| Literature DB >> 29599480 |
Sara Calhim1, Panu Halme2, Jens H Petersen3, Thomas Læssøe4,5, Claus Bässler6, Jacob Heilmann-Clausen6.
Abstract
Sexual spores are important for the dispersal and population dynamics of fungi. They show remarkable morphological diversity, but the underlying forces driving spore evolution are poorly known. We investigated whether trophic status and substrate associations are associated with morphology in 787 macrofungal genera. We show that both spore size and ornamentation are associated with trophic specialization, so that large and ornamented spores are more probable in ectomycorrhizal than in saprotrophic genera. This suggests that spore ornamentation facilitates attachment to arthropod vectors, which ectomycorrhizal species may need to reach lower soil layers. Elongated spore shapes are more common in saprotrophic taxa, and genera associated with above ground substrates are more likely to have allantoid (curved elongated) spores, probably to lower the risk of wash out by precipitation. Overall, our results suggest that safe arrival on specific substrates is a more important driver of evolution in spore morphology than dispersal per se.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29599480 PMCID: PMC5876365 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-23292-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Summary of phylogenetic-controlled models to test for differences in spore traits across trophic status.
| Estimate | s.e. | 95% CI | t or z | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| λ | 0.68 | 0.53, 0.83 | |||
| Intercept | 1.68 | 0.27 | 1.15, 2.22 | 6.16 | <0.0001 |
| Trophic status | 0.40 | 0.10 | 0.21, 0.59 | 4.09 | <0.0001 |
|
| |||||
| α | 0.28 | 0.06, 0.51 | |||
| Intercept | −1.68 | 0.51 | −2.30, −0.75 | −3.27 | 0.0011 |
| Trophic status | 1.77 | 0.46 | 1.14, 2.45 | 3.86 | 0.0001 |
|
| |||||
| α | 0.63 | 0.24, 0.74 | |||
| Intercept | −1.38 | 0.22 | −0.18, −0.81 | −6.16 | <0.0001 |
| Trophic status | −1.99 | 0.77 | −3.51, −0.83 | −2.58 | 0.0099 |
|
| |||||
| α | 0.70a | 0.29, 0.61 | |||
| Intercept | −1.05 | 0.19 | −1.47, −0.59 | −5.64 | <0.0001 |
| Trophic status | 0.89 | 0.31 | 0.32, 1.50 | 2.83 | 0.0046 |
|
| |||||
| α | 0.75b | 0.30, 0.60 | |||
| Intercept | −0.77 | 0.17 | −1.10, −0.33 | −4.63 | <0.0001 |
| Trophic status | −0.57 | 0.37 | −130, −0.03 | −1.55 | 0.1220 |
|
| |||||
| α | 0.28 | 0.13, 0.41 | |||
| Intercept | −1.54 | 0.49 | −1.60, −0.83 | −3.12 | 0.0018 |
| Trophic status | −2.51 | 1.05 | −3.14, −1.97 | −2.39 | 0.0167 |
aBootstrap mean α = 0.41; bbootstrap mean α = 0.41; Note that the coefficients and Wald-type p-values are conditioned on the non-bootstrapped mean estimate for α.
Figure 1Spore trait differences (estimated mean ± s.e.) across trophic status.
Figure 2A schematic illustration representing different trophic guilds, substrate associations and spore shapes. Values represent the expected probability of the occurrence of a given feature from logistic linear models controlling for phylogeny. Superscripts refer to significance level for pairwise differences (in the log odds ratios) to the reference level (see Tables 1 and 2).
Summary of phylogenetic-controlled models to test for differences in spore traits across saprotrophic substrate types.
| Estimate | s.e. | 95% CI | t or z | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| λ | 0.52 | 0.34, 0.71 | |||
| Intercept | 1.58 | 0.25 | 1.10, 2.07 | 6.38 | <0.0001 |
| On wood | 0.15 | 0.10 | −0.06, 0.36 | 1.44 | 0.1493 |
| On herb stems | 0.13 | 0.15 | −0.17, 0.42 | 0.84 | 0.3993 |
|
| |||||
| α | 0.19 | 0.09, 0.78 | |||
| Intercept | −0.29 | 0.54 | −1.26, 0.82 | −0.53 | 0.5929 |
| On wood | −0.80 | 0.38 | −1.78, −0.20 | −2.10 | 0.0361 |
| On herb stems | −0.61 | 0.48 | −2.06, 0.20 | −1.26 | 0.2062 |
|
| |||||
| α | 0.71 | 0.16, 0.87 | |||
| Intercept | −3.25 | 0.77 | −4.48, −1.88 | −4.24 | <0.0001 |
| On wood | 2.11 | 0.77 | 0.87, 3.43 | 2.76 | 0.0058 |
| On herb stems | 1.69 | 0.90 | −0.07, 3.31 | 1.89 | 0.0592 |
|
| |||||
| α | 0.72a | 0.20, 0.71 | |||
| Intercept | −1.34 | 0.42 | −2.65, −0.43 | −3.22 | 0.0013 |
| On wood | 0.28 | 0.41 | −0.26, 1.50 | 0.69 | 0.4881 |
| On herb stems | −0.55 | 0.66 | −2.09, 1.07 | −0.83 | 0.4068 |
|
| |||||
| α | 0.99b | 0.30, 0.70 | |||
| Intercept | −0.74 | 0.34 | −1.57, −0.01 | −2.16 | 0.0310 |
| On wood | −0.06 | 0.36 | −0.58, 0.68 | −0.17 | 0.8649 |
| On herb stems | −0.46 | 0.55 | −1.51, 0.53 | −0.83 | 0.4078 |
|
| |||||
| α | 0.21 | 0.08, 0.56 | |||
| Intercept | −1.57 | 0.76 | −3.25, −0.24 | −2.08 | 0.0380 |
| On wood | 0.11 | 0.34 | −0.36, 1.65 | 0.32 | 0.7482 |
| On herb stems | −0.16 | 0.51 | −1.62, 2.05 | −0.32 | 0.7520 |
aBootstrap mean α = 0.40; bbootstrap mean α = 0.46; Note that the coefficients and Wald-type p-values are conditioned on the non-bootstrapped mean estimate for α.
Figure 3Spore trait differences (estimated mean ± s.e.) across saprotrophic substrates.