2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.funeco.2013.05.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effectiveness of green-tree retention in the conservation of ectomycorrhizal fungi

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
7
2

Year Published

2016
2016
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
0
7
2
Order By: Relevance
“…A possible cause could be the lack of AM propagules (e.g., Fisher & Fulé, 2004) that could support growth of a range of herbaceous understory plants (e.g., van der Heijden, 2004). Contrary to ECM systems (e.g., Kranabetter, de Montigny, & Ross, 2014), there are no studies on the threshold at which relative abundance of AM plants severely limits AM fungal propagule availability, and in our study it appears to be quite low (4.3%).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 58%
“…A possible cause could be the lack of AM propagules (e.g., Fisher & Fulé, 2004) that could support growth of a range of herbaceous understory plants (e.g., van der Heijden, 2004). Contrary to ECM systems (e.g., Kranabetter, de Montigny, & Ross, 2014), there are no studies on the threshold at which relative abundance of AM plants severely limits AM fungal propagule availability, and in our study it appears to be quite low (4.3%).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 58%
“…There was some indication that ectomycorrhizal species commonly associated with early and even late stages of stand development (Russula, Tomentella, and Inocybe) were more common under AR and in UC stands, whereas the disturbanceadapted fungi R. vinicolor and L. bicolor were more common under DR and in CC sites. Isolation of ectomycorrhizal hosts in DR may be responsible for this trend; ectomycorrhizal richness declines as host areal extent is reduced (9,31). Aggregate retention patches may provide better refuge for fungi that are poor dispersers and are, therefore, more sensitive to host isolation caused by DR.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This has been demonstrated in other substrates for decay rates (5) and carbon sequestration (6). Disturbance, such as forest harvesting, eliminates the flow of photosynthate used for growth by ectomycorrhizal fungi, dramatically shifting the below-ground fungal community toward saprotrophic dominance (7)(8)(9), potentially resulting in ecosystem-level increases in soil respiration and nitrogen mineralization due to ectomycorrhizal exclusion (10). Despite root litter being the dominant belowground carbon source, the fungal community decomposing this substrate remains largely uncharacterized, and the response of these communities to forest harvesting is unknown.…”
mentioning
confidence: 95%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…At STEMS2, Jones et al (2008) found no differences in ectomycorrhizal fungal communities between uncut stands and a range of aggregate sizes (5-40 m in diameter), 4-6 months after harvest, but the influence of the patch in maintaining ectomycorrhizal diversity disappeared 10 m from the patch edge. However, 10 years after harvest at the STEMS1 research sites, Kranabetter et al (2013) found reduced abundance and fruiting of ectomycorrhizal fungi in patch sizes < 20 m in diameter relative to uncut stands. These authors noted that although none of the patch sizes successfully maintained ectomycorrhizal diversity relative to continuous forest, the reductions in diversity were modest and populations of prominent fungi were stabilized in patch sizes of at least 0.2 ha.…”
Section: Soil Biodiversitymentioning
confidence: 91%