4.3 Article

The community of needle endophytes reflects the current physiological state of Norway spruce

Journal

FUNGAL BIOLOGY
Volume 118, Issue 3, Pages 309-315

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.funbio.2014.01.002

Keywords

Condensed tannins; Host tree vitality; Lophodermium piceae; Needle endophytic fungi; Norway spruce (Picea abies)

Categories

Funding

  1. Academy of Finland [128229]
  2. Academy of Finland (AKA) [128229, 128229] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated fungal endophytes in the needles of Norway spruce (Picea abies) cuttings in relation to host tree growth. We also determined the prevalence of endophytes in needles incubated for six months. The cuttings originated from clonal origins showing slow- and fast-growth in long-term field trials but the heritable differences in growth rate were not yet detected among the studied cutting. Endophytes were isolated from surface-sterilized needles with culture-free DNA techniques. No significant differences were observed between endophyte communities of slow- and fast-growing clonal origins. However, the endophyte community correlated with the current growth rate of cuttings suggesting that endophytes reflect short-rather than long-term performance of a host. The concentration of condensed tannins was similar in slow- and fast-growing clonal origins but it showed a negative relationship with endophyte species richness, implying that these secondary compounds may play an important role in spruce tolerance against fungal infections. More than a third of endophyte species were detected in both fresh and decomposing needles, indicating that many needle endophytes are facultative saprotrophs. Several potentially pathogenic fungal species were also found within the community of saprotrophic endophytes. (C) 2014 The British Mycological Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available