4.2 Article

Use of drift substrates to characterize marine fungal communities from the west coast of Portugal

期刊

MYCOLOGIA
卷 104, 期 3, 页码 623-632

出版社

ALLEN PRESS INC
DOI: 10.3852/11-191

关键词

diversity; drift stems; driftwood; marine fungi; sample size; similarity

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This survey reports the occurrence, diversity and similarity of marine fungi associated with five categories of drift substrates (Arundo donax, Phragmites australis, Spartina maritima, other stems and driftwood) collected on four sandy beaches of the western coast of Portugal. Other stems and driftwood are composite samples with a variety of identified and unidentified pieces of non-woody and woody substrates respectively. Fifty-six taxa were identified, including 38 Ascomycota and 18 anamorphic fungi. Twenty-six taxa were generalists; however several cases of substrate recurrence were identified. The very frequent fungi differed among the categories of studied substrates, with the exception of Corollospora maritima, very frequent on four categories. Except for S. maritima, P. australis and driftwood, cases of multiple fungal colonization were rare. S. maritima was the single substrate with five different marine fungi on one sample, as well as with the highest number of very frequent fungi, highest percentage of colonization and average number of fungi per sample. Driftwood presented the highest value of fungal richness (37 taxa) and A. donax the lowest (22 taxa). ANOSIM analysis of similarity showed that all substrates supported different fungal communities with the exception of the pair P. australis/other stems. The effect of sample size on estimated fungal richness was tested, and the results let us conclude that, although most of the sporadic fungi (<1% occurrence) will be detected only in a very large number of samples, 60 samples of A. donax and other stems and 70 samples of all the other substrates may suffice to assess their respective representative marine mycota.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据