4.7 Article

Fungal community succession following wildfire in a Mediterranean vegetation type dominated by Pinus pinaster in Northwest Spain

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 262, 期 4, 页码 655-662

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.04.036

关键词

Fungal community succession; Fungal production; Fire; Mediterranean ecosystem

类别

资金

  1. Junta de Castilla y Leon [VA018B05]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined the succession of fungal communities following fire in a Mediterranean ecosystem dominated by Pinus pinaster Ait. in northwestern Spain. A large wildfire occurred in August 2002. During the autumn seasons from 2003 to 2006, fruiting bodies were collected and identified, production in burned (early stage) and unburned (late stage) areas was measured. For statistical analysis, data were grouped into the following four categories: saprotrophic, mycorrhizal; edible and inedible. A total of 115 fungal taxa were collected during the four sampling periods (85 in the late and 60 in the early stage). The number of mycorrhizal species increased from early to late succession and there were shifts in community composition. After fire, pyrophytic species such as Pholiota carbonaria, Peziza violacea, Rhizopogon luteolus and Rhizopogon sp. appeared. Fire strongly affected the production of fungal species in the studied area. Thus, yields in the early stage treatment were significantly lower than those observed in the late stage. Total fungal fresh weight decreased from 209.95 kg fw ha(-1) in the late stage to 162.45 kg fw ha(-1) in the early stage when richness and production of mycorrhizal species and production of edible fungi were significantly lower. Fresh weight for saprotrophic and inedible species was higher than for mycorrhizal fungi in the early stage treatment. The results obtained can be useful to forest managers for optimization of management and harvesting of these increasingly appreciated non-timber resources. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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