathyrellaceae)<br />

Molecular studies have shown that the genus<br />

Coprinus is not monophyletic (Hopple & Vilgalys,<br />

1999; Redhead, 2001; Redhead et al., 2001),<br />

implying that the coprinoid character of deliquescent<br />

gills has evolved more than once.<br />

This finding has caused a taxonomic nightmare<br />

because one of the two species found <strong>to</strong><br />

be related more closely <strong>to</strong> Macrolepiota than<br />

<strong>to</strong> Coprinus happened <strong>to</strong> be the type-species<br />

C. comatus. Its move from the Coprinaceae <strong>to</strong><br />

the Agaricaceae meant that those numerous<br />

species remaining in the Coprinaceae were<br />

given new names, namely Coprinopsis (e.g. C.<br />

atramentarius, C. cinereus, C. lagopus, C.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!