Mycology Applications for Landscape Architecture by Katie Nikota
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Mycology Applications for Landscape Architecture by Katie Nikota A Thesis presented to The University of Guelph In partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of Master of Landscape Architecture Guelph, Ontario, Canada © Katie Nikota, May, 2018 i ABSTRACT MYCOLOGY APPLICATIONS FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Katie Nikota, 0817970 Advisor: University of Guelph, 2018 Karen Landman Recent advancements in mycology have led to revolutionary discoveries of underground fungi that form essential symbiotic relationships with plants, connecting nutrients and communicating between root systems. Knowing how to utilize fungi to our benefit through mycorestoration and mycology applications might allow landscape architects to become ecological balancers for both human and natural environments. There is a lack of understanding of the complex systems of mycology. Bridging this gap between mycologists and landscape architects is essential to create a healthy mycorrhizal network in designed landscapes, especially distressed urban soils. This exploratory research investigates how mycology can be applied within the practise of landscape architecture, in order to propose applications of mycology and mycorestoration techniques, through a review of key literature and key informant interviews. Applications of mycology and mycorestoration in urban environments that contribute to healthier myco networking are proposed. Key Words: Fungi, Mycelium, Mycology, Mycorestoration, Mycorrhizal (Mycorrhizae) ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Karen Landman, for her tireless hours spent guiding me and making my thesis writing a fun memorable experience. I’m forever grateful for your wisdom and kindness. Also, I would like to thank my committee member, Dr. Nate Perkins, for supporting my crazy thought process, you’re one fun-guy! You both have taught me life-long lessons that I’m eternally thankful for. I would like to thank all my key informants and the revolutionary mycologists leading the mycogeneration. Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedules and sharing your insight and knowledge. Without your contribution this research would not exist. Thank you for helping shape my future and the next generation of landscape architects. This journey would not have begun if it weren’t for Alex Shevchuk taking a chance on me and hiring me at the city of Toronto. Thank you for believing in me. Thank you to my beloved parents, mom I know you’ve been guiding and supporting me from heaven, dad, thank you for your love, patience, and support through my life’s journeys. To the University of Guelph and my fellow classmates, thank you for changing my life and planting the learning seed in me. I can’t wait to see the places we will all grow. Every day you inspire me with your friendship and talents. Lastly to my Ryan, I cannot express how much your love and support through my masters has meant to me. You make me stronger, wiser and complete me in every way. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………………………………. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………………………….. iv LIST OF FIGURES, ILLUSTRATIONS…………………………………………………………………. vi LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………………………………. viii GLOSSARY…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. x ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………………………………………. xiii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………. 1 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE…………………………………………………………….. 4 2.1 THE SYMBIOTIC FUNGI NETWORK……………………………………………….. 4 2.2 MUSHROOM MORPHOLOGY……………………………………………………….. 5 2.3 MYCORRHIZOSPHERE………………………………………………………………….. 10 2.4 MYCORRHIZAL TYPES…………………………………………………………………… 17 2.5 MYCORRHIZAL BEHAVIOUR AND LOCATION………………………………... 25 CHAPTER 3: METHODS………………………………………………………………………………….. 28 3.1 METHOD PROCESS………………………………………………………………………. 29 3.2 QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT…………………………………………………. 30 3.3 CRITERIA FOR KEY INFORMANT SELECTION…………………………………. 30 3.4 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS…………………………………………………….. 32 3.5 ANALYSIS……………………………………………………………………………………. 33 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS……………………………………………………………. 34 4.1 KEY INFORMANT BACKGROUND…………………………………………………. 35 4.2 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW TABLES………………………………………….. 37 4.3 CRITERIA FOR TARGETED TECHNICAL LITERATURE………………………. 64 4.4 URBANIZATION INFLUENCES ON FUNGI………………………………………. 65 4.5 REGENERATIVE MYCOLOGY DESIGN PRINCIPLES…………………………. 76 iv 4.6 MYCOLOGY APPLICATIONS………………………………………………………………………. 87 4.7 MYCOLOGY APPLICATION SYNTHESIS………………………………………………………. 88 4.7.1 STEP 1……………………………………………………………………………………….. 88 4.7.2 STEP 2……………………………………………………………………………………….. 89 4.7.3 STEP 3……………………………………………………………………………………….. 91 4.8 MYCORRHIZAL NETWORK………………………………………………………………………… 120 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………………………………………… 128 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………………. 133 REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 135 APPENDIX…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 137 - 190 v LIST OF FIGURES, ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1 The Mushroom Life Cycle (Stamets, 2018) ………………………………………………………….. 7 Figure 2 The Spitzenkӧrper at the Hyphal Tip (Lowenfels, p.26, 2017) ……………………………… 8 Figure 3 Slime Mold Maze (Stamets, p.7, 2005) ……………………………………………………………….. 10 Figure 4 Douglas Fir Mycorrhizal Connections (Beiler et al., p.546, 2009) ………………………… 13 Figure 5 Douglas Fir Tree Coverage (Beiler et al., p.549, 2009) …………………………………………. 14 Figure 6 Root cross-section with several mycorrhizal types (Lowenfels, p.47, 2017) ………… 18 Figure 7 Mycorrhiza Root Association (Kendrick, p.324, 2017) …………………………………………. 18 Figure 8 Dichotomously branched ectomycorrhizas of a basidiomycete with a conifer. (Kendrick et al., p. 1, 2017) ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 20 Figure 9 Dichotomous ectomycorrhizas (upper) and mycelial strands (lower) of Amanita muscaria on Pinus strobus (Kendrick et al., p. 2, 2017) …………………………………………………….. 21 Figure 10 Ectomycorrhizas of Laccaria bicolor with Populus tremuloides (Kendrick et al., p. 2, 2017) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 21 Figure 11 Seedlings of Douglas fir with and without ectomycorrhizal partners (Kendrick et al., p. 4, 2017) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 21 Figure 12 Colonization of a root by an endomycorrhizal fungus. Note hyphae, arbuscules and vesicles (Kendrick et al., p. 3, 2017) ………………………………………………………………………………….. 23 Figure 13 (Left) A part of the "extramatrical" mycelium of Glomus mosseae, an endomycorrhizal fungus grown in leek roots in a root chamber. Figure 14 (Right) showing monosporic sporocarps of Glomus mosseae with hyphal peridium (Kendrick et al., p. 1,2, 2017) ………………………….. 23 Figure 15 A stained arbuscule of Glomus mosseae in a leek root cell (Kendrick et al., p. 4, 2017) …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 23 Figure 16 Hyphae and arbuscules of an endomycorrhizal fungus in Asarum (wild ginger) (Kendrick et al., p. 4, 2017) ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23 Figure 17 Mycorrhizal colonization and ecology (Phillips, p.16, 2017) ……………………………….. 25 Figure 18 Mycorrhizal type (Lowenfels, p.65, 2017) …………………………………………………………... 26 Figure 19 Plant affiliations (Phillips, p.17, 2017) …………………………………………………………………. 26 Figure 20 Mycorrhizal network (Phillips, p.56, 2017) ………………………………………………………….. 27 Figure 21 Methods Process Diagram ………………………………………………………………………………….. 29 Figure 22 Downtown Guelph, Ontario (Google Earth, 2018) ………………………………………………. 124 Figure 23 Green Streets; Downtown Guelph, Ontario (Google Earth, 2018)……………………….. 124 vi Figure 24 Green Roofs, Living Walls, and Streets; Downtown Guelph, Ontario (Google Earth, 2018) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 125 Figure 25 Green/ Fungal Corridors; Downtown Guelph, Ontario (Google Earth, 2018) …….. 126 Figure 26 Mycorrhizal Network; Downtown Guelph, Ontario (Google Earth, 2018) ………….. 127 Figure 27 Cross-section schematic of a biofiltration treatment cell (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Thomas et al, p.25, 2009) ………………………………………………………………………………. 138 Figure 28 Mycofilter Trial, Average % Removal of Sediment-Bound E.coli (Stamets et al., p. 19, 2013) ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 139 Figure 29 Summary of Results for Pleurotus Mycofilter Sediment & Bacteria Series Test (Stamets et al., p.20, 2013) ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 140 Figure 30 E.coli % concentration removal in biofilters (Taylor et al., p.83, 2014) ……………….. 141 Figure 31 Thermotolerant coliform concentration from biofilters (Taylor et al., p.83, 2014) …141 Figure 32 Mycorrhizal Growth Comparison (Stamets, p.81, 2005) ………………………………………. 144 Figure 33 20+ Year Old Wood Debris (Stamets, p.79, 2005) ………………………………………………… 144 Figure 34 Top left: Contaminated Pile Before, Figure 35 Top right: 4 Weeks After Oyster Spawn Applied, Figure 36 Bottom: Oyster Mushrooms Grew Larger than Hand (Stamets, p. 93, 2005) …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 146 Figure 37 Contaminant Toxin and Recommended Mushroom (Stamets, p.113, 2005) …………. 147 Figure 38 Mushrooms with Activity Against Chemical Toxins (Stamets, p.96, 2005) ………….... 149 Figure 39 Mushrooms Versus Heavy Metals (Stamets, p.106, 2005) ……………………………………. 150 Figure 40 Role of Mushroom in Degradation of Pollutants (Kulshreshtha, p.3, 2014) ………..… 151 Figure 41 Removal of Pollutants by Biomass of Mushroom using Biosorption Process (Kulshreshtha, p.3, 2014) …………………………………………………………………………………………………..… 151 Figure 42 Drought Resistant Mycorrhizal Tomatoes Test (Lowenfels, p.78, 2017)