| Literature DB >> 30123615 |
Carlos Rojas1,2, Randall Valverde1, Erick Calvo1.
Abstract
In order to test the hypothesis that elevation may be an important factor accounting for the distribution of myxomycetes in tropical forests, this project was designed and conducted in Costa Rica. Two lower elevational belts were selected for this work due to their floristic and structural resemblance. Using the moist chamber technique, 40 different sites located in four different transects in two different macroclimatic regions were surveyed using three substrates during the rainy and the dry periods of 2014 and 2015. The results showed a lack of differences in diversity-based estimators according to elevation using different approaches and taxonomic differences were found across transects, collecting periods and substrates but not in relation with elevation either. Our results suggest that when increased spatial sampling resolution is implemented and floristic elements are common, elevation may not be as important of a factor in shaping the distribution of myxomycetes in tropical forests as commonly believed.Entities:
Keywords: Biogeography; Central America; Neotropics; distribution; gradients; myxogastrids
Year: 2016 PMID: 30123615 PMCID: PMC6059155 DOI: 10.1080/21501203.2016.1168885
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mycology ISSN: 2150-1203
Figure 1.Map of Costa Rica showing the general location of all four study areas including details of the four transects established for this project. For abbreviations, see Materials and Methods section.
Myxomycete species and number of records according to overall abundance categories (OAC) and transects studied in the present investigation.
| Transect | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlantic region | Pacific region | |||||
| Species/diversity estimator | pH | OAC | CLV | GH | FC | PT |
| 6.7 | VA | 95 | 57 | 90 | 55 | |
| 6.8 | VA | 37 | 33 | 113 | 96 | |
| 6.8 | VA | 45 | 57 | 64 | 92 | |
| 6.8 | A | 46 | 68 | 30 | 47 | |
| 6.5 | A | 32 | 39 | 31 | 36 | |
| 6.7 | A | 27 | 21 | 21 | 22 | |
| 6.6 | A | 14 | 25 | 16 | 26 | |
| 7.1 | A | 4 | 10 | 43 | 17 | |
| 6.9 | A | 11 | 25 | 14 | 18 | |
| 6.5 | C | 10 | 5 | 21 | 15 | |
| 6.2 | C | 11 | 4 | 12 | 19 | |
| 6.9 | C | 2 | 6 | 16 | 14 | |
| 6.7 | C | 8 | 8 | 6 | 10 | |
| 6.6 | C | 9 | 4 | 13 | 4 | |
| 6.7 | C | 5 | 9 | 7 | 7 | |
| 6.7 | C | 12 | 6 | 0 | 8 | |
| 7.0 | C | 1 | 0 | 25 | 0 | |
| 7.0 | C | 6 | 10 | 5 | 3 | |
| 5.9 | C | 5 | 0 | 4 | 13 | |
| 7.2 | C | 2 | 9 | 8 | 2 | |
| 6.7 | C | 6 | 3 | 6 | 1 | |
| 7.4 | C | 1 | 8 | 5 | 1 | |
| 6.5 | C | 7 | 1 | 5 | 0 | |
| 6.3 | C | 8 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
| 6.0 | C | 2 | 0 | 1 | 6 | |
| 7.0 | C | 0 | 6 | 1 | 1 | |
| 6.8 | C | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | |
| 6.3 | C | 0 | 2 | 1 | 5 | |
| 6.5 | C | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3 | |
| 5.9 | O | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0 | |
| 7.0 | O | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | |
| 6.6 | O | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | |
| 6.4 | O | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0 | |
| 5.7 | O | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | |
| 6.8 | O | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |
| 6.8 | O | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | |
| 5.6 | O | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | |
| 6.6 | O | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 6.5 | O | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | |
| 7.5 | O | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | |
| 5.9 | O | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |
| 7.2 | O | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |
| 6.4 | O | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | |
| 6.9 | O | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | |
| 6.4 | O | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| 6.9 | O | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| 6.9 | O | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 6.9 | R | 5 | 9 | 3 | 10 | |
| 6.9 | R | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |
| 6.9 | R | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |
| 6.7 | R | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| 7.0 | R | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
| 5.8 | R | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | |
| 5.5 | R | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| 6.9 | R | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| 7.4 | R | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 5.7 | R | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| 7.2 | R | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| 7.4 | R | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| 7.7 | R | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| 6.9 | R | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| 7.3 | R | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| 7.3 | R | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| 8.3 | R | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| 4.7 | R | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| 4.5 | R | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| 7.2 | R | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
Average pH values are provided in all cases. For abbreviation, see Materials and Methods section.
Diversity-based estimator values according to transects and elevational categories used in the present investigation.
| Categories | ONS | Simpson’s | Shannon’s | Evenness | MNS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transects | |||||
| CLV | 38 | 0.90 | 2.83 | 0.44 | 45 |
| GH | 36 | 0.91 | 2.84 | 0.47 | 42 |
| FC | 51 | 0.91 | 2.99 | 0.39 | 68 |
| TP | 41 | 0.91 | 2.83 | 0.41 | 51 |
| Elevation | |||||
| Low | 56 | 0.92 | 3.07 | 0.38 | 78 |
| Medium | 47 | 0.91 | 2.87 | 0.37 | 65 |
| High | 47 | 0.92 | 2.85 | 0.40 | 55 |
ONS: observed number of species; MNS: maximum number of species.
Figure 2.Bray–Curtis-based hierarchical cluster trees showing the taxonomic and structural proximity of transects (left) and elevation categories (right) used during this project. All branching are supported by bootstrap values higher than 0.50.
Figure 3.Scatter plot of abundance values for all 40 sampling sites studied during the present investigation arranged according to elevation. Elevational categories and abundance values are also shown. A lack of trend and correlation between the two variables is noted, even though an outlier around 800 m is present.