Preliminary studies on genetic diversity of ectomycorrhizal fungus Suillus bovinus in Lithuania

Motiejūnaitė, Jurga; Kačergius, Audrius; Kasparavičius, Jonas

doi:10.2478/botlit-2013-0012

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Suillus OTU_963-masson pine was an example of strict host specificity in both sites. Based on sequence similarity, this species is part of a distinct Asian Suillus clade [61], and its high masson pine-ECM specificity is consistent with patterns reported in other Suilluspine associations [62]. The low abundance of Rhizopogon and Suillus in both pine species, however, was unexpected.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Host Phylogenetic Relatedness and Soil Nutrients Shape Ectomycorrhizal Community Composition in Native and Exotic Pine Plantations

Chen

Mueller

Egerton‐Warburton

et al. 2019

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Exotic non-native Pinus species have been widely planted or become naturalized in many parts of the world. Pines rely on ectomycorrhizal (ECM) fungi mutualisms to overcome barriers to establishment, yet the degree to which host specificity and edaphic preferences influence ECM community composition remains poorly understood. In this study, we used high-throughput sequencing coupled with soil analyses to investigate the effect of host plant identity, spatial distance and edaphic factors on ECM community composition in young (30-year-old) native (Pinus massoniana Lamb.) and exotic (Pinus elliottii Engelm.) pine plantations in China. The ECM fungal communities comprised 43 species with the majority belonging to the Thelephoraceae and Russulaceae. Most species were found associated with both host trees while certain native ECM taxa (Suillus) showed host specificity to the native P. massoniana. ECM fungi that are known to occur exclusively with Pinus (e.g., Rhizopogon) were uncommon. We found no significant effect of host identity on ECM communities, i.e., phylogenetically related pines shared similar ECM fungal communities. Instead, ECM fungal community composition was strongly influenced by site-specific abiotic factors and dispersal. These findings reinforce the idea that taxonomic relatedness might be a factor promoting ECM colonization in exotic pines but that shifts in ECM communities may also be context-dependent. a massive range expansion of the ECM-Pinus mutualism, a situation that is widely compared to co-invasion (or 'enemy escape ' [4,6-9]). Exotic pines may also form novel symbioses with native ECM fungi or cosmopolitan mutualists [10]. Nevertheless, plants may be limited by the availability of compatible ECM fungal inoculum. Exotic pine ECM communities are remarkable for their low species richness (<50 taxa) in comparison to native ECM forests [11], and an abundance of ECM taxa that are almost exclusively associated with Pinaceae (e.g., Suillus, Rhizopogon [12,13]).Such low-diversity limitations may reflect both neutral (dispersal) and niche processes (abiotic factors; e.g., [14][15][16][17]). Studies show that longer distances (>10 km) may limit the stochastic dispersal of fungal propagules from one location (native forest) to another (plantation) whereas deterministic traits such as dispersal via spores [14,18] versus mycorrhizal root tips and hyphal networks may operate at finer scales [19][20][21][22]. In addition, biotic (e.g., host nutrient demands, seed dispersal) and abiotic factors (e.g., soil chemistry) may facilitate ECM fungal species with physiological and ecological adaptations depending on the environmental context [23].Recent evidence has demonstrated that phylogenetic distance between exotic and native hosts might explain their (dis)similarities in ECM community composition and richness [24,25]. For example, studies have shown that co-occurring exotic pine and native trees host similar ECM fungal communities and share the same dominant ECM fungal species [8,10,[26][27][28]. Most ECM fung...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%