4.7 Editorial Material

Untangling above- and belowground mycorrhizal fungal networks in tropical orchids

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 21, 期 20, 页码 4921-4924

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05718.x

关键词

epiphyte; network analysis; phylogenetics; rhizoctonia; terrestrial

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Orchids typically depend on fungi for establishment from seeds, forming mycorrhizal associations with basidiomycete fungal partners in the polyphyletic group rhizoctonia from early stages of germination, sometimes with very high specificity. This has raised important questions about the roles of plant and fungal phylogenetics, and their habitat preferences, in controlling which fungi associate with which plants. In this issue of Molecular Ecology, Martos et al. (2012) report the largest network analysis to date for orchids and their mycorrhizal fungi, sampling a total of over 450 plants from nearly half the 150 tropical orchid species on Reunion Island, encompassing its main terrestrial and epiphytic orchid genera. The authors found a total of 95 operational taxonomic units of mycorrhizal fungi and investigated the architecture and nestedness of their bipartite networks with 73 orchid species. The most striking finding was a major ecological barrier between above- and belowground mycorrhizal fungal networks, despite both epiphytic and terrestrial orchids often associating with closely related taxa across all three major lineages of rhizoctonia fungi. The fungal partnerships of the epiphytes and terrestrial species involved a diversity of fungal taxa in a modular network architecture, with only about one in ten mycorrhizal fungi partnering orchids in both groups. In contrast, plant and fungal phylogenetics had weak or no effects on the network. This highlights the power of recently developed ecological network analyses to give new insights into controls on plantfungal symbioses and raises exciting new hypotheses about the differences in properties and functioning of mycorrhiza in epiphytic and terrestrial orchids.

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