Large‐scale parallel 454 sequencing reveals host ecological group specificity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in a boreonemoral forest

Abstract

Summary• Knowledge of the diversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) in natural ecosystems is a major bottleneck in mycorrhizal ecology. Here, we aimed to apply 454 sequencing -providing a new level of descriptive power -to assess the AMF diversity in a boreonemoral forest.• 454 sequencing reads of the small subunit ribosomal RNA (SSU rRNA) gene of Glomeromycota were assigned to sequence groups by BLAST searches against a custom-made annotated sequence database.• We detected 47 AMF taxa in the roots of 10 plant species in a 10 × 10 m plot, which is almost the same as the number of plant species in the whole studied forest. There was a significant difference between AMF communities in the roots of forest specialist plant species and in the roots of habitat generalist plant species. Forest plant species hosted 22 specialist AMF taxa, and the generalist plants shared all but one AMF taxon with forest plants, including globally distributed generalist fungi. These AMF taxa that have been globally recorded only in forest ecosystems were significantly over-represented in the roots of forest plant species.• Our findings suggest that partner specificity in AM symbiosis may occur at the level of ecological groups, rather than at the species level, of both plant and fungal partners.

Host Identity Impacts Rhizosphere Fungal Communities Associated with Three Alpine Plant Species

“…Even fungi capable of colonizing numerous host species (e.g., arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi) often exhibit some degree of host specificity [10,[12][13][14], which can generate species-specific feedbacks that influence both above-and belowground community composition [2]. Since abiotic conditions can alter these plant-fungal feedbacks [11], rhizosphere communities also likely vary along environmental and habitat gradients [e.g., 15].…”

“…In this study, we focus on AMF as an identifiable functional group within the overall rhizosphere community. Studies employing molecular methods to characterize AMF diversity indicate that a single host species can associate with as many as 38 AMF taxa [14]. However, many AMF appear to have limited geographic distributions [19,20] and exhibit varying degrees of host specificity [12,13].…”

Effects of different management practices on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal diversity in maize fields by a molecular approach

“…The small subunit rRNA gene was examined because it is the most widely used marker in field studies analysing AMF communities, also due to the availability of primer sets which are able to detect a wide range of glomeromycotan genera as well as the increasing number of available AMF sequences in GenBank following large-scale 454 pyrosequencing (Öpik et al 2009;. In particular, the NS31-AMmix primer set should allow the detection of Glomeraceae, Entrophosporaceae, Diversisporaceae, Acaulosporaceae, Gigasporaceae, Scutellosporaceae, Dentiscutaceae, Racocetraceae and Archaeosporaceae (Santos-González et al 2007;Schechter and Bruns2008).…”

“…The use of DNA sequencing methods and high-throughput molecular tools has improved our understanding of the diversity of AMF, in particular because they have allowed AMF to be directly detected from environmental samples (Öpik et al 2009;Lumini et al 2010;Dumbrell et al 2011). Apparently, natural communities of AM fungi are biologically diverse, with large numbers of undescribed taxa.…”

Low diversity and high host preference of ectomycorrhizal fungi in Western Amazonia, a neotropical biodiversity hotspot

“…By using molecular tools, recent case studies revealed overwhelming richness of tropical foliar endophytes (Arnold and Lutzoni, 2007). The relative biodiversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi is similar in tropical and temperate regions (Husband et al, 2002;Ö pik et al, 2009). Local richness and community composition of biotrophic fungi, endophytes, mycorrhizal and hexapod symbionts, is largely driven by their host preference or specificity (Husband et al, 2002;Currie et al, 2003;Arnold, 2008).…”