Next Article in Journal
Urban Water Resilience Infrastructure Falling into Oblivion: The Case of Warsaw’s Oligocene Groundwater Intakes
Previous Article in Journal
CITI4SEA: A Typological Indicator-Based Assessment for Coastal Public Spaces in Large Euro-Mediterranean Cities
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Suillus flavidus, a Peatland-Associated Mycorrhizal Fungus in Poland: Ecology, Distribution, Conservation Threats, and Sustainability Considerations

by
Małgorzata Stasińska
Institute of Marine and Environmental Sciences, University of Szczecin, Adama Mickiewicza 16 Street, 70-383 Szczecin, Poland
Sustainability 2025, 17(18), 8244; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188244
Submission received: 21 July 2025 / Revised: 10 September 2025 / Accepted: 11 September 2025 / Published: 13 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainability, Biodiversity and Conservation)

Abstract

Suillus flavidus is an ectomycorrhizal fungus associated with moist, nutrient-poor habitats, particularly peat bogs and transitional mires, where it forms symbiotic relationships with two-needle pines, especially Pinus sylvestris. This study presents an updated assessment of its distribution in Poland, identifies key ecological factors influencing its occurrence—such as habitat type and phenology—and evaluates its conservation status in the context of sustainability goals. Analysis of available data shows that over two-thirds of the known sites in Poland are located in peatland ecosystems, with more than half occurring within protected areas. Although S. flavidus is distinctly hygrophilous, it appears to prefer moderately wet habitats, particularly swamp forests. Despite an increase in recorded localities over the past five decades, S. flavidus remains an endangered species due to the ongoing degradation of peatland habitats, which are increasingly threatened by land-use change, drainage, and climate-related shifts in hydrology. The species’ long-term survival depends on sustainable landscape management, the preservation of suitable host tree populations, and the inclusion of fungi in conservation and restoration strategies. Thus, S. flavidus should be considered both an indicator species and a relevant element in meeting sustainability goals.

1. Introduction

The ectomycorrhizal fungi of the genus Suillus Gray are widely distributed and ecologically important species typically associated with conifers of the temperate and boreal zones of the Northern Hemisphere [1,2,3,4]. Currently, 112 species of Suillus are known worldwide [5], 13 of which occur in Poland [6,7], with most being characterised by a high degree of host and habitat specificity (e.g., [5,8,9,10]). An example of such a species is Suillus flavidus (Fr.) J. Presl, which forms a symbiosis with two-needle pines, particularly Pinus sylvestris L., in lowland and upland regions, and P. mugo Turra, in the mountains. The fungus grows mainly in peatlands, although it is also found in moist pine and mixed forests with pine. It also occurs in coastal forests and moist heaths with Erica tetralix L., developing on a thin layer of peat in interdune depressions on the Baltic Sea coast (e.g., [11,12,13]).
Suillus flavidus is known in North America, Africa, Asia, and Europe [13]. In Europe, it is mainly found in northern countries, e.g., Estonia, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and the UK [14,15,16,17], and those in its central part, e.g., Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Poland, Switzerland, and Slovakia [6,7,8,18,19,20,21]; it is also found sporadically in southern regions, e.g., Bulgaria [22] and Romania [23]. Despite this wide distribution, in many European countries S. flavidus is included in the Red List of Fungi as a very rare or rare fungus, and is protected and considered an endangered species: it is classified as Endangered (EN) in Switzerland [24], Critically Endangered (CR) in Austria [20], Vulnerable (VU) in Slovakia [25] and the Czech Republic [26], and Threat of Unknown Extent (G) in Germany [27]. In Poland, S. flavidus is a critically endangered taxon (category E) and has been protected for many years [28,29,30]. It is included in the IUCN Global Fungal Red List Initiative [31].
Suillus flavidus is one of the few ectomycorrhizal fungi found in wet habitats, such as bogs, mires, and swampy and boggy forests, which currently are amongst the most threatened ecosystems globally [32]. The rapid advance of climate change and growing human pressure [33,34] have been responsible for the disappearance of various ecosystem types, resulting in the loss of habitats to many temperature-sensitive species and their shrinking geographic ranges [35,36]. Many species are thought to have become extinct due to climate change [37], decreasing biodiversity on both regional and global scales [35].
Climate change is increasingly affecting forest ecosystems, in some cases with the effects being influenced by the relationships between ectomycorrhizal fungi and their associated plant partners [5,38]. For example, some species of the genus Suillus have been shown to play a significant role in enhancing host plant resistance to drought-induced oxidative stress [39,40]. However, in the longer term, global climate warming is expected to alter the distribution of both tree species [41,42] and associated fungi [43,44,45]. Pioneer tree species such as Picea abies (L.) H. Karst. and Pinus sylvestris, which are associated with fungi of the genus Suillus, are predicted to be heavily affected by climate change, as their range will decrease and shift northwards. It is believed that Scots pine, the main symbiotic partner of S. flavidus, will lose nearly 30% of its current acreage in Europe, even under an optimistic scenario [41].
Contemporary challenges in nature conservation increasingly require the integration of research on rare species with a sustainability-oriented approach that emphasises biodiversity protection, climate change mitigation, and the preservation of ecosystem functions. Mycorrhizal fungi, such as S. flavidus, constitute an essential component of these ecosystems, playing a crucial role in forest health and biogeochemical cycling [46,47]. Their presence can indicate the ecological integrity of wetland habitats, which are among the most threatened yet highly valuable ecosystems in terms of carbon sequestration and climate regulation [48]. Unfortunately, the intensification of land-use, peatland drainage, and ongoing climate change contribute to the degradation and disappearance of natural habitats for this species, placing it among the threatened fungi in Poland [28]. From the perspective of the Sustainable Development Goals, research into the distribution, ecology, and extinction risk of such narrowly specialised fungi is not only a conservation priority but also part of a long-term adaptive strategy to environmental change [49].
A study on the fungal diversity of raised and transitional bogs in north-western Poland [50] showed that the distribution and occurrence of many species, including S. flavidus, remains insufficiently documented. Although some data on the occurrence of S. flavidus in Poland have been published [11,51,52,53], the availability of some articles is limited, especially those dating from the first half of the 20th century [54,55]. Furthermore, not all data, including unpublished findings from inter alia private herbarium collections, have been included in publicly available databases, such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) [17]. Therefore, one of the aims of this paper is to synthesise and critically analyse the available information on the distribution of S. flavidus in Poland. It reviews all available data from the last 70 years, published and unpublished, to identify ecological factors that may determine the occurrence of this species, with a particular focus on habitat and phenology. An assessment was also made of threats that could contribute to a reduction in the geographic range or extinction of S. flavidus in certain regions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Origin and Taxonomic Verification

A database of S. flavidus records from Poland was compiled based on all available data. The sources include the following: (i) mycological literature compiled in the Checklist of Polish larger Basidiomycetes [6] and an online database of literature published since 2000 [7]; (ii) verified herbarium specimens from Polish herbaria (KRAM, LBL, SZUB, WA, and ZBŚRiL PAN; acronyms for public herbaria adhere to the Index Herbariorum [56]) and private collections (BGF-Błażej Gierczyk); (iii) information from the Database of Rare and Endangered Fungi (GREJ) [57]; and (iv) unpublished data from State Forests and Regional Directorates for Environmental Protection, as well as the author’s own data and unpublished records of mycology specialists. In addition, data were also searched for in publicly accessible databases, including GBIF [17], Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar. The following monographs and keys were used to identify the basidiomata and to verify herbarium specimens: Breitenbach and Kränzlin [18], Knudsen and Taylor [16], and Kibby [58]. Characteristics of microscopic structures (spores, basidia, cheilo- and pleurocystidia) were observed and measured using an Olympus BX53 light microscope (LM) with an Olympus DP26 digital camera (Evident Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). The identification of S. flavidus was based on macro- and micromorphological characteristics, including a lemon-yellow to greyish-yellow, sometimes brownish-yellow cap, 20–60 (80) mm in diameter, initially conical to convex, later becoming flat with a distinct, flat umbo; surface slimy (viscid), smooth, with fine, appressed fibrils; cuticle peelable; tubular hymenophore, with tubes and pores pale yellow to olivaceous yellow, the pores large and angular; cylindrical stipe, 30–80 × 3–10 mm, sometimes bent and somewhat thickened toward the base, concolorous with the cap, with pale whitish basal mycelium; gelatinous ring, yellowish to brownish-yellow, soon disappearing and leaving a narrow band; ellipsoid basidiospores, smooth, almost hyaline, with guttules, measuring 7.5–11 × 3–4.5 µm; clavate basidia, with four sterigmata, lacking a basal clamp, measuring 23–30 × 6–7.5 µm; cheilo- and pleurocystidia cylindric to clavate, with hyaline to brownish incrustation, measuring 40–70 × 4–9 µm [16,18,58]. The basidiomata of S. flavidus are highly distinctive, and their identification is relatively straightforward due to the species’ association with moist habitats. S. flavidus specimens collected by the author are deposited in the Herbarium of the University of Szczecin, Poland (SZUB).

2.2. Dystribution of Suillus flavidus and Ecologicala Data

The distribution of S. flavidus in Poland is presented on the basis of all available published and unpublished data according to the ATPOL (Atlas of Poland) grid square system [59]. To illustrate changes in the distribution of this species, the data was divided into three different periods: localities up to and including 1970 (according to Fraiture and Otto [13]), from 1971 to 2002, and after 2002; the latter two periods were divided based on the date of publication of the Checklist of Polish larger Basidiomycetes [6]. If the date of the basidioma collection was not known, the publication date of the locality was taken into account. The points on the map do not relate to single records but only show ATPOL squares, which may contain one to several S. flavidus localities. A list of localities used to create the cartographic map, and the analysis of phenological and habitat data are given in Supplementary Data S1.
All available published and unpublished records were searched to acquire phenological data for S. falvidus and any information on the habitats and plant communities in which it occurred. Duplicate records relating to the same locality or plant community were assessed as a single-record entry. When a species was found at the same locality in different years, only the year of the first record was considered. In the phenological analysis, all months in which S. flavidus basidiomata were found at a locality were taken into account.
The fungal nomenclatures were based on the Index Fungorum database (http://www.indexfungorum.org/, accessed on 10 April 2025), and the plant community nomenclatures according to Matuszkiewicz [60]. The nomenclature of vascular plants follows Mirek et al. [61]. The conservation status of S. flavidus in Poland was assessed according to the recommendations of Dahlberg and Mueller [62] and the current IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (version 16) [63].

3. Results

3.1. Verification of Herbarium Vouchers

A total of 23 vouchers of Suillus spp. from five Polish herbaria and one private collection were analysed. Among them, 21 specimens of S. flavidus and two other specimens of the genus Suillus were verified. One voucher from the LBL herbarium (LBL M-031109) was identified as S. bovinus (L.) Roussel, while one voucher from the WA herbarium (WA71549) was identified as Suillus sp. (probably S. grevillei (Klotzsch) Singer).

3.2. Current Distribution, Habitat, and Phenology

The earliest records of S. flavidus in Poland date back to the turn of the 19th and 20th century [54,64], where it was identified several times in the south-eastern part of the country, mainly by Eichler [54,55], in the vicinity of Międzyrzecz Podlaski. Until 1970, it was known to occur in 19 localities [51,65], and in only 15 localities between 1971 and 2002. The highest number of S. flavidus localities (n = 52, 60.5% of all known records) was recorded after 2002. Currently, the species is known to occur in 86 localities, scattered mainly in the north-western and south-eastern parts of the country (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Most of these localities were found in areas under various forms of protection: 33 in nature reserves, 10 in national parks, 13 in Natura 2000 areas, and three in landscape parks. Twenty-seven sites were located in areas affected by various forms of anthropogenic pressure, such as intensive forestry, infrastructure development, and pollution and eutrophication associated with intensive agriculture.
The majority of S. flavidus localities had a wetland character (Figure 3). More than two-thirds of the records, i.e., 64 out of 86, are from different types of peatlands: 31 records from raised bogs, 12 from transitional mires, 2 from alkaline fens and 6 from bogs developed in inter-dune depressions; for 13 records, the type of bog was not given. S. flavidus was also recorded on the shores of lakes and in wet depressions (seven records in total), as well as in anthropogenically transformed habitats—iron ore mining heaps (one record). It also occurred in dry habitats, i.e., on coastal grey dunes (n = 9). S. flavidus was found in a variety of forest and non-forest communities (Figure 4) in which its symbiotic partners also occur. Among forest communities, it was most frequently found in pine forests: Vaccinio uliginosi-Pinetum (n = 29) and Empetro nigri-Pinetum (n = 9), while among non-forest communities it was most frequently recorded in Sphagnetum magellanici (n = 9) and Ledo-Sphagnetum magellanici (n = 7). Information on the plant community was absent from 30 localities, and the habitat from 5 localities.
In Poland, basidiomata of S. flavidus were observed from June to November (Figure 5). Most records were obtained in autumn, i.e., in September (n = 52) and October (n = 21). In the other months, the basidiomata were found much less frequently.

4. Discussion

Suillus flavidus is widely distributed in Europe, with a more frequent occurrence in its northern regions [21,66,67,68,69]. Most records of S. flavidus in Poland date from the last twenty years, with tree or more locations reported annually more frequently after 2005 (Figure 2). This significant increase in the number of records is mainly related to higher intensity of mycological studies of peatland ecosystems [50,52,70] and the increase in the number of observations by amateur mycologists and specialists [30,57]. Compared to other European countries, especially those in Scandinavia, the number of S. flavidus records in Poland (n = 86) may seem relatively small: Norway has 468 records [66], Finland 236 [68], Denmark 212 [69], Germany 137 [21], and the Czech Republic has 96 [71]. However, only 44 localities have been noted in Switzerland [67], i.e., 50% of the records known from Poland, and only 10 in Austria, including only 6 known after 1990 [20]. This variation in the number of S. flavidus sites between countries may be largely due to differences in the distribution and area of peatlands in Europe and their conservation status [72,73,74]. This is also indicated by data from Poland, where the species was found mainly in areas of peatland concentration (e.g., [75,76,77,78]), particularly in raised and transitional mires (Figure 3). On rare occasions, S. flavidus was recorded in quite different habitats, such as pine-forested grey dunes and interdune depressions on the Baltic coast, e.g., in Poland and Germany [11,12,79]. The species has also been found occasionally in sites influenced by human activities, such as on pine plantations and the margins of fishponds [13]; it has also been noted in pine monocultures occurring on heaps following iron ore mining [80], where a thin layer of peat develops in the depressions of the area, similar to the interdune depressions.
The distribution of S. flavidus in Poland and other European countries largely corresponds to the natural range of P. sylvestris [13,81]. Hence, it is likely that the occurrence of S. flavidus in North America [17] has resulted from the introduction of P. sylvestris to the area [82]. A similar phenomenon is encountered with the North American S. lakei (Murrill) A.H. Sm. & Thiers, which was introduced into Europe, South America, and Australia with its mycorrhizal partner Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco [10,83]. The absence, or presence, of an appropriate tree partner is a key factor influencing the distribution of many ectomycorrhizal [84,85,86] and wood-inhabiting fungi [45]. In turn, the distribution of trees is significantly influenced by climate [35,42,87]. In Europe, climate change is predicted to result in the loss of localities and the northward migration of many native tree species [41]. One tree believed to be the most vulnerable to climate change is the Scots pine [[87], and references therein], which, based on the most pessimistic climate change scenarios, could see its range reduced by half in the next 50 years [41]. As a result, the population of S. flavidus would also decrease in the same area, especially in central and southern Europe; such a scenario is highly likely, as a decline in the number of its localities has already been observed in some countries, including France and Germany [13]. Ectomycorrhizal fungi are predicted to be disproportionately affected more than other organisms by climate change, due to their narrow climatic tolerance [38].
Despite its wide range in Europe, S. flavidus is a rare species in many of its regions [17,20,22,23]. A good example is north-western Poland, where despite the abundance of suitable habitats and intensive field studies, the number of newly discovered S. flavidus localities was relatively low: out of 134 objects, the species was only noted in 15 of them over 10 years of investigations [50]. In turn, the small number of localities in the central and north-eastern parts of the country may result from both insufficient knowledge of the mycobiota in these areas [6,7] and the actual rarity of the species in these regions, which may be related, for example, to the absence of suitable habitats—primarily moist pine forests on acidic soils [60]. It is possible that S. flavidus tends to occur rarely and patchily in its habitats, similar to other fungal indicator species for peatlands, e.g., Arrhenia gerardiana (Peck) Elborne and Cortinarius chrysolitus Kauffman [88]. However, the most likely explanation is that the occurrence of fungi is primarily determined by the local weather conditions [89]. Peatlands are mainly supplied by precipitation waters [76,77,90], and their deficit results in the upper layers of the substrate (peat) drying out, thus preventing fungal colonisation [50]. In Poland, as in many other European countries (e.g., Denmark and Finland), S. flavidus produces basidiomata mainly in September and October, and much less frequently in June and July and later in November (Figure 5) (e.g., [67,68,69]). Data from Switzerland show that the species is able to produce basidiomata even in December [67], which was probably related to weather anomalies. The fact that the basidiomata are more commonly observed in autumn can be explained by the relatively high annual precipitation. Numerous studies have shown that the production of basidiomata is strongly related to weather conditions, especially autumn rainfall (e.g., [91,92]). Extreme weather events, such as prolonged droughts or heavy rainfall, can significantly affect fungal populations, particularly those already threatened with extinction. For instance, extended periods of drought reduce soil moisture and disrupt the development of mycelium and basidiomata [93,94,95], which limits sexual reproduction and leads to a shortage of spores in the environment. Drought-related stress can not only impact symbiotic relationships between plants and fungi but may also, through indirect effects, influence overall ecosystem functioning [96].
Although there has been a significant increase in the number of S. flavidus localities in Poland [7], and the rest of Europe [66,67,68,69,71], over the last seven decades, the species should still be considered endangered. Firstly, the species prefers moist habitats (peatlands), whose area has decreased dramatically as a result of climate change and human activity [32]. The peatland in Poland has undergone considerable transformation, as none of the original raised bogs remain intact, and at least half of them have disappeared as a result of inter alia peat exploitation or transformation into agricultural land [76,77]. The analysis showed that the majority of S. flavidus localities are located in peatlands, particularly raised and transitional mires (Figure 5), covered by various forms of protection, with half (43 localities) in nature reserves and national parks. Protected peatlands are less exposed to harmful external factors than other areas. In the context of progressive peatland habitat degradation, for example, as a result of drainage, peatland species are declining, while species with a broader ecological range are increasingly encroaching upon these habitats [50]. However, the most significant threat to all peatland ecosystems is climate change, and its associated reduction in precipitation [77,90].
However, the collected data and numerous field observations show that although S. flavidus is clearly a hygrophilous species, it prefers less hydrated habitats, primarily swampy forests (Figure 4). This is in accordance with Stenström [97], who demonstrated that S. flavidus is highly sensitive to flooding, which negatively affects its ability to colonise pine roots. Stressful conditions such as flooding, or high water levels, and its associated low oxygen availability limit the development of ectomycorrhizae [98]. Periodic flooding of vegetation patches inhibits the development of fungi, even species that prefer more moist substrates [50]. Furthermore, studies suggest that other species of the genus Suillus are relatively weak competitors for host root tips in the face of competition from other ECM fungi or are easily excluded by other ectomycorrhizal fungi during fungal community succession [5].
Considering the data presented above, the recommendations of Dahlberg and Mueller [62], and the current IUCN criteria [63], S. flavidus meets the criteria (A2c + 3c + 4c) for the Vulnerable (VU) category in Poland, as its population is estimated to have declined by more than 30% during the last 50 years due to the loss and degradation of its suitable habitats (mainly peat bogs). Furthermore, the decrease is predicted to continue over the next 50 years.
The conservation of S. flavidus is closely tied to broader sustainability goals, particularly the protection of biodiversity and climate action. As a rare, mycorrhizal species restricted to peatland pine forests, S. flavidus depends on stable, undisturbed habitats that are increasingly threatened by drainage, land-use change, and climate-related alterations in hydrology [48,99,100]. Peatlands serve as both biodiversity reservoirs and major carbon sinks. Their degradation not only endangers specialist fungi like S. flavidus but also compromises carbon storage, exacerbating climate change. Therefore, conserving this species supports ecosystem integrity and contributes to sustainable land and climate management [49]. Integrating fungal diversity into conservation frameworks is essential for effective sustainability strategies. S. flavidus can act as a bioindicator for peatland health and the success of ecological restoration. Protecting its habitats through rewetting, limiting habitat fragmentation, and incorporating fungal monitoring into environmental policies aligns with the principles of sustainability and long-term ecosystem resilience [46,101].

5. Conclusions

Although S. flavidus was previously considered rare in Poland, this review reveals a broader distribution across various regions, likely underestimated due to limited sampling. Further field surveys, especially in underexplored areas (e.g., NE Poland), may provide a more complete picture of its range.
The new records presented here contribute to understanding the species’ wider biogeographical patterns and global distribution. This highlights the value of regional data in addressing gaps in fungal biodiversity knowledge and supports informed conservation and land-use planning.
Given that S. flavidus is an indicator of peatland habitats—now rapidly declining due to human activity and climate change—it should be considered for inclusion in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Without conservation efforts, many known localities may disappear. Improved knowledge of its distribution and habitat requirements can support actions to safeguard both the species and its ecosystem.
Moreover, protecting S. flavidus and its peatland habitats aligns with broader sustainability objectives, particularly those related to biodiversity conservation and climate regulation. Integrating fungal data into land-use strategies and restoration planning can enhance the long-term resilience of these vulnerable ecosystems.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su17188244/s1, Data S1: List of Suillus flavidus localities used to create the cartographic map and diagrams.

Funding

This research was funded by Co-financed by the Minister of Science under the “Regional Excellence Initiative” Program for 2024–2027 (RID/SP/0045/2024/01).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the reviewers for their critical comments on the manuscript of this paper, as well as the curators and employees of the Herbarium of the W. Szafer Institute of Botany of the Polish Academy of Sciences (KRAM), the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University (LBL), the University of Warsaw (WA), and the Institute of Agricultural and Forest Environment of the Polish Academy of Sciences (ZBŚRiL PAN) and Błażej Gierczyk (BGF) for lending specimens. I would also like to thank Julia Pawłowska (University of Warsaw), Marta Wrzosek (Botanical Garden, University of Warsaw), Barbara Grzesiak (Tuchola Landscape Park), and Mateusz Bocian (University of Szczecin) for providing unpublished data on S. flavidus stands. Additionally, I would like to express my gratitude to Edward Lowczowski for English language assistance.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Wu, Q.X.; Mueller, G.M.; Lutzoni, F.M.; Huang, Y.Q.; Guo, S.Y. Phylogenetic and biogeographic relationships of eastern Asian and eastern North American disjunct Suillus species (Fungi) as inferred from nuclear ribosomal RNA ITS sequences. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2000, 17, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Šutara, J. Central European genera of the Boletaceae and Suillaceae, with notes on their anatomical characters. Czech Mycol. 2005, 57, 1–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Nguyen, N.H.; Vellinga, E.C.; Bruns, T.D.; Kennedy, P.G. Phylogenetic assessment of global Suillus ITS sequences supports morphologically defined species and reveals synonymous and undescribed taxa. Mycologia 2016, 108, 1216–1228. [Google Scholar]
  4. Zhang, R.; Shi, X.-F.; Liu, P.-G.; Wilson, A.W.; Mueller, G.M. Host Shift Speciation of the Ectomycorrhizal Genus Suillus (Suillineae, Boletales) and Biogeographic Comparison with Its Host Pinaceae. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 831450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lofgren, L.; Nguyen, N.H.; Kennedy, P.G.; Pérez-Pazos, E.; Fletcher, J.; Liao, H.L.; Wang, H.; Zhang, K.; Ruytinx, J.; Smith, A.H.; et al. Suillus: An emerging model for the study of ectomycorrhizal ecology and evolution. New Phytol. 2024, 242, 1448–1475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wojewoda, W. Checklist of Polish larger Basidiomycetes. In Biodiversity of Poland; Mirek, Z., Ed.; W. Szafer Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of Sciences: Kraków, Poland, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  7. Kujawa, A.; Gierczyk, B.; Snowarski, M. Bibliografia grzybów wielkoowocnikowych Polski. In Atlas Grzybów Polski; Snowarski, M., Ed.; 2025; Available online: http://www.grzyby.pl/grzyby-makroskopijne-Polski-w-literaturze-mikologicznej.htm (accessed on 27 May 2025).
  8. Klofac, W. A world-wide key to the genus Suillus. Österr. Z. Pilzk. 2013, 22, 211–278. [Google Scholar]
  9. Ronikier, M.; Miśkiewicz, A.; Mleczko, P. Presence and distribution of Suillus plorans in the Polisch Tatra Mts (Western Carpatians). Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 2002, 71, 235–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pietras, M.; Litkowiec, M.; Gołębiewska, J. Current and potential distribution of the ectomycorrhizal fungus Suillus lakei ((Murrill) A.H. Sm. & Thiers) in its invasion range. Mycorrhiza 2018, 28, 467–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Bujakiewicz, A.; Lisiewska, M. Mikoflora zbiorowisk roślinnych Słowińskiego Parku Narodowego. Bad. Fizjogr. Pol. Zach. 1983, 34, 49–77. [Google Scholar]
  12. Dörfelt, H.; Bresinsky, A. Die Verbreitung und Ökologie ausgewählter Makromyceten Deutschlands. Distrib. Ecol. Sel. Macromycetes Germany. Z. Mykol. 2003, 69, 177–286. [Google Scholar]
  13. Fraiture, A.; Otto, P. (Eds.) Distribution, Ecology and Status of 51 Macromycetes in Europe: Results of the ECCF Mapping Programme; Botanic Garden Meise: Maise, Belgium, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  14. Kalamees, K.; Saar, I. Mycobiota of the Naissaar Nature Park (Estonia). Folia Cryptog. Est. 2006, 42, 25–41. [Google Scholar]
  15. Legon, N.W.; Henrici, A.; Roberts, P.J.; Spooner, B.M.; Watling, R. Checklist of the British and Irish Basidiomycota, 4th Update of the Printed Version Published 2005. 2009. Available online: http://www.basidiochecklist.info/ (accessed on 27 May 2025).
  16. Knudsen, H.; Taylor, A. Suillus Adans. In Funga Nordica. Agaricoid, Boletoid, Clavarioid, Cyphelloid and Gastroid Genera; Knudsen, H., Vesterholt, J., Eds.; Nordsvamp: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2012; pp. 203–207. [Google Scholar]
  17. GBIF Occurrence Download. Available online: https://doi.org/10.15468/39omei (accessed on 27 May 2025).
  18. Breitenbach, J.; Kränzlin, F. Fungi of Switzerland. 3. Boletales and Agarics 1st Part; Verlag Mycologia: Luzern, Switzerland, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  19. Škubla, P. Mycoflora Slovaca; Mycelium Edition: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  20. Dämon, W.; Krisai-Greilhuber, I. Die Pilze Österreichs. Verzeichnis und Rote Liste 2016. Teil: Makromyzeten; Österreichische Mykologische Gesellschaft: Wien, Austria, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  21. Dämmrich, F.; Gminder, A.; Hardtke, H.-J.; Karasch, P.; Schmidt, M.; Wehr, K. Datenbank der Pilze Deutschlands, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Mykologie e. V. (DGfM). 2025. Available online: http://www.pilze-deutschland.de/ (accessed on 22 May 2025).
  22. Gyosheva, M.; Natcheva, R.; Lambevska-Hristova, A. New data about macrofungal species diversity in Bulgaria. Phytol. Balc. 2018, 24, 305–313. [Google Scholar]
  23. Chinan, V. Macrofungi from “Gradinita” peat bog (Eastern Carpathians, Romania). Analele Stiintifice Ale Univ. Al. I. Cuza Iaşi 2011, 57, 35–40. [Google Scholar]
  24. Senn-Irlet, B.; Bieri, G.; Egli, S. Rote Liste der Gefahrdeten Arten der Schweiz (Rote Liste Grosspilze); Umwelt-Vollzug; Bundesamt für Umwelt, und WSL: Bern, Switzerland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lizoň, P. Red list of Slovak fungi. Catathelasma 2001, 2, 25–33. [Google Scholar]
  26. Zíbarová, L.; Kolényova, M.; Tejklová, T.; Zehnálek, P. Červený seznam hub (makromycetů) České republiky (Red list of fungi (macromycetes) of the Czech Republic). Příroda 2024, 46, 1–192. [Google Scholar]
  27. Dämmrich, F.; Lotz-Winter, H.; Schmidt, M.; Pätzold, W.; Otto, P.; Schmitt, J.; Scholler, M.; Schurig, B.; Winterhoff, W.; Gminder, A.; et al. Rote Liste der Großpilze und vorläufige Gesamtartenliste der Ständer- und Schlauchpilze (Basidiomycota und Ascomycota) Deutschlands mit Ausnahme der Flechten und der phytoparasitischen Kleinpilze. In Rote Liste Gefährdeten Tiere, Pflanzen und Pilze Deutschlands. Bd. 8: Pilze (Teil 1). Großpilze [Red List of Endangered Animals, Plants and Fungi in Germany. Volume 8: Fungi (Part 1). Macrofungi]; Matzke-Hajek, G., Hofbauer, N., Ludwig, G., Eds.; Landwirtschaftsverlag–Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt: Münster, Germany, 2016; pp. 31–433. [Google Scholar]
  28. Wojewoda, W.; Ławrynowicz, M. Red List of the Macrofungi in Poland. In Red List of Plants and Fungi in Poland; Mirek, Z., Zarzycki, K., Wojewoda, W., Szeląg, Z., Eds.; W. Szafer Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of Sciences: Kraków, Poland, 2006; pp. 53–70. [Google Scholar]
  29. Minister Środowiska. Rozporządzenie Ministra Środowiska z dn. 9 Października 2014 r. w Sprawie Ochrony Gatunkowej Grzybów; Dz. U. 2014 r., poz. 1408; Minister Środowiska: Wawelska, Poland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  30. Stasińska, M. Maślak błotny (żółtawy) Suillus flavidus (Fr.) J. Presl. In Grzyby Chronione Polski. Rozmieszczenie, Zagrożenia, Rekomendacje Ochronne; Kujawa, A., Ruszkiewicz-Michalska, M., Kałucka, I.L., Eds.; Instytut Środowiska Rolniczego i Leśnego PAN: Poznań, Poland, 2020; pp. 324–325. [Google Scholar]
  31. The Global Fungal Red List Initiative. Available online: https://redlist.info/iucn/species_view/291273/ (accessed on 22 May 2025).
  32. Fluet-Chouinard, E.; Stocker, B.D.; Zhang, Z.; Malhotra, A.; Melton, J.R.; Poulter, B.; Kaplan, J.O.; Goldewijk, K.K.; Siebert, S.; Minayeva, T.; et al. Extensive global wetland loss over the past three centuries. Nature 2023, 614, 281–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Schwalm, C.R.; Glendon, S.; Duffy, P.B. RCP8. 5 tracks cumulative CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 19656–19657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Trisos, C.H.; Merow, C.; Pigot, A.L. The projected timing of abrupt ecological disruption from climate change. Nature 2020, 580, 496–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Scheffers, B.R.; De Meester, L.; Bridge, T.C.; Hoffmann, A.A.; Pandolfi, J.M.; Corlett, R.T.; Butchart, S.H.; Pearce-Kelly, P.; Kovacs, K.M.; Dudgeon, D.; et al. The broad footprint of climate change from genes to biomes to people. Science 2016, 354, aaf7671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pigot, A.L.; Merow, C.; Wilson, A.; Trisos, C.H. Abrupt expansion of climate change risks for species globally. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2023, 7, 1060–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Svenning, J.-C.; Skov, F. Potential impact of climate change on the northern nemoral forest herb flora of Europe. Biodivers. Conserv. 2006, 15, 3341–3356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Baldrian, P.; López-Mondéjar, R.; Kohout, P. Forest microbiome and global change. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2023, 21, 487–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Li, M.; Wang, H.; Zhao, X.; Lu, Z.; Sun, X.; Ding, G. Role of Suillus placidus in improving the drought tolerance of masson pine (Pinus massoniana Lamb.) seedlings. Forests 2021, 12, 332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Qi, J.; Yin, D. Effects of Suillus luteus on the Growth, Photosynthesis, Stomata, and Root System of Pinus tabulaeformis Under Drought Stress. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2022, 42, 3486–3497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dyderski, M.K.; Paź, S.; Frelich, L.E.; Jagodziński, A.M. How much does climate change threaten European forest tree species distributions? Glob. Change Biol. 2018, 23, 1150–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Taccoen, A.; Piedallu, C.; Seynave, I.; Perez, V.; Gégout-Petit, A.; Nageleisen, L.M.; Bontemps, J.D.; Gégout, J.C. Background mortality drivers of European tree species: Climate change matters. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2019, 286, 20190386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pietras, M. First record of North American fungus Rhizopogon pseudoroseolus in Australia and prediction of its occurrence based on climatic niche and symbiotic partner preferences. Mycorrhiza 2019, 29, 397–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Pietras, M.; Kolanowska, M. Predicted potential occurrence of the North American false truffle Rhizopogon salebrosus in Europe. Fungal Ecol. 2019, 39, 225–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kujawska, M.B.; Rudawska, M.; Stasińska, M.; Pietras, M.; Leski, T. Distribution and ecological traits of a rare and threatened fungus Hericium flagellum in Poland with the prediction of its potential occurrence in Europe. Fungal Ecol. 2021, 50, 101035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. van der Heijden, M.G.A.; Martin, F.M.; Selosse, M.A.; Sanders, I.R. Mycorrhizal ecology and evolution: The past, the present, and the future. New Phytol. 2015, 205, 1406–1423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tedersoo, L.; Bahram, M.; Toots, M.; Diedhiou, A.G.; Henkel, T.W.; Kjøller, R.; Morris, M.H.; Nara, K.; Nouhra, E.; Peay, K.G.; et al. Towards global patterns in diversity and community structure of ectomycorrhizal fungi. Mol. Ecol. 2012, 21, 4160–4170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Turetsky, M.R.; Benscoter, B.W.; Page, S.; Rein, G.; van der Werf, G.R.; Watts, A.C. Global vulnerability of peatlands to fire and carbon loss. Nat. Geosci. 2015, 8, 11–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Díaz, S.; Settele, J.; Brondízio, E.S.; Ngo, H.T.; Agard, J.; Arneth, J.; Balvaner, P.; Brauman, K.A.; Butchart, S.H.M.; Chan, K.M.A.; et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 2019, 366, eaax3100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Stasińska, M. Macrofungi of raised and transitional bogs of Pomerania. Monogr. Bot. 2011, 101, 1–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  51. Skirgiełło, A. Materiały do poznania rozmieszczenia geograficznego grzybów wyższych w Europie. IV. Acta Mycol. 1972, 8, 191–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Łuszczyński, J. Grzyby macromycetes rezerwatu torfowiskowego Białe Ługi. In Rezerwat Torfowiskowy Białe Ługi; Żurek, S., Ed.; Wydawnictwo Homini: Bydgoszcz, Poland, 2001; pp. 185–204. [Google Scholar]
  53. Flisińska, Z. Grzyby Lubelszczyzny. Wielkoowocnikowe Podstawczaki (Basidiomycetes); Lubelskie Towarzystwo Naukowe: Lublin, Poland, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  54. Eichler, B. Boletus flavidus Fr. (grzyb żółtawy). Wszechświat 1901, 20, 638–639. [Google Scholar]
  55. Eichler, B. Drugi przyczynek do flory grzybów okolic Międzyrzecza. Pamiętn. Fizjogr. 1904, 18, 1–34. [Google Scholar]
  56. Thiers, B. Index Herbariorum: A Global Directory of Public Herbaria and Associated Staff. New York Botanical Garden’s Virtual Herbarium. 2024. Available online: http://sweetgum.nybg.org/ih/ (accessed on 22 January 2025).
  57. Kujawa, A.; Gierczyk, B.; Ślusarczyk, T. Rejestr gatunków grzybów chronionych i zagrożonych. In Atlas Grzybów Polski; Snowarski, M., Ed.; 2025; Available online: https://www.grzyby.pl/rejestr-grzybow-chronionych-i-zagrozonych.htm (accessed on 10 April 2025).
  58. Kibby, G. British Boletales with Keys to Species, 7th ed.; Geoffrey Kibby: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  59. Wojewoda, W. (Ed.) Atlas of the Geographical Distribution of Fungi in Poland; W. Szafer Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of Sciences: Kraków, Poland, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  60. Matuszkiewicz, W. Przewodnik do oznaczania zbiorowisk roślinnych Polski. In Vademecum Geobotanicum. 3; Faliński, J.B., Ed.; Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN: Warszawa, Poland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  61. Mirek, Z.; Piękoś-Mirkowa, H.; Zając, A.; Zając, M. (Eds.) Vascular plants of Poland. An annotated checklist. In Biodiversity of Poland; W. Szafer Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of Sciences: Kraków, Poland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  62. Dahlberg, A.; Mueller, G.M. Applying IUCN red-listing criteria for assessing and reporting on the conservation status of fungal species. Fungal Ecol. 2011, 4, 147–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. IUCN Standards and Petitions Committee. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria; Version 16. 2024. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Committee. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf (accessed on 27 August 2025).
  64. Błoński, F. Wyniki poszukiwań florystycznych skrytokwiatowych dokonanych w ciągu lata 1889 r. w obrębie 5-ciu powiatów Królestwa Polskiego. Pamiętn. Fizjogr. 1890, 10, 129–190. [Google Scholar]
  65. Stecki, K. Przyczynki do mykologii Galicyi. I. Grzyby okolic Rymanowa-Zdroju. Spraw. Kom. Fizjogr. 1910, 44, 49–56. [Google Scholar]
  66. Artsdatabanken. Available online: https://artsdatabanken.no/Taxon/Suillus%20flavidus/56076 (accessed on 27 May 2025).
  67. Gross, A.; Blaser, S.; Senn-Irlet, B.J. Swiss Fungi: National Data and Information Center for the Fungi of Switzerland [Database]. Version 2. 2024. Birmensdorf, Swiss Federal Institute WSL. Available online: https://www.wsl.ch/map_fungi (accessed on 21 May 2024).
  68. von Bonsdorff, T. Suillus flavidus. The FinBIF Checklist of Finnish Species 2024; Finnish Biodiversity Information Facility, Finnish Museum of Natural History, University of Helsinki: Helsinki, Finland, 2025; Available online: https://laji.fi/en/taxon/MX.71856 (accessed on 11 June 2025).
  69. Danmarks Svampeatlas. Available online: https://svampe.databasen.org/taxon/20730 (accessed on 27 May 2025).
  70. Ślusarczyk, T. Rzadkie i zagrożone grzyby wielkoowocnikowe w wybranych rezerwatach Polski Północnej i Zachodniej. Przegl. Przyr. 2020, 31, 90–108. [Google Scholar]
  71. Agentura Ochrany Přírody a Krajiny ČR. Available online: https://portal.nature.cz/w/druh-20629#/ (accessed on 11 June 2025).
  72. Tanneberger, F.; Tegetmeyer, C.; Busse, S.; Barthelmes, A.; Shumka, S.; Moles Marine, A.; Jenderedjian, K.; Steiner, G.M.; Essl, F.; Etzold, J.; et al. The peatland map of Europe. Mires Peat 2017, 19, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  73. Tanneberger, F.; Moen, A.; Barthelmes, A.; Lewis, E.; Miles, L.; Sirin, A.; Tegetmeyer, C.; Joosten, H. Mires in Europe—Regional diversity, condition and protection. Diversity 2021, 13, 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Minasny, B.; Adetsu, D.V.; Aitkenhead, M.; Artz, R.R.E.; Baggaley, N.; Barthelmes, A.; Beucher, A.; Caron, J.; Conchedda, G.; Connolly, J.; et al. Mapping and monitoring peatland conditions from global to field scale. Biogeochemistry 2024, 167, 383–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Jasnowski, M.; Markowski, S.; Wołejko, T. Torfowiska. Mapa w skali 1:2,000,000. In Atlas Zasobów, Walorów i Zagrożeń Środowiska Geograficznego Polski; Kozłowski, S., Ed.; Instytut Geografii i Zagospodarowania Przestrzennego Kraju PAN: Warszawa, Poland, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  76. Ilnicki, P. Torfowiska i torf. In Wydawnictwo Akademii Rolniczej im; Augusta Cieszkowskiego: Poznań, Poland, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  77. Herbichowa, M.; Pawlaczyk, P.; Stańko, R. Conservation of Baltic Raised Bogs in Pomerania, Poland; Experience and Results of the LIFE04NAT/PL/000208 PLBALTBOGS Project; Wydawnictwo Klubu Przyrodników: Świebodzin, Poland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  78. Szumińska, D.; Czapiewski, S.; Sewerniak, P. Natural and anthropogenic factors influencing changes in peatland management in Poland. Reg. Environ. Change 2023, 23, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Wilga, M.S. Stanowisko maślaka błotnego Suillus flavidus (Fr.: Fr.) J.S. Presl w rezerwacie przyrody “Mierzeja Sarbska” koło Łeby. Przegl. Przyr. 2005, 16, 165–170. [Google Scholar]
  80. Kochanowski, J. Suillus flavidus. 2022. Available online: https://www.bio-forum.pl/messages/33/1303910.html (accessed on 5 October 2024).
  81. Jalas, J.; Suominen, J. (Eds.) Gymnospermae (Pinaceae to Ephedraceae). Atlas Florae Europaeae, 2; The Committee for Mapping the flora of Europe and Societas Biologica Fennica Vanamo: Helsinki, Finland, 1973. [Google Scholar]
  82. Burns, R.M.; Honkala, B.H. Silvics of North America: 1. Conifers; Agriculture Handbook 654; US Department of Agriculture Forest Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  83. Szczepkowski, A.; Olenderek, T. Suillus lakei (Murrill) A. H. Sm. & Thiers (Boletales, Basidiomycota) in Poland: New data. Acta Mycol. 2017, 52, 1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  84. Vellinga, E.C.; Wolfe, B.E.; Pringle, A. Global patterns of ectomycorrhizal introductions. New Phytol. 2009, 181, 960–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Policelli, N.; Bruns, T.D.; Vilgalys, R.; Nuñez, M.A. Suilloid fungi as global drivers of pine invasions. New Phytol. 2019, 222, 714–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Policelli, N.; Horton, T.R.; García, R.A.; Naour, M.; Pauchard, A.; Nuñez, M.A. Native and non-native trees can find compatible mycorrhizal partners in each other’s dominated areas. Plant Soil. 2020, 454, 285–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Brichta, J.; Šimůnek, V.; Bílek, L.; Vacek, Z.; Gallo, J.; Drozdowski, S.; Bravo-Fernández, J.A.; Mason, B.; Roig Gomez, S.; Hájek, V.; et al. Effects of Climate Change on Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) Growth across Europe: Decrease of Tree-Ring Fluctuation and Amplification of Climate Stress. Forests 2024, 15, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Vašutová, M.; Vítovcová, K.; Manukjanová, A.; Prach, K. Fungal troublemakers–using indicator species with ephemeral fruitbodies to evaluate recovery of formerly extracted raised bogs. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 154, 110574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Büntgen, U.; Kauserud, H.; Egli, S. Linking climate variability to mushroom productivity and phenology. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2012, 10, 14–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Gignac, L.D.; Halsey, L.A.; Vitt, D.H. A bioclimatic model for the distribution of Sphagnum-dominated peatlands in North America under present climatic conditions. J. Biogeogr. 2000, 27, 1139–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Martínez-Peña, F.; De-Miguel, S.; Pukkala, T.; Bonet, J.A.; Ortega-Martínez, P.; Aldea, J.; de Aragón, J.M. Yield models for ectomycorrhizal mushrooms in Pinus sylvestris forests with special focus on Boletus edulis and Lactarius group deliciosus. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 282, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Ágreda, T.; Águeda, B.; Olano, J.M.; Vicente-Serrano, S.M.; Fernández-Toirán, L.M. Increased evapotranspiration demand in a Mediterranean climate might cause a decline in fungal yields under global warming. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2015, 21, 3499–3510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Andrew, C.; Heegaard, E.; Høiland, K.; Senn-Irlet, B.; Kuyper, T.W.; Krisai-Greilhuber, I.; Kirk, P.M.; Heilmann-Clausen, J.; Gange, A.C.; Egli, S.; et al. Explaining European fungal fruiting phenology with climate variability. Ecology 2018, 99, 1306–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Boddy, L.; Büntgen, U.; Egli, S.; Gange, A.C.; Heegaard, E.; Kirk, P.M.; Mohammad, A.; Kauserud, H. Climate variation effects on fungal fruiting. Fungal Ecol. 2014, 10, 20–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Straatsma, G.; Ayer, F.; Egli, S. Species richness, abundance, and phenology of fungal fruit bodies over 21 years in a Swiss forest plot. Mycol. Res. 2001, 105, 515–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Compant, S.; van der Heijden, M.G.A.; Sessitsch, A. Climate change effects on beneficial plant–microorganism interactions. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2010, 73, 197–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Stenström, E. The effects of flooding on the formation of ectomycorrhizae in Pinus sylvestris seedlings. Plant Soil 1991, 131, 247–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Rydin, H.; Jeglum, J.K. The Biology of Peatlands, 2nd ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Joosten, H.; Clarke, D. Wise Use of Mires and Peatlands: Background and Principles Including a Framework for Decision-Making; International Mire Conservation Group and International Peat Society: Devon, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  100. Parker, T.C.; Clemmensen, K.E. Understanding the role of fungi in peatland degradation after drainage. New Phytol. 2023, 240, 10–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Elliott, D.R.; Caporn, S.J.M.; Nwaishi, F.; Nilsson, R.H.; Sen, R. Bacterial and fungal communities in a degraded ombrotrophic peatland undergoing natural and managed re-vegetation. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0124726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Distribution of Suillus flavidus in Poland: white points—records reported until 1970; black–white points—records reported between the years 1971–2002; black points—records found after 2002; white squares—records reported until 1970 and confirmed in the years 1971–2002; black squares—records reported until 1970 and confirmed after 2002.
Figure 1. Distribution of Suillus flavidus in Poland: white points—records reported until 1970; black–white points—records reported between the years 1971–2002; black points—records found after 2002; white squares—records reported until 1970 and confirmed in the years 1971–2002; black squares—records reported until 1970 and confirmed after 2002.
Sustainability 17 08244 g001
Figure 2. The number of records of Suillus flavidus in Poland reported from 1889 to 2024 based on the literature data, specimens preserved in herbaria, personal communications, and other unpublished records from the Database of Rare and Endangered Fungi (GREJ).
Figure 2. The number of records of Suillus flavidus in Poland reported from 1889 to 2024 based on the literature data, specimens preserved in herbaria, personal communications, and other unpublished records from the Database of Rare and Endangered Fungi (GREJ).
Sustainability 17 08244 g002
Figure 3. The occurrence of Suillus flavidus records in Poland, with respect to habitat type.
Figure 3. The occurrence of Suillus flavidus records in Poland, with respect to habitat type.
Sustainability 17 08244 g003
Figure 4. The occurrence of Suillus flavidus records in Poland, with respect to plant community: Erte—Ericetum tetralicis; ErSp—Erico-Sphagnetum medii; Spma—Sphagnetum magellanici; LeSm—Ledo-Sphagnetum magellanici; EvSp—Eriophorum vaginatum-Sphagnum fallax community; VuPn—Vaccinio uliginosi-Pinetum; EnPn—Empetro nigri-Pinetum; MoPn—Molinio (caeruleae)-Pinetum; SpvC—Spergulo vernalis-Corynephoretum (=Corynephoretum canestentis); Pea-com—Peatland communities of an unspecified syntaxonomic rank; For-com—Forest communities other than peatland communities; Other com—Other plant communities; No data—No data on plant communities.
Figure 4. The occurrence of Suillus flavidus records in Poland, with respect to plant community: Erte—Ericetum tetralicis; ErSp—Erico-Sphagnetum medii; Spma—Sphagnetum magellanici; LeSm—Ledo-Sphagnetum magellanici; EvSp—Eriophorum vaginatum-Sphagnum fallax community; VuPn—Vaccinio uliginosi-Pinetum; EnPn—Empetro nigri-Pinetum; MoPn—Molinio (caeruleae)-Pinetum; SpvC—Spergulo vernalis-Corynephoretum (=Corynephoretum canestentis); Pea-com—Peatland communities of an unspecified syntaxonomic rank; For-com—Forest communities other than peatland communities; Other com—Other plant communities; No data—No data on plant communities.
Sustainability 17 08244 g004
Figure 5. Fruiting patterns (monthly occurrence) of Suillus flavidus in Poland.
Figure 5. Fruiting patterns (monthly occurrence) of Suillus flavidus in Poland.
Sustainability 17 08244 g005
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Stasińska, M. Suillus flavidus, a Peatland-Associated Mycorrhizal Fungus in Poland: Ecology, Distribution, Conservation Threats, and Sustainability Considerations. Sustainability 2025, 17, 8244. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188244

AMA Style

Stasińska M. Suillus flavidus, a Peatland-Associated Mycorrhizal Fungus in Poland: Ecology, Distribution, Conservation Threats, and Sustainability Considerations. Sustainability. 2025; 17(18):8244. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188244

Chicago/Turabian Style

Stasińska, Małgorzata. 2025. "Suillus flavidus, a Peatland-Associated Mycorrhizal Fungus in Poland: Ecology, Distribution, Conservation Threats, and Sustainability Considerations" Sustainability 17, no. 18: 8244. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188244

APA Style

Stasińska, M. (2025). Suillus flavidus, a Peatland-Associated Mycorrhizal Fungus in Poland: Ecology, Distribution, Conservation Threats, and Sustainability Considerations. Sustainability, 17(18), 8244. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188244

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop