4.7 Article

Contrasting latitudinal diversity and co-occurrence patterns of soil fungi and plants in forest ecosystems

期刊

SOIL BIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 131, 期 -, 页码 100-110

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2019.01.001

关键词

Soil fungi; Community assembly; Biogeography; Co-occurrence analysis; Woody habitat; Illumina sequencing

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFC0500702]
  2. Ministry of Environmental Protection, China [STSN-21-04]
  3. Chinese Academy of Sciences [STSN-21-04]
  4. Youth Innovation Team Project of ISA, CAS [2017QNCXTD_GTD]
  5. Western Light Program from CAS [Y62306040]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The diversity patterns of plants at large scale are broadly documented, but that of soil fungi remains elusive. Limited reports on soil fungal biogeography mainly are based on species richness. We carried out a large-scale field investigation on soil fungi originating from 365 forest plots covering five climate zones in China. We tested whether and to what degree a range of different fungal diversity estimates are subject to latitudinal constraints and compared co-occurrence patterns of plants and soil fungi. We found that alpha diversity of plants increased towards lower latitude, while that of soil fungi only tended to increase. Abiotic but not biotic factors controlled fungal alpha diversity. Multiple-site and pairwise beta diversity of soil fungi were closely linked to plant communities. Null model revealed an increasing interaction strength between plant species, while there was a hump-shaped pattern of interaction strength between fungal species from high-latitude towards low-latitude. Our results allow a deeper insight into the multidimensional distribution of soil fungal diversity and reveal contrasting co-occurrence patterns between soil fungi and plants along a latitude gradient, highlighting the need for more inclusive theories to explain these disparities between micro- and macroorganism communities.

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

4.7
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