Plant and Soil

, Volume 362, Issue 1–2, pp 175–186 | Cite as

Fungal community composition shifts along a leaf degradation gradient in a European beech forest

  • Derek Peršoh
  • Julia Segert
  • Anja Zigan
  • Gerhard Rambold
Regular Article

Abstract

Aims

The fungal communities in living and decomposed leaves of European Beech (Fagus sylvatica) were compared to identify the phyllosphere fungi involved in litter decomposition at a site in Bavaria, Germany.

Methods

New primers were designed to cover a broad range of fungal ribosomal DNA sequence diversity. Following ‘environmental PCR’, clone libraries from each of five samples of living leaves (surface-sterilized and untreated), freshly fallen, initially and highly decomposed leaves, were screened using RFLP fingerprinting.

Results

Statistical analysis (ANOSIM) revealed that the fungal communities colonizing living (a) and initially decomposed leaves (c) significantly differed between each other and from freshly fallen (b) and highly decomposed leaves (d). Fungal assemblages of a and d were statistically indistinguishable from each other and from the endophyllous fungal community in living leaves.

Conclusions

The results showed that endophyllous fungi play a role throughout the whole decomposition process of beech leaf litter. Therefore, clarification of the life cycle of certain endophytic and/or soil fungi may only be achieved by considering both phyllosphere and soil habitats.

Keywords

Fagus sylvatica (European Beech) Phyllosphere Endophytic fungi Soil fungi ITS rRNA gene RFLP fingerprints 

Supplementary material

11104_2012_1271_MOESM1_ESM.xls (40 kb)
Table S1Details on the assignment to RFLP types, genotypes and taxa of selected sequences. The most similar sequence found in GenBank is given in the following section. The assigned name is listed in the third part, together with the “Bit Score” of the worst matching sequence considered for the name assignment. The sequences considered for name assignment (i.e. sequences obtaining “Bit Scores” which are at least 0.9 times as high as the “Bit Score” obtained by the best matching sequence), are categorized as matches (i.e. sequences deposited under names matching the assigned name), ambiguities (i.e. sequences deposited under names neither confirming nor objecting the assigned name), and the number of outliers (i.e. sequences deposited under names not considered for the name assignment). (XLS 39 kb)
11104_2012_1271_MOESM2_ESM.doc (38 kb)
Table S2Fraction of sequences in selected taxa matched by the primer sequences. The percentage of sequences matched perfectly (0 MM) and with one mismatch (1 MM) by the primers among the checked sequences (N) is given. (DOC 38 kb)

References

  1. Baldrian P, Lindahl B (2011) Decomposition in forest ecosystems: after decades of research still novel findings. Fungal Ecol 4:359–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldrian P, Kolařík M, Stursová M, Kopecký J, Valášková V, Větrovský T, Žifčáková L, Šnajdr J, Rídl J, Vlček C, Voříšková J (2011a) Active and total microbial communities in forest soil are largely different and highly stratified during decomposition. ISME J. doi:10.1038/ismej.2011.95
  3. Baldrian P, Voříšková J, Dobiášová P, Merhautová V, Lisá L, Valášková V (2011b) Production of extracellular enzymes and degradation of biopolymers by saprotrophic microfungi from the upper layers of forest soil. Plant Soil 338(1):111–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg B, McClaugherty C (2008) Plant litter: decomposition, humus formation, carbon sequestration. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  5. Bills GF, Christensen M, Powell MJ, Thorn G (2004) Saprobic soil fungi. In: Mueller GM, Bills GF, Foster MS (eds) Biodiversity of fungi: inventory and monitoring methods. Elsevier, Boston, pp 271–302Google Scholar
  6. Borneman J, Hartin RJ (2000) PCR primers that amplify fungal rRNA genes from environmental samples. Appl Environ Microbiol 66:4356–4360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bridge PD, Spooner BM (2001) Soil fungi: diversity and detection. Plant Soil 232:147–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bridge PD, Roberts PJ, Spooner BM, Panchal G (2003) On the unreliability of published DNA sequences. New Phytol 160:43–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bringmark E (1989) Spatial variation in soil-pH of beech forests in relation to buffering properties and soil depths. Oikos 54:165–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brock PM, Döring H, Bidartondo MI (2009) How to know unknown fungi: the role of a herbarium. New Phytol 181:719–724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buée M, Reich M, Murat C, Morin E, Nilsson RH, Uroz S, Martin F (2009) 454 pyrosequencing analyses of forest soils reveal an unexpectedly high fungal diversity. New Phytol 184:449–456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Câmara MPS, Palm ME, van Berkum P, O’Neill NR (2002) Molecular phylogeny of Leptosphaeria and Phaeosphaeria. Mycologia 94:630–640PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chapman MG, Underwood AJ (1999) Ecological patterns in multivariate assemblages: information and interpretation of negative values in ANOSIM tests. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 180:257–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coleman DC, Crossley DA Jr, Hendrix PF (2004) Fundamentals of soil ecology, 2nd edn. Academic, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  15. Collado J, Platas G, Paulus B, Bills GF (2007) High-throughput culturing of fungi from plant litter by a dilution-to-extinction technique. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 60:521–533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. d’Annunzio R, Zeller B, Nicolas M, Dhôte J-F, Saint-André L (2008) Decomposition of European beech (Fagus sylvatica) litter: combining quality theory and 15N labelling experiments. Soil Biol Biochem 40:322–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org
  18. Dickie IA (2010) Insidious effects of sequencing errors on perceived diversity in molecular surveys. New Phytol 188:916–918PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Espinosa-Garcia FJ, Langenheim JH (1990) The endophytic fungal community in leaves of a coastal redwood population – diversity and spatial patterns. New Phytol 116:89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flessa F, Kehl A, Kohl M (2010) RFLPtools. R package version 1.0Google Scholar
  21. Frankland JC (1998) Fungal succession – unravelling the unpredictable. Mycol Res 102:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gardes M, Bruns TD (1993) ITS primers with enhanced specificity for basidiomycetes – application to the identification of mycorrhizae and rusts. Mol Ecol 2:113–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gewin V (2006) Genomics: discovery in the dirt. Nature 439(7075):384–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hashizume Y, Fukuda K, Sahashi N (2010) Effects of summer temperature on fungal endophyte assemblages in Japanese beech (Fagus crenata) leaves in pure beech stands. Botany 88:266–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heilmann-Clausen J, Christensen M (2003) Fungal diversity on decaying beech logs – implications for sustainable forestry. Biodivers Conserv 12:953–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jaccard P (1901) Étude comparative de la distribution florale dans une portion des Alpes et des Jura. Bull Soc Vaudoise Sci Nat 37:547–579Google Scholar
  27. Johnston P (1998) Leaf endophytes of manuka (Leptospermum scoparium). Mycol Res 102:1009–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jumpponen A, Jones KL (2010) Seasonally dynamic fungal communities in the Quercus macrocarpa phyllosphere differ between urban and nonurban environments. New Phytol 186:496–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaneko R, Kaneko S (2004) The effect of bagging branches on levels of endophytic fungal infection in Japanese beech leaves. For Pathol 34:65–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kharwar RN, Gond SK, Kumar A, Mishra A (2010) A comparative study of endophytic and epiphytic fungal association with leaf of Eucalyptus citriodora Hook., and their antimicrobial activity. World J Microbiol Biotech 26:1941–1948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Koide K, Osono T, Takeda H (2005) Colonization and lignin decomposition of Camellia japonica leaf litter by endophytic fungi. Mycoscience 46:280–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Korkama-Rajala T, Müller MM, Pennanen T (2008) Decomposition and fungi of needle litter from slow- and fast-growing Norway spruce (Picea abies) clones. Microb Ecol 56:76–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kurtzman CP, Fell JW, Boekhout T (2010) The yeasts, a taxonomic study. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Lee DW, Collins TM (2001) Phylogenetic and ontogenetic influences on the distribution of anthocyanins and betacyanins in leaves of tropical plants. Int J Plant Sci 162:1141–1153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liers C, Arnstadt T, Ullrich R, Hofrichter M (2011) Patterns of lignin degradation and oxidative enzyme secretion by different wood- and litter-colonizing basidiomycetes and ascomycetes grown on beech-wood. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 78:91–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindahl BD, Ihrmark K, Boberg J, Trumbore SE, Hogberg P, Stenlid J, Finlay RD (2007) Spatial separation of litter decomposition and mycorrhizal nitrogen uptake in a boreal forest. New Phytol 173:611–620PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lindeberg G (1946) On the decomposition of lignin and cellulose in litter caused by soil-inhabiting Hymenomycetes. Arkiv Bot 33A:1–10Google Scholar
  38. Lorenzi E, Lorando E, Picco AM (2006) Microfunghi endofitici ed epifitici di Picea abies (L.) Karst. in ambiente natural ed antropizzato in Lombardia. Forest 3:426–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Magri D, Vendramin GG, Comps B, Dupanloup I, Geburek T, Gomory D, Latalowa M, Litt T, Paule L, Roure JM, Tantau I, van der Knaap WO, Petit RJ, de Beaulieu JL (2006) A new scenario for the quaternary history of European beech populations: palaeobotanical evidence and genetic consequences. New Phytol 171:199–221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Manter DK, Vivanco JM (2007) Use of the ITS primers, ITS1F and ITS4, to characterize fungal abundance and diversity in mixed-template samples by qPCR and length heterogeneity analysis. J Microbiol Meth 71:7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Miyamoto T, Igarashi T, Takahashi K (2000) Lignin-degrading ability of litter-decomposing basidiomycetes from Picea forests of Hokkaido. Mycoscience 41:105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moorhead DL, Sinsabaugh RL (2006) A theoretical model of litter decay and microbial interaction. Ecol Monogr 76:151–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nagahama T, Hamamoto M, Nakase T, Shimamura S, Horikoshi K (2006) Phylogenetic relationship within the Erythrobasidium clade: molecular phylogenies, secondary structure, and intron positions inferred from partial sequences of ribosomal RNA and elongation factor-1 alpha genes. J Gen Appl Microbiol 52:37–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Osono T (2002) Phyllosphere fungi on leaf litter of Fagus crenata: occurrence, colonization, and succession. Can J Bot 80:460–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Osono T (2006) Role of phyllosphere fungi of forest trees in the development of decomposer fungal communities and decomposition processes of leaf litter. Can J Microbiol 52:701–716PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Osono T (2008) Endophytic and epiphytic phyllosphere fungi of Camellia japonica: seasonal and leaf age-dependent variations. Mycologia 100:387–391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Osono T, Takeda H (1999) Decomposing ability of interior and surface fungal colonizers of beech leaves with reference to lignin decomposition. Eur J Soil Biol 35:51–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Osono T, Takeda H (2001) Organic chemical and nutrient dynamics in decomposing beech leaf litter in relation to fungal ingrowth and succession during 3-year decomposition processes in a cool temperate deciduous forest in Japan. Ecol Res 16:649–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Parrott D, Yang L, Shama L, Fischer AM (2005) Senescence is accelerated, and several proteases are induced by carbon “feast” conditions in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) leaves. Planta 222:989–1000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Peršoh D, Theuerl S, Buscot F, Rambold G (2008) Towards a universally adaptable method for quantitative extraction of high-purity nucleic acids from soil. J Microbiol Meth 75:19–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Peršoh D, Melcher M, Flessa F, Rambold G (2010) First fungal community analyses of endophytic ascomycetes associated with Viscum album ssp. austriacum and its host Pinus sylvestris. Fungal Biol 114:585–596PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Peršoh D, Weig AR, Rambold G (2012) A transcriptome-targeting EcoChip for assessing functional mycodiversity. Microarrays 1:25–41. doi:10.3390/microarrays1010025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Polisky B, Greene P, Garfin DE, McCarthy BJ, Goodman HM, Boyer HW (1975) Specificity of substrate recognition by the EcoRI restriction endonuclease. PNAS 72:3310–3314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Polz MF, Cavanaugh CM (1998) Bias in template-to-product ratios in multitemplate PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol 64:3724–3730PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Promputtha I, Lumyong S, Dhanasekaran V, McKenzie EH, Hyde KD, Jeewon R (2007) A phylogenetic evaluation of whether endophytes become saprotrophs at host senescence. Microbial Ecol 53:579–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Prosser JI (2010) Replicate or lie. Environ Microbiol 12:1806–1810PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pruesse E, Quast C, Knittel K, Fuchs BM, Ludwig W, Peplies J, Glöckner FO (2007) SILVA: a comprehensive online resource for quality checked and aligned ribosomal RNA sequence data compatible with ARB. Nucleic Acids Res 35:7188–7196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Santamaria J, Bayman P (2005) Fungal epiphytes and endophytes of coffee leaves (Coffea arabica). Microbial Ecol 50:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Saunders M, Kohn LM (2009) Evidence for alteration of fungal endophyte community assembly by host defense compounds. New Phytol 182:229–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schubert K, Groenewald JZ, Braun U, Dijksterhuis J, Starink M, Hill CF, Zalar P, de Hoog GS, Crous PW (2007) Biodiversity in the Cladosporium herbarum complex (Davidiellaceae, Capnodiales), with standardisation of methods for Cladosporium taxonomy and diagnostics. Stud Mycol 58:105–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Šnajdr J, Cajthaml T, Valášková V, Merhautová V, Petránková M, Spetz P, Leppänen K, Baldrian P (2011) Transformation of Quercus petraea litter: successive changes in litter chemistry are reflected in differential enzyme activity and changes in the microbial community composition. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 75:291–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Staab JF, Balajee SA, Marr KA (2009) Aspergillus section Fumigati typing by PCR-restriction fragment polymorphism. J Clin Microbiol 47:2079–2083PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stone JK, Polishook JD, White JF (2004) Endophytic fungi. In: Mueller GM, Bills GF, Foster MS (eds) Biodiversity of fungi: inventory and monitoring methods. Elsevier, Boston, pp 241–270Google Scholar
  64. Taylor JW, Jacobson DJ, Kroken S, Kasuga T, Geiser DM, Hibbett DS, Fisher MC (2000) Phylogenetic species recognition and species concepts in fungi. Fungal Genet Biol 31(1):21–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tedersoo L, Nilsson RH, Abarenkov K, Jairus T, Sadam A, Saar I, Bahram M, Bechem E, Chuyong G, Koljalg U (2010) 454 Pyrosequencing and Sanger sequencing of tropical mycorrhizal fungi provide similar results but reveal substantial methodological biases. New Phytol 188:291–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Troedsson T, Tamm CO (1969) Small-scale spatial variation in forest soil properties and its implications for sampling procedures: Variabiliteten i några av skogsmarkens egenskaper inom små ytor och dess betydelse för markprovtagningsmetodiken. In: Flower-Ellis JGK (ed) Studia forestalia Suecica. Skogshögskolan, Faculty of Forest Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  67. Unterseher M (2011) Diversity of fungal endophytes in temperate forest trees. In: Pirttilä AM, Frank AC (eds) Endophytes of forest trees – biology and applications. Springer, Netherlands, pp 31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Unterseher M, Schnittler M (2009) Dilution-to-extinction cultivation of leaf-inhabiting endophytic fungi in beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) – different cultivation techniques influence fungal biodiversity assessment. Mycol Res 113:645–654PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Unterseher M, Reiher A, Finstermeier K, Otto P, Morawetz W (2007) Species richness and distribution patterns of leaf-inhabiting endophytic fungi in a temperate forest canopy. Mycol Prog 6:201–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Unterseher M, Jumpponen A, Opik M, Tedersoo L, Moora M, Dormann CF, Schnittler M (2011) Species abundance distributions and richness estimations in fungal metagenomics – lessons learned from community ecology. Mol Ecol 20:275–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. van Elsas JD, Garbeva P, Salles J (2002) Effects of agronomical measures on the microbial diversity of soils as related to the suppression of soil-borne plant pathogens. Biodegradation 13:29–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. White TJ, Bruns T, Lee S, Taylor J (1990) Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In: Innis M, Gelfand D, Shinsky J, White T (eds) PCR protocols: a guide to methods and applications. Academic, London, pp 315–322Google Scholar
  73. Wildman HG, Parkinson D (1979) Microfungal succession on living leaves of Populus tremuloides. Can J Bot 57:2800–2811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zeier J (2005) Age-dependent variations of local and systemic defence responses in Arabidopsis leaves towards an avirulent strain of Pseudomonas syringae. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 66:30–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Žifčáková L, Dobiášová P, Kolářová Z, Koukol O, Baldrian P (2011) Enzyme activities of fungi associated with Picea abies needles. Fungal Ecol 4:427–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Derek Peršoh
    • 1
  • Julia Segert
    • 1
  • Anja Zigan
    • 1
  • Gerhard Rambold
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MycologyUniversity of BayreuthBayreuthGermany

Personalised recommendations