4.4 Article

Size matters in studies of dead wood and wood-inhabiting fungi

期刊

FUNGAL ECOLOGY
卷 4, 期 5, 页码 342-349

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.funeco.2011.05.004

关键词

Biodiversity surveys; Coarse woody debris; Corticioids; Fine woody debris; Polypores

资金

  1. Academy of Finland [115560]
  2. Koneen saatio foundation
  3. Societas pro Fauna et Flora Fennica
  4. Suomen Biologian Seura Vanamo ry
  5. Academy of Finland (AKA) [115560, 115560] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Because biased biodiversity surveys may result in ineffective use of conservation or research resources it is important that measures for biodiversity are accurate. In forest ecosystems wood-inhabiting fungi are an ecologically important species group. We addressed the question whether or not the traditional methodology to survey only coarse woody debris provides accurate estimates of the assemblages of wood-inhabiting fungi or the dead wood itself. In this study, we included all dead wood pieces irrespective of the diameter. Our results showed that the chosen minimum size of studied dead wood pieces has crucial importance for species recordings of wood-inhabiting fungi and for recording the number of dead wood items in boreal forests. Setting the lower limit of surveyed dead wood to 1 cm resulted in the loss of 96 % of the dead wood pieces from the data. Excluding the smallest dead wood resulted in underestimation of the species richness by 10 % and occurrences by 46%. By setting the lower limit at 5 cm, 24% of species and 66% of occurrences would have been lost from the data, including many species considered to be rare. Ordination analysis also showed that the species assembly in the smallest dead wood pieces is distinctive. We conclude that surveying only coarse woody debris may seriously underestimate dead wood amounts as well as species richness and abundance of deadwood-associated biota. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd and The British Mycological Society. 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

4.4
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