| Literature DB >> 31379786 |
Di Wu1, Mengmeng Zhang1, Mu Peng1, Xin Sui2, Wei Li3, Guangyu Sun1.
Abstract
Forest plants are in constant contact with the soil fungal community, which plays an important role in the circulation of nutrients through forest ecosystems. The objective of this study was to evaluate the fungal diversity in soil and elucidate the ecological role of functional fungal communities in forest ecosystems using soil samples from seven different plantations in northeastern China. Our results showed that the fungal communities were dominated by the phyla Ascomycota, Basidiomycota, and Mortierellomycota, and the mixed plantation of Fraxinus mandshurica and Pinus koraiensis had a soil fungal population clearly divergent from those in the other plantations. Additionally, the mixed plantation of F. mandshurica and P. koraiensis, which was low in soil nutrients, contained a highly diverse and abundant population of ectomycorrhizal fungi, whereas saprophytic fungi were more abundant in plantations with high soil nutrients. Redundancy analysis demonstrated a strong correlation between saprophytic fungi and the level of soil nutrients, whereas ectomycorrhizal fungi were mainly distributed in soils with low nutrient. Our findings provide insights into the importance of functional fungi and the mediation of soil nutrients in mixed plantations and reveal the effect of biodiversity on temperate forests.Entities:
Keywords: ectomycorrhizal fungi; forest ecosystems; high-throughput sequencing; pure and mixed plantations; saprotrophic fungi
Year: 2019 PMID: 31379786 PMCID: PMC6646410 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01636
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Soil chemical properties in seven different plantation types.
| Type | pH | Total nitrogen | Total phosphorus | Total carbon | C/N ratio | Alkaline hydrolyzable nitrogen | Available phosphorus | Potential nitrification rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (mg g-1) | (mg g-1) | (mg g-1) | (mg kg-1) | (mg kg-1) | (μg NO2- N g-1 h-1) | |||
| PK | 5.09 ± 0.07a | 4.48 ± 0.52ab | 1.01 ± 0.04abc | 84.0 ± 1.7b | 18.92 ± 1.97a | 369.7 ± 48.4a | 21.0 ± 0.7a | 0.93 ± 0.10d |
| JM | 5.46 ± 0.05cd | 4.44 ± 0.72ab | 1.13 ± 0.04c | 110.1 ± 9.9c | 25.01 ± 2.35b | 348.6 ± 103.9a | 19.4 ± 1.9a | 0.84 ± 0.03c |
| JM(P × J) | 5.51 ± 0.06d | 6.88 ± 0.36d | 1.04 ± 0.13bc | 136.1 ± 1.6d | 19.82 ± 1.27a | 412.9 ± 52.5a | 29.6 ± 0.7b | 1.93 ± 0.03f |
| PK(P × J) | 5.42 ± 0.03c | 5.55 ± 0.27c | 0.98 ± 0.03ab | 105.2 ± 1.4c | 18.97 ± 1.09a | 309.9 ± 68.9a | 22.4 ± 8.1a | 1.71 ± 0.04e |
| FM | 5.40 ± 0.05c | 4.75 ± 0.05b | 1.03 ± 0.08bc | 85.8 ± 3.1b | 18.06 ± 0.57a | 383.7 ± 21.9a | 21.7 ± 2.7a | 0.93 ± 0.03d |
| FM(P × F) | 5.27 ± 0.02b | 3.89 ± 0.14a | 0.96 ± 0.03ab | 80.8 ± 3.7b | 20.78 ± 1.08a | 284.8 ± 13.2a | 25.0 ± 3.5ab | 0.27 ± 0.02a |
| PK(P × F) | 5.22 ± 0.04b | 3.82 ± 0.06a | 0.89 ± 0.01a | 71.5 ± 2.8a | 18.73 ± 0.49a | 290.6 ± 17.1a | 19.2 ± 2.3a | 0.58 ± 0.01b |
| 33.270 | 23.684 | 3.887 | 75.883 | 8.362 | 2.356 | 2.945 | 529.129 | |
| <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.017 | <0.001 | 0.001 | 0.088 | 0.045 | <0.001 | |
Richness and diversity estimators of soil–fungal community in the seven different types of plantation.
| Sample | OTUs | ACE | Chao | Shannon | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | |||||
| PK | 775 | 46.5 | 806 | 38.3 | 813 | 43.0 | 4.57 | 0.46 |
| JM | 890 | 76.2 | 931 | 59.4 | 937 | 59.5 | 4.77 | 0.35 |
| JM(P × J) | 927 | 98.1 | 955 | 86.3 | 969 | 84.2 | 4.99 | 0.52 |
| PK(P × J) | 869 | 135.2 | 911 | 119.6 | 926 | 112.1 | 4.48 | 0.79 |
| FM | 804 | 114.5 | 843 | 73.0 | 846 | 75.3 | 4.47 | 1.04 |
| FM(P × F) | 725 | 130.7 | 810 | 130.7 | 818 | 138.5 | 3.89 | 0.80 |
| PK(P × F) | 755 | 159.5 | 833 | 147.5 | 840 | 156.4 | 4.39 | 0.60 |
| 1.149 | 1.101 | 1.145 | 0.751 | |||||
| 0.385 | 0.409 | 0.387 | 0.619 | |||||
FIGURE 1Venn diagram showing the number of unique and shared species in soil samples from pure and mixed plantations of (A) P. koraiensis and (B) J. mandshurica or F. mandshurica.
FIGURE 2Relative abundances of (A) fungal phyla and (B) classes in each plantation.
FIGURE 3Network analysis showing fungal co-occurrence patterns in soil samples from different plantations. All OTUs with an average abundance >0.2% in all samples were included. The size of each node is proportional to the relative abundance of the fungal OTUs, and nodes in the network are marked with identical colors for the same genera. The thickness of each solid line is proportional to the r-value.
FIGURE 4Relative abundance of (A) the total ECM and saprotrophic fungi, (B) dominant ECM fungal genera, and (C) dominant saprotrophic fungal genera in different plantations.
FIGURE 5RDA of functional fungal communities and soil chemical properties. TC, total carbon; TN, total nitrogen; PN, potential nitrification rate; TP, total phosphorus; AP, available phosphorus; AHN, alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen. Red lines represent the soil chemical parameters, green diamonds represent the saprotrophic fungal genera, and blue circles represent the ECM fungal genera.