| Literature DB >> 27063338 |
Dongfeng Long1, Jianjun Liu2,3, Qisheng Han1, Xiaobing Wang1, Jian Huang1.
Abstract
The Loess Plateau region of northwestern China has unique geological and dry/semi-dry climate characteristics. However, knowledge about ectomycorrhizal fungal (EMF) communities in the Loess Plateau is limited. In this study, we investigated EMF communities in Populus simonii and Pinus tabuliformis patches within the forest-steppe zone, in pine forests within the forest zone, and the transitional zone between them. We revealed high species richness (115 operational taxonomic units [OTUs]) of indigenous EMF resources at the Loess Plateau, of which Tomentella (35 OTUs), Inocybe (16), Sebacina (16), and Geopora (7) were the most OTU-rich lineages. EMF richness within the forest-steppe zone and the transitional zone was limited, while the natural pine forest maintained diverse EMF communities in the forest zone. The changes of EMF community richness and composition along arid eco-zones were highlighted for the complex factors including precipitation, soil factors, host, DBH, and altitude. Indicator analysis revealed that some EMF showed clear host preference and some taxa, i.e., genera Geopora and Inocybe, were dominant in drought and alkaline-saline conditions attributed to their environmental preference. This study revealed that EMF communities were quite limited in the forest-steppe zone, while the forest region contained diverse EMF communities in the Loess Plateau.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27063338 PMCID: PMC4827030 DOI: 10.1038/srep24336
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Ectomycorrhizal colonization and diversity indices for each sample site.
| QJ1 (Poplar) | QJ2 (Poplar) | YC1 (Poplar) n = 15 | YC2 (Pine) | YA (Pine) | HL (Pine) n = 30 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ectomycorrhizal colonization | 0.63 ± 0.15a | 0.76 ± 0.15a | 0.74 ± 0.09a | 0.72 ± 0.16a | 0.64 ± 0.08a | 0.65 ± 0.11a |
| Observed richness/site | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 26 | 53 |
| Observed richness/sample | 3.27 ± 0.96a | 3.07 ± 0.70a | 3.07 ± 0.59a | 2.79 ± 0.88a | 3.60 ± 1.12a | 4.90 ± 1.32b |
| Chao2 ± SD | 19.04 ± 1.49a | 20.33 ± 1.83a | 26.72 ± 6.05a | 23.4 ± 2.8 (23.32 ± 5.04a) | 29.36 ± 3.17a | 75.31 ± 11.86 (67.1 ± 17.17b) |
| Jack1 | 22.67 ± 1.76a | 23.67 ± 1.76a | 28.4 ± 2.29a | 26.75 ± 3.46 (24.89 ± 3.11a) | 34.4 ± 2.29a | 77.17 ± 4.63 (58.21 ± 3.97b) |
| Jack2 | 20.56a | 23.17a | 32.89a | 27.87 ± 2.61 (27.82 ± 5.6a) | 34.96a | 89.69 (71.66 ± 9.61b) |
| Shannon index H’ | 2.44a | 2.74ab | 2.54a | 2.61 (2.47 ± 0.1a) | 2.95ab | 3.31 (3.08 ± 0.09b) |
| Simpson (1-1/D) | 7.38a | 13.1ab | 9.49a | 10.82 (9.61 ± 1.15a) | 15.99b | 13.3 (12.72 ± 1.82b) |
| Bray-Curtis dissimilarity index | 0.74 ± 0.16 | 0.90 ± 0.16 | 0.85 ± 0.20 | 0.90 ± 0.18 | 0.93 ± 0.14 | 0.80 ± 0.15 |
The rarefied values of Chao2, Jack1, and Jack2 at the sample size of 15 are given for YC2 and HL.
Different letters refer to significant differences according to Tukey’s test at P < 0.05.
Figure 1Accumulation curves of rarefied operational taxonomic units (OTUs) and their 95% confidence intervals (lines with terminal bars) at sample sizes of 15 and 30 for six sites.
QJ1, QJ2, and YC1 were poplar EMF communities; YC2, YA, and HL were Chinese pine EMF communities.
Figure 2Relative abundances of ectomycorrhizal fungal (EMF) taxa at each site and cluster analysis of the six sites based on EMF compositions using the unweighted pair group method with arithmetic mean (UPGMA) method based on Bray–Curtis distance (bootstrap = 999).
Figure 3Non-metrical multidimensional scaling (metaNMDS, Stress: 0.061) of OTUs occurring on more than one tree for six sites, and correlation with soil nutrients, climatic foctors and host.
Only significant correlations between NMDS structure and factors are shown (P < 0.001). PRE, precipitation; ALT, altitude; SOM, soil organic matter content; TN, total nitrogen; TP, total phosphorus.
Indicator species analysis showing host preference of EMF OTUs which had relative abundance >1% on any host species.
| EMF-OTUs | Signficance | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| – | 0.395 | 0.001 | *** | ||
| – | 0.346 | 0.001 | *** | ||
| – | 0.303 | 0.001 | *** | ||
| – | 0.291 | 0.001 | *** | ||
| 0.046/0.133 | – | 0.234 | 0.004 | ** | |
| 0.061/0.155 | – | 0.231 | 0.002 | ** | |
| 0.027/0.111 | – | 0.224 | 0.010 | ** | |
| 0.045/0.111 | – | 0.214 | 0.008 | ** | |
| 0.047/0.111 | – | 0.200 | 0.012 | * | |
| 0.035/0.111 | – | 0.186 | 0.007 | ** | |
| – | 0.438 | 0.001 | *** | ||
| – | 0.305 | 0.001 | *** | ||
| – | 0.046/0.188 | 0.291 | 0.005 | ** | |
| – | 0.029/0.145 | 0.234 | 0.006 | ** | |
| – | 0.046/0.130 | 0.220 | 0.018 | * | |
| – | 0.024/0.116 | 0.208 | 0.021 | * | |
| – | 0.050/0.116 | 0.183 | 0.032 | * |
aValues are relative abundance/frequency.
Figure 4Locations of sampling sites in the Loess Plateau, China.
Circles indicate poplar plots; triangles indicate pine plots. Maps generated using Arcgis10.2 (ESRI Inc. 2014).
Location, sampling, host, climatic, and soil characteristics of the study sites on the Loess Plateau.
| Sites | QJ1 | QJ2 | YC1 | YC2 | YA | HL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Location | Qingjian County | Qingjian County | Yanchuan County | Yanchuan County | Yan’an City | Huanglong County |
| Latitude/ longitude | 37°07′ N/110°04′ E | 37°06′ N/110°17′ E | 36°53′ N/110°06′ E | 36°49′ N/110°14′ E | 36°37′ N/109°27′ E | 35°45′ N/109°54′ E |
| Vegetation zone | Forest-steppe | Forest-steppe | Forest-stepp | Forest-steppe | Forest-steppe transitional region | Forest |
| Vegetation type (tree ages) | Natural secondary poplar forest patch (40–50 years) | Natural secondary poplar forest patch (40–50 years) | Natural secondary poplar forest patch (40–50 years) | Artificial pine forest patch (40–45 years) | Artificial pine forest patch (40–45 years) | Natural secondary pure pine stand (30–40 years) |
| DBH (cm) | 11.5–35.6 (22.3) | 10.2–37.2 (20.2) | 11.3–34.7 (20.8) | 10.4–18.5 (14.2) | 11.0–33.1 (20.6) | 16.8–35.5 (26.2) |
| Altitude (m) | 940–1026 | 855–937 | 845–984 | 744–827 | 1014–1068 | 1481–1524 |
| Precipitation (mm) | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 514 | 612 |
| MAT (°C) | 9.6 | 9.6 | 10.8 | 10.8 | 7.0 | 8.6 |
| pH | 8.04 ± 0.13b | 8.47 ± 0.14d | 8.24 ± 0.08c | 8.37 ± 0.12cd | 7.88 ± 0.20ab | 7.76 ± 0.23a |
| EC (μS/cm) | 209.51 ± 56.80b | 133.91 ± 30.83a | 131.34 ± 15.24a | 109.41 ± 24.49a | 146.85 ± 49.96a | 191.23 ± 47.67b |
| SOM (g/kg) | 12.73 ± 2.88a | 13.71 ± 4.46a | 15.85 ± 4.87a | 15.17 ± 4.82a | 10.23 ± 1.71a | 66.69 ± 27.54b |
| TN (mg/kg) | 714.68 ± 199.14a | 735.01 ± 269.45a | 887.53 ± 262.22a | 760.50 ± 356.48a | 435.65 ± 115.35a | 3174.43 ± 1285.35b |
| TP (mg/kg) | 523.13 ± 59.18c | 499.77 ± 48.83bc | 498.83 ± 29.96bc | 463.69 ± 51.68b | 404.04 ± 83.02a | 467.96 ± 57.92b |
MAT, mean annual temperature; EC, electronic conductivity; SOM, soil organic matter; TN, total nitrogen; TP, total phosphorus; DBH, diameter at breast height.
aValues are minimum-maximum with the mean in parentheses.
bThe values are means ± standard errors. Values within each row followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Tukey’s test at the 5% significance level.