Dynamics of the Fungal Population on Leaves in a Stream

Bärlocher, Feli×; Kendrick, Bryce

doi:10.2307/2258954

Cited by 247 publications

(117 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

107

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Much of the allochthonous material is not directly digestible by the macroinvertebrates (Hynes 1975), but is made available via aquatic fungi and bacteria that colonize and digest it (Kaushik and Hynes 1968, Hargrave 1969, Iverson 1973, Barlocher and Kendrick 1975. Some leaf types are more easily attacked by decomposers and these in turn seem to be selected for by macroinvertebrates Hynes 1971, Triska 1970).…”

Section: Comparison Of Primary Productivity Rates In First and Secondmentioning

confidence: 99%

Periphyton Production in an Appalachian Mountain Trout Stream

Hornick¹,

Webster²,

Benfield³

1981

American Midland Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Comparison Of Primary Productivity Rates In First and Secondmentioning

confidence: 99%

Periphyton Production in an Appalachian Mountain Trout Stream

Hornick¹,

Webster²,

Benfield³

1981

American Midland Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Aquatic hyphomycetes are the dominant mycota of freshwater streams throughout the world involved in detritus decomposition and energy flow to the higher tropic levels (Bärlocher and Kendrick 1974; Suberkropp and Klug 1976; Bärlocher 1992; Gessner and Chauvet 1994). Aquatic hyphomycetes are conventionally identified based on their conidial morphology as they produce characteristic sigmoid and multiradiate conidia as an adaptation to dispersal in flowing waters similar to plankton (Webster and Davey 1984; Webster 1987; Sridhar 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A new technique to monitor conidia of aquatic hyphomycetes in streams using latex-coated slides

Ghate

Sridhar

2015

Mycology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the pattern of adherence of aquatic hyphomycetes conidia on six latex-coated slides (Artocarpus heterophyllus, A. hirsutus, Calotropis gigantea, Ficus benghalensis, Manilkara zapota and Plumeria rubra) with plain slides (control) exposed up to 18 h in a tropical coastal stream. Conidia of 21 species were trapped on latex-coated slides against seven on control slides. The total conidia adhered on latex-coated slides was higher than control slides. Latex-coated slides showed the highest diversity of aquatic hyphomycetes than control slides (1.805) and water (0.729). The top five species of aquatic hyphomycetes in latex-coated slides and drift conidia were comparable. Sørensen’s similarity of species in control slides against latex-coated slides ranged from 25% (P. rubra) to 62.5% (C. gigantea) indicating superiority of latex-coated slides in conidial trapping. Among the latex-coated slides, similarity varied between 13.3% (A. hirsutus vs. P. rubra) and 89.6% (F. benghalensis vs. M. zapota). One-way ANOVA showed significant difference in richness of species (P < 0.001) and conidia (P < 0.05) between control and latex-coated slides by F. benghalensis. Based on the trapping efficiency of species and conidia, the latex of F. benghalensis ranked first and serves as an inexpensive technique to monitor aquatic hyphomycetes in streams.

show abstract

“…F. merismoides was mentioned by Booth [5] in dirty stagnant water and mud. Articles on fungi in fluvial water mention the presence of Fusarium as a decomposer of leaves and branches from trees fallen into the channel [2,8,22,31]. F. culmorum and F. aquaeductum [23,24] and Fusarium sp.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%