Soil fungal diversity of birch plantations on former agricultural land resembles naturally regenerated birch stands on agricultural and forest land

Lutter, Reimo; Riit, Taavi; Agan, Ahto; Rähn, Elisabeth; Tullus, Arvo; Sopp, Reeno; Ots, Katri; Kaivapalu, Marju; Täll, Kristjan; Tullus, Tea; Tedersoo, Leho; Drenkhan, Rein; Tullus, Hardi

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2023.121100

Cited by 3 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Saprotroph richness and relative abundance of sequences was similar in aspen plantations and forests in this study ( Figures 1A , B ). This trend is in contrast to that found in birch plantations and forests where a significantly higher relative abundance of saprotrophic fungi was found in the forest sites, although the OTU diversity was similar ( Lutter et al, 2023 ). This suggests that plantation soil saprotroph communities are dependent on host plant species.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…Still, plantation soils showed a significantly greater AM fungal sequence abundance compared to forest sites. This is in agreement with the findings of Lutter et al (2023) , who reported both higher abundance and diversity of AM fungi in birch plantations compared to birch forests.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Plant pathogen abundance was also greater in hybrid aspen plantations, whereas Lutter et al (2023) found no differences in the abundance of plant pathogens between birch forests and plantations, although the diversity of plant pathogens was significantly higher in birch plantation sites. This could be explained by the hypothesis that former cropland soils host both forest and agricultural land-associated plant pathogens.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…Forest stand richness was mainly affected by soil properties, whereas the hybrid aspen stand richness was mostly explained by woody understorey species richness. A similar study investigating native birch stands and plantations found contrary patterns ( Lutter et al, 2023 ); the soil properties only slightly influenced the fungal richness, whereas land use history and surrounding forest area were the most important predictors. The present study found no effect of the nearest forest on plantation fungal richness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…The legacy of former agricultural land use on soil chemical properties after afforestation can persist for several decades compared to native forests ( Wall and Hytönen, 2005 ; Falkengren-Grerup et al, 2006 ; Tullus et al, 2022a ). According to current knowledge about the effects of deciduous forest plantations on former agricultural soil, there are no major changes in soil carbon and nutrient pools 15–20 years after afforestation ( Lutter et al, 2016a , b , 2023 ). However, there is a significant decrease in soil pH ( Lutter et al, 2016b ; Rytter and Rytter, 2020b ), a key driver of fungal communities ( Tedersoo et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Soil mycobiomes in native European aspen forests and hybrid aspen plantations have a similar fungal richness but different compositions, mainly driven by edaphic and floristic factors

Rähn,

Lutter,

Riit

et al. 2024

Front. Microbiol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe cultivation of short-rotation tree species on non-forest land is increasing due to the growing demand for woody biomass for the future bioeconomy and to mitigate climate change impacts. However, forest plantations are often seen as a trade-off between climate benefits and low biodiversity. The diversity and composition of soil fungal biota in plantations of hybrid aspen, one of the most planted tree species for short-rotation forestry in Northern Europe, are poorly studied.MethodsThe goal of this study was to obtain baseline knowledge about the soil fungal biota and the edaphic, floristic and management factors that drive fungal richness and communities in 18-year-old hybrid aspen plantations on former agricultural soils and compare the fungal biota with those of European aspen stands on native forest land in a 130-year chronosequence. Sites were categorized as hybrid aspen (17–18-year-old plantations) and native aspen stands of three age classes (8–29, 30–55, and 65-131-year-old stands). High-throughput sequencing was applied to soil samples to investigate fungal diversity and assemblages.ResultsNative aspen forests showed a higher ectomycorrhizal (EcM) fungal OTU richness than plantations, regardless of forest age. Short-distance type EcM genera dominated in both plantations and forests. The richness of saprotrophic fungi was similar between native forest and plantation sites and was highest in the middle-aged class (30–55-year-old stands) in the native aspen stands. The fungal communities of native forests and plantations were significantly different. Community composition varied more, and the natural forest sites were more diverse than the relatively homogeneous plantations. Soil pH was the best explanatory variable to describe soil fungal communities in hybrid aspen stands. Soil fungal community composition did not show any clear patterns between the age classes of native aspen stands.ConclusionWe conclude that edaphic factors are more important in describing fungal communities in both native aspen forest sites and hybrid aspen plantation sites than forest thinning, age, or former land use for plantations. Although first-generation hybrid aspen plantations and native forests are similar in overall fungal diversity, their taxonomic and functional composition is strikingly different. Therefore, hybrid aspen plantations can be used to reduce felling pressure on native forests; however, our knowledge is still insufficient to conclude that plantations could replace native aspen forests from the soil biodiversity perspective.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%