Species composition of saproxylic fungal communities on decaying logs in the boreal forest.
Coarse woody debris supports large numbers of saproxylic fungal species. However, most of the current knowledge comes from Scandinavia and studies relating the effect of stand or log characteristics on the diversity and composition of decomposer fungi have not been conducted in Northeastern Canada. Logs from five tree species were sampled along a decomposition gradient in nine stands representing three successional stages of the boreal mixed forest of Northwestern Quebec, Canada. Using a molecular fingerprinting technique, we assessed fungal community Shannon-Weaver diversity index, richness, and composition. We used linear mixed models and multivariate analyses to link changes in fungal communities to log and stand characteristics. We found a total of 33 operational taxonomic units (OTUs) including an indicator species for balsam fir (similar to Athelia sp.) and one found only in aspen stands (similar to Calocera cornea). Spruce logs supported the highest fungal Shannon-Weaver diversity index and OTU number. Our results support the hypothesis that log species influences fungal richness and diversity. However, log decay class does not. Stand composition, volume of coarse woody debris, and log chemical composition were all involved in structuring fungal communities. Maintaining the diversity of wood-decomposing communities therefore requires the presence of dead wood from diverse log species.
Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, 445, Boulevard de l'Université, Rouyn-Noranda, Québec, Canada J9X 5E4.
Hedi
H
Kebli
Pascal
P
Drouin
Suzanne
S
Brais
Gavin
G
Kernaghan
D044822:Biodiversity; D005658:Fungi / Q000145:classification / Q000235:genetics / Q000302:isolation & purification* / Q000378:metabolism; D008969:Molecular Sequence Data; D010802:Phylogeny; D014197:Trees / Q000737:chemistry / Q000378:metabolism / Q000382:microbiology*; D014934:Wood / Q000737:chemistry / Q000378:metabolism / Q000382:microbiology*
Mycologia. 2007 May-Jun;99(3):356-67
17883027
Environ Microbiol. 2008 May;10(5):1189-201
18266759
FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2007 Nov;62(2):142-60
17892477
Mycologia. 2004 Jul-Aug;96(4):799-811
21148900
FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2006 Jan;55(1):57-67
16420615
Mol Ecol. 2007 Aug;16(16):3326-33
17688536
Microb Ecol. 2007 Oct;54(3):393-405
17609845
New Phytol. 2007;174(2):441-446
17388906
Oecologia. 1998 Sep;116(3):293-305
28308060
Mycologia. 2010 Jan-Feb;102(1):11-9
20120223
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004 Jan;70(1):468-74
14711676
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999 Jan;65(1):102-9
9872766
Microb Ecol. 2009 Jul;58(1):98-107
18982382
Mol Ecol. 1993 Apr;2(2):113-8
8180733
J Chem Ecol. 2002 Dec;28(12):2483-501
12564795
Environ Microbiol. 2002 Nov;4(11):634-43
12460271
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004 Jul;70(7):4012-20
15240277
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000 Nov;66(11):4725-34
11055916
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008 Oct;74(20):6348-57
18757576
Environ Microbiol. 2003 Nov;5(11):1121-32
14641592