| Literature DB >> 20012655 |
Abstract
The diversity of ectomycorrhizal fungi (EMF) on Kobresia filicina and Kobresia capillifolia in an alpine meadow in China's southwestern mountains, one of the word's hotspots of biodiversity, was estimated based on internal transcribed spacer rDNA sequence analysis of root tips. Seventy EMF operational taxonomical units (OTUs) were found in the two plant species. Dauciform roots with EMF were detected in species of Kobresia for the first time. OTU richness of EMF was high in Tomentella/Thelophora and Inocybe, followed by Cortinarius, Sebacina, the Cenococcum geophilum complex, and Russula. Tomentella/Thelophora and Inocybe were general and dominant mycobiont genera of the two sedges. Besides the C. geophilum complex, the ascomycete components Hymenoscyphus and Lachnum were also detected on the two plants. Alpine plants in different geographical regions share similar main genera and/or families of EMF while harboring predominantly different mycobiont species; most of the members detected by us have not been found elsewhere. Significant differences in the profile of EMF occurrences were not found between the two plant species and among the three sampling seasons in our sample size.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 20012655 PMCID: PMC2845889 DOI: 10.1007/s00572-009-0287-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mycorrhiza ISSN: 0940-6360 Impact factor: 3.387
Mycobionts on K. filicina and K. capillifolia
| EMF OTUs | Frequency | Closest match and accession number | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| By plant | By season | In GenBank | In UNITE database | ||||
| Kc | Kf | May | July | September | |||
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
|
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
|
|
| 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| |
|
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| |
|
| 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
|
|
|
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
|
|
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| |
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
|
|
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| |
|
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
|
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
|
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
|
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| |
|
| 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| |
|
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
|
|
|
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| |
|
| 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
|
|
|
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | EM (89%) AB218065 |
|
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
|
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| |
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| |
|
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| |
|
| 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| |
|
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| |
|
| 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| |
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
|
|
| 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
|
|
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
|
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | EM (94%) AB218097 |
|
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
|
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
|
|
| 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | Thelephoraceae EM (93%) AY825525 |
|
|
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Thelephoraceae EM (92%) EF825525 |
|
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
|
|
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
|
|
|
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | Thelephoraceae EM (97%) EF077519 |
|
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
|
|
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
| Thelephoraceae 01 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
| Thelephoraceae 02 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| |
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
|
|
|
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| |
|
| 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 6 | Russulaceae sp. (97%) DQ061886 |
|
|
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
|
|
|
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
| 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 1 |
|
|
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
|
| Russulaceae 01 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
|
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Ascomycete EM (98%) AJ534703 |
|
|
| 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| |
|
| 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| |
|
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
|
| Hymenogastraceae 01a | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| |
| Helotiales 01a | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Helotiales sp. (97%) EF093147 | |
| Helotiales 02a | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Helotiales EM (99%) EU326174 | |
| Helotiales 03a | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Helotiales sp. (97%) EF093147 | |
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
|
|
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| |
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| |
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| |
|
| 2 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 3 | Helotiales sp. (98%) EF093150 |
|
|
| 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
|
|
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| |
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| |
Identification, frequency of OTUs, best blast matches in GenBank, and/or UNITE with identity (percent or bits number) and accession number are shown. Frequency by plant species included samples from all three seasons; frequency by season included samples of both plant species. OTUs in bold include individuals isolated from dauciform roots. May, July, and September are the sampling dates
Kf, K. filicina; Kc, K. capillifolia
aProbably plant endophytes
Average EMF diversity measures per sample on K. filicina and K. capillifolia
| Index | Samples/species | Samples/season/species | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kf | Kc | Kf | Kc | |||||
| May | July | Sept. | May | July | Sept. | |||
| Richness | 1.253 | 1.288 | 1.363 | 1.165 | 1.204 | 1.252 | 1.430 | 1.252 |
| Diversity | 0.667 | 0.672 | 0.679 | 0.659 | 0.663 | 0.668 | 0.686 | 0.667 |
| Evenness | 0.964 | 0.968 | 0.980 | 0.950 | 0.955 | 0.964 | 1 | 0.964 |
Diversity measures including species richness index, diversity index and evenness index are presented for samples of each plant species, and for samples of each season for each plant species separately
Kf, K. filicina; Kc, K. capillifolia
Fig. 1Dauciform roots of K. filicina with EMF. a Macromorphology of dauciform roots. b Transverse section of a dauciform root (rh root hairs). c Vertical section of a dauciform root (fh fungal hyphae). Scale bar is 1 mm for a, 250 μm for b, and 500 μm for c