Dynamics of macrofungi in two moist heathlands in Drenthe, The Netherlands

Abstract

In two plots, domin~ted by Erica tetralix and Molinia caerulea, respectively, carpophores ofmacrofungi were counted during 7 successive years with fortnightly intervals. The changes in the number of species, number of carpophores, carpophore productivity and productivity of dominant species are described and discussed. In addition, the periodicity of some species is treated. It appears that quantitative and qualitative changes in the two stands do not parallel each other. The changes are mainly interpreted as fluctuations, whereas in the Molinia stand also successional trends are demonstrated. Also between the investigated species important differences exist. No simple relationships could be found with the prevailing weather conditions. fNTRODUCTTON This paper is based on mycocoenological research, carried out between 1974 and 1980. Mycocoenology comprises the quantitative and qualitative analysis of communities of larger fungi and the study of relations between these communities and environmental factors under field conditions. This discipline was introduced in The Netherlands by Barkman, who also made important contributions to the methodology (Barkman 1976(Barkman , 1987. This paper deals with the results in two plots, in moist heath lands dominated by Erica tetralix and Molinia caerulea, respectively. The absence of replicate plots does not enable stati stical treatment of the data.The aims of this study are to establish qualitative and quantitative changes in fruiting of macrofungi, and to relate the results to environmental conditions. Few investigations have been carried out in this field in proportion to studies on the dynamics of phanerogamic communities. Fluctuations in fruiting of macrofungi are often much stronger because of(i) the sensitivity of both primordia and mature carpophores to dessication and low temperatures (Ellenberg eta!. 1986); (ii) the limited life-span of carpophores, for most species in the order of a few days or weeks (Richardso.n 1970).Most mycocoenological studies last 2-4 years, which is too short to draw conclusions on the dynamics of the macrofungal flora (Winterhoff 1984). A few studies involve a longer series of observations. Holownia (1983) counted the carpophores of the saprophyte Collybia peronata in a Pinus-Quercus forest in Poland during I 0 successive years. She 29 1

Classical Methods and Modern Analysis for Studying Fungal Diversity

“…Studies based on macrofungal fruiting bodies have shown that even in areas that have been repeatedly sampled for many years, new species can be found (e.g., Arnolds, 1988;Perini et al, 1989;Tofts andOrton, 1998, Straatsma et al, 2001). Additionally, more taxonomic expertise is required for classical methods than for molecular methods, as all of the species must be identified based on morphological characters.…”

Macrofungi on special substrates

“…Arachniotus, Coprinus) II. Ectocoprophilous fungi Spores cannot germinate after passing the alimentary tracts of animals (probably Ascozonus) Arnolds (1981) distinguishes the proper (obligate) coprophilous fungi growing exclusively on dung e.g. Sacco bolus glaber, Anellaria semiovata, Strophana semiglobata, Psilocybe coprophila, and subcoprophilous fungi (facultative coprophytes) growing also on fertile habitats, e.g.…”

“…Lisiewska 1974). Fungal communities on special substrates are regarded and classificated as autonomic mycocoenoses (Pirk and Tuxen 1949, Ebert 1958, Kreisel 1957, 1961, Kreisel and Muller 1987, Jahn 1966, 1976, Runge 1980 and others), or they are regarded as mycosocieties, whereas the term mycocoenosis is reserved to the complete assemblage of fungi growing within a certain biocoenosis (Barkman 1973, 1976a, Arnolds 1981.…”

Macrofungi as ecosystem resources: Conservation versus exploitation

“…Among different natural environments, also considering their relationships between climate and vegetation (Blasi et al 1999), forests host the highest richness of macrofungi (i.e. fungi producing sporomata larger than 1 mm; Arnolds 1981). In the last century, their growth conditions were dramatically influenced by human activities.…”