| Literature DB >> 29375775 |
Tage Vowles1,2, Frida Lindwall3,4, Alf Ekblad5, Mohammad Bahram6,7, Brendan R Furneaux6, Martin Ryberg6, Robert G Björk1,8.
Abstract
Mycorrhizal associations are widespread in high-latitude ecosystems and are potentially of great importance for global carbon dynamics. Although large herbivores play a key part in shaping subarctic plant communities, their impact on mycorrhizal dynamics is largely unknown. We measured extramatrical mycelial (EMM) biomass during one growing season in 16-year-old herbivore exclosures and unenclosed control plots (ambient), at three mountain birch forests and two shrub heath sites, in the Scandes forest-tundraEntities:
Keywords: Betula nana; Betula pubescens subsp. czerepanovii; ectomycorrhiza; extramatrical mycelia; herbivory; mountain birch forest; shrub heath
Year: 2017 PMID: 29375775 PMCID: PMC5773333 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.3657
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Mean extramatrical mycelial (EMM) biomass (±standard error, n = 3) at the five study sites. Grazer exclosure was significant at the birch forest sites (***p < .01). Ambient plots (green) were accessible to all herbivores, while exclosures (red) were surrounded by fences that keep out large mammals, such as moose and reindeer
ANOVA results showing effects of treatment, site, Betula pubescens subsp. czerepanovii biomass, and soil thawing degree‐days (TDD) on extramatrical mycelia biomass at the birch forest sites
| Birch forest | Df |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | 1 | 14.4 |
|
| Site | 2 | 2.1 | .18 |
|
| 1 | 0.1 | .77 |
| Soil TDD | 1 | 12.1 |
|
| Treatment*Site | 2 | 9.4 |
|
Bold values significant at p < .05
Figure 2Relationship between extramatrical mycelial (EMM) biomass and soil thawing degree‐days at Pulsuvuoma birch forest site, including R 2 and p‐value from linear regression. Gray area shows 95% confidence interval. Ambient plots (green) were accessible to all herbivores, while exclosures (red) were surrounded by fences that keep out large mammals, such as moose and reindeer
ANOVA results showing effects of treatment, site, Betula nana frequency, and soil thawing degree‐days (TDD) on extramatrical mycelia biomass at the shrub heath sites
| Shrub heath | Df |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | 1 | 4.1 | .09 |
| Site | 1 | 11.7 |
|
|
| 1 | 5.6 | .06 |
| Soil TDD | 1 | 2.3 | .18 |
| Treatment*Site | 1 | 3.6 | .11 |
Bold values significant at p < .05
Figure 3Relationship between extramatrical mycelial (EMM) biomass and Betula nana abundance (expressed as frequency between 1 and 100) at Fulufjället (triangles) and Långfjället (circles) shrub heath sites. Linear regression was significant at Långfjället. Gray areas show 95% confidence intervals. Ambient plots (green) were accessible to all herbivores, while exclosures (red) were surrounded by fences that keep out large mammals, such as moose and reindeer
Elevation, bedrock, soil type coordinates, and duration time of experiment at the different sites (additional data from Eriksson et al. (2007)) and differences in B. nana frequency, B. pubescens biomass and soil TDD. Bold values statistically significant at p < .05
| Shrub heath | Birch forest | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fulufjället | Långfjället | Fulufjället | Långfjället | Pulsuvuoma | |
| Elevation (m a.s.l.) | 930 | 840 | 880 | 800 | 460 |
| Bedrock | Sandstone | Dala granite | Sandstone | Dala granite | Metagranodiorite, Metatonalite |
| Soil type | Gravelly till | Gravelly till | Gravelly till | Gravelly till | Till |
| Coordinates | 61°38′11″ N | 62°06′53″ N | 61°38′45″ N | 62°03′59″ N | 68°20′19″ N |
| 12°38′29″ E | 12°16′30″ E | 12°35′34″ E | 12°14′56″ E | 21°19′35″ E | |
| Duration of experiment | 24 May – 20 Oct | 25 May – 21 Oct | 24 May – 20 Oct | 25 May – 21 Oct | 8 June – 27 Sept |
| Incubation time (days) | 148 | 148 | 148 | 148 | 112 |
|
| |||||
| Exclosures | 17.5 (±5.0) | 35.9 (±6.7) | – | – | – |
| Ambient | 14.9 (±9.0) | 14.7 (±6.1) | – | – | – |
|
| |||||
| Exclosures | – | – | 13,904 (±3188) | 22,650 (±5732) | 32,138 (±6131) |
| Ambient | – | – | 7359 (±4559) | 25061 (±2680) | 35,218 (±3748) |
| TDD Soil | |||||
| Exclosures |
|
| 1317.5 (±41.9) | 1244.6 (±62.3) | 821.2 (±145.5) |
| Ambient |
|
| 1379.2 (±38.6) | 1280.9 (±19.5) | 864.2 (±58.0) |
Figure 4Relative abundances (mean ± SE) of arbuscular (AM), ericoid (ERM), and ectomycorrhiza (ECM) based on 83 identified mycorrhizal OTUs (after saprotrophs and unknowns had been filtered out). Ambient plots (green) were accessible to all herbivores, while exclosures (red) were surrounded by fences that keep out large mammals, such as moose and reindeer. Långfj, Långfjället; Fulufj, Fulufjället; Pulsu, Pulsuvuoma; S.H., Shrub heath; B.F., Birch forest
Figure 5Relative abundances (mean ± SE) of ectomycorrhizal lineages based on 38 identified ectomycorrhizal OTUs. Ambient plots (green) were accessible to all herbivores, while exclosures (red) were surrounded by fences that keep out large mammals, such as moose and reindeer. Långfj, Långfjället; Fulufj, Fulufjället; Pulsu, Pulsuvuoma; S.H., Shrub heath; B.F., Birch forest
ANOVA results showing effects of treatment and site on identified ectomycorrhizal lineages as well as hyphal exploration type as classified by Agerer (2006) and Di Marino, Koljalg, and Agerer (2007). C, contact; SD, short‐distance; MDS, medium‐distance smooth; MDF, medium‐distance fringe; LD, long‐distance
| Lineage | Exploration type | Treatment | Site | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Df |
|
| Df |
|
| ||
| /amanita | C/SD/MDS | 1 | 1.13 | .30 | 4 | 0.60 | .67 |
| /cortinarius | MDF (rarely SD)¹ | 1 | 3.36 | .08 | 4 | 1.32 | .30 |
| /inocybe | SD (C/MDF) | 1 | 0.01 | .93 | 4 | 0.46 | .76 |
| /piloderma | SD/MDF | 1 | 3.49 | .08 | 4 | 1.40 | .27 |
| /pseudotomentella | MDS | 1 | 0.43 | .52 | 4 | 0.91 | .48 |
| /suillus–rhizopogon | LD¹ | 1 | 0.83 | .37 | 4 | 0.86 | .51 |
| Unknown | 1 | 1.65 | .21 | 4 | 0.86 | .50 | |
Agerer (2006)
Di Marino et al. (2007).
ANOVA results showing effects of treatment and site on hyphal exploration type of ectomycorrhizal lineages as classified by Agerer (2006) and Di Marino et al. (2007)
| Exploration type | Treatment | Site | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Df |
|
| Df |
|
| |
| Medium‐distance fringe/short‐distance | 1 | 3.60 | .07 | 4 | 1.20 | .34 |
| Contact/short‐distance/medium‐distance smooth | 1 | 1.18 | .29 | 4 | 0.60 | .67 |
| Long‐distance | 1 | 0.83 | .37 | 4 | 0.86 | .51 |