Next Article in Journal
Synthesis and Antifungal Evaluation Against Candida spp. of 5-Arylfuran-2-Carboxamide Derivatives
Previous Article in Journal
The Different Spatial Distribution Patterns of Nitrifying and Denitrifying Microbiome in the Biofilters of the Recirculating Aquaculture System
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 13
Issue 8
10.3390/microorganisms13081834
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Litter Decomposition in Pacific Northwest Prairies Depends on Fire, with Differential Responses of Saprotrophic and Pyrophilous Fungi

by
Haley M. Burrill
1,2,*,
Ellen B. Ralston
1,
Heather A. Dawson
1 and
Bitty A. Roy
1
1
The Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Oregon, Onyx Bridge, 272, 1318 Franklin Blvd, Eugene, OR 97403, USA
2
Kansas Biological Survey, University of Kansas, 2101 Constant Ave., Takeru Higuchi Hall, Lawrence, KS 66047, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2025, 13(8), 1834; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13081834
Submission received: 13 June 2025 / Revised: 22 July 2025 / Accepted: 25 July 2025 / Published: 6 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fungal Ecology on a Changing Planet)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Fungi contribute to ecosystem function through nutrient cycling and decomposition but may be affected by major disturbances such as fire. Some ecosystems are fire-adapted, such as prairies which require cyclical burning to mitigate woody plant encroachment and reduce litter. While fire suppresses fire-sensitive fungi, pyrophilous fungi may continue providing ecosystem functions. Using litter bags, we measured the litter decomposition at three prairies with unburned and burned sections, and we used Illumina sequencing to examine litter communities. We hypothesized that (H1) decomposition would be higher at unburned sites than burned, (H2) increased decomposition at unburned sites would be correlated with higher overall saprotroph diversity, with a lower diversity in autoclaved samples, and (H3) pyrophilous fungal diversity would be higher at burned sites and overall higher in autoclaved samples. H1 was not supported; decomposition was unaffected by burn treatments. H2 and H3 were somewhat supported; saprotroph diversity was lowest in autoclaved litter at burned sites, but pyrophilous fungal diversity was the highest. Pyrophilous fungal diversity significantly contributed to litter decomposition rates, while saprotroph diversity did not. Our findings indicate that fire-adapted prairies host a suite of pyrophilous saprotrophic fungi, and that these fungi play a primary role in litter decomposition post-fire when other fire-sensitive fungal saprotrophs are less abundant.

1. Introduction

Fungi play a paramount role in ecosystem function, since they include plant mutualists, plant pathogens, and decomposers. Furthermore, fungal mycelia knit together soil components, contributing substantially to soil structure [1,2]. Soil nutrient cycling via decomposition is a critical function for saprotrophic fungi, which excrete extracellular enzymes that break down complex compounds such as lignin into accessible nutrients [3,4]. Fire changes the organic inputs (e.g., charcoal is not the same as wood) and the saprotrophic communities. The relative abundance of fire-adapted “pyrophilous” fungi increases post-fire, as these organisms can tolerate fire or take advantage of the high disturbance of fire, and some depend on fire-altered substrates (PyOM) [5,6,7]. Thus, pyrophilous fungi remain in the ecosystem and provide ecosystem services when other fungi are unable to survive. Litter decomposition is a combination of abiotic and biotic interactions, including saprotrophic communities, seasonal abiotic shifts, and seasonal variation in plant growth and litter inputs [8,9,10]. An environmentally driven timing of decomposition seems particularly likely in the PNW due to its Mediterranean climate. Grass biomass peaks in the spring (May), after which the grasses become dormant and brown during the summer (June–September) as there is little to no rain, and growth resumes in September with the first rains [11]. Decomposition by saprotrophic fungi may be highest under wetter but still warm fall conditions [12,13]. For these reasons, we expected litter decomposition to be highest in the fall months in unburned grasslands, as the organic matter input from senesced plants is high, temperatures are still warm, and the fall rains are beginning to saturate the soil.
Fire changes both the abiotic and biotic environments. Burned grasslands have less organic matter (both less total organic carbon [TOC], but also less woody plants) to decompose, thus decomposition rates may be lower than in unburned grasslands [14]. Given the decrease in available organic matter in burned ecosystems, and a typically positive relationship between fungal diversity and TOC [15], saprotrophic fungal diversity is likely lower immediately following a fire than in unburned areas. In addition, unburned systems retain the fungi that are not fire-adapted, so we might expect overall fungal diversity/richness to be higher in unburned grasslands. If higher diversity is correlated with higher decomposition rates as some work has shown (e.g., [16,17]), then we should see lower decomposition in burned prairies. Overall, the relative effects of fire on fungal communities and thus the fungal effects on decomposition remain under-explored.
To better understand the effects of soil microorganisms in decomposition, studies have used various sterilization methods. However, each sterilization method comes at a cost [18,19]. For example, autoclaving plant litter may kill most microorganisms, but it may also simultaneously break down complex chemical compounds in the litter that are then more accessible to the microorganisms [18]. In this case, we might expect autoclaved litter to decompose more rapidly—especially in burned grasslands, where such changes to the structure and chemistry of the litter could be favored by pyrophilous fungi. However, due to the removal of many microbial organisms (including saprotrophs) during autoclave processing, we expected autoclaved litter to decompose more slowly, as saprotrophic microbes would need to be recruited from the surrounding soils.
Fire-adapted fungi are likely the main drivers of biological decomposition, soil structure, and nutrient turnover in burned areas [2,5,20,21]. Certain Ascomycete genera like Aspergillus and Phoma degrade plant biomass faster than others [22], and decomposition by ascomycetes has been found to decrease over time, slowly being replaced by basidiomycetes [23]. Given the remaining limited understanding of pyrophilous fungi in general, the relative contribution of pyrophilous fungi to decomposition remains unexplored. We designed a study to answer the following questions: (1) Is litter decomposition affected by controlled burning? (2) Does fungal diversity depend on burning, and if so, does fungal diversity contribute to decomposition? (3) How does fire alter the saprotrophic and pyrophilous fungal community composition in prairies? Our hypotheses are shown in Figure 1.
Hypothesis 1.
Decomposition rate is overall lower in burned treatments, with untreated litter having higher decomposition compared with autoclaved litter.
Hypothesis 2.
Fungal saprotroph diversity will be lower in burned treatments, and pyrophilous fungal diversity will be highest in autoclaved litter compared with untreated litter and will be overall higher in the burned treatment.
If hypotheses 1 and 2 are supported, then:
Hypothesis 3.
We expect indicator saprotroph and pyrophile species’ relative abundance to increase with decomposition (Figure 1).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Description

Three managed upland (not wet) prairies on silty clay soil within 15 km of Eugene, Oregon were used (Table 1, Figure S1). The dominant species of grasses are shown in Table 1. Each prairie had a section that had a prescribed burn in the previous fall (2022), and a section that was unburned. For record keeping purposes, the different sections were given separate directional names (e.g., East, West), but the prairies with the same names were more or less contiguous, just burned in blocks. The controlled burns are used to control woody plant invasions and facilitate native prairie plant species [24]. The study sites were burned and unburned prairies on the East side of Mt. Pisgah and two locations within the Fern Ridge natural area: Eaton and Spire (see Supplemental Figure S1). The prairies themselves were mostly composed of grasses and forbs (see Table 1 for specific species), with incursions of blackberry (Rubus bicolor) and shrubs/trees (Quercus garryana, Crataegus spp., Fraxinus latifolia).

2.2. Site Management Activities During the Experiment

Two of the prairies, Eaton and Spire, experienced mowing during the course of the experiment. Because mowing would destroy the litter bags, we picked them up the day before (11 September 2023) by placing each set of six into a separate new, dry paper bag. They were returned to the same locations the following day. Managers at the third prairie, Pisgah, hoped to burn it in August or September of 2023. Because conditions for controlled burns must be just right (low wind, sufficient crews, etc.), we were asked to remove our bags on 22 July 2023 and were unable to put them back out until 12 October 2023. Unfortunately, the conditions were never right to reburn this prairie.

2.3. Experimental Design

We used a full factorial design replicated at each of the three prairies (Pisgah, Eaton, and Spire, Eugene, OR, USA); within each of the three prairies, fire (yes, no) was fully crossed with litter treatment (autoclaved or not). The collected litter was sterilized by autoclaving at 121 °C for 15 min (liquid cycle). The 100 × 100 mm litter bags were made from nylon fabric, with a mesh size of <1 mm, and were closed with staples. Approximately 1.5–2 g of litter was placed into each bag before it was stapled shut. To account for the four staples used to close the bag after initial weighing, 0.13 g were added to each “before” weight, the average weight of the four staples based on five samples.
Litter was collected from each site, then put back at the site it was taken from to decompose. Approximately 50 g of litter was taken from both the burned and unburned section of each site, with the litter being taken from the vicinity of where it was to be set out again. Once the litter was bagged, the samples were mixed (homogenized) on a per site basis in the lab before half was autoclaved, so that there was similar material in each replicate. These litter bags were then placed under pre-existing litter and on the soil-surface in July, which is the time when the prairies’ above-ground biomass are dying back naturally. Samples were recovered at four different times post placement: after 3 months (5 October 2023), 6 months (4 February 2024), 9 months (5 May 2024), and 12 months (10–14 July 2024). Prior to weighing, green vegetation (new growth) was removed from the bags when necessary.

2.4. Nutrient Analyses

We measured carbon and nitrogen on a subset of the samples (from the three-month series) to determine if differences in decomposition were due to nutrient availability. Samples from Eaton and Spire were ground and homogenized, put to dry overnight in an oven at 105 degrees F, and then further ground by a bead milling machine (Fisherbrand Bead Mill 24 Homogenizer, Fischer Scientific Co., Pittsburgh, PA, USA). Seven milling balls were placed into each sample tube, and then run through the machine for two minutes at a speed of 3.40 m/s. Each tube was run through these settings twice. After bead milling, each sample was run through a FlashSmart Elemental Analyzer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Fischer Scientific Co., Pittsburgh, PA, USA) to obtain the percentage composition of carbon and nitrogen for each sample.

2.5. Sequencing

Leaf litter samples collected at the 3- and 12-month periods were ground in UV-sterilized mortar and pestles along with liquid nitrogen. DNA was extracted from the 0.15 g litter samples using a DNeasy PowerSoil Pro kit (Qiagen, Germantown, MD, USA). The fungal specific primers ITS1F and ITS2 [25], modified with heterogeneity spacers and Illumina TruSeq barcode stubs [26], were used to amplify the ITS1 region in polymerase chain reactions (PCR). An initial round of PCR was performed in 20 uL reaction volumes with the GoTaq Green Master Mix (Promega Corp., Madison, WI, USA) at an initial denaturation step of 1 min at 94 °C, followed by 30 cycles of 45 s at 94 °C, 1 min at 54 °C, and 1 min 30 s at 72 °C, followed by a final extension of 72 °C for 10 min. A second round of PCR was performed for the attachment of unique multiplexed barcodes following the above protocol but modified for 12 cycles. After each round of PCR, the products were visualized with SafeView Classic (Applied Biological Materials Inc., Richmond, BC, Canada) on a 1% agarose gel via electrophoresis. The products were quantified using Quant-iT PicoGreen (ThermoFisher, Waltham, MA, USA) on a SpectraMax M5E Microplate Reader (Molecular Devices, San Jose, CA, USA) and pooled at equimolar concentrations. The pools were purified using Mag-Bind TotalPure NGS Magnetic Cleanup Beads (Omega Bio-tek, Norcross, GA, USA) at 0.85X for amplicon size selection. The pools were sequenced on the Illumina MiSeq at the University of Oregon’s Genomics and Cell Characterization Core Facility (Eugene, OR, USA). The sequencing data are available via The National Library of Medicine NCBI: PRJNA1267473.

2.6. Bioinformatics

The sequences were returned demultiplexed. We used the Cutadapt program to remove primers [27], dada2 to denoise [28], and QIIME 2.0 [29] to cluster the sequences to a 99% match of the dynamic UNITE trained classifier (colinbrislawn github, UNITE, 2024). Using the FungalTraits database, we matched fungal genera to trait assignments (e.g., saprotrophs, pathogens, mycorrhizae; [30]). To enable the subsetting of pyrophilous fungi for the analysis of next generation sequencing, we used the literature to create a comprehensive list of fire-associated (pyrophilous) fungi known from the USA (Table S1). While all of the fungi in the list are fire-associated according to the references cited, the ecology of that association is often poorly understood, and we thus use the list to highlight areas lacking data. The list includes macrofungi known to increase fruiting after a fire (the “traditional” pyrophilous definition) but also microfungi, such as Penicillium and Aureobasidium, that sequencing studies are showing an increase in abundance of, post-fire (e.g., [7,31,32]). We thus used the list to highlight where information was lacking. For downstream analyses, we then subsetted fungal OTUs into primary function saprotrophs, including all saprotroph types (4684), pyrophilous fungi (76), and other fungi (8117).

2.7. Data Analyses

We calculated the proportion of litter decomposed by subtracting the final weight from the initial weight and dividing that by the initial weight to measure the amount decomposed at each time point. In addition, we calculated k (decomposition rate, [33]) by taking the log base e of the ratio of the final to initial weight, dividing by the number of months the sample was decomposing, and multiplying everything by −1.
To determine the effects of burning on decomposition, we ran a generalized linear model (glm) with the proportion of decomposed litter as a response variable, burn and sterilization as interacting effects, and site, fresh weight, as well as the time the bags were in the field (months) as fixed effects. At the Pisgah site, the bags were removed soon after initial placement to allow for controlled burning, then replaced after the first collection period. Due to this major site difference, we included this site as a fixed effect instead of random. We subsetted each sample collection time and reran the model without months left out, to measure whether these effects contributed to differences in decomposition across each time period. Finally, to measure whether nutrient differences were contributing to differences in composition, we ran a glm with the ratio of C:N as responses to the decomposition weight, burn, and site. Analyses and graphing were performed with R (version 4.2.2), using the following packages: ggplot, tidyverse, ggpubr, rstatix, emmeans.
For all fungal subsets, we calculated the Shannon–Weiner diversity using the vegan package in R [34] and ran a glm to measure the responses to site, date of removal, autoclaving, and burn treatments, with an interaction between burn and autoclave treatments. We calculated the robust Aitchison distance for saprotroph- and pyrophile-subsetted ASV’s [35], then ran permanovas using adonis2 [34] to measure the community responses to burn, autoclaving, burn*autoclaving, and site. To identify the ASV’s that had significant variations explained by burn and autoclave treatments, we used multipatt in the R package indicspecies R 4.4.2 [36]. We measured the contribution of the saprotroph and pyrophilous fungal diversity to the decomposition rate with a simple generalized linear model (glm), with 1 added to the log transformed diversity measurement to shift the residuals closer to normal.

3. Results

3.1. Does Litter Decomposition Depend on Treatment? Hypothesis 1

Litter decomposition rate was not significantly affected by fire (Table 2). However, the decomposition rate was significantly lower in autoclaved litter, compared with untreated litter (p << 0.001, Figure 2). Decomposition rates were not constant (months out, p << 0.001); they were faster at the beginning (Figure 2). The ratio of C:N was not significantly affected by burn treatments in the burned sites, though it decreased as decomposition rates increased (p = 0.01), with significant variations among the sites (p = 0.01; Table S2).

3.2. Does Fungal Diversity Depend on Treatment, and if So, Does Fungal Diversity Contribute to Decomposition? Hypothesis 2–3

The relationships between fungal diversity and treatments depended on the particular functional group. There was no significant main effect of fire for either pyrophilous or saprotrophic fungi, but there was a significant main effect of autoclaving; it decreased the diversity of saprotrophs, but increased the diversity of pyrophiles (Table 3, Figure 3). Importantly, there was a significant interaction between fire and autoclaving for both functional groups (Table 3). In burn, the saprotroph diversity was significantly lower (Figure 3A) when autoclaved, whereas pyrophilous diversity was significantly higher (Figure 3B) when autoclaved.

3.3. How Does Fire Alter Saprotrophic and Pyrophilous Fungal Community Composition in Prairies?

The ten most abundant saprotroph OTUs were a Cadophora sp., Davidiellomyces sp., Sclerostagonospora sp., or Conioscypha sp., with several OTUs matched only to the genus Sclerostagonospora. The ten most abundant pyrophilous OTUs were all identified as the species Aureobasidium pullulans. We note that duplicate OTU identification is likely due to 99% taxonomy clustering methods. In the permanova, the saprotrophic fungal composition did not differ significantly between burn and autoclave treatments, or sites (Table S3). However, the pyrophilous fungal composition was significantly different between autoclave treatments (p = 0.01), with significant effects of site (p = 0.001). Saprotroph diversity did not correlate significantly with the decomposition rates (p = 0.69, Figure 4A), but pyrophilous fungal diversity had a significant positive correlation (p << 0.001, Figure 4D).
In the indicator species analysis, we found a higher relative abundance of a species in the saprotrophic genus Sclerostagonospora (only a 95.45% match to the type of Sclerostagonospora fusiformis) in the unburned sites, compared with burned sites (p = 0.047; Figure 4B) and a higher relative abundance of a different Sclerostagonospora ASV in untreated litter, compared with autoclaved litter (p = 0.015; Figure 4C). In addition, two ASV’s, identified as Aureobasidium pullulans, had higher relative abundances in the burned sites, compared with the unburned sites (p = 0.05, p = 0.027; Figure 4E); eight ASV’s identified as Aureobasidium pullulans also had higher relative abundances for autoclave-treated litter, compared with untreated litter (p << 0.001; Figure 4F).

4. Discussion

Our results point to the importance of pyrophilous fungi in decomposition. Our first hypothesis was that litter in a burned prairie would have lower decomposition, due to both decreased available plant biomass post-fire and a decreased number of decomposer species [37]. However, we found no significant differences in either saprotrophic or pyrophilous fungal diversity between burn treatments alone (Table 3). For hypothesis two, saprotrophic diversity was lower in the autoclaved samples at burned sites, with the opposite response for pyrophiles (Figure 3). Hypothesis three was supported for pyrophilous fungi, as their diversity increased along with increased decomposition rates (Figure 4D). These effects are likely the result of differences in fungal community members, such as the Sclerostagonospora spp. and Aureobasidium pullulans indicator species, which had significant differences in their relative abundance between burned and unburned sites (Figure 4B,E), as well as for autoclaved litter (Figure 4C,F).
Our attempt to reduce starting fungal diversity, the autoclaving treatment, had unexpected effects on the pyrophilous fungal contribution to decomposition. While total litter saprotroph diversity was significantly lower in the autoclaved samples at burned sites (Figure 4A), pyrophilous fungal diversity was higher (Figure 4B). This suggests that either the pyrophilous fungi were not all killed by autoclaving as has been found in some studies (e.g., [19,38]), or that they were better able to break down the high heat-treated compounds in the autoclaved litter and thus rapidly colonized it [7]. Interestingly, the most common pyrophilous fungus we found, Aureobasidium pullulans, was found in ash at Mt. St. Helens shortly after it exploded [39], but again we do not know if this was due to heat tolerance or rapid invasion post-fire. This species is often found as an endophyte in plant tissue, offering powerful anti-pathogen properties to its living hosts [40], suggesting it may play an important role in plant recovery post-fire. The implications of our findings are threefold: firstly, future studies should consider how particular fungal groups might respond to sterilization methods; secondly, there are likely ecological implications of some pyrophilous fungi surviving such sustained high heat [40] and lastly, the term phoenicoid fungi may be more appropriate than pyrophilous as was argued by Carpenter et al. [41].
Do these fungi require heat or fire? Traits of fire- and heat-associated fungi have recently been gaining more attention (e.g., [6,7,42]), and there is a lot to learn about them, as indicated by the number of question marks in our literature review (Table S1). In addition to fire-association, we included traits such as whether the fungus is known to be an endophyte, whether it is known to metabolize burnt organic matter, and whether it occurs early (days to a few months) or later in succession to fires. While we built the table to enable the subsetting of pyrophilous fungi in next generation sequencing studies, it can also be used to guide future research into the traits of these fascinating fungi. Our review (Table S1) also shows a bias towards studying macrofungi that fruit after a fire because they are easy to see. Future studies comparing paired burned and unburned sites could facilitate the discovery of more fire-associated microfungi if they listed the most common taxa in accessible tables.
Decomposition rates declined more rapidly at burned sites. Initially, litter decomposition rates were significantly higher in untreated litter at burned sites, though the difference between autoclave treatments disappeared over time (Figure 2). In an attempt to explain this relationship, nutrient analyses were performed on the litter bags from the initial removal to see if nutrient availability could account for this difference. In particular, we thought autoclaving had the potential to alter nutrient availability in litter samples. However, we found no differences in the C:N ratio between burned and unburned litter samples collected three months after the fire (Figure S3). Other studies have found a relationship between fire, decomposition, and nutrient availability (e.g., [43,44,45]), but they had sampled immediately after the fire, whereas we sampled 9 months post-fire. More interestingly, the diversity of pyrophilous fungi, as well as the relative abundance of A. pullulans, was higher in autoclaved samples at burned sites. These findings were positively correlated (Figure 4D), suggesting that pyrophilous fungi were significant contributors to decomposition when litter had undergone high heat. While differences in decomposition between burned and unburned sites in those studies were a result of the fire affecting nutrient availability and ratios, our data indicate that that was not the case here. Our findings indicate that the differences in decomposition rates were explained by pyrophilous fungi, rather than nutrients.
Autoclaved samples generally had lower rates of decomposition than the untreated samples (Figure 3), supporting our hypothesis that fungal endophytes inside the plant cells that remained alive would initiate the decomposition process (Hypothesis 1). However, autoclaving does more than killing endophytic fungi, it also changes chemical and tissue compositions via the breakdown of lignin. In fact, there are many studies that have examined the effect of autoclaves on cellular composition, many of which have found that the process of sterilization by autoclave can cause tissues to break down [18,46,47]. In future studies, we suggest a methodology to measure the various relative effects of autoclaving. Interestingly, we found a greater diversity of pyrophilous fungi in our autoclaved litter from the burned sites. This suggests that the colonization of pyrophilous fungi was enhanced in the post-fire conditions at the burned sites, and this is consistent with their ability to break down heat-altered plant compounds [5,7]. It is surprising to have detected more interactions between autoclave and burn treatments, rather than the predicted general lower diversity in autoclaved samples. This may partly be a sample size effect resulting from the ⅓ fewer samples from the three-month collections having a weaker response, whereas saprotroph diversity was significantly lower in the autoclaved litter and burned sites from the 12-month sampling, which had all the samples (see Figure S4). Finally, studies investigating the success rates of autoclaving as a means of sterilization highlight the many ways in which autoclaves could malfunction, thus resulting in surviving microorganisms [48].

5. Conclusions

Prescribed burns are a key part of maintaining native PNW prairies; fire keeps trees and shrubs from turning into forests, and fire also encourages growth of some native species, such as camus that have evolved under thousands of years of native American prairie burning practices [24,49]. Outside of prescribed, intentional burns, wildfires are expected to increase under anthropogenic climate change conditions [50], and generally, fires are predicted to become larger, more intense, and happen with greater frequency [51]. With the understanding that fire is something these prairies will be regularly exposed to, whether intentional or not, it is important to understand the effects of fire across different taxa and not just plants. Having insights into how decomposition might change in areas that have been burned can give the managers of these landscapes tools to be ready for the larger scale implications of these changes in decomposition. For example, our data suggest that controlled burning does not significantly affect decomposition rates, as the heat triggers pyrophilous fungi to contribute to decomposition when more fire-sensitive saprotrophs cannot. These findings support the use of intentional burning as a maintenance strategy in Oregon prairies.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/microorganisms13081834/s1, Figure S1: Sites. (A). The prairie sites are marked on a Google Earth image, which shows that all the sites are within 15 km of Eugene, Oregon. (B). Eaton, showing a 2016 burn. (C). Pisgah showing the October 2022 burn in progress. (D). Spire showing a 2016 burn. Photos (B) and (D) by Bitty Roy and photo (C) by Ed Alverson, used with permission; Figure S2: Litter bag plot layout. Each unburned vs. burned meadow was laid out the same. The litter bags were thus randomly placed with respect to the environment they were in and there was replication both within and among sites. Four autoclaved and four untreated bags were left at each numbered point. Numbers 1-6 represent sample numbers; Figure S3: Carbon to Nitrogen ratio in burned vs. unburned litter. Decomposition rate decreased as C-N increased (p = 0.01), there was no significant effect of treatment; Figure S4: Saprotroph diversity at just 12-month sampling. These data include Pisgah sites, showing that by the end of the year, saprotroph diversity was higher in unburned sites than burned (p = 0.06, (A)) and trending higher in untreated litter than autoclaved (p = 0.12, (B)); Figure S5: Litter decomposition over time, with Pisgah sites removed; Figure S6: Residual distributions for (A) decomposition rate glm, (B) saprotroph diversity glm, and (C) pyrophilous fungal diversity glm; Table S1: Pyrophilous fungi is known to occur in the United States, based on a comprehensive literature survey. Successional stage was divided into early (E), which means the fungi are initially found shortly after the fire (somewhere between hours and about 3 months) or later (L), meaning initially found between about 3 months and several years postfire. It was not possible to determine the exact successional timing of each fungus because it depends on environmental conditions such as snow and fire severity. Note that some early fungi persist for up to several years; early or later only refers to when they are initially found. Obligate pyrophilous fungi are those that require fire (Y) for reproduction. Few fungi have been studied for their fire-associated traits, but if we found information for these, it was recorded with a Y for Yes or an N for no and a ? if no information was found. Many pyrophilous fungi are also endophytic, with hosts ranging from Plants (P) to Bryophytes (B) to Lichens (L). The final column contains at least one reference that the fungus was found after fire; Table S2: C:N response to decomposition rate, burn and autoclave treatments; Table S3: Permanova response for saprotroph and pyrophile communities. Differences in fungal community composition between burn and autoclave treatments (both separately and interacting), along with site. Saprotroph community composition was not significantly different between sites or treatments; however, pyrophilous fungal communities differed between autoclave treatments and sites; Table S4: Decomposition rate generalized linear model, with the Pisgah sites removed. Refs. [52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139] can be found in Supplementary Materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.M.B.; Methodology, H.M.B., E.B.R., H.A.D. and B.A.R.; Validation, B.A.R.; Formal analysis, H.M.B.; Investigation, H.M.B., E.B.R., H.A.D. and B.A.R.; Resources, B.A.R.; Data curation, H.M.B. and E.B.R.; Writing—original draft, E.B.R., H.A.D. and B.A.R.; Writing—review & editing, H.M.B., E.B.R., H.A.D. and B.A.R.; Visualization, H.M.B. and B.A.R.; Supervision, H.M.B. and B.A.R.; Project administration, B.A.R.; Funding acquisition, B.A.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The University of Oregon Honors College supported ER’s Honors thesis work on the litter bag experiment. Funding was provided by a U.S. National Science Foundation Grant DEB-2106130 Macrosystems Biology and NEON-Enabled Science to BAR.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are openly available in [NCBI] at [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA1267473/ accessed on 24 May 2025], reference number [PRJNA1267473].

Acknowledgments

Thank you to the site managers for permission to do this study—W. Messinger for the Fern Ridge Corps of Engineers sites, and E. Alverson and J. Blazar for Buford Park (Pisgah)—and E. Alverson for a fire photograph. C. Winterbottom of the Army Corps of Engineers removed Fern Ridge samples for mowing. M. McCloskey helped construct the litter bags. Thanks for the support of all the other members of the Roy and Diez labs, especially J. Collings. The list of pyrophilous fungi benefited from suggestions by S. Glassman, D. Pfister. R. Healy, M. Caiafa, and M. Smith.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Rillig, M.C.; Aguilar-Trigueros, C.A.; Bergmann, J.; Verbruggen, E.; Veresoglou, S.D.; Lehmann, A. Plant Root and Mycorrhizal Fungal Traits for Understanding Soil Aggregation. New Phytol. 2015, 205, 1385–1388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Filialuna, O.; Cripps, C. Evidence That Pyrophilous Fungi Aggregate Soil after Forest Fire. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 498, 119579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Grinhut, T.; Hadar, Y.; Chen, Y. Degradation and Transformation of Humic Substances by Saprotrophic Fungi: Processes and Mechanisms. Fungal Biol. Rev. 2007, 21, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Osono, T. Ecology of Ligninolytic Fungi Associated with Leaf Litter Decomposition. Ecol. Res. 2007, 22, 955–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Fox, S.; Sikes, B.A.; Brown, S.P.; Cripps, C.L.; Glassman, S.I.; Hughes, K.; Semenova-Nelsen, T.; Jumpponen, A. Fire as a Driver of Fungal Diversity—A Synthesis of Current Knowledge. Mycologia 2022, 114, 215–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hopkins, J.R.; Bennett, A.E. Leveraging Traits for Insight into the Fungal Ecology of Burned Ecosystems. Ecosphere 2024, 15, e70008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Enright Unraveling Fire Adaptation Traits in Pyrophilous Bacteria and Fungi–ProQuest. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/docview/3162716040?pqorigsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true&sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20Theses (accessed on 9 May 2025).
  8. Risser, P.G. Abiotic Controls on Primary Productivity and Nutrient Cycles in North American Grasslands. In Concepts of Ecosystem Ecology; Pomeroy, L.R., Alberts, J.J., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1988; pp. 115–129. [Google Scholar]
  9. Delgado-Baquerizo, M.; Maestre, F.T.; Gallardo, A.; Quero, J.L.; Ochoa, V.; García-Gómez, M.; Escolar, C.; García-Palacios, P.; Berdugo, M.; Valencia, E.; et al. Aridity Modulates N Availability in Arid and Semiarid Mediterranean Grasslands. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e59807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Joshi, D.R.; Clay, D.E.; Clay, S.A.; Smart, A.J. Seasonal Losses of Surface Litter in Northern Great Plains Mixed-Grass Prairies. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 73, 259–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Reed, P.B.; Pfeifer-Meister, L.E.; Roy, B.A.; Johnson, B.R.; Bailes, G.T.; Nelson, A.A.; Boulay, M.C.; Hamman, S.T.; Bridgham, S.D. Prairie Plant Phenology Driven More by Temperature than Moisture in Climate Manipulations across a Latitudinal Gradient in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 9, 3637–3650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Epstein, H.E.; Burke, I.C.; Lauenroth, W.K. Regional Patterns of Decomposition and Primary Production Rates in the U.S. Great Plains. Ecology 2002, 83, 320–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bell, C.; McIntyre, N.; Cox, S.; Tissue, D.; Zak, J. Soil Microbial Responses to Temporal Variations of Moisture and Temperature in a Chihuahuan Desert Grassland. Microb. Ecol. 2008, 56, 153–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Xiong, S.; Nilsson, C. The Effects of Plant Litter on Vegetation: A Meta-Analysis. J. Ecol. 1999, 87, 984–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Anthony, M.A.; Tedersoo, L.; De Vos, B.; Croisé, L.; Meesenburg, H.; Wagner, M.; Andreae, H.; Jacob, F.; Lech, P.; Kowalska, A.; et al. Fungal Community Composition Predicts Forest Carbon Storage at a Continental Scale. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 2385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Fukasawa, Y.; Osono, T.; Takeda, H. Microfungus Communities of Japanese Beech Logs at Different Stages of Decay in a Cool Temperate Deciduous Forest. Can. J. For. Res. 2009, 39, 1606–1614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Santonja, M.; Rancon, A.; Fromin, N.; Baldy, V.; Hättenschwiler, S.; Fernandez, C.; Montès, N.; Mirleau, P. Plant Litter Diversity Increases Microbial Abundance, Fungal Diversity, and Carbon and Nitrogen Cycling in a Mediterranean Shrubland. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2017, 111, 124–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Howard, P.J.A.; Frankland, J.C. Effects of Certain Full and Partial Sterilization Treatments on Leaf Litter. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1974, 6, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. King, W.L.; Grandinette, E.M.; Trase, O.; Rolon, M.L.; Salis, H.M.; Wood, H.; Bell, T.H. Autoclaving Is at Least as Effective as Gamma Irradiation for Biotic Clearing and Intentional Microbial Recolonization of Soil. mSphere 2024, 9, e00476-24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. McMullan-Fisher, S.J.M.; May, T.W.; Robinson, R.M.; Bell, T.L.; Lebel, T.; Catcheside, P.; York, A. Fungi and Fire in Australian Ecosystems: A Review of Current Knowledge, Management Implications and Future Directions. Aust. J. Bot. 2011, 59, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fischer, M.S.; Stark, F.G.; Berry, T.D.; Zeba, N.; Whitman, T.; Traxler, M.F. Pyrolyzed Substrates Induce Aromatic Compound Metabolism in the Post-Fire Fungus, Pyronema Domesticum. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 729289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Challacombe, J.F.; Hesse, C.N.; Bramer, L.M.; McCue, L.A. Genomes and Secretomes of Ascomycota Fungi Reveal Diverse Functions in Plant Biomass Decomposition and Pathogenesis. BMC Genom. 2019, 20, 976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Purahong, W.; Wubet, T.; Lentendu, G.; Schloter, M.; Pecyna, M.J.; Kapturska, D.; Hofrichter, M.; Krüger, D.; Buscot, F. Life in Leaf Litter: Novel Insights into Community Dynamics of Bacteria and Fungi during Litter Decomposition. Mol. Ecol. 2016, 25, 4059–4074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hamman, S.T.; Dunwiddie, P.W.; Nuckols, J.L.; McKinley, M. Fire as a Restoration Tool in Pacific Northwest Prairies and Oak Woodlands: Challenges, Successes, and Future Directions. Northwest Sci. 2011, 85, 317–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. GARDES, M.; BRUNS, T.D. ITS Primers with Enhanced Specificity for Basidiomycetes–Application to the Identification of Mycorrhizae and Rusts. Mol. Ecol. 1993, 2, 113–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Nieuwerburgh, F.V.; Soetaert, S.; Podshivalova, K.; Wang, E.A.-L.; Schaffer, L.; Deforce, D.; Salomon, D.R.; Head, S.R.; Ordoukhanian, P. Quantitative Bias in Illumina TruSeq and a Novel Post Amplification Barcoding Strategy for Multiplexed DNA and Small RNA Deep Sequencing. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e26969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Martin, M. Cutadapt Removes Adapter Sequences from High-Throughput Sequencing Reads. EMBnet J. 2011, 17, 10–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Callahan, B.J.; McMurdie, P.J.; Rosen, M.J.; Han, A.W.; Johnson, A.J.A.; Holmes, S.P. DADA2: High-Resolution Sample Inference from Illumina Amplicon Data. Nat. Methods 2016, 13, 581–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bolyen, E.; Rideout, J.R.; Dillon, M.R.; Bokulich, N.A.; Abnet, C.C.; Al-Ghalith, G.A.; Alexander, H.; Alm, E.J.; Arumugam, M.; Asnicar, F.; et al. Reproducible, Interactive, Scalable and Extensible Microbiome Data Science Using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotechnol. 2019, 37, 852–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Põlme, S.; Abarenkov, K.; Henrik Nilsson, R.; Lindahl, B.D.; Clemmensen, K.E.; Kauserud, H.; Nguyen, N.; Kjøller, R.; Bates, S.T.; Baldrian, P.; et al. Correction to: FungalTraits: A User Friendly Traits Database of Fungi and Fungus-like Stramenopiles. Fungal Divers. 2021, 107, 129–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Barbour, K.M.; Weihe, C.; Walters, K.E.; Martiny, J.B.H. Testing the Contribution of Dispersal to Microbial Succession Following a Wildfire. mSystems 2023, 8, e00579-23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Packard, E.E.; Durall, D.M.; Jones, M.D. Successional Changes in Fungal Communities Occur a Few Weeks Following Wildfire in a Mixed Douglas-Fir-Ponderosa Pine Forest. Fungal Ecol. 2023, 63, 101246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Olson, J.S. Energy Storage and the Balance of Producers and Decomposers in Ecological Systems. Ecology 1963, 44, 322–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Oksanen, J.; Simpson, G.L.; Blanchet, F.G.; Kindt, R.; Legendre, P.; Minchin, P.R.; O’Hara, R.B.; Solymos, P.; Stevens, M.H.H.; Szoecs, E.; et al. Vegan: Community Ecology Package. R Package Version 2.8-0. Available online: https://vegandevs.github.io/vegan/ (accessed on 23 May 2025).
  35. Martino, C.; Morton, J.T.; Marotz, C.A.; Thompson, L.R.; Tripathi, A.; Knight, R.; Zengler, K. A Novel Sparse Compositional Technique Reveals Microbial Perturbations. mSystems 2019, 4, e00016-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. De Cáceres, M.; Legendre, P.; Moretti, M. Improving Indicator Species Analysis by Combining Groups of Sites. Oikos 2010, 119, 1674–1684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Semenova-Nelsen, T.A.; Platt, W.J.; Patterson, T.R.; Huffman, J.; Sikes, B.A. Frequent Fire Reorganizes Fungal Communities and Slows Decomposition across a Heterogeneous Pine Savanna Landscape. New Phytol. 2019, 224, 916–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Otte, J.M.; Blackwell, N.; Soos, V.; Rughöft, S.; Maisch, M.; Kappler, A.; Kleindienst, S.; Schmidt, C. Sterilization Impacts on Marine Sediment---Are We Able to Inactivate Microorganisms in Environmental Samples? FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2018, 94, fiy189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Carpenter, S.E.; Trappe, J.M.; Ammirati, J., Jr. Observations of Fungal Succession in the Mount St. Helens Devastation Zone, 1980–1983. Can. J. Bot. 1987, 65, 716–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Revillini, D.; David, A.S.; Menges, E.S.; Main, K.N.; Afkhami, M.E.; Searcy, C.A. Microbiome-Mediated Response to Pulse Fire Disturbance Outweighs the Effects of Fire Legacy on Plant Performance. New Phytol. 2022, 233, 2071–2082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. CARPENTER, S.E.; TRAPPE, J.M. Phoenicoid Fungi: A Proposed Term for Fungi That Fruit after Heat Treatment of Substrates. Mycotaxon 1985, 23, 203–206. [Google Scholar]
  42. Bruns, T.D.; Chung, J.A.; Carver, A.A.; Glassman, S.I. A Simple Pyrocosm for Studying Soil Microbial Response to Fire Reveals a Rapid, Massive Response by Pyronema Species. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0222691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hernández, D.L.; Hobbie, S.E. Effects of Fire Frequency on Oak Litter Decomposition and Nitrogen Dynamics. Oecologia 2008, 158, 535–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Marañón-Jiménez, S.; Castro, J. Effect of Decomposing Post-Fire Coarse Woody Debris on Soil Fertility and Nutrient Availability in a Mediterranean Ecosystem. Biogeochemistry 2013, 112, 519–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Knelman, J.E.; Graham, E.B.; Ferrenberg, S.; Lecoeuvre, A.; Labrado, A.; Darcy, J.L.; Nemergut, D.R.; Schmidt, S.K. Rapid Shifts in Soil Nutrients and Decomposition Enzyme Activity in Early Succession Following Forest Fire. Forests 2017, 8, 347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kohmann, M.M.; Silveira, M.L.; Brandani, C.B.; Sanchez, J.M.D.; da Silva, H.M.S.; Vendramini, J.M.B. Plant Litter Chemical Characteristics Drive Decomposition in Subtropical Rangelands Under Prescribed Fire Management. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2022, 84, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sugar Degradation during Autoclaving: Effects of Duration and Solution Volume on Breakdown of Glucose-Wang-1995-Physiologia Plantarum-Wiley Online Library. Available online: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1995.tb00947.x (accessed on 23 May 2025).
  48. Beaudet, J.M.; Weyers, A.; Solakyildirim, K.; Yang, B.; Takieddin, M.; Mousa, S.; Zhang, F.; Linhardt, R.J. Impact of Autoclave Sterilization on the Activity and Structure of Formulated Heparin. J. Pharm. Sci. 2011, 100, 3396–3404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kollu, V.K.R.; Kumar, P.; Gautam, K. Comparison of Microwave and Autoclave Treatment for Biomedical Waste Disinfection. Syst. Microbiol. Biomanuf. 2022, 2, 732–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pendergrass, K.L.; Miller, P.M.; Kauffman, J.B. Prescribed Fire and the Response of Woody Species in Willamette Valley Wetland Prairies. Restor. Ecol. 1998, 6, 303–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Abatzoglou, J.T.; Williams, A.P.; Barbero, R. Global Emergence of Anthropogenic Climate Change in Fire Weather Indices. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2019, 46, 326–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lisiewska, M. Macrofungi on special substrates. In Fungi in Vegetation Science; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1992; pp. 151–182. [Google Scholar]
  53. Dix, N.J.; Webster, J. Phoenicoid fungi. In Fungal Ecology; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1995; pp. 302–321. [Google Scholar]
  54. Healy, R.; Arnold, A.; Bonito, G.; Huang, Y.; Lemmond, B.; Pfister, D.; Smith, M. Endophytism and endolichenism in Pezizomycetes: The exception or the rule? New Phytol. 2022, 233, 1974–1983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Adamczyk, J.J.; Kruk, A.; Penczak, T.; Minter, D. Factors shaping communities of pyrophilous macrofungi in microhabitats destroyed by illegal campfires. Fungal Biol. 2012, 116, 995–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Petersen, P.M. Fireplace fungi in an arctic area: Middle west Greenland. Friesia 1974, 10, 270–280. [Google Scholar]
  57. Larsen, H.J. The Genus Anthracobia Boudier (Pezizales, Ascomycetes). Ph.D. Dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  58. Egger, K.; Paden, J. Pathogenicity of postfire ascomycetes (Pezizales) on seeds and germinants of lodgepole pine. Can. J. Bot. 1986, 64, 2368–2371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hughes, K.W.; Matheny, P.B.; Miller, A.N.; Petersen, R.H.; Iturriaga, T.M.; Johnson, K.D.; Methven, A.S.; Raudabaugh, D.B.; Swenie, R.A.; Bruns, T.D. Pyrophilous fungi detected after wildfires in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park expand known species ranges arid biodiversity estimates. Mycologia 2020, 112, 677–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Enright, D.; Frangioso, K.; Isobe, K.; Rizzo, D.; Glassman, S. Mega-fire in redwood tanoak forest reduces bacterial and fungal richness and selects for pyrophilous taxa that are phylogenetically conserved. Mol. Ecol. 2022, 31, 2475–2493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Hughes, K.W.; Case, A.; Matheny, P.B.; Kivlin, S.; Petersen, R.H.; Miller, A.N.; Iturriaga, T. Secret lifestyles of pyrophilous fungi in the genus Sphaerosporella. Am. J. Bot. 2020, 107, 876–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Raudabaugh, D.B.; Matheny, P.B.; Hughes, K.W.; Iturriaga, T.; Sargent, M.; Miller, A.N. Where are they hiding? Testing the body snatchers hypothesis in pyrophilous fungi. Fungal Ecol. 2020, 43, 100870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Van Vooren, N.; Hairaud, M.; Biancardini, S.; Cadene, F.; Chabrol, J.; Chasle, J.-C.; Clowez, P.; Constant, J.-L.; Courio, P.Y.; D’Angelo, M.-R.; et al. La Fonge Carbonicole. Résultats du Suivi de Sites Incendiés en France en 2022. Available online: https://ascomycete.org/Portals/0/Documents/Rapport-fonge-carbonicole.pdf (accessed on 23 May 2025).
  64. Claridge, A.W.; Trappe, J.M.; Hansen, K. Do fungi have a role as soil stabilizers and remediators after forest fire? For. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 257, 1063–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Vasiliauskas, R.; Stenlid, J. Fungi inhabiting stems of Picea abies in a managed stand in Lithuania. For. Ecol. Manag. 1998, 109, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Roy, B.; Delevitch, C.; Dawson, H.; Burrill, H. Macrofungi at H. J. Andrews. 2025. (In Preparation) [Google Scholar]
  67. Penttilä, R.; Kotiranta, H. Short-term effects of prescribed burning on wood-rotting fungi. Silva Fenn. 1996, 30, 399–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Parsa, S.; García-Lemos, A.M.; Castillo, K.; Ortiz, V.; López-Lavalle, L.A.B.; Braun, J.; Vega, F.E. Fungal endophytes in germinated seeds of the common bean, Phaseolus vulgaris. Fungal Biol. 2016, 120, 783–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kebli, H.; Brais, S.; Kernaghan, G.; Drouin, P. Impact of harvesting intensity on wood-inhabiting fungi in boreal aspen forests of Eastern Canada. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 279, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Glassman, S.I.; Levine, C.R.; DiRocco, A.M.; Battles, J.J.; Bruns, T.D. Ectomycorrhizal fungal spore bank recovery after a severe forest fire: Some like it hot. ISME J. 2016, 10, 1228–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rojas, D.S.; Gilbert, G.S. The response of Botrytis cinerea to fire in a coast redwood forest. Int. J. Plant Biol. 2024, 15, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Van Kan, J.A.; Shaw, M.W.; Grant-Downton, R.T. Botrytis species: Relentless necrotrophic thugs or endophytes gone rogue? Mol. Plant Pathol. 2014, 15, 957–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Orumaa, A.; Agan, A.; Anslan, S.; Drenkhan, T.; Drenkhan, R.; Kauer, K.; Köster, K.; Tedersoo, L.; Metslaid, M. Long-term effects of forest fires on fungal community and soil properties along a hemiboreal Scots pine forest fire chronosequence. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 851, 158173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Pfister, D.H. A synopsis of the North American species of Byssonectria (Pezizales) with comments on the ontogeny of two species. Mycologia 1993, 85, 952–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Fischer, M.S.; Patel, N.J.; de Lorimier, P.J.; Traxler, M.F. Prescribed fire selects for a pyrophilous soil sub-community in a northern California mixed conifer forest. Environ. Microbiol. 2023, 25, 2498–2515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Whitman, T.; Whitman, E.; Woolet, J.; Flannigan, M.D.; Thompson, D.K.; Parisien, M.-A. Soil bacterial and fungal response to wildfires in the Canadian boreal forest across a burn severity gradient. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2019, 138, 107571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hughes, K.W.; Franklin, J.A.; Schweitzer, J.; Kivlin, S.N.; Case, A.; Aldrovandi, M.; Matheny, P.B.; Miller, A.N. Post-fire Quercus mycorrhizal associations are dominated by Russulaceae, Thelephoraceae, and Laccaria in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Mycol. Prog. 2025, 24, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Li, M.; Yuan, C.; Zhang, X.; Pang, W.; Zhang, P.; Xie, R.; Lian, C.; Zhang, T. The transcriptional responses of ectomycorrhizal fungus, Cenococcum geophilum, to drought stress. J. Fungi 2022, 9, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. LoBuglio, K. Cenococcum. In Ectomycorrhizal Fungi Key Genera in Profile; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1999; pp. 287–309. [Google Scholar]
  80. Bergemann, S.; Garbelotto, M. High diversity of fungi recovered from the roots of mature tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus) in northern California. Botany 2006, 84, 1380–1394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Coronado-Ruiz, C.; Avendaño, R.; Escudero-Leyva, E.; Conejo-Barboza, G.; Chaverri, P.; Chavarría, M. Two new cellulolytic fungal species isolated from a 19th-century art collection. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 7492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Wicklow, D.T. Fire as an environmental cue initiating ascomycete development in a tallgrass prairie. Mycologia 1975, 67, 852–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Wicklow, D.T. Microfungal populations in surface soils of manipulated prairie stands. Ecology 1973, 54, 1302–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Kiser, J.; Daniels, H.; Scrivani, J. Isolation of endophytic fungi from Douglas-Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) foliage with bioprospecting potential for natural pharmaceuticals. Curr. Trends For. Res. 2019, 3, 1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Petrini, O.; Fisher, P. A comparative study of fungal endophytes in xylem and whole stem of Pinus sylvestris and Fagus sylvatica. Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc. 1988, 91, 233–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Steindorff, A.S.; Carver, A.; Calhoun, S.; Stillman, K.; Liu, H.; Lipzen, A.; He, G.; Yan, M.; Pangilinan, J.; LaButti, K. Comparative genomics of pyrophilous fungi reveals a link between fire events and developmental genes. Environ. Microbiol. 2021, 23, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Noordeloos, M.E.; CB, U. Type studies in Coprinus subsect. Alachuani. Proc. K. Ned. Akad. Wet.-Biol. Chem. Geol. Phys. Med. Sci. 1996, 99, 105–124. [Google Scholar]
  88. Steindorff, A.S.; Seong, K.; Carver, A.; Calhoun, S.; Fischer, M.S.; Stillman, K.; Liu, H.; Drula, E.; Henrissat, B.; Simpson, H.J. Diversity of genomic adaptations to the post-fire environment in Pezizales fungi points to crosstalk between charcoal tolerance and sexual development. New Phytol. 2022, 236, 1154–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Johannesson, H.; Gustafsson, M.; Stenlid, J. Local population structure of the wood decay ascomycete Daldinia loculata. Mycologia 2001, 93, 440–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Gierczyk, B.; Szczepkowski, A.; Kujawa, A.; Ślusarczyk, T.; Zaniewski, P. Contribution to the knowledge of fungi of the Kampinos National Park (Poland) with particular emphasis on the species occurring in burnt places. Acta Mycol. 2017, 52, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Yu, M.; Chen, S.; Shi, J.; Chen, W.; Qiu, Y.; Lan, J.; Qu, S.; Feng, J.; Wang, R.; Lin, F. Structures and Biological Activities of Secondary Metabolites from Daldinia spp. J. Fungi 2024, 10, 833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Dougoud, R. Clé des Discomycètes carbonicoles. Doc. Mycol. 2001, 30, 15–29. [Google Scholar]
  93. Gulde, G. Three new agarics in Norway. Agarica 2011, 30, 103–109. [Google Scholar]
  94. Diez-Hermano, S.; Poveda, J.; Benito, Á.; Peix, Á.; Martín-Pinto, P.; Diez, J.J. Soil mycobiome and forest endophytic fungi: Is there a relationship between them? For. Ecol. Manag. 2024, 562, 121924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Fujimura, K.; Smith, J.; Horton, T.; Weber, N.; Spatafora, J. Pezizalean mycorrhizas and sporocarps in ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) after prescribed fires in eastern Oregon, USA. Mycorrhiza 2005, 15, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Wang, X.H.; Huhtinen, S.; Hansen, K. Multilocus phylogenetic and coalescent-based methods reveal dilemma in generic limits, cryptic species, and a prevalent intercontinental disjunct distribution in Geopyxis (Pyronemataceae s. l., Pezizomycetes). Mycologia 2016, 108, 1189–1215. [Google Scholar]
  97. Turnau, K. Investigations on post-fire Discomycetes: Geopyxis rehmii sp. nov. and G. carbonaria (Alb. & Schw. ex Fr.) Sacc. Nova Hedwig. 1985, 40, 157–170. [Google Scholar]
  98. Egger, K.N. Substrate hydrolysis patterns of post-fire ascomycetes (Pezizales). Mycologia 1986, 78, 771–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Marchi, M.; Bosc-Bierne, A.; Lerenard, T.; Le Corff, J.; Aligon, S.; Rolland, A.; Simonin, M.; Marais, C.; Briand, M.; Cordovez, V. Unexplored Yeast diversity in Seed Microbiota. bioRxiv 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Caiafa, M.V.; Nelson, A.R.; Borch, T.; Roth, H.K.; Fegel, T.S.; Rhoades, C.C.; Wilkins, M.J.; Glassman, S.I. Distinct fungal and bacterial responses to fire severity and soil depth across a ten-year wildfire chronosequence in beetle-killed lodgepole pine forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2023, 544, 121160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Vohník, M.; Réblová, M. Fungi in hair roots of Vaccinium spp.(Ericaceae) growing on decomposing wood: Colonization patterns, identity, and in vitro symbiotic potential. Mycorrhiza 2023, 33, 69–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Halbwachs, H.; Dentinger, B.T.M.; Detheridge, A.P.; Karasch, P.; Griffith, G.W. Hyphae of waxcap fungi colonise plant roots. Fungal Ecol. 2013, 6, 487–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Voyron, S.; Ercole, E.; Ghignone, S.; Perotto, S.; Girlanda, M. Fine-scale spatial distribution of orchid mycorrhizal fungi in the soil of host-rich grasslands. New Phytol. 2017, 213, 1428–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Pressel, S.; Ligrone, R.; Duckett, J.G.; Davis, E.C. A novel ascomycetous endophytic association in the rhizoids of the leafy liverwort family, Schistochilaceae (Jungermanniidae, Hepaticopsida). Am. J. Bot. 2008, 95, 531–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Durán, M.; San Emeterio, L.; Múgica, L.; Zabalgogeazcoa, I.; Vázquez de Aldana, B.R.; Canals, R.M. Disruption of traditional grazing and fire regimes shape the fungal endophyte assemblages of the tall-grass Brachypodium rupestre. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 679729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Lou, H.; Guo, C.; Fan, B.; Fu, R.; Su, H.; Zhang, J.; Sun, L. Lingonberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.) interact with Lachnum pygmaeum to mitigate drought and promote growth. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 920338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Vega, M.; Janošík, L.; Sochorová, Z.; Martínez-Gil, R.; Eckstein, J. Lamprospora densireticulata sp. nov., L. dictydiola and L. carbonicola (Pyronemataceae, Pezizales)—Three very similar species from very different hosts and habitats. Mycol. Prog. 2019, 18, 1013–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Salo, K.; Domisch, T.; Kouki, J. Forest wildfire and 12 years of post-disturbance succession of saprotrophic macrofungi (Basidiomycota, Ascomycota). For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 451, 117454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Schumacher, T. Notes on taxonomy, ecology, and distribution of operculate discomycetes (Pezizales) from river banks in Norway. Nor. J. Bot. 1979, 1, 53–83. [Google Scholar]
  110. Kuo, M.; Dewsbury, D.R.; O’Donnell, K.; Carter, M.C.; Rehner, S.A.; Moore, J.D.; Moncalvo, J.-M.; Canfield, S.A.; Stephenson, S.L.; Methven, A.S. Taxonomic revision of true morels (Morchella) in Canada and the United States. Mycologia 2012, 104, 1159–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Richard, F.; Bellanger, J.-M.; Clowez, P.; Hansen, K.; O’Donnell, K.; Urban, A.; Mathieu, S.; Courtecuisse, R.; Moreau, P.-A. True morels (Morchella, Pezizales) of Europe and North America: Evolutionary relationships inferred from multilocus data and a unified taxonomy. Mycologia 2015, 107, 359–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Baynes, M.; Newcombe, G.; Dixon, L.; Castlebury, L.; O’Donnell, K. A novel plant–fungal mutualism associated with fire. Fungal Biol. 2012, 116, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Perry, B.A. A Taxonomic Investigation of Mycena in California. Master’s Thesis, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  114. Thoen, E.; Harder, C.B.; Kauserud, H.; Botnen, S.S.; Vik, U.; Taylor, A.F.S.; Menkis, A.; Skrede, I. In vitro evidence of root colonization suggests ecological versatility in the genus Mycena. New Phytol. 2020, 227, 601–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Philpott, T.J.; Danyagri, G.; Wallace, B.; Frank, M. Low-severity wildfire prevents catastrophic impacts on fungal communities and soil carbon stability in a fire-affected Douglas-fir ecosystem. Geoderma 2025, 454, 117189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Jacobson, D.J.; Powell, A.J.; Dettman, J.R.; Saenz, G.S.; Barton, M.M.; Hiltz, M.D.; Dvorachek Jr, W.H.; Glass, N.L.; Taylor, J.W.; Natvig, D.O. Neurospora in temperate forests of western North America. Mycologia 2004, 96, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Hildén, K.; Hakala, T.K.; Maijala, P.; Lundell, T.K.; Hatakka, A. Novel thermotolerant laccases produced by the white-rot fungus Physisporinus rivulosus. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2007, 77, 301–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Toghueo, R.M.K.; Boyom, F.F. Endophytic Penicillium species and their agricultural, biotechnological, and pharmaceutical applications. 3 Biotech 2020, 10, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Lantieri, A.; Medardi, G.; Alvarado, P. Morphological and phylogenetic clarification of Peziza arvernensis, P. pseudovesiculosa, P. pseudosylvestris, and P. domiciliana. Mycotaxon 2016, 131, 827–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Hennebert, G.; Korf, R.P. The peat mould, Chromelosporium ollare, conidial state of Peziza ostracoderma, and its misapplied names, Botrytis crystallina, Botrytis spectabilis, Ostracoderma epigaeum and Peziza atrovinosa. Mycologia 1975, 67, 214–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Nanagulyan, S.; Margaryan, L. Mycobiota of Armenia. In Biodiversity of Armenia; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; pp. 143–164. [Google Scholar]
  122. Matheny, P.B.; Swenie, R.A.; Miller, A.N.; Petersen, R.H.; Hughes, K.W. Revision of pyrophilous taxa of Pholiota described from North America reveals four species—P. brunnescens, P. castanea, P. highlandensis, and P. molesta. Mycologia 2018, 110, 997–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Crous, P.; Wingfield, M.; Burgess, T.; Hardy, G.; Gene, J.; Guarro, J.; Baseia, I.; Garcia, D.; Gusmao, L.; Souza-Motta, C.; et al. Fungal Planet description sheets: 716-784. Persoonia 2018, 40, 240–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Pfister, D.H. A synopsis of the genus Pulvinula. Occas. Pap. Farlow Herb. Cryptogam. Bot. 1976, 9, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Egger, K.N. Pyropyxis, a new pyrophilous operculate discomycte with a Dichobotrys anamorph. Can. J. Bot.-Rev. Can. Bot. 1984, 62, 705–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Peay, K.G.; Garbelotto, M.; Bruns, T.D. Spore heat resistance plays an important role in disturbance-mediated assemblage shift of ectomycorrhizal fungi colonizing Pinus muricata seedlings. J. Ecol. 2009, 97, 537–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Kipfer, T.; Moser, B.; Egli, S.; Wohlgemuth, T.; Ghazoul, J. Ectomycorrhiza succession patterns in Pinus sylvestris forests after stand-replacing fire in the Central Alps. Oecologia 2011, 167, 219–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Glushakova, A.; Kachalkin, A. Endophytic yeasts in Malus domestica and Pyrus communis fruits under anthropogenic impact. Microbiology 2017, 86, 128–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Hansen, K.; Perry, B.A.; Dranginis, A.W.; Pfister, D.H. A phylogeny of the highly diverse cup-fungus family Pyronemataceae (Pezizomycetes, Ascomycota) clarifies relationships and evolution of selected life history traits. Mol. Phylogenetics Evol. 2013, 67, 311–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Motiejūnaitė, J.; Adamonytė, G.; Iršėnaitė, R.; Juzėnas, S.; Kasparavičius, J.; Kutorga, E.; Markovskaja, S. Early fungal community succession following crown fire in Pinus mugo stands and surface fire in Pinus sylvestris stands. Eur. J. For. Res. 2014, 133, 745–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Kleijburg, F.E.; Wösten, H.A. The versatility of Schizophyllum commune in nature and application. Fungal Biol. Rev. 2025, 53, 100431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Yang, T.; Tedersoo, L.; Lin, X.; Fitzpatrick, M.C.; Jia, Y.; Liu, X.; Ni, Y.; Shi, Y.; Lu, P.; Zhu, J. Distinct fungal successional trajectories following wildfire between soil horizons in a cold-temperate forest. New Phytol. 2020, 227, 572–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Li, S.; Yan, Q.; Wang, J.; Peng, Q. Endophytic fungal and bacterial microbiota shift in rice and barnyardgrass grown under co-culture condition. Plants 2022, 11, 1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Van Vooren, N.; Lindemann, U.; Healy, R. Emendation of the genus Tricharina (Pezizales) based on phylogenetic, morphological and ecological data. Ascomycete.org 2017, 9, 101–123. [Google Scholar]
  135. Gervers, K.A.; Thomas, D.C.; Roy, B.A.; Spatafora, J.W.; Busby, P.E. Crown closure affects endophytic leaf mycobiome compositional dynamics over time in Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii. Fungal Ecol. 2022, 57, 101155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Poveda, J. Trichoderma as biocontrol agent against pests: New uses for a mycoparasite. Biol. Control 2021, 159, 104634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Tedersoo, L.; May, T.W.; Smith, M.E. Ectomycorrhizal lifestyle in fungi: Global diversity, distribution, and evolution of phylogenetic lineages. Mycorrhiza 2010, 20, 217–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Paden, J.W.; Cameron, J.V. Morphology of Warcupia terrestris, a new ascomycete genus and species from soil. Can. J. Bot. 1972, 50, 999–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Pulido-Chavez, M.F.; Alvarado, E.C.; DeLuca, T.H.; Edmonds, R.L.; Glassman, S.I. High-severity wildfire reduces richness and alters composition of ectomycorrhizal fungi in low-severity adapted ponderosa pine forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 485, 118923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Microorganisms 13 01834 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual diagram of hypotheses.
Figure 1. Conceptual diagram of hypotheses.
Microorganisms 13 01834 g001
Microorganisms 13 01834 g002
Figure 2. Litter decomposition rates over time. Litter decomposition rates generally declined over time (p << 0.001) and were significantly lower in autoclave-treated litter (p << 0.001). In the burned plots, decomposition rates were higher in the early sample collections (months out, p << 0.001), with no significant interaction between burn and autoclave treatments.
Figure 2. Litter decomposition rates over time. Litter decomposition rates generally declined over time (p << 0.001) and were significantly lower in autoclave-treated litter (p << 0.001). In the burned plots, decomposition rates were higher in the early sample collections (months out, p << 0.001), with no significant interaction between burn and autoclave treatments.
Microorganisms 13 01834 g002
Microorganisms 13 01834 g003
Figure 3. Saprotroph and pyrophilous fungal diversity response to the interaction of autoclave and burn treatments. Saprotroph diversity (A) was significantly lower in autoclaved samples (p = 0.007), with an interaction between burn and autoclave treatments (p = 0.035) and marginal variation among sites (p = 0.066). Pyrophilous fungal diversity (B) was significantly higher in autoclaved samples (p << 0.001), with a significant interaction between burn and autoclave treatments (p = 0.024). B = Burned, UB = Unburned. Purple indicates autoclaved samples, green indicates untreated.
Figure 3. Saprotroph and pyrophilous fungal diversity response to the interaction of autoclave and burn treatments. Saprotroph diversity (A) was significantly lower in autoclaved samples (p = 0.007), with an interaction between burn and autoclave treatments (p = 0.035) and marginal variation among sites (p = 0.066). Pyrophilous fungal diversity (B) was significantly higher in autoclaved samples (p << 0.001), with a significant interaction between burn and autoclave treatments (p = 0.024). B = Burned, UB = Unburned. Purple indicates autoclaved samples, green indicates untreated.
Microorganisms 13 01834 g003
Microorganisms 13 01834 g004
Figure 4. Fungal saprotroph and pyrophile relationships to decomposition rates. Saprotroph diversity had no relationship with decomposition rate ((A), p = 0.69). Sclerostagonospora spp. relative abundances were significantly higher in unburned ((B), p = 0.05) and untreated litter samples ((C), p = 0.015). Pyrophilous fungal diversity significantly increased with decomposition rates ((D), p << 0.001). Aureobasidium pullulans relative abundances were significantly higher in burned ((E), p = 0.05) and autoclaved litter ((F), p = 0.009). Many samples did not have identified saprotrophs or pyrophiles (zeros in (A,D)).
Figure 4. Fungal saprotroph and pyrophile relationships to decomposition rates. Saprotroph diversity had no relationship with decomposition rate ((A), p = 0.69). Sclerostagonospora spp. relative abundances were significantly higher in unburned ((B), p = 0.05) and untreated litter samples ((C), p = 0.015). Pyrophilous fungal diversity significantly increased with decomposition rates ((D), p << 0.001). Aureobasidium pullulans relative abundances were significantly higher in burned ((E), p = 0.05) and autoclaved litter ((F), p = 0.009). Many samples did not have identified saprotrophs or pyrophiles (zeros in (A,D)).
Microorganisms 13 01834 g004
Table 1. Localities. Information about each replicate site. Pictures of each are in Figure S1. Common plant species from observations taken at each site at the time of litter collection. A = Absent, I = Invasive, F = Forb, G = Grass, N = Native, P = Present.
Table 1. Localities. Information about each replicate site. Pictures of each are in Figure S1. Common plant species from observations taken at each site at the time of litter collection. A = Absent, I = Invasive, F = Forb, G = Grass, N = Native, P = Present.
SiteNameBurned?Aira caryophyllaea (I, G)Arrhenatherum elatius (I, G)Anthoxanthum odoratum (I, G)Daucus carota (I, F)Eriophyllum lanatum (N, F)Festuca roemeri (N, G)Hypochaeris radiata (I, F)Vulpia spp. (I, G)LatLongElevation (m)
NPisgahNoPAAPAPPP43.999809122.943102161
SouthPisgahYesPAAPAPPP43.996911122.944631161
SouthEatonNoPAAPPPPP44.101167123.259355113
NorthEatonYesPPAPAPPP44.102437123.259369113
EastSpireNoPPPPAPPP44.100123123.262949113
WestSpireYesPAAPPPPP44.098619123.264431113
Table 2. Linear model, litter decomposition rate response to burn and autoclave treatments.
Table 2. Linear model, litter decomposition rate response to burn and autoclave treatments.
Decomposition Rates
EstimateStd Errort ValuePr (>F)
Burn−0.0070.006−1.2940.20
Autoclaved−0.0100.005−1.7578.02 × 10−2
Months.out−0.0040.001−5.6913.68 × 10−8
Fresh.Weight0.0060.0070.8250.41
Site-Pisgah−0.0110.005−2.0920.04
Site-Spire−0.0100.005−1.8830.06
Burn: Autoclaved−0.0010.008−0.0810.94
Table 3. Saprotroph and Pyrophilous Fungal diversity responses.
Table 3. Saprotroph and Pyrophilous Fungal diversity responses.
Diversity Response
SaprotrophsPyrophiles
EstimateStd. Errort valuePr (>|t|)EstimateStd. Errort valuePr (>|t|)
Burn−0.0560.060−0.9350.3520.0880.0581.5160.133
Autoclaved−0.1560.057−2.7360.0070.2860.0565.1471.23 × 10−6
Time−0.0790.056−1.4030.163−0.4020.055−7.3175.10 × 10−11
Site0.1060.0571.8560.066−0.0250.056−0.4490.654
Burn: Autoclaved0.1870.0882.1300.035−0.2090.086−2.4450.016
Residual dev.5.44, 106 df 5.15, 106 df
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

Burrill, H.M.; Ralston, E.B.; Dawson, H.A.; Roy, B.A. Litter Decomposition in Pacific Northwest Prairies Depends on Fire, with Differential Responses of Saprotrophic and Pyrophilous Fungi. Microorganisms 2025, 13, 1834. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13081834

AMA Style

Burrill HM, Ralston EB, Dawson HA, Roy BA. Litter Decomposition in Pacific Northwest Prairies Depends on Fire, with Differential Responses of Saprotrophic and Pyrophilous Fungi. Microorganisms. 2025; 13(8):1834. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13081834

Chicago/Turabian Style

Burrill, Haley M., Ellen B. Ralston, Heather A. Dawson, and Bitty A. Roy. 2025. "Litter Decomposition in Pacific Northwest Prairies Depends on Fire, with Differential Responses of Saprotrophic and Pyrophilous Fungi" Microorganisms 13, no. 8: 1834. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13081834

APA Style

Burrill, H. M., Ralston, E. B., Dawson, H. A., & Roy, B. A. (2025). Litter Decomposition in Pacific Northwest Prairies Depends on Fire, with Differential Responses of Saprotrophic and Pyrophilous Fungi. Microorganisms, 13(8), 1834. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13081834

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