4.5 Article

Ectomycorrhizal fungal communities associated with Pinus thunbergii in the eastern coastal pine forests of Korea

期刊

MYCORRHIZA
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 39-49

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00572-009-0262-1

关键词

Cenococcum geophilum; Ectomycorrhizal fungi; Pinus thunbergii; Regeneration; Seedling

资金

  1. Korea Forest Service [S210809L010110]
  2. Korea Forest Service [S210809L010000] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated the ectomycorrhizal (ECM) fungal colonization status of Pinus thunbergii mature trees and regenerating seedlings varying in age in coastal pine forests on the east coast of Korea. We established one 20 x 20-m plot at each of two study sites at P. thunbergii coastal forests in Samcheok. Fifty soil blocks (5 x 5 x 15 cm) were sampled at regular intervals, and ten P. thunbergii seedlings of age 0, 1-3, 3-5, and 5-10 years were sampled in each study plot. In total of 27 ECM fungal taxa, Cenococcum geophilum was dominant, followed by Russula sp., Sebacina sp., and unidentified Cortinuris sp. in mature trees. In 0-year-old seedlings, some fungal species such as Sebacina sp., C. geophilum, and unidentified Cortinarius sp. were dominant whereas only C. geophilum was dominant after 1 year, and there were no apparent succession patterns in ECM fungal compositions beyond a host age of 1 year. Most ECM fungal taxa that had colonized seedlings of each age class were also observed in roots of mature trees in each site. These taxa accounted for 86.7-100% and 96.4-98.4% of ECM abundance in seedlings and mature trees, respectively. The results indicate that the species composition of ECM fungal taxa colonizing seedlings of different age in forests is similar to that of surrounding mature trees. Our results also showed that C. geophilum is a common and dominant ECM fungus in P. thunbergii coastal forests and might play a significant role in their regeneration.

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

4.5
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