| Literature DB >> 31717669 |
Christina Weißbecker1, Anna Heintz-Buschart1,2, Helge Bruelheide3,2, François Buscot1,2, Tesfaye Wubet1,2.
Abstract
Soil fungi are a highly diverse group of microorganisms that provide many ecosystem services. The mechanisms of soil fungal community assembly must therefore be understood to reliably predict how global changes such as climate warming and biodiversity loss will affect ecosystem functioning. To this end, we assessed fungal communities in experimental subtropical forests by pyrosequencing of the internal transcribed spacer 2 (ITS2) region, and constructed tree-fungal bipartite networks based on the co-occurrence of fungal operational taxonomic units (OTUs) and tree species. The characteristics of the networks and the observed degree of fungal specialization were then analyzed in relation to the level of tree species diversity. Unexpectedly, plots containing two tree species had higher network connectance and fungal generality values than those with higher tree diversity. Most of the frequent fungal OTUs were saprotrophs. The degree of fungal specialization was highest in tree monocultures. Ectomycorrhizal fungi had higher specialization coefficients than saprotrophic, arbuscular mycorrhizal, and plant pathogenic fungi. High tree species diversity plots with 4 to 16 different tree species sustained the greatest number of fungal species, which is assumed to be beneficial for ecosystem services because it leads to more effective resource exploitation and greater resilience due to functional redundancy.Entities:
Keywords: bipartite network; diversity; fungal community assembly; soil; specialization; subtropics
Year: 2019 PMID: 31717669 PMCID: PMC6921041 DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms7110547
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microorganisms ISSN: 2076-2607
Figure 1The bipartite network analysis procedure. Data were pooled into three tree diversity levels (a). An illustrative subsampling set (b). For each subsampling combination, a bipartite network was generated (c) and network characteristics such as fungal generality were computed (d). Statistical differences between the tree diversity levels could be analyzed by considering the combined network characteristics of 576 possible subsampling combinations at each tree species diversity level.
Figure 2Dependence of the calculated network characteristics on the link threshold for tree species –fungal OTU co-occurrence in the bipartite network analysis. The charts show the median values (based on 576 subsamples) of four key network characteristics: fungal OTU number (a), network connectance (b), fungal generality (c) and fungal C score (d). A table showing all of the computed network characteristics is available in the Supplementary Material (Table S1).
Calculated network metrics for different levels of tree species diversity based on 576 tree-fungal bipartite subsamples and three tree diversity levels: monocultures (“Mono”), two-tree species mixtures (“Two mix.”) and high tree diversity mixtures (“High”). The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to identify significant differences in network values across the tree diversity levels. The median values of the network characteristics are reported for each tree diversity level. The Kruskal-Wallis test for multiple comparisons with the Bonferroni-Holmes correction was used to assess the significance of pairwise differences in network characteristics across tree diversity levels (n.s.: no significant difference detected). Numbers indicate the tree diversity levels: 1-monocultures, 2-two tree species mixtures, 3-high diversity tree species mixtures. Results are shown for networks generated using a tree species-fungal OTU co-occurrence threshold of 3/5.
| Number of OTUs in Network | Modularity | Connectance 1 | Fungal Generality 2 | Fungal C Score 3 | Mean Number of Shared Fungal Partners 4 | Fungal OTU Richness | Fungal Shannon Diversity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kruskal p | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Median | ||||||||
| Mono | 206 | 0.52 | 0.22 | 2.26 | 0.67 | 9.43 | 1004 | 4.99 |
| Two mix. | 198 | 0.51 | 0.22 | 2.33 | 0.68 | 9.57 | 1017 | 5.06 |
| High | 251 | 0.58 | 0.2 | 2 | 0.74 | 8.48 | 1187 | 5.34 |
| Pairwise p | ||||||||
| 1-2 | <0.001 | n.s. | n.s. | <0.001 | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. |
| 1-3 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| 2-3 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
1 Network connectance: Realized proportion of possible links, 2 Fungal generality: Mean effective number of tree species per fungal species, 3 Fungal C score: Average degree of co-occurrence for all possible pairs of fungal OTUs. Values close to 1 indicate evidence for disaggregation, e.g., through competition. Values close to 0 indicate aggregation of species (i.e., no repelling forces between species), 4 Mean number of shared fungal partners: Mean number of fungal species that interact with at least two tree species
Median nestedness (NODF) values for three tree diversity levels (monocultures, two tree species mixtures, and high tree diversity mixtures) based on null models and bipartite networks generated for 576 subsamples. Networks were generated using a tree species-fungal OTU co-occurrence threshold of 3/5.
| Networks | NODF Median | Wilcox.p |
|---|---|---|
| Tree monocultures | 21.51 | <0.001 |
| Null model | 57.6 | |
| Two tree species mixtures | 22.59 | <0.001 |
| Null model | 57.48 | |
| High tree species mixtures | 15.66 | <0.001 |
| Null model | 57.32 |
Figure 3Boxplots of phi coefficients for the three tree diversity levels, with histogram of the results of all subsampling combinations indicated as horizontal arrays. The Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test and Kruskal-Wallis test for multiple comparisons were used to evaluate the significance of group differences; a, b, and c indicate significantly different groups.
Figure 4Boxplot showing phi specialization coefficients for the main fungal functional groups, with histogram of the results of all subsampling combinations indicated as horizontal arrays; a and b indicate significantly different groups.
Figure 5Heat map showing the distribution patterns of the 200 fungal OTUs with the highest phi specialization coefficients, ordered according to a hierarchical clustering of the phi coefficients, among the 16 tree species.
Network metrics reported in previously published plant-fungal network studies.
| This Study | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study system | 16 subtropical tree species in a forest biodiversity experiment | Semi natural grasslands, 33 plant species | cool-temperate, warm-temperate and subtropical forests | Temperate forest with 33 tree species | Temperate forests, mainly | 33 understory plant species in temperate spruce forest | Xeric shrubland | |
| Country | China | Estonia | Japan | Japan | Romania | Estonia | Mexico | |
| Age | 3 years | 55–100 years | 25 years and 130 years | 130 years | ||||
| Treatment | Tree species diversity | Host plant functional group | Latitudinal gradient | Succession and seasonality | ||||
| Samples | Soil within tree rooting zone | Root samples | Root samples | Root samples | aboveground EcM fructifications | Root samples | Root samples | |
| Study target | Soil fungi | AM fungi | Soil fungi, fungal groups | Soil fungi | EcM fungi | AM fungi | AM fungi | |
| Nestedness | Less nested (15.66–29.42,) than random (53.87–60.04) NODF | More nested than random (27) nestedness temperature) | Anti-nested (−9 to −4) weighted NODF) | Less nested (25–35,) than random (32–40) weighted NODF | More nested (16) than random (38, 31) nestedness temperature) | More nested (14.36–54.83) than random, NODF | ||
| Number of modules | 1 | 5 | 8 | 4 | 5-9 | |||
| Modularity | 0.41–0.58 | Higher than random 0.18 | Moderate to low modularity (0.35–0.42), higher than random (0.32–0.38) | Low modularity 0.24 | 0.3–0.44 | Modular 0.30–0.57 | ||
| Connectance | 0.20–0.27 | Less connected than random 0.52 | 0.07 | 0.1-0.55 | High connectance 0.42 | Low connectance 0.05–0.15 | ||
| Fungal generality | 1.95–2.73 | 2.25–4.0 | ||||||
| Fungal C score | 0.63–0.74 | No difference of observed (0.59) and random value (0.58) | ||||||
* these studies re-evaluated the data from [91]; empty fields indicate no available information.