4.7 Article

Competition and Coexistence In a Multi-partner Mutualism: Interactions Between two Fungal Symbionts of the Mountain Pine Beetle In Beetle-attacked Trees

期刊

MICROBIAL ECOLOGY
卷 57, 期 1, 页码 191-202

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00248-008-9395-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. Regional Research Project [W-187]
  2. McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Program
  3. University of Montana

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite overlap in niches, two fungal symbionts of the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae), Grosmannia clavigera and Ophiostoma montium, appear to coexist with one another and their bark beetle host in the phloem of trees. We sampled the percent of phloem colonized by fungi four times over 1 year to investigate the nature of the interaction between these two fungi and to determine how changing conditions in the tree (e.g., moisture) affect the interaction. Both fungi colonized phloem at similar rates; however, G. clavigera colonized a disproportionately larger amount of phloem than O. montium considering their relative prevalence in the beetle population. High phloem moisture appeared to inhibit fungal growth shortly after beetle attack; however, by 1 year, low phloem moisture likely inhibited fungal growth and survival. There was no inverse relationship between the percent of phloem colonized by G. clavigera only and O. montium only, which would indicate competition between the species. However, the percent of phloem colonized by G. clavigera and O. montium together decreased after 1 year, while the percent of phloem from which no fungi were isolated increased. A reduction in living fungi in the phloem at this time may have significant impacts on both beetles and fungi. These results indicate that exploitation competition occurred after a year when the two fungi colonized the phloem together, but we found no evidence of strong interference competition. Each species also maintained an exclusive area, which may promote coexistence of species with similar resource use.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据