4.5 Article

Transfer to forest nurseries significantly affects mycorrhizal community composition of Asteropeia mcphersonii wildings

期刊

MYCORRHIZA
卷 27, 期 4, 页码 321-330

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00572-016-0750-z

关键词

Forest nursery; Ectomycorrhizal community; Asteropeia mcphersonii; Madagascar; Fungal ITS

资金

  1. project ADASPIR [ANR-12-ADAP-0017]
  2. Doctoral School GAIA (ex: SIBAGHE)
  3. AgroParisTech
  4. Institut de Systematique, Evolution, Biodiversite [UMR7205]
  5. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-12-ADAP-0017] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mycorrhizal symbiosis is extremely important for tree growth, survival and resistance after transplantation particularly in Madagascar where deforestation is a major concern. The importance of mycorrhizal symbiosis is further increased when soil conditions at the planting site are limiting. To identify technical itineraries capable of improving ecological restoration in Madagascar, we needed to obtain native ectomycorrhizal (ECM) saplings with a wide diversity of ECM fungi. To this end, we transplanted ECM seedlings from the wild (wildlings) to a nursery. Using molecular characterisation of internal transcribed spacer (ITS) rDNA, we tested the effect of transplanting Asteropeia mcphersonii wildlings on ECM communities after 8 months of growth in the nursery. With or without the addition of soil from the site where the seedlings were sampled to the nursery substrate, we observed a dramatic change in the composition of fungal communities with a decrease in the ECM infection rate, a tremendous increase in the abundance of an operational taxonomic unit (OTU) taxonomically close to the order Trechisporales and the disappearance of all OTUs of Boletales. Transplanting to the nursery and/or to nursery conditions was shown to be incompatible with the survival and even less with the development in the nursery of most ECM fungi naturally associated with A. mcphersonii wildings.

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