Similar taxonomic richness but different communities of ectomycorrhizas in native forests and non-native plantation forests

Abstract

This investigation sought to examine if there was a difference between the ectomycorrhizal (ECM) communities in plots of native oak and introduced Scots pine and Sitka spruce forest. The ECM communities in four plots of each forest type were described, from five soil cores collected in each plot, by morphotyping, internal transcribed spacer (ITS)-restriction fragment length polymorphism matching of mycorrhizas and sporocarps and ITS sequencing. Fifty-one distinct taxa were distinguished; 25 were identified to species level, 11 to genus and 15 remained unidentified. Seventy-one ECM species were recorded as sporocarps from the forest plots; most (43 species) were found in the Sitka spruce plots. The below-ground ECM communities of the different forest types did not differ significantly with respect to species richness of taxa on roots, but differed in species composition. Multivariate analysis produced a clear separation of the communities of the different forest types using below-ground data, but the above-ground sporocarp data did not separate the forest types. Moreover, results of a Mantel test found no relationship between the above- and below-ground similarity matrices. The oak plots had the most distinctive ECM community, with Laccaria amethystina and Elaphomyces granulatus being frequent. The Sitka spruce plots showed the lowest intra-forest type similarity and were often dominated by "nursery type" ectomycorrhizas. There was only 10% similarity between the above- and below-ground ECM species in these plots, different colonisation methods of ectomycorrhizal taxa and insufficient below-ground sampling being possible reasons for this disparity. Our results indicate that plantations of non-native Sitka spruce can support similar levels of ECM diversity as native forests.

Ectomycorrhizal fungal community associated with autochthonous white poplar from Serbia

“…However, in our study differences between seasons did not show any significant effect on diversity of the ECM community. ECM community associated with white poplars in the Kovilj-Petrovaradin marshes consisted of few abundant and numerous infrequent ECM types, in accordance with previous research (De Roman & De Miguel 2005, O'Hanlon & Harrington 2012. Koide et al (2007) reported abundant ECM types present in both seasons with similar relative abundance, while some rare species were specific for autumn or spring only.…”

Comparison of root-associated communities of native and non-native ectomycorrhizal hosts in an urban landscape

“…However, the non-native host also included exclusive EcM taxa (Inocybe and Suillus) as well as many shared EcM taxa (Inocybe, Russula, and Tuber). The former is in line with other studies that observed a small number of unique EcM taxa in a non-native host (Bahram et al 2013), whereas the latter is in line with the broad compatibility between non-native hosts and native EcM fungi (O'Hanlon and Harrington 2012;O'Hanlon et al 2013). It is unclear whether the observed unique EcM taxa indicate differing preferences among hosts or introduction of novel fungal taxa with the exotic host as suggested for Amanita phalloides and European oaks in Australia (Nicholson and Korman 1997) and for Rhizopogon vinicolor and Pseudotsuga menziesii in New Zealand (ChouChou and Grace 1983).…”

“…Host taxon selection in the maintenance of symbiotic communities is similarly important as locally adapted symbioses may outperform introduced ones (Bonfante et al 1998;Bahram et al 2013). EcM communities in planted, man-constructed stands with non-native hosts often differ from native stands compositionally, even if the fungal richness may remain unaltered (O'Hanlon and Harrington 2012). Evaluating different host taxa in urban settings is important to evaluate the consequences of ornamental tree selection.…”

The macrofungal diversity and community of Atlantic oak <i>(Quercus petraea</i> and <i>Q. robur)</i> forests in Ireland

“…Carr. forest type; the below-ground and aboveground ECM communities of these forests; and for the differences in macrofungal communities between the forest types have been published elsewhere (O'Hanlon & Harrington, 2011b;2012a;2012b). Only the macrofungal results from the oak forest plots will be dealt with in this article.…”