4.6 Article

Seasonal Succession of Fungi Associated with Ips typographus Beetles and Their Phoretic Mites in an Outbreak Region of Finland

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155622

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Helsinki
  2. Jouko Tuovolan Saatio
  3. Olvi Foundation
  4. Watson Foundation
  5. Natural Resources Institute Finland
  6. University of Eastern Finland
  7. University of Pretoria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ophiostomatoid fungi (Microascales and Ophiostomatales, Ascomycota) are common associates of Ips typographus, and include tree pathogens and species responsible for blue-stain of timber. Fungal assemblages associated with I. typographus have varied considerably between studies but few investigations have attempted to explain this variation. For this reason, we assessed the overall cultivable fungal diversity associated with I. typographus in a storm-felled spruce forest in south-eastern Finland. Fungi were isolated from the individually collected beetles as well as their phoretic mites in spring, summer and autumn, including different life stages of the beetle (hibernation, dispersal flight and first generation). The internal transcribed spacer (ITS) gene region was used to identify the fungi. A total of 32 operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were found and these resided in four fungal phyla/subphyla (24 Ascomycota, 2 Basidiomycota, 5 Mucoromycotina, 1 Mortierello-mycotina) in association with adult bark beetles. Ophiostomatoid species were the most commonly detected fungal associates. A generalized linear model analysis showed a clear association between fungal communities and season, indicating seasonal succession among I. typographus-associated fungi. The season of sampling appears to be an important factor that has resulted in inconsistencies between results in previous studies. Many of these fungi were also found on phoretic mites and their presence or absence could have influenced variation in patterns of association.

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

4.6
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