4.5 Article

Edaphic factors do not govern the ectomycorrhizal specificity of Pisonia grandis (Nyctaginaceae)

期刊

MYCORRHIZA
卷 22, 期 8, 页码 647-652

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00572-012-0442-2

关键词

Ecological specificity; Pisonia grandis; Ectomycorrhiza; Guano

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pisonia grandis (Nyctaginaceae), a widespread tree of Pacific coral atolls and islands, displays one of the more restrictive ranges of ectomycorrhizal (ECM) fungus associates among autotrophic plants. Only five ECM fungi are currently known associates; our study adds one. In many habitats, P. grandis is restricted to large seabird colonies where nitrogen and phosphorus inputs in the form of guano are substantial. It has been suggested that the ECM specificity displayed by P. grandis is the result of the unusual nutrient-rich habitat in which P. grandis grows. On Rota, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, P. grandis grows in habitats heavily influenced by guano additions and also in upland forests where seabirds do not roost or nest. To test the hypothesis that the ECM specificity displayed by P. grandis is the result of nutrient-related or toxicity-related factors associated with guano inputs, we sampled P. grandis growing in both guano-rich and guano-poor habitats on Rota, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. We identified ECM symbionts of P. grandis from both habitats as well as two symbionts of Intsia bijuga (Fabaceae) from nutrient-rich habitats. We identified three ECM symbionts of P. grandis from Rota; all three were found in both guano-rich and guano-poor habitats. No differences in community diversity were detected between guano-rich and guano-poor habitats. We also detected two ECM fungal species associating with I. bijuga but not associating with P. grandis inside guano-rich habitats. From these results, we infer that edaphic factors are not responsible for limiting the ECM community associating with P. grandis to its observed level of specificity.

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

4.5
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