4.5 Article

Thuja plicata exclusion in ectomycorrhiza-dominated forests:: testing the role of inoculum potential of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi

期刊

OECOLOGIA
卷 143, 期 1, 页码 148-156

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-004-1777-y

关键词

climate change; colonization; dispersal; shade; tree distribution

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ability of trees dependent on arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi to establish in ectomycorrhizal forests is unknown. On northern Vancouver Island, Canada, there are sharp boundaries between mixed red cedar (Thuja plicata)-hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) (CH) stands, and stands of hemlock and amabilis fir (Abies amabilis) (HA). We tested differences in AM colonization of red cedar between ectomycorrhiza-dominated (HA) stands and stands containing red cedar (CH), across a range of light levels. We used a soil bioassay approach to determine whether there was sufficient AM fungal inoculum in the HA tree stands to colonize red cedar seedlings. Seeds of hemlock and red cedar were sown in forest floor samples collected from the two types of forests, and shade treatments ranging from <1 to 53% of full sunlight were imposed. After 6 months, seedling survival and root and shoot biomass were quantified, and red cedar seedlings were sampled for AM fungal colonization. Hemlock survival and growth did not differ between soil types, suggesting there was no substrate-associated limitation to its establishment in either forest type. Red cedar colonization by AM fungi was significantly correlated with light levels in CH soils but arbuscular mycorrhizas were absent in roots of red cedar seedlings grown in HA soil. Red cedar survival and relative growth rate were significantly greater in the CH than in HA soil; higher growth was due primarily to greater shoot growth in CH soils at high light levels. The low soil inoculum potential for red cedar in ectomycorrhiza-dominated stands may account for the virtual exclusion of red cedar seedlings from these forests.

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