4.5 Article

Fungal community dynamics in relation to substrate quality of decaying Norway spruce ( Picea abies [L.] Karst.) logs in boreal forests

期刊

FEMS MICROBIOLOGY ECOLOGY
卷 81, 期 2, 页码 494-505

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2012.01376.x

关键词

dead wood; decomposition; saprotrophic fungi; ectomycorrhizal fungi; DNA

资金

  1. Academy of Finland [121630]
  2. Academy of Finland (AKA) [121630, 121630] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Decaying wood plays an important role in forest biodiversity, nutrient cycling and carbon balance. Community structure of wood-inhabiting fungi changes with mass loss of wood, but the relationship between substrate quality and decomposers is poorly understood. This limits the extent to which these ecosystem services can be effectively managed. We studied the fungal community and physico-chemical quality (stage of decay, dimensions, density, moisture, C similar to:similar to N ratio, lignin and water or ethanol extractives) of 543 Norway spruce logs in five unmanaged boreal forest sites of southern Finland. Fungi were identified using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and sequencing of DNA extracted directly from wood samples. Macroscopic fruiting bodies were also recorded. Results showed a fungal community succession with decreasing wood density and C similar to:similar to N ratio, and increasing moisture and lignin content. Fungal diversity peaked in the most decayed substrates. Ascomycetes typically colonized recently fallen wood. Brown-rot fungi preferred the intermediate decay stages. White-rot fungi represented approximately one-fifth of sequenced species in all decay phases excluding the final phase, where ectomycorrhizal (ECM) fungi became dominant. Lignin content of logs with white-rot fungi was low, and ECM fungi were associated with substrates containing abundant nitrogen. Macroscopic fruiting bodies were observed for only a small number of species detected with molecular techniques.

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