4.1 Article

Monitoring and identification of airborne fungi at historic locations on Ross Island, Antarctica

期刊

POLAR SCIENCE
卷 4, 期 2, 页码 275-283

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.polar.2010.03.008

关键词

Fungi; Polar biology; 'Heroic Era'

资金

  1. Vice Chancellor Fund of The University of Waikato
  2. National Science Foundation [0229570, 0537143]
  3. Antarctic Heritage Trust
  4. Division Of Polar Programs
  5. Directorate For Geosciences [0229570, 0537143] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Air sampling in the 'Heroic Era' historic huts on Ross Island, Antarctica confirmed fungal presence, viability and winter survival. Cultivation and consensus sequence-based identification of Cladosporium cladosporioides, Pseudeurotium desertorum, Geomyces sp. and Antarctomyces psychrotrophicus demonstrated that they dominated the air environment within the huts. Cadophora sp. and Thebolus sp. were also isolated from the air and identified by morphological characteristics. Viable fungal colony forming units generally dropped in winter 2007 samplings from levels recorded in summer 2006 but were still substantial and greater than observed in summer 2008 and summer 2009 sampling at some locations. Comparing interior to exterior sampling, at the Hut Point and Cape Evans sites, there were more fungi recovered from the air in the interiors but at Cape Royds location, more fungi were recovered from the outside environment, possibly due to the impact of large amounts of organic material from the nearby Adelie penguin rookery. This research reveals airborne fungal biodiversity in summer and winter and demonstrates spores are widespread particularly in the interiors of the huts. Completed conservation efforts appear to have reduced fungal blooms and spores, which should reduce future adverse impacts to wood, textiles, paper and other artefacts so that this important polar heritage can be preserved. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. and NIPR. All rights reserved.

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

4.1
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