4.5 Article

Length and colonization rates of roots associated with arbuscular or ectomycorrhizal fungi decline differentially with depth in two northern hardwood forests

期刊

MYCORRHIZA
卷 32, 期 2, 页码 213-219

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00572-022-01071-8

关键词

Arbuscular mycorrhiza; Ectomycorrhiza; MELNHE; Northern Hardwood; Roots; Soil depth

资金

  1. NSF Long-Term Ecological Research Program [DEB-0423259, DEB-1114804]
  2. NSF [DEB-0949317]
  3. USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture [2019-67019-29464]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The vertical distribution of Ectomycorrhizal (EM) and arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi in co-occurring forests was studied. EM plant species had longer roots than AM plant species at a shallow depth, while AM plant species had longer roots than EM plant species at a deeper depth. The colonization rates of both EM and AM fungi decreased with depth.
Ectomycorrhizal (EM) and arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi are often studied independently, and thus little is known regarding differences in vertical distribution of these two groups in forests where they co-occur. We sampled roots at two soil depths in two northern hardwood stands in Bartlett, New Hampshire, co-dominated by tree species that associate with AM or EM fungi. Root length of both groups declined with depth. More importantly, root length of EM plant species exceeded that of AM plants at 0-10-cm depth, while AM exceeded EM root length at 30-50-cm depth. Colonization rates were similar between mineral and organic portions of the shallow (0-10 cm) samples for EM and AM fungi and declined dramatically with depth (30-50 cm). The ratio of EM to AM fungal colonization declined with depth, but not as much as the decline in root length with depth, resulting in greater dominance by EM fungi near the surface and by AM fungi at depth. The depth distribution of EM and AM roots may have implications for soil carbon accumulation as well as for the success of the associated tree species.

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