Managed and Unmanaged Pinus sylvestris Forest Stands Harbour Similar Diversity and Composition of the Phyllosphere and Soil Fungi
by
,
Jūratė Lynikienė
1, 
Diana Marčiulynienė
1,
Adas Marčiulynas
1,
Artūras Gedminas
1,
Miglė Vaičiukynė
1 and
Audrius Menkis
2,* 1
Institute of Forestry, Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, Liepų str. 1, Girionys, LT-53101 Kaunas, Lithuania
2
Department of Forest Mycology and Plant Pathology, Uppsala BioCenter, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 7026, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2020, 8(2), 259; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8020259
Submission received: 7 January 2020
/
Revised: 4 February 2020
/
Accepted: 11 February 2020
/
Published: 15 February 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental Microbiology)
Abstract
:The aim was to assess fungal communities associated with living needles and soil of Pinus sylvestris in managed and unmanaged forest stands to get a better understanding of whether and how different intensities of forest management affects fungal diversity and community composition under the north temperate forest zone conditions. The study was carried out in three national parks in Lithuania. Each included five study sites in managed stands and five in unmanaged stands. At each site, three random soil cores and five random last-year needle samples were collected. Following DNA isolation, a DNA fragment of the ITS2 rRNA gene region of each sample was individually amplified and subjected to high-throughput sequencing. Analysis of 195,808 high-quality reads showed the presence of 1909 fungal taxa. Richness and composition of fungal taxa were similar in each substrate (needles and soil) in managed vs. unmanaged sites. The most common fungi in needles were Coleosporium campanulae (12.4% of all fungal sequences), Unidentified sp. 3980_1 (12.4%), Unidentified sp. 3980_4 (4.1%) and Sydowia polyspora (3.1%). In soil: Unidentified sp. 3980_21 (8.6%), Umbelopsis nana (8.2%), Archaeorhizomyces sp. 3980_5 (8.1%) and Penicillium spinulosum (6.3%). The results demonstrated that managed and unmanaged P. sylvestris stands support similar diversity and composition of fungal communities associated with living needles and soil.
1. Introduction
European forests are used for multiple purposes, which often include the potentially conflicting goals of timber production and biodiversity conservation [1]. To protect natural habitats and biodiversity, in many countries, the establishment of protected areas was initiated, where management activities are prohibited [2,3]. As a result, ca. 10% of the forest area in Europe is left unmanaged [4]. In unmanaged forests, natural disturbances such as wind throws or forest fires lead to heterogeneous structure and different successional stages of forest development [5,6,7,8]. Such forests usually contain old-growth trees and accumulate larger volumes of dead wood that provide valuable habitats and support biodiversity [5]. Unmanaged forests have been shown to have, in general, higher biological diversity than managed forests [5].
Intensive forest management may often result in drastic changes leading to loss of naturalness and biodiversity in forest ecosystems [9], causing remarkable changes to forest structure and function [2]. This may eventually lead to lower buffering capacity and adaptability of such forests to climate change. Clear-cuttings especially can lead to changes in tree age structure and species composition, and may also modify the microclimate and/or soil conditions, and ultimately affect the functioning of forest ecosystems [3]. These changes can reduce or even threaten different organisms that depend on natural forest habitats [5]. However, many of these forests may still have relatively high biodiversity [6]. For example, Horák et al. [4] have shown that some beetles thrive in managed forests. Indeed, the richness of several ground beetle species was found to be either higher or did not differ significantly when compared between managed and unmanaged stands [10,11,12,13]. Many of these beetles are considered as indicator species, reflecting habitat conditions [14].
In Europe, coniferous forests, including Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), are widely distributed and are of enormous ecological and economic importance [15,16,17,18]. Although these forests generally have lower biodiversity than deciduous forests [4], P. sylvestris provides habitats to a large number of different organisms [19,20]. The phyllosphere, which in conifers is dominated by needles and is the key component responsible for photosynthesis and transpiration, represents one of the largest terrestrial habitats for microorganisms [21]. Fungi in this habitat represent the largest microbial component that may influence different physiological processes, such as tree growth and adaptation to different abiotic and biotic stress factors [22]. Soil fungi are equally important as many of these are responsible for decomposition of organic matter and nutrient recycling, while mutualistic mycorrhizal fungi may provide nutritional benefits to host trees [23,24,25]. However, fungal communities can be sensitive to different forest transformations, including changes in plant diversity, composition and structure [23,26]. Indeed, forest management may negatively affect fungal communities, resulting in lower diversity [3]. For example, regular timber harvesting results in soil that is more compact, which may cause changes in soil fungal community structure [23]. On the other hand, under certain conditions (depending on tree species, age and type of forest management), recurrent disturbances that occur in managed stands could lead to higher biodiversity [23,27]. The above observations suggest that the impact of forest management on fungal diversity and community composition may depend on different factors.
High-throughput sequencing methods provide powerful tools to explore fungal diversity directly from environmental samples [28]. While providing detailed and semi-quantitative information, they enable us to study the effects of different factors on fungal diversity and community composition [29,30]. However, we need to be aware of potential risks, including methodological biases, limitations of markers and bioinformatics challenges, and to learn possible solutions [31]. While different sequencing platforms have advantages and limitations, the Pacific Biosciences (PacBio) platform offers a low error rate by re-sequencing of circular molecules multiple times, especially for shorter reads [32], and thus, was used in the present study.
The aim of the present study was to assess fungal communities associated with living needles and soil of P. sylvestris in managed and unmanaged forest stands in Lithuania in order to get a better understanding on whether and how different intensities of forest management affect fungal diversity and community composition under the north temperate forest zone conditions. In Lithuania, forests occupy ca. 2.2 million ha, constituting 33.2% of the total land area. P. sylvestris is among the most important tree species as its stands occupy ca. 35% of the total forest area. Protected areas cover 16.6% of the country’s territory, where P. sylvestris stands occupy ca. 45% of this area [33].
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Sites and Sampling
The study sites were in P. sylvestris stands at Aukštaitija national park (ANP), Dzūkija national park (DNP) and Žemaitija national park (ZNP) in Lithuania (Figure 1). In each national park, five study sites were established in managed stands and five in unmanaged stands. Information on stand characteristics is in Table 1. Managed stands were stands used for commercial timber production. Unmanaged stands were stands left for natural development. Unmanaged stands were in the territory of three respective strict forest reserves, namely Girutiškis at ANP (established. in 1992 with a total area of 1394 ha), Skroblus at DNP (established in 1983 with a total area of 810 ha) and Plokštinė at ZNP (established in 1991 with a total area of 845 ha). After the establishment, the territory of each forest reserve was restricted to public access. In each national park, managed and unmanaged territories are separated by a buffer zone. Before the establishment of forest reserves, these areas were used for commercial timber production.
In each national park, both managed and unmanaged study sites were selected based on the forest inventory data. The criteria used for selection were: (a) close proximity of managed and unmanaged sites, (b) P. sylvestris being prevailing tree species, (c) similar soil type [34], and (d) similar vegetation type [35]. At ANP, study sites were on nutrient-poor, sandy soils with normal humidity of vaccinium- myrtillosum vegetation type; at DNP, these were on very poor sandy soil with normal humidity of cladoniosum forest type; and at ZNP, these were on moderately rich soil of light texture and normal humidity of oxalidosum forest type (Table 1). In each national park, managed and unmanaged sites were within a radius of 500 m, i.e., within the same geographical area and with similar climatic conditions.
At each site, sampling was carried out in October 2017 by taking three random soil samples and five random last-year living needle samples (Table 2). At the time of sampling, the mean monthly temperature and the total monthly precipitation were: 6.9 °C and 87 mm at ANP, 7.3 °C and 111 mm at DNP, and 6.9 °C and 161 mm at ZNP. For a sampling of soil, the upper litter layer was removed, and samples were taken down to 20 cm depth by using a 2 cm diameter soil core, which was carefully cleaned between individual samples. Each individual sample constituted ca. 100 g of soil. Each needle sample was collected from branches of an individual tree by randomly taking up to 25 healthy-looking needles. A telescopic secateurs was used to cut branches with needles from the middle part of crowns. Needles were sampled using forceps, which were cleaned between samples. Individual soil and needle samples were placed separately into plastic bags and labelled. The same day of sampling, samples were transported to the laboratory and placed in −20 °C for storage. A total of 150 needle samples and 90 soil samples were collected (Table 2).
2.2. DNA Isolation and Sequencing
Principles of DNA work followed a study by Menkis et al. [36]. Prior to isolation of DNA, each sample (soil or needles) was freeze-dried at −60 °C for 2 days. For needles, no surface sterilization was carried out. Lyophilised needles were cut into smaller fractions and ca. 60 mg dry weight of each sample was placed into a 2-mL screw-cap centrifugation tube together with glass beads and homogenized using a Precellys 24 tissue homogenizer (Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France). DNA was isolated using CTAB extraction buffer (0.5 M EDTA pH 8.0, 1 M Tris-HCL pH 8.0, 5 M NaCl and 3% CTAB) followed by incubation at 65 °C for 1 h. After centrifugation, the supernatant was transferred to a new 1.5 mL Eppendorf tube and mixed with an equal volume of chloroform. Aqueous solution was transferred to a new tube, and an equal volume of 2-propanol was added to precipitate the DNA, which was pelleted by centrifugation. The pellet was washed in 500 μL 70% ethanol, dried, and dissolved in 50 μL of sterile milli-Q water. Within the same study site, samples were pooled together resulting in 30 DNA samples from the needles altogether (Table 2). Differing from needle samples, three lyophilised soil samples representing the same study site were mixed together prior to DNA extraction, resulting in 30 soil samples altogether (Table 2). For each sample, DNA extraction was done from 1 g dry-weight of soil using the NucleoSpin®Soil kit (Düren, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
The DNA concentration in individual samples (needles and soil) was determined using a NanoDrop™ One spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific, Rodchester, NY, USA) and adjusted to 1–10 ng/µL. Amplification by PCR of the ITS2 rRNA region was done using barcoded fungal specific primer gITS7 [37] and barcoded universal primer ITS4 [38]. PCR was performed in 50 μL reactions containing 2.5 µL of DNA template. Each reaction included 1% of DreamTaq Green Polymerase (5 μ/μL) (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA); 11% of 10× Buffer; 11% of dNTPs (10 mM); 1% of MgCl2 (25 mM); 2% of each primer (200 nM) and 72% of milli-Q water. Amplifications were performed using the Applied Biosystems 2720 thermal cycler (Foster City, CA, USA). The PCR started with an initial denaturation at 95 °C for 5 min, followed by 30 cycles of 95 °C for 30 s, annealing at 56 °C for 30 s and 72 °C for 30 s, followed by a final extension step at 72 °C for 7 min. The PCR products were analyzed using gel electrophoresis on 1% agarose gels stained with Nancy-520 (Sigma-Aldrich, Stockholm, Sweden). PCR products were purified by centrifugation in 1:20 volume of 3 M sodium acetate (pH 5.2) (Applichem Gmbh, Darmstadt, Germany) and 96% ethanol mixture. Purified PCR products were quantified using a Qubit fluorometer 4.0 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA), and an equimolar mix of all PCR products was used for high-throughput sequencing using Pacific Biosciences platform (Menlo Park, CA, USA). Construction of the sequencing library and sequencing using Sequel II one SMRT cell was done at the SciLifeLab (Uppsala, Sweden).
2.3. Bioinformatics
The sequences generated were subjected to quality control and clustering in the SCATA NGS sequencing pipeline (http://scata.mykopat.slu.se). Quality filtering of the sequences included the removal of short sequences (<200 bp), sequences with low read quality, primer dimers and homopolymers, which were collapsed to 3 base pairs (bp) before clustering. Sequences that were missing a tag or primer were excluded. The primer and sample tags were then removed from the sequence, but information on the sequence association with the sample was stored as meta-data. The sequences were then clustered into different taxa using single-linkage clustering based on 98% similarity. The most common genotype (real read) for each cluster was used to represent each taxon. For clusters containing only two sequences, a consensus sequence was produced. Fungal taxa were taxonomically identified using both the RDP classifier available at https://pyro.cme.msu.edu/index.jsp (Centre for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, Michigan, USA) and GenBank (NCBI) database using the Blastn algorithm. The criteria used for identification were: sequence coverage >80%; similarity to taxon level 98–100%, similarity to genus level 94–97%. Sequences not matching these criteria were considered unidentified and were given unique names, as shown in Table 3 and Table 4 and Table S1. Representative sequences of all fungal non-singletons are available from GenBank under accession numbers MN902354 - MN904183.
2.4. Statistical Analyses
Rarefaction analysis was performed using Analytical Rarefaction v.1.3 available at http://www.uga.edu/strata/software/index.html. Differences in the richness of fungal taxa in managed and unmanaged forest sites (data pooled from all sites) were compared by nonparametric chi-square testing [39]. The Shannon diversity index, qualitative Sorensen similarity index and principal component analysis (PCA) in Canoco 5 [39,40,41] were used to characterize the diversity and composition of fungal communities. MANOVA in Minitab v. 18.1 (PA, USA) was used to evaluate the degree of separation between the fungal communities in needles and soil in managed and unmanaged sites, respectively, and between different types of substrates (needles and soil), when managed and unmanaged sites were combined together. The nonparametric Mann-Whitney test in Minitab was used to test if the Shannon diversity indexes between managed and unmanaged sites were statistically similar or not.
3. Results
High-throughput sequencing of fungal ITS2 rRNA from pooled 30 needle and 30 soil amplicon samples resulted in 330,964 reads. Quality filtering showed that 195,808 (59.2%) were of high quality, and 135,156 (40.8%) were of low quality, which were excluded from further analyses. Clustering of high-quality reads showed the presence of 2429 non-singleton contigs at 98% similarity representing different taxa. In addition, there were 3298 singletons, which were excluded. Taxonomic identification showed that among all non-singleton taxa, 1909 (78.6%) were fungal (all non-singleton fungal taxa are in Table S1) and 520 (21.4%) were non-fungal, which were excluded. Rarefaction analysis showed that fungal taxa detected in both needles and soil from respective managed and unmanaged stands vs. the number of sequences did not reach the asymptote (Figure 2). The detected fungi were 59.3% Ascomycota, 37.7% Basidiomycota, 2.6% Mucoromycota, 0.3% Chytridiomycota and 0.1% Glomeromycota.
Analysis of pooled needle data showed that the absolute richness of fungal taxa was marginally higher in managed (1036 taxa out of 54,584 sequences) than in unmanaged stands (1029 out of 60,270) and that 804 taxa were shared between both types of stands. Similarly, soil data showed that the absolute richness of fungal taxa was marginally higher in managed (872 taxa out of 24,873 sequences) than in unmanaged stands (855 out of 25,143) and that 541 taxa were shared between both types of stands. If the same number of sequences had been taken from each type of samples, the difference in chi-squared test was still not significant (p > 0.05). Information on the 20 most common fungal taxa in needles and soil representing 60.0% and 58.1% of all fungal sequences in each dataset is in Table 3 and Table 4, all respectively. The most common fungi in needles were Coleosporium campanulae (12.4% of all fungal sequences), Unidentified sp. 3980_1 (12.4%), Unidentified sp. 3980_4 (4.1%) and Sydowia polyspora (3.1%) (Table 3). The most common fungi in soil were Unidentified sp. 3980_21 (8.6%), Umbelopsis nana (8.2%), Archaeorhizomyces sp. 3980_5 (8.1%) and Penicillium spinulosum (6.3%) (Table 4). Consequently, fungi from the class Dothideomycetes dominated the fungal community in needles and Archaeorhizomycetes in soil (Figure 3).
Conoco analysis has shown that the response data were compositional and had a gradient 3.9 SD units long, indicating that a linear method, i.e., principal component analysis (PCA), is appropriate. PCA of fungal communities explained 30.0% variation on Axis 1, 8.3% on Axis 2 and 0.05% on Axis 3. PCA showed that within each respective substrate (needles or soil), fungal communities from managed and unmanaged stands were largely intermingled (Figure 4). MANOVA showed that fungal communities from managed vs. unmanaged stands did not differ significantly both in needles (p > 0.22) and in the soil (p > 0.84). By contrast, fungal communities in needles vs. soil (managed and unmanaged stands combined) were separated on Axis 1 (Figure 4), and this separation was statistically significant (p < 0.0001). In needles, the Shannon diversity index was 3.2–4.3 in managed stands and 1.5–4.4 in unmanaged stands (Table 2). In soil, it was 0.7–4.3 in managed stands and 2.5–4.2 in unmanaged stands (Table 2). Comparison by Mann-Whitney test showed that the Shannon diversity index was significantly higher in needles of managed stands than in unmanaged stands (p < 0.036), but there was no significant difference when the corresponding comparison was done for the soil (p > 0.51). The Sorensen similarity index of fungal communities between managed and unmanaged stands was 0.77 in needles and 0.63 in the soil.
4. Discussion
The results demonstrated that managed and unmanaged P. sylvestris stands support similar diversity and composition of fungal communities associated with living needles and soil under the north temperate forest zone conditions (Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4). In support, Parlade et al. [42] have shown that, in P. sylvestris stands, a different intensity of forest management has little effect on the overall diversity of soil fungi. The diversity and composition of fungal communities may also depend on the forest structure, i.e., the age and composition of the tree species [23,26], which together with other factors may determine the habitat heterogeneity [4]. As both managed and unmanaged stands within each national park were in the same geographical area and with similar environmental conditions, it appears that the management abandonment had little effect on the stand structure, which remained largely unchanged and resembled managed forests (Table 1). The possibility should not be excluded that this has also contributed to the observed similarities in fungal communities. In comparison, near-natural forests possess higher structural complexity compared to managed stands [43]. The results indicate that changes in fungal communities and the biodiversity recovery can be slow and generally undetectable after 25–34 years since forest management has ceased. Meta-analysis of species richness in Europe have shown that in the first 20 years, species richness can be higher in managed than in unmanaged forests, while the older management abandonment may lead to higher species richness in unmanaged forests [5]. Nevertheless, the overall richness of fungal taxa was high in both managed and unmanaged forest stands of each national park (Table 2), showing that managed forests can also be an important habitat for fungi associated with living needles and soil. As managed forests constitute the majority of forest habitats in Europe, their role in supporting certain groups of fungi should not be underestimated.
In the present study, the detected diversity of fungal taxa was high and comparable to similar studies on the phyllosphere and soil fungi [17,30,42]. Despite that, the rarefaction curves did not reach the asymptote, indicating that a higher richness of fungal taxa could be detected by deeper sequencing. The fungal community structure was similar in needles from managed and unmanaged stands as compared between corresponding sites of each national park, and when these sites were combined together (Figure 3). An exception was the class of Pucciniomycetes, which was less common in managed than in unmanaged stands (4.1% vs. 20.1%, p < 0.0001, all sites combined). The Pucciniomycetes class is species-rich and includes many important plant pathogens known as rust fungi [44]. Their higher relative abundance in unmanaged stands is unclear, but may have a negative impact on the health of these forest stands. Although the fungal community structure in soil was also similar between managed and unmanaged stands of each national park (Figure 3), forest management had a positive effect on the relative abundance of the class Archaeorhizomycetes (22.8% vs. 13.7%, p < 0.0001, all sites combined), which includes a recently described ubiquitous soil fungi with a largely unknown function [45,46]. In support, a high similarity of fungal communities within needle and soil samples was also demonstrated by high values of the Sorensen similarity index. Furthermore, PCA and MANOVA provided evidence that fungal communities were largely specific to each particular substrate (needles or soil) and generally unaffected by the type of forest management (Figure 4).
Coleosporium campanulae dominated fungal communities in needles (Table 3) with a significantly lower relative abundance in managed than in unmanaged stands (4.1% vs. 20.0%, p < 0.0001). Fungi from the genus Coleosporium include pathogens on two-needle pines (Pinus spp.) that are mainly distributed in the northern hemisphere [47]. Although this group of fungi has been shown to cause moderate damage in P. sylvestris plantations, their response to changes in forest management is generally unknown [48]. Sydowia polyspora was also among the most common fungi in needles, but with a similar relative abundance in managed and unmanaged stands (Table 3). Sydowia polyspora can be latent in plant tissues [49], but it was also reported in association with current-season needle necrosis [30,50]. Different bark beetles were shown to be vectors for S. polyspora, which can rapidly spread and colonise trees following beetle attacks [51,52]. In addition, S. polyspora might also benefit from the forest damage caused by other pathogens [53]. As in the present study, the collected needles were healthy-looking, the establishment of S. polyspora was probably latent. Interestingly, a number of dominant fungal taxa remained unidentified (Table 3), thereby limiting our understanding about their importance and functional roles.
Similarly, the most common fungus detected in soil samples (Unidentified sp. 3980_21) remained unidentified (Table 4). This fungus appears to be distantly related to Archaeorhizomycetes, i.e., a class of fungi that taxonomy, ecology and function yet to be resolved. Unidentified sp. 3980_21 and another dominant fungus Archaeorhizomyces sp. 3980_5 have shown a higher relative abundance in managed than in unmanaged stands (12.1% vs. 5.2%, p < 0.0001 and 10.1% vs. 6.1%, p < 0.0001, respectively), suggesting that forest management can favour some taxa within Archaeorhizomycetes. It appears that these fungi are relatively common and diverse in this geographical area, including Archaeorhizomyces borealis [45]. Fungi in this class are strongly associated with soil environments containing plant roots. However, experimental analyses suggest that interactions with roots are neither mycorrhizal nor pathogenic. Instead, species in the Archaeorhizomycetes may exist along a continuum from root endophytic to free-living saprophytic life strategies. It is possible that Archaeorhizomycetes are mycoparasitic, but these life strategies have not yet been studied [54]. Among the other dominant soil fungi, the ectomycorrhizal Ascomycete Wilcoxina rehmii showed a higher relative abundance in managed than in unmanaged stands (2.5% vs. 0.03%, p < 0.0001), while the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria pseudobasiana showed a higher relative abundance in unmanaged stands (0.2% vs. 1.4%, p < 0.0001), showing certain specificity of these fungi and the potential response to forest management, including site disturbance. Indeed, Wilcoxina spp. was shown to prevail on sites following soil disturbance [55,56,57]. Beauveria fungi can be important in controlling insect pests [58]. However, their natural occurrence and abundance in soils may depend on site disturbance as much higher relative abundances were reported in natural forest soils than in recent reforestations or agricultural soils [59].
5. Conclusions
Managed and unmanaged P. sylvestris stands support similar diversity and composition of fungal communities associated with living needles and soil. Some fungal taxa have shown a strong association with either managed or unmanaged stands, thereby providing valuable insights into their ecology and adaptation mechanisms.
Supplementary Materials
The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/8/2/259/s1, Table S1: Relative abundance of fungal taxa sequenced from needles and soil of Pinus sylvestris from managed and unmanaged forest stands in Lithuania.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, D.M. and A.M. (Audrius Menkis); methodology, J.L., D.M., A.M. (Artūras Gedminas), and A.M. (Audrius Menkis); validation, J.L., D.M., A.M. (Artūras Gedminas), A.G. and M.V.; formal analysis, J.L. and A.M. (Audrius Menkis); investigation, J.L., D.M., A.M. (Artūras Gedminas), A.G and M.V.; resources, D.M. and A.G.; data curation, J.L. and A.M. (Audrius Menkis); writing-original draft preparation, J.L.; writing-review and editing, J.L., D.M., A.M. (Artūras Gedminas), A.G., M.V. and A.M. (Audrius Menkis); visualization, J.L. and A.M. (Audrius Menkis); supervision, A.M. (Audrius Menkis); project administration, D.M. and A.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by the Research Council of Lithuania, grant no. S-MIP-17-6.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Gustafsson, L.; Baker, S.C.; Bauhus, J.; Beese, W.J.; Brodie, A.; Kouki, J.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; Lõhmus, A.; Pastur, G.M.; Messier, C.; et al. Retention forestry to maintain multifunctional forests: A world perspective. BioScience 2012, 62, 633–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kuuluvainen, T. Forest management and biodiversity conservation based on natural ecosystem dynamics in northern Europe: the complexity challenge. Ambio 2009, 38, 309–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaudhary, A.; Burivalova, Z.; Koh, L.P.; Hellweg, S. Impact of forest management on species richness: global meta-analysis and economic trade-offs. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 23954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Horák, J.; Materna, J.; Halda, J.P.; Mladenović, S.; Bogusch, P.; Pech, P. Biodiversity in remnants of natural mountain forests under conservation-oriented management. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Paillet, Y.; Bergès, L.; Hjälén, J.; Ódor, P.; Avon, C.; Bernhardt-Römermann, M.; Bijlsma, R.-J.; De Bruyn, L.; Fuhr, M.; Grandin, U.; et al. Biodiversity differences between managed and unmanaged forests: meta-analysis of species richness in Europe. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24, 101–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Elek, Z.; Kovács, B.; Aszalós, R.; Boros, G.; Samu, F.; Tinya, F.; Ódor, P. Taxon-specific responses to different forestry treatments in a temperate forest. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 16990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Pioli, S.; Antonucci, S.; Giovannelli, A.; Traversi, M.L.; Borruso, L.; Bani, A.; Brusetti, L.; Tognetti, R. Community fingerprinting reveals increasing wood-inhabiting fungal diversity in unmanaged Mediterranean forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 408, 202–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lombardi, F.; Lasserre, B.; Chirici, G.; Tognetti, R.; Marchetti, M. Deadwood occurrence and forest structure as indicators of old-growth forest conditions in Mediterranean mountainous ecosystems. Écoscience 2012, 19, 344–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuuluvainen, T. Disturbance dynamics in boreal forests: defining the ecological basis of restoration and management of biodiversity. Silva Fenn. 2002, 36, 5–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lange, M.; Türke, M.; Pašalić, E.; Boch, S.; Hessenmöller, D.; Müller, J.; Prati, D.; Socher, S.A.; Fischer, M.; Weisser, W.W.; et al. Effects of forest management on ground-dwelling beetles (Coleoptera; Carabidae, Staphylinidae) in Central Europe are mainly mediated by changes in forest structure. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 329, 166–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villa-Castillo, J. Ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) species assemblage as an indicator of forest condition in northern Arizona ponderosa pine forests. Environ. Entomol. 2002, 31, 242–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allegro, G.; Sciaky, R. Assessing the potential role of ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) as bioindicators in poplar stands, with a newly proposed ecological index (FAI). For. Ecol. Manag. 2003, 175, 275–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuller, R.J.; Oliver, T.H.; Leather, S.R. Forest management effects on carabid beetle communities in coniferous and broadleaved forests: implications for conservation. Insect. Conserv. Divers. 2008, 1, 242–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koivula, M. Useful model organisms, indicators, or both? Ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) reflecting environmental conditions. ZooKeys 2011, 100, 287–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gernandt, D.S.; López, G.G.; García, S.O.; Liston, A. Phylogeny and classification of Pinus. Taxon 2005, 54, 29–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ganopoulos, I.; Aravanopoulos, F.; Madesis, P.; Pasentsis, K.; Bosmali, I.; Ouzounis, C.; Tsaftaris, A. Taxonomic identification of mediterranean pines and their hybrids based on the high resolution melting (HRM) and trnL approaches: from cytoplasmic inheritance to timber tracing. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e60945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Millberg, H.; Boberg, J.; Stenlid, J. Changes in fungal community of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) needles along a latitudinal gradient in Sweden. Fungal Ecol. 2015, 17, 126–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koukol, O. Linking Biodiversity and Ecology of Fungi from Pine and Spruce Needles; Charles University in Prague: Prague, Czech Republic, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Felton, A.; Petersson, L.; Nilsson, O.; Witzell, J.; Cleary, M.; Felton, A.M.; Björkman, C.; Sang, Å.O.; Jonsell, M.; Holmström, E.; et al. The tree species matters: biodiversity and ecosystem service implications of replacing Scots pine production stands with Norway spruce. Ambio 2019, 11, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lust, N.; Muys, B.; Nachtergale, L. Increase of biodiversity in homogeneous Scots pine stands by an ecologically diversified management. Biodivers. Conserv. 1998, 7, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bringel, F.; Couée, I. Pivotal roles of phyllosphere microorganisms at the interface between plant functioning and atmospheric trace gas dynamics. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Millberg, H. Foliar fungi of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris). Ph.D. Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Goldmann, K.; Schoning, I.; Buscot, F.; Wubet, T. Forest management type influences diversity and community composition of soil fungi across temperate forest ecosystems. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sterkenburg, E.; Bahr, A.; Brandström Durling, M.; Clemmensen, K.E.; Lindahl, B.D. Changes in fungal communities along a boreal forest soil fertility gradient. New Phytol. 2015, 207, 1145–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Smith, S.E.; Read, D.J. Mycorrhizal Symbiosis, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 1997; p. 605. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, D.; Boberg, J.; Ihrmark, K.; Stenstrom, E.; Stenlid, J. Do foliar fungal communities of Norway spruce shift along a tree species diversity gradient in mature European forests? Fungal Ecol. 2016, 23, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gömöryová, E.; Ujházy, K.; Martinák, M.; Gömöry, D. Soil microbial community response to variation in vegetation and abiotic environment in a temperate old-growth forest. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2013, 68, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tedersoo, L.; Bahram, M.; Põlme, S.; Kõljalg, U.; Yorou, N.S.; Wijesundera, R.; Ruiz, L.V.; Vasco-Palacios, A.M.; Thu, P.Q.; Suija, A.; et al. Global diversity and geography of soil fungi. Science 2014, 28, 346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Menkis, A.; Burokienė, D.; Gaitnieks, T.; Uotila, A.; Johannesson, H.; Rosling, A.; Finlay, R.D.; Stenlid, J.; Vasaitis, R. Occurrence and impact of the root-rot biocontrol agent Phlebiopsis gigantea on soil fungal communities in Picea abies forests of northern Europe. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2012, 81, 438–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Menkis, A.; Marčiulynas, A.; Gedminas, A.; Lynikienė, J.; Povilaitienė, A. High-throughput sequencing reveals drastic changes in fungal communities in the phyllosphere of Norway spruce (Picea abies) following invasion of the spruce bud scale (Physokermes piceae). Microb. Ecol. 2015, 70, 904–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lindahl, B.D.; Nilsson, R.H.; Tedersoo, L.; Abarenkov, K.; Carlsen, T.; Kjøller, R.; Kõljalg, U.; Pennanen, T.; Rosendahl, S.; Stenlid, J.; et al. Fungal community analysis by high-throughput sequencing of amplified markers--a user’s guide. New Phytol. 2013, 199, 288–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tedersoo, L.; Tooming-Klunderud, A.; Anslan, S. PacBio metabarcoding of Fungi and other eukaryotes: errors, biases and perspectives. New Phytol. 2018, 217, 1370–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lithuanian Statistical Yearbook of Forestry. Available online: http://www.amvmt.lt/images/veikla/stat/miskustatistika/2016/02%20Misku%20ukio%20statistika%202016_m.pdf (accessed on 17 December 2019).
- Vaičys, M. Miško dirvožemių klasifikacija. In Lietuvos Dirvožemiai [Forest Site Types. Lithuanian Soils]; Mokslas Publishers: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2001; pp. 1040–1043. (In Lithuanian) [Google Scholar]
- Karazija, S. Lietuvos Mišku Tipai [Lithuanian Forest Typology]; Mokslas Publishers: Vilnius, Lithuania, 1988. (In Lithuanian) [Google Scholar]
- Menkis, A.; Burokienė, D.; Stenlid, J.; Stenström, E. High-throughput sequencing shows high fungal diversity and community segregation in the rhizospheres of container-grown conifer seedlings. Forests 2016, 7, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ihrmark, K.; Bodeker, I.T.M.; Cruz-Martinez, K.; Friberg, H.; Kubartova, A.; Schenck, J.; Strid, Y.; Stenlid, J.; Brandstrom-Durling, M.; Clemmensen, K.E.; et al. New primers to amplify the fungal ITS2 region - evaluation by 454-sequencing of artificial and natural communities. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2012, 82, 666–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- White, T.J.; Bruns, T.; Lee, S.; Taylor, J. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In PCR Protocols: A Guide to Methods and Applications; Innis, M.A., Gelfand, D.H., Sninsky, J.J., White, T.J., Eds.; Academic Press, Inc.: San Diego, CA, USA, 1990; pp. 315–322. [Google Scholar]
- Magurran, A.E. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1988; p. 192. [Google Scholar]
- Shannon, C.E. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 1948, 27, 379–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- ter Braak, C.J.F.; Smilauer, P. Canoco Reference Manual and User’s Guide to Canoco for Windows: Software for Canonical Community Ordination, Version 4; Microcomputer Power: Ithaca, NY, USA, 1998; p. 351. [Google Scholar]
- Parlade, J.; Queralt, M.; Pera, J.; Bonet, J.A.; Castano, C.; Martinez-Pena, F.; Pinol, J.; Senar, M.A.; De Miguel, A.M. Temporal dynamics of soil fungal communities after partial and total clear-cutting in a managed Pinus sylvestris stand. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 449, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lilja, S.; Kuuluvainen, T. Structure of old Pinus sylvestris dominated forest stands along a geographic and human impact gradient in mid-boreal Fennoscandia. Silva Fenn. 2005, 39, 407–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aime, M.C.; Matheny, P.B.; Henk, D.A.; Frieders, E.M.; Nilsson, R.H.; Piepenbring, M.; McLaughlin, D.J.; Szabo, L.J.; Begerow, D.; Sampaio, J.P.; et al. An overview of the higher level classification of Pucciniomycotina based on combined analyses of nuclear large and small subunit rDNA sequences. Mycologia 2006, 98, 896–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Menkis, A.; Urbina, H.; James, T.Y.; Rosling, A. Archaeorhizomyces borealis sp. nov. and a sequence-based classification of related soil fungal species. Fungal Biol. 2014, 118, 943–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosling, A.; Cox, F.; Cruz-Martinez, K.; Ihrmark, K.; Grelet, G.A.; Lindahl, B.D.; Menkis, A.; James, T.Y. Archaeorhizomycetes: unearthing an ancient class of ubiquitous soil fungi. Science 2011, 333, 876–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helfer, S. Coleosporium in Europe. Mycotaxon 2013, 124, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karadžić, D.; Milijašević, T. тhe most important parasitic and saprophytic fungi in Austrian pine and Scots pine plantations in Serbia. Bull. Fac. For. 2008, 97, 147–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pirttila, A.M.; Pospiech, H.; Laukkanen, H.; Myllyla, R.; Hohtola, A. Two endophytic fungi in different tissues of scots pine buds (Pinus sylvestris L.). Microb. Ecol. 2003, 45, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Talgo, V.; Chastagner, G.; Thomsen, I.M.; Cech, T.; Riley, K.; Lange, K.; Klemsdal, S.S.; Stensvand, A. Sydowia polyspora associated with current season needle necrosis (CSNN) on true fir (Abies spp.). Fungal Biol. 2010, 114, 545–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Davydenko, K.; Vasaitis, R.; Menkis, A. Fungi associated with Ips acuminatus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Ukraine with a special emphasis on pathogenicity of ophiostomatoid species. Eur. J. Entomol. 2017, 114, 77–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davydenko, K.; Vasaitis, R.; Meshkova, V.; Menkis, A. Fungi associated with the red-haired bark beetle, Hylurgus ligniperda (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in the forest-steppe zone in eastern Ukraine. Eur. J. Entomol. 2014, 111, 561–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Munoz-Adalia, E.J.; Sanz-Ros, A.V.; Flores-Pacheco, J.A.; Hantula, J.; Diez, J.J.; Vainio, E.J.; Fernandez, M. Sydowia polyspora dominates fungal communities carried by two Tomicus species in pine plantations threatened by Fusarium circinatum. Forests 2017, 8, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosling, A.; Timling, I.; Taylor, D.L. Archaeorhizomycetes: patterns of distribution and abundance in soil. In Genomics of Soil- and Plant-Associated Fungi; Horwitz, B.A., Mukherjee, P.K., Mukherhee, M., Kubicek, C.P., Eds.; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2013; pp. 333–349. [Google Scholar]
- Baar, J.; Horton, T.R.; Kretzer, A.M.; Bruns, T.D. Mycorrhizal colonization of Pinus muricata from resistant propagules after a stand-replacing wildfire. New Phytol. 1999, 143, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Menkis, A.; Uotila, A.; Arhipova, N.; Vasaitis, R. Effects of stump and slash removal on growth and mycorrhization of Picea abies seedlings outplanted on a forest clear-cut. Mycorrhiza 2010, 20, 505–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menkis, A.; Vasiliauskas, R.; Taylor, A.F.S.; Stenlid, J.; Finlay, R. Fungal communities in mycorrhizal roots of conifer seedlings in forest nurseries under different cultivation systems, assessed by morphotyping, direct sequencing and mycelial isolation. Mycorrhiza 2005, 16, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romon, P.; Hatting, H.; Goldarazena, A.; Iturrondobeitia, J.C. Variation in virulence of Beauveria bassiana and B. pseudobassiana to the pine weevil Pissodes nemorensis in relation to mycelium characteristics and virulence genes. Fungal Biol. 2017, 121, 189197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez-Peña, S.R.; Lara, J.S.-J.; Medina, R.F. Occurrence of entomopathogenic fungi from agricultural and natural ecosystems in Saltillo, México, and their virulence towards thrips and whiteflies. J. Insect. Sci. 2011, 11, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Map of Lithuania (position shown by shading on the north European map in the lower left corner) showing principal locations of the Aukštaitija national park (ANP), Dzūkija national park (DNP) and Žemaitija national park (ZNP), where sampling of living needles and soil was carried out in managed and unmanaged Pinus sylvestris forest stands.
Figure 1.
Map of Lithuania (position shown by shading on the north European map in the lower left corner) showing principal locations of the Aukštaitija national park (ANP), Dzūkija national park (DNP) and Žemaitija national park (ZNP), where sampling of living needles and soil was carried out in managed and unmanaged Pinus sylvestris forest stands.
Figure 2.
Rarefaction curves showing the relationship between the cumulative number of fungal taxa and the number of ITS2 rRNA sequences from living needles and soil from managed and unmanaged Pinus sylvestris forest stands.
Figure 2.
Rarefaction curves showing the relationship between the cumulative number of fungal taxa and the number of ITS2 rRNA sequences from living needles and soil from managed and unmanaged Pinus sylvestris forest stands.
Figure 3.
The relative abundance of different fungal classes in living needles and soil from managed and unmanaged Pinus sylvestris forest stands at the Aukštaitija National Park (ANP), Dzūkija National Park (DNP) and Žemaitija National Park (ZNP). In ALL, data from different sites is combined.
Figure 3.
The relative abundance of different fungal classes in living needles and soil from managed and unmanaged Pinus sylvestris forest stands at the Aukštaitija National Park (ANP), Dzūkija National Park (DNP) and Žemaitija National Park (ZNP). In ALL, data from different sites is combined.
Figure 4.
Ordination diagram based on principal component analysis (PCA) of fungal communities in living needles and soil from managed and unmanaged Pinus sylvestris forest stands from three national parks in Lithuania. Each point in the diagram represents a single site, and the size of the point reflects the richness of fungal taxa.
Figure 4.
Ordination diagram based on principal component analysis (PCA) of fungal communities in living needles and soil from managed and unmanaged Pinus sylvestris forest stands from three national parks in Lithuania. Each point in the diagram represents a single site, and the size of the point reflects the richness of fungal taxa.
Table 1.
Characteristics of investigated Pinus sylvestris stands. Information is based on the forest inventory data.
Table 1.
Characteristics of investigated Pinus sylvestris stands. Information is based on the forest inventory data.
| Stand | Position | Age (y) | Mean Height (m) | Mean Diameter (cm) | Stocking Level | Forest Site Type * | Forest Vegetation Type ** | Tree Species Composition *** |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aukštaitija National Park (ANP) | ||||||||
| Managed | 55°13′26″ N, 25°50′49″ E | 37 | 14.8 | 18 | 0.7 | Nbl | vm | 60% P, 30% S, 10% B |
| 55°13′17″ N, 25°50′51″ E | 37 | 14.8 | 18 | 0.7 | Nbl | vm | 60% P, 30% S, 10% B | |
| 55°13′12″ N, 25°51′26″ E | 37 | 16 | 18 | 0.8 | Nbl | vm | 70% P, 40% S, 20% B | |
| 55°12′51″ N, 25°52′14″ E | 34 | 17.6 | 18 | 0.8 | Nbl | vm | 60% P, 20% S, 20% B | |
| 55°12′44″ N, 25°52′26″ E | 107 | 27.6 | 37 | 0.6 | Nbl | vm | 100% P | |
| Unmanaged | 55°13′12″ N, 25°51′08″ E | 27 | 18 | 19 | 0.6 | Nbl | vm | 70% P, 40% B, 20%S |
| 55°13′11″ N, 25°51′41″ E | 67 | 25.6 | 28 | 0.8 | Nbl | vm | 70% P, 30% S | |
| 55°12′55″ N, 25°51′59″ E | 77 | 25.2 | 28 | 0.7 | Nbl | vm | 80% P, 20% B | |
| 55°12′51″ N, 25°52′07″ E | 67 | 25.2 | 28 | 0.7 | Nbl | vm | 90% P, 10% B | |
| 55°12′50″ N, 25°52′22″ E | 34 | 15.2 | 16 | 0.8 | Nbl | vm | 50% P, 30% B, 20% S | |
| Dzūkija National Park (DNP) | ||||||||
| Managed | 54°04′36″ N, 24°19′16″ E | 106 | 24.5 | 37 | 0.7 | Nal | cl | 100% P |
| 54°04′11″ N, 24°19′34″ E | 56 | 19.5 | 20 | 0.9 | Nal | cl | 80% P, 20% B | |
| 54°04′10″ N, 24°20′30″ E | 96 | 25.6 | 35 | 0.7 | Nbl | vm | 100% P | |
| 54°04′08″ N, 24°20′56″ E | 111 | 25.4 | 35 | 0.7 | Nal | cl | 100% P | |
| 54°03′53″ N, 24°21′45″ E | 116 | 24.4 | 37 | 0.6 | Nal | cl | 100% P | |
| Unmanaged | 54°05′29″ N, 24°18′51″ E | 61 | 23.5 | 26 | 0.7 | Nal | cl | 100% P |
| 54°05′23″ N, 24°18′53″ E | 101 | 26.6 | 33 | 0.6 | Nal | cl | 100% P | |
| 54°05′11″ N, 24°18′58″ E | 36 | 11.8 | 14 | 0.9 | Nal | cl | 80% P, 20% B | |
| 54°04′58″ N, 24°18′58″ E | 51 | 19.7 | 20 | 0.8 | Nal | cl | 80% P, 20% B | |
| 54°04′47″ N, 24°19′04″ E | 81 | 24.9 | 32 | 0.8 | Nal | cl | 100% P | |
| Žemaitija National Park (ZNP) | ||||||||
| Managed | 56°02′09″ N, 21°54′45″ E | 23 | 8.8 | 9 | 0.7 | Ncl | ox | 50% P, 30% S, 20% B |
| 56°02′01″ N, 21°55′04″ E | 29 | 14 | 13 | 0.6 | Nbl | vm | 80% P, 20% S | |
| 56°02′11″ N, 21°55′23″ E | 57 | 23.5 | 25 | 0.9 | Ncl | ox | 100% P | |
| 56°02′35″ N, 21°56′29″ E | 67 | 27.3 | 29 | 0.7 | Ncl | ox | 40% P, 40% S, 20% B | |
| 56°02′42″ N, 21°57′00″ E | 32 | 18.9 | 19 | 0.8 | Ncl | ox | 50% P, 30% S, 20% B | |
| Unmanaged | 56°01′22″ N, 21°54′44″ E | 67 | 27.3 | 29 | 0.6 | Ncl | ox | 60% P, 30% S, 10% B |
| 56°01′35″ N, 21°54′20″ E | 52 | 20.6 | 25 | 0.6 | Ncl | ox | 40% P, 40% S, 20% B | |
| 56°01′24″ N, 21°54′07″ E | 52 | 19.6 | 21 | 0.7 | Ncl | ox | 60% P, 40% S | |
| 56°00′58″ N, 21°52′54″ E | 72 | 26.3 | 31 | 0.8 | Ncl | ox | 90% P, 10% B | |
| 56°00′48″ N, 21°52′18″ E | 132 | 27.1 | 36 | 1.0 | Pbn | csps | 40% P, 40%, 20% B | |
* N: Normal humidity, a: very poor fertility, b: poor fertility, c: moderate fertility, l: light soil texture; Pbn: oligotrophic soils of drained peatland [34]. ** vm: vaccinio-myrtilliosum, cl: cladoniosum, ox: oxalidosum, csps: carico-sphagnosum [35]. *** P: Pinus sylvestris, S: Picea abies, B: Betula pendula. In each stand, tree species composition is based on the volume.
Table 2.
Sampled needles and soil of Pinus sylvestris in managed and unmanaged forest stands, generated high-quality ITS2 rRNA fungal sequences, and detected diversity of fungal taxa.
Table 2.
Sampled needles and soil of Pinus sylvestris in managed and unmanaged forest stands, generated high-quality ITS2 rRNA fungal sequences, and detected diversity of fungal taxa.
| Stand | Needles | Soil | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of Needle Samples/Amplicon Pools | No. of Sequences | No. of Fungal Taxa | Shannon Diversity Index | No. of Soil Samples/Pools | No. of Sequences | No. of Fungal Taxa | Shannon Diversity Index | |
| Aukštaitija National Park (ANP) | ||||||||
| Managed | 5/1 | 1708 | 202 | 4.2 | 3/1 | 486 | 77 | 3.2 |
| 5/1 | 3289 | 284 | 3.9 | 3/1 | 1875 | 155 | 3.5 | |
| 5/1 | 1668 | 183 | 3.8 | 3/1 | 1269 | 160 | 4.0 | |
| 5/1 | 4385 | 318 | 4.3 | 3/1 | 2 | 2 | 0.7 | |
| 5/1 | 3496 | 286 | 3.8 | 3/1 | 2637 | 144 | 3.5 | |
| All Managed | 25/5 | 14,546 | 598 | 15/5 | 6269 | 312 | ||
| Unmanaged | 5/1 | 5819 | 378 | 4.4 | 3/1 | 2866 | 200 | 3.7 |
| 5/1 | 3434 | 196 | 3.0 | 3/1 | 430 | 114 | 3.9 | |
| 5/1 | 1697 | 170 | 3.5 | 3/1 | 718 | 140 | 3.9 | |
| 5/1 | 209 | 71 | 3.4 | 3/1 | 921 | 60 | 2.6 | |
| 5/1 | 4106 | 292 | 4.1 | 3/1 | 1919 | 133 | 3.4 | |
| All Unmanaged | 25/5 | 15,265 | 595 | 15/5 | 6854 | 399 | ||
| All ANP | 50/10 | 29,811 | 799 | 30/10 | 13,123 | 525 | ||
| Dzūkija National Park (DNP) | ||||||||
| Managed | 5/1 | 5811 | 240 | 3.3 | 3/1 | 1138 | 199 | 4.1 |
| 5/1 | 4798 | 276 | 3.6 | 3/1 | 2636 | 158 | 3.7 | |
| 5/1 | 8802 | 341 | 3.6 | 3/1 | 4104 | 199 | 2.9 | |
| 5/1 | 2460 | 174 | 3.3 | 3/1 | 1464 | 216 | 4.3 | |
| 5/1 | 1536 | 134 | 3.2 | 3/1 | 681 | 165 | 4.3 | |
| All Managed | 25/5 | 23,407 | 553 | 15/5 | 10,023 | 519 | ||
| Unmanaged | 5/1 | 1388 | 135 | 3.6 | 3/1 | 306 | 90 | 3.7 |
| 5/1 | 2963 | 194 | 2.9 | 3/1 | 2176 | 119 | 2.9 | |
| 5/1 | 3043 | 207 | 3.4 | 3/1 | 1672 | 118 | 3.1 | |
| 5/1 | 1638 | 141 | 3.3 | 3/1 | 1841 | 131 | 3.4 | |
| 5/1 | 5301 | 247 | 3.5 | 3/1 | 2048 | 99 | 2.9 | |
| All Unmanaged | 25/5 | 14,333 | 434 | 15/5 | 8043 | 308 | ||
| All DNP | 50/10 | 37,740 | 662 | 30/10 | 18,066 | 616 | ||
| Žemaitija National Park (ZNP) | ||||||||
| Managed | 5/1 | 4977 | 259 | 3.6 | 3/1 | 1783 | 174 | 3.8 |
| 5/1 | 988 | 183 | 4.2 | 3/1 | 4366 | 151 | 2.3 | |
| 5/1 | 666 | 106 | 3.4 | 3/1 | 1256 | 120 | 2.3 | |
| 5/1 | 6269 | 339 | 3.7 | 3/1 | 210 | 98 | 4.2 | |
| 5/1 | 3731 | 267 | 3.7 | 3/1 | 966 | 161 | 4.2 | |
| All Managed | 25/5 | 16,631 | 638 | 15/5 | 8581 | 450 | ||
| Unmanaged | 5/1 | 4058 | 278 | 2.8 | 3/1 | 2425 | 151 | 2.5 |
| 5/1 | 5214 | 313 | 4.1 | 3/1 | 1050 | 173 | 4.2 | |
| 5/1 | 5751 | 135 | 1.5 | 3/1 | 887 | 159 | 4.2 | |
| 5/1 | 7409 | 208 | 2.9 | 3/1 | 2,952 | 212 | 3.9 | |
| 5/1 | 8240 | 229 | 2.9 | 3/1 | 2,934 | 151 | 2.9 | |
| All Unmanaged | 25/5 | 30,672 | 648 | 15/5 | 10,248 | 517 | ||
| All ZNP | 50/10 | 47,303 | 870 | 30/10 | 18,829 | 741 | ||
| All | 150/30 | 114,854 | 1261 | 90/30 | 50,018 | 1186 | ||
Table 3.
Relative abundance of the 20 most common fungal taxa sequenced from needles of Pinus sylvestris from managed and unmanaged forest stands. Data from different sites is combined.
Table 3.
Relative abundance of the 20 most common fungal taxa sequenced from needles of Pinus sylvestris from managed and unmanaged forest stands. Data from different sites is combined.
| Taxon | Phylum | Class | GenBank Reference | Similarity, % * | Managed, % | Unmanaged, % | All, % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coleosporium campanulae | Basidiomycota | Pucciniomycetes | KY810468 | 322/322 (100%) | 4.1 | 20.0 | 12.4 |
| Unidentified sp. 3980_1 | Ascomycota | Dothideomycetes | KP897304 | 244/244 (100%) | 14.2 | 10.8 | 12.4 |
| Unidentified sp. 3980_4 | Ascomycota | Dothideomycetes | KP891553 | 259/259 (100%) | 3.8 | 4.5 | 4.1 |
| Sydowia polyspora | Ascomycota | Dothideomycetes | MG888613 | 256/256 (100%) | 3.1 | 3.0 | 3.1 |
| Unidentified sp. 3980_13 | Ascomycota | Eurotiomycetes | MG827663 | 262/262 (100%) | 3.8 | 2.1 | 2.9 |
| Unidentified sp. 3980_3 | Basidiomycota | Tremellomycetes | KU687386 | 302/307 (98%) | 3.1 | 2.5 | 2.8 |
| Phaeococcomyces eucalypti | Ascomycota | Eurotiomycetes | NR_120226 | 246/248 (99%) | 2.6 | 2.0 | 2.3 |
| Unidentified sp. 3980_10 | Ascomycota | Dothideomycetes | MG827778 | 258/258 (100%) | 2.8 | 1.8 | 2.3 |
| Microsphaeropsis olivacea | Ascomycota | Dothideomycetes | MH871969 | 249/249 (100%) | 2.1 | 1.9 | 2.0 |
| Epithamnolia xanthoriae | Ascomycota | Leotiomycetes | KY814539 | 234/238 (98%) | 2.4 | 1.6 | 2.0 |
| Cladosporium cladosporioides | Ascomycota | Dothideomycetes | MH042811 | 243/243 (100%) | 2.1 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
| Unidentified sp. 3980_33 | Ascomycota | Leotiomycetes | KP897394 | 223/258 (86%) | 2.0 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Unidentified sp. 3980_37 | Ascomycota | Dothideomycetes | KP897394 | 236/259 (91%) | 2.5 | 0.6 | 1.5 |
| Curvibasidium cygneicollum | Basidiomycota | Microbotryomycetes | KY102972 | 310/310 (100%) | 1.1 | 1.7 | 1.4 |
| Unidentified sp. 3980_30 | Ascomycota | Leotiomycetes | KY742593 | 242/242 (100%) | 1.9 | 0.9 | 1.4 |
| Vishniacozyma victoriae | Basidiomycota | Tremellomycetes | LC085209 | 234/234 (100%) | 0.6 | 2.0 | 1.3 |
| Unidentified sp. 3980_25 | Ascomycota | Eurotiomycetes | KP891398 | 255/255 (100%) | 1.6 | 1.0 | 1.3 |
| Seimatosporium lichenicola | Ascomycota | Sordariomycetes | JF320818 | 247/248 (99%) | 2.4 | 0.2 | 1.2 |
| Heterotruncatella spartii | Ascomycota | Sordariomycetes | MK012418 | 245/245 (100%) | 1.4 | 0.9 | 1.1 |
| Lophodermium pinastri | Ascomycota | Leotiomycetes | MH856647 | 239/239 (100%) | 1.6 | 0.6 | 1.1 |
| Total of 20 taxa | 59.3 | 60.6 | 60.0 |
* Similarity column shows base pairs compared between the query sequence and the reference sequence at NCBI databases, and the percentage of sequence similarity in the parenthesis.
Table 4.
Relative abundance of the 20 most common fungal taxa sequenced from soil from managed and unmanaged stands of Pinus sylvestris. Data from different sites is combined.
Table 4.
Relative abundance of the 20 most common fungal taxa sequenced from soil from managed and unmanaged stands of Pinus sylvestris. Data from different sites is combined.
| Taxon | Phylum | Class | GenBank Reference | Similarity, % * | Managed, % | Unmanaged, % | All, % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unidentified sp. 3980_21 | Ascomycota | Archaeorhizomycetes | KC965182 | 219/219 (100%) | 12.1 | 5.2 | 8.6 |
| Umbelopsis nana | Mucoromycota | Mucoromycotina | MH857049 | 293/293 (100%) | 7.4 | 8.9 | 8.2 |
| Archaeorhizomyces sp. 3980_5 | Ascomycota | Archaeorhizomycetes | MH248043 | 207/207 (100%) | 10.1 | 6.1 | 8.1 |
| Penicillium spinulosum | Ascomycota | Eurotiomycetes | MK131675 | 251/251 (100%) | 3.8 | 8.7 | 6.3 |
| Oidiodendron chlamydosporicum | Ascomycota | Dothideomycetes | MG597466 | 235/235 (100%) | 4.4 | 6.0 | 5.2 |
| Oidiodendron echinulatum | Ascomycota | Dothideomycetes | MG597467 | 236/236 (100%) | 2.0 | 2.8 | 2.4 |
| Sagenomella verticillata | Ascomycota | Eurotiomycetes | MH860215 | 263/263 (100%) | 2.8 | 1.7 | 2.3 |
| Unidentified sp. 3980_28 | Mucoromycota | Mucoromycotina | HQ022209 | 299/299 (100%) | 0.9 | 3.6 | 2.2 |
| Tolypocladium geodes | Ascomycota | Sordariomycetes | MH864065 | 248/248 (100%) | 0.5 | 3.6 | 2.0 |
| Pseudogymnoascus roseus | Ascomycota | Dothideomycetes | MH865208 | 241/241 (100%) | 1.8 | 1.5 | 1.7 |
| Meliniomyces bicolor | Ascomycota | Leotiomycetes | MG597461 | 237/238 (99%) | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Cladosporium cladosporioides | Ascomycota | Dothideomycetes | MH042811 | 243/243 (100%) | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 |
| Wilcoxina rehmii | Ascomycota | Pezizomycetes | MF926519 | 253/254 (99%) | 2.5 | 0.03 | 1.2 |
| Unidentified sp. 3980_60 | Basidiomycota | Microbotryomycetes | HQ021811 | 320/320 (100%) | 1.4 | 0.7 | 1.1 |
| Unidentified sp. 3980_64 | Ascomycota | Sordariomycetes | KJ826970 | 317/322 (98%) | 1.2 | 0.9 | 1.0 |
| Malassezia restricta | Basidiomycota | Ustilaginomycotina | CP030254 | 368/369 (99%) | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.0 |
| Pseudeurotium sp. 3980_68 | Ascomycota | Dothideomycetes | MF692976 | 229/241 (95%) | 1.8 | 0.2 | 1.0 |
| Hyphodiscus sp. 3980_71 | Ascomycota | Leotiomycetes | NR_155151 | 235/243 (97%) | 0.2 | 1.7 | 0.9 |
| Aspergillus cervinus | Ascomycota | Eurotiomycetes | MH865525 | 262/262 (100%) | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.9 |
| Beauveria pseudobassiana | Ascomycota | Sordariomycetes | MF872419 | 255/255 (100%) | 0.2 | 1.4 | 0.8 |
| Total of 20 taxa | 58.2 | 58.0 | 58.1 |
* Similarity column shows base pairs compared between the query sequence and the reference sequence at NCBI databases, and the percentage of sequence similarity in the parenthesis.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Lynikienė, J.; Marčiulynienė, D.; Marčiulynas, A.; Gedminas, A.; Vaičiukynė, M.; Menkis, A. Managed and Unmanaged Pinus sylvestris Forest Stands Harbour Similar Diversity and Composition of the Phyllosphere and Soil Fungi. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 259. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8020259
AMA Style
Lynikienė J, Marčiulynienė D, Marčiulynas A, Gedminas A, Vaičiukynė M, Menkis A. Managed and Unmanaged Pinus sylvestris Forest Stands Harbour Similar Diversity and Composition of the Phyllosphere and Soil Fungi. Microorganisms. 2020; 8(2):259. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8020259
Chicago/Turabian StyleLynikienė, Jūratė, Diana Marčiulynienė, Adas Marčiulynas, Artūras Gedminas, Miglė Vaičiukynė, and Audrius Menkis. 2020. "Managed and Unmanaged Pinus sylvestris Forest Stands Harbour Similar Diversity and Composition of the Phyllosphere and Soil Fungi" Microorganisms 8, no. 2: 259. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8020259
APA StyleLynikienė, J., Marčiulynienė, D., Marčiulynas, A., Gedminas, A., Vaičiukynė, M., & Menkis, A. (2020). Managed and Unmanaged Pinus sylvestris Forest Stands Harbour Similar Diversity and Composition of the Phyllosphere and Soil Fungi. Microorganisms, 8(2), 259. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8020259
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
