Mineral supplementation and productivity of the Shiitake mushroom on eucalyptus logs
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162004000300003Keywords:
Lentinula edodes, nitrogen, phosphorusAbstract
Brazilian reports on Shiitake mushroom [Lentinula edodes (Berkeley) Pegler] productivity grown on Eucalyptus saligna (Sm.) logs are optimistic. The current production on this kind of wood is, however, low and variable. Aiming at increasing Shiitake mushroom productivity, the present work studied interactions among three concentrations of mineral supplement and three Shiitake strains (Le 95/01, 96/17 and 96/18) grown on seventh cut eucalyptus logs. Mineral fertilization was carried out when the logs were submerged in water to induce fruiting bodies, using the following saline concentrations: zero (no fertilizers added), 0.05% (equivalent to 0.35 g L-1 of ammonium sulfate with 18% nitrogen and 0.15 g L-1 of superphosphate with 34% phosphorus) and 0.50%. Fertilization of the Le 95/01 strain increased productivity, but logs inoculated with the Le 96/17 strain were more productive only at 0.05% concentration while in the Le 96/18 strain, mineral supplementation decreased in productivity. The radial growth of these Shiitake strains (in sawdust-agar medium and with the same saline concentrations used in the log experiment) showed that all strains reacted positively to fertilization and that positive results for the Le 95/01 strain and negative results for Le 96/18 on eucalyptus logs are due to the natural higher competitiveness of the first Le 95/01 in relation to the latter Le 96/18 strain. Mineral fertilization increases the productivity provided that the logs are well colonized by Shiitake mushrooms.Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Downloads
Published
2004-06-01
Issue
Section
Crop Science
License
All content of the journal, except where identified, is licensed under a Creative Common attribution-type BY-NC.How to Cite
Mineral supplementation and productivity of the Shiitake mushroom on eucalyptus logs . (2004). Scientia Agricola, 61(3), 260-265. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162004000300003