4.6 Article

Response of aquatic hyphomycete communities to enhanced stream retention in areas impacted by commercial forestry

期刊

FRESHWATER BIOLOGY
卷 47, 期 2, 页码 313-323

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.00801.x

关键词

aquatic fungi; forest management; leaf litter; stream retentiveness; woody debris

向作者/读者索取更多资源

1. Aquatic hyphomycetes are an important component of detritus processing in streams. Their response to enhanced stream retentiveness was tested by manipulating three streams located in Kielder Forest (northern England), a large plantation of exotic conifers, and two streams in Montagne Noire (south-west France) dominated by native broadleaf woodland. Treatment was by placement of logs or plastic litter traps into a 10-20 in stream section. Fungal spores were collected from stream water upstream and downstream of the treated sections over 1-2 years. 2. The average concentration of fungal spores in reference sections was nearly 10x greater in the French streams than in the English streams. The number of hyphomycete species was also higher in the French streams. These differences between regions were probably a consequence of the much lower standing stock and diversity of leaf litter in the English streams. 3. Despite these large regional differences, the treatment had a clear effect in all streams. Detrital standing stocks were enhanced in treated sections by up to 90% in French streams and 70% in English streams. 4. Mean spore density below treated sections increased by 1.8-14.8% in French streams and 10.2-28.9% in the naturally less retentive English streams. The number of fungal species increased significantly below the treated sections of the English streams, although not the French ones. 5. In biologically impoverished plantation streams, input of woody debris can increase detritus retention and enhance hyphomycete diversity and productivity. This may have consequent benefits for detritus processing and macroinvertebrate production.

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