| Literature DB >> 22466900 |
Susanne Schickmann1, Alexander Urban, Katharina Kräutler, Ursula Nopp-Mayr, Klaus Hackländer.
Abstract
Small forest dwelling mammals are considered to be major consumers and vectors of hypogeous ectomycorrhizal (ECM) fungi, which have lost the ability of active spore discharge. Fungal spore dispersal by mycophagy is deemed an important process involved in forest regeneration, resilience and vitality, primarily based on evidence from Australia and the Pacific Northwestern USA, but is poorly known for Central European mountainous forests thus far. Small mammal mycophagy was investigated by live trapping and microscopical analysis of faecal samples. All small mammal species recorded (Myodes glareolus, Microtus agrestis, Pitymys subterraneus, Apodemus spp., Glis glis, Sorex spp.) had ingested spores of ECM fungi, albeit in varying amounts. My. glareolus was found to be the most important vector of ECM fungal spores, both in quantity and diversity. Species of the genus Sorex seem to play a hitherto underestimated role as dispersers of fungal spores. Glis glis is likely to be an important vector owing to its large home range. Hypogeous ECM basidiomycetes accounted for most spores found in the faecal samples. The frequency of various genera of hypogeous ECM ascomycetes and ECM epigeous fungi was much lower. Comparison with null models indicated a non-random structure of the mycophagy network similar to other mutualistic bipartite networks. Mycophagy can be considered (1) to contribute to nutrition of small forest mammals, (2) to play a pivotal role for forest regeneration and functioning by providing mycorrhizal inoculum to tree seedlings and (3) to be vital for reproduction and diversity of the still poorly known hypogeous fungi.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22466900 PMCID: PMC3439606 DOI: 10.1007/s00442-012-2303-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oecologia ISSN: 0029-8549 Impact factor: 3.225
Fig. 1Small mammal community present in the investigated forest plots (left, DWA Dürrenstein Wilderness Area, RDF Rosalia Demonstration Forest) and ECM fungi present in small mammal faecal samples (right), Af Apodemus flavicollis, Mg Myodes glareolus, Sar Sorex araneus, Sm S. minutus, Ma Microtus agrestis, Gg Glis glis, Ps Pitymys subterraneus, Sal S. alpinus, As A. sylvaticus, Mm Micromys minutus; abbreviations of fungal taxa are defined in Table 1
Systematic classification and ecology of ECM fungal groups determined
| Order | Family | Type | Abbreviation | Fruiting habit | Ecologya | Found as sporocarp | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| Peziz | Epigeous? | ||
|
|
| Genea | Hypogeous | ||||
|
|
| Bals | Hypogeous | ||||
|
|
| Truf | Hypogeous | “Widespread in all environments, associated with both coniferous and deciduous trees, from spring to late autumn” | |||
|
| Tpub | Hypogeous | |||||
|
|
|
| Easp | Hypogeous | “Not very common, preferably in coniferous or mixed woods, under | ||
|
| Egran | Hypogeous | “Common in coniferous woods, in autumn–winter, generally rather deep in the soil, under the needle sheet, up to 1,200 m altitude” | X | |||
|
| Emur | Hypogeous | “Rather common, in deciduous or coniferous woods, generally rather deep in the humus, mainly in summer and autumn, up to 1,200 m altitude” | ||||
|
| Espimm | Hypogeous | |||||
|
|
|
|
| Hneph | Hypogeous | “Generally under deciduous trees, especially in woods with | X |
|
|
|
| Russ1 | ? | |||
|
| Russ2 | ? | |||||
|
|
|
| Ccaes | Hypogeous | “Quite rare species, found from July to October in mountain coniferous forests ( | ||
|
|
| Oast | Hypogeous | “Very frequent species, sometimes nearly semi-epigeous, in deciduous or mixed woods, at various altitudes and climates” | X | ||
|
| Bol | Epigeous? | |||||
|
| Mel | Hypogeous | “Very common species in all kind of fresh and shadowy woods, from the plain to the mountains, from spring to late autumn, mainly semi-epigeous” | ||||
|
|
|
| Cort | Epigeous | |||
|
| HymCort | Epigeous? | |||||
|
| Hymhes | Hypogeous | |||||
|
| Hym1-5 | Hypogeous |
aInformation about ecology is based on Montecchi and Sarasini (2000)
Number of samples (N), median number of ECM spores observed per 50 fov, and pairwise comparison of observed ECM spore numbers with Kruskal–Wallis post hoc procedure for eight small mammal species
| Species |
| Total median no. of ECM spores/50 fov | Pairwise comparison with |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 167 | 79 |
| 18,789.5 |
|
|
| 8,930.5 |
| |||
|
| 12,319.0 |
| |||
|
| 153 | 7 |
| 7,763.5 |
|
|
| 6,516.0 |
| |||
|
| 9,236.0 |
| |||
|
| 66 | 4 |
| 3,978.0 |
|
|
| 2,091.5 |
| |||
|
| 3,171.5 | 0.395 | |||
|
| 89 | 4 |
| 4,915.0 |
|
|
| 2,544.0 |
| |||
|
| 2,702.5 | 0.395 | |||
|
| 8 | 4.5 |
| 40.5 | 0.084 |
|
| 91.5 | 0.752 | |||
|
| 91.5 | 0.962 | |||
|
| 8 | 11 |
| 103.5 | 0.084 |
|
| 57.5 | 0.281 | |||
|
| 55.0 | 0.196 | |||
|
| 11 | 8 |
| 106.5 | 0.751 |
|
| 30.5 | 0.281 | |||
|
| 51.5 | 0.813 | |||
|
| 11 | 5 |
| 88.5 | 0.962 |
|
| 25.0 | 0.196 | |||
|
| 58.5 | 0.813 |
Significant differences indicated in bold
Fig. 2Boxplot of total ECM spore numbers (log scaled, zeros omitted) for small mammal species from DWA (small mammal species abbreviations as in Fig. 1), whisker length = 1.5 SD, outliers depicted as open circles
Coefficients of negative binomial regression model for total numbers of ECM spores for the four main small mammal species
| Factor |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | − | − | 0.518 | 1.876′ |
| Plot | ||||
| DA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MF2 | −1.061 | −1.036 | −0.225 | 0.195 |
| MF1 | 0.644 | 0.973 |
|
|
| PF | 1.054 | 0.507 |
| 0.854 |
| Session | ||||
| Autumn | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Summer | − | −0.347 | −0.718 | 0.130 |
| Year | ||||
| 2006 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2007 |
|
| −0.516 | −1.874′ |
Parameters that were significant at P = 0.05 are in bold
′ P = 0.1; * P = 0.05; ** P = 0.01; *** P = 0.001
Fig. 3Hierarchical cluster analysis based on ECM fungal spores in My. glareolus samples from all four forest areas, clustering method—nearest neighbour, height—amount of dissimilarity, maximum = 1, default rooting
Differences in number of defecated ECM spore types between the four main small mammal species, forest areas and sessions
| Results of MANOVA | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor | df | Sum Sq | Mean Sq |
|
|
| Species | 3 | 33.6 | 11.2 | 30.4 |
|
| Plot | 3 | 6.7 | 2.2 | 6.1 |
|
| Session | 1 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 4.6 |
|
| Species/plot | 9 | 6.7 | 0.7 | 2.0 |
|
| Species/session | 3 | 3.9 | 1.3 | 3.6 |
|
| Plot/session | 3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.838 |
| Species/plot/session | 8 | 2.9 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 0.447 |
| Residuals | 450 | 165.9 | 0.4 | ||
Parameters that were significant at P = 0.05 are in bold
′ P = 0.1; * P = 0.05; ** P = 0.01; *** P = 0.001
Coefficients of negative binomial regression for single ECM types (z values calculated with negative binomial regression), data from Dürrenstein Wilderness Area only
| Peziz | Genea | Bals | Truf | Tpub | Easp | Egran | Emur | Espimm | Hneph | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 0.000 | −1.306 | − | 1.471 | −1.848′ | − | 0.000 | − | −0.009 | −1.447 |
| Species | ||||||||||
|
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
|
| 0.000 |
|
| 1.551 | 0.759 |
| 0.000 |
| −1.048 |
|
|
| 0.000 | −0.467 | −1.410 | 0.000 | 0.549 | − | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 1.900′ |
|
| 0.000 | −0.154 | 0.210 | 0.000 |
| − | 0.000 | 1.406 | 1.082 | − |
| Plot | ||||||||||
| DA | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| MF1 | 0.000 | 0.011 | − |
| −1.296 | − | 0.000 | − | 0.008 | 0.140 |
| PF | 0.000 | −0.380 | −1.098 | 1.526 | −0.129 | − | 0.000 | −0.747 | 0.008 | −0.315 |
| Session | ||||||||||
| Autumn | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Summer | 0.000 | −1.299 | −1.344 | −1.020 |
| −0.705 | 1.262 | −0.584 | −1.430 | 1.446 |
| Year | ||||||||||
| 2006 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 2007 | 0.000 | 1.304 |
| −1.472 | 1.846′ |
| 0.000 | −1.968′ | 0.009 | 1.447 |
Parameters significant at P = 0.05 are in bold
′ P = 0.1; * P = 0.05; ** P = 0.01; *** P = 0.001
Fig. 4Heat map of ECM fungal spore egestion by small mammal species illustrating the nested arrangement of the mycophagist–ECM fungus network (values = % of positive samples × median of spore counts in positive samples; for abbreviations of fungal taxa see Table 1)