4.3 Article

Fungal endophytic communities on twigs of fast and slow growing Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) in northern Spain

Journal

FUNGAL BIOLOGY
Volume 119, Issue 10, Pages 870-883

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.funbio.2015.06.008

Keywords

Diametric growth rate; Fungal diversity; Fungal evenness; Growth promoting; Internal transcribed spacers

Categories

Funding

  1. FORSEE Project (Interreg IIIB: Atlantic area)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Most plant species harbour a diverse community of endophytic, but their role is still unknown in most cases, including ecologically and economically important tree species. This study describes the culturable fungal endophytic community of Pinus sylvestris L. twigs in northern Spain and its relationship with diametric growth of the host. In all, 360 twig samples were collected from 30 Scots pines in fifteen stands. Isolates were obtained from all twig samples and 43 fungal taxa were identified by morphogrouping and subsequent ITS rDNA sequencing. All isolates were Ascomycetes, being Dothideomycetes and Sordariomycetes the most abundant classes. Half of the species were host generalists while the others were conifer or pine specialists. We found three new endophytic species for the Pinaceae: Biscogniauxia mediterranea, Phaeomoniella effusa and Plectania milleri, and additional six new species for P. sylvestris: Daldiniafissa, Hypocrea viridescens, Nigrospora oryzae, Ophiostoma nigrocarpurn, Penicillium melinii and Penicillium polonicum. The endophytic community of fast and slow growing trees showed differences in species composition, abundance and evenness, but not in diversity. Phoma herbarum was associated to fast growing trees and Hypocrea lixii to those growing slow. Our results support the hypothesis that some endophytic species may affect growth of P. sylvestris. (C) 2015 The British Mycological Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available