4.7 Article Data Paper

Associations between carabid beetles and fungi in the light of 200 years of published literature

期刊

SCIENTIFIC DATA
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41597-021-01072-w

关键词

-

资金

  1. 111 project in China
  2. State Key Laboratory of Ecological Pest Control for Fujian and Taiwan Crops
  3. Statutory Funds of Institute for Agricultural and Forest Environment of Polish Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The dataset compiles biotic interactions between ground beetles and fungi from 392 scientific publications spanning 129 countries over a 200-year period, identifying 3,378 unique associations. Ectoparasitic Laboulbeniales were the most frequent fungal group associated with carabids. The database offers valuable insights into large-scale hypotheses on insect-fungi interactions.
Describing and conserving ecological interactions woven into ecosystems is one of the great challenges of the 21(st) century. Here, we present a unique dataset compiling the biotic interactions between two ecologically and economically important taxa: ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and fungi. The resulting dataset contains the carabid-fungus associations collected from 392 scientific publications, 129 countries, mostly from the Palearctic region, published over a period of 200 years. With an updated taxonomy to match the currently accepted nomenclature, 3,378 unique associations among 5,564 records were identified between 1,776 carabid and 676 fungal taxa. Ectoparasitic Laboulbeniales were the most frequent fungal group associated with carabids, especially with Trechinae. The proportion of entomopathogens was low. Three different formats of the data have been provided along with an interactive data digest platform for analytical purposes. Our database summarizes the current knowledge on biotic interactions between insects and fungi, while offering a valuable resource to test large-scale hypotheses on those interactions.

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