Mycorrhiza

, Volume 20, Issue 7, pp 473–481 | Cite as

Ectomycorrhizal community structure of different genotypes of Scots pine under forest nursery conditions

  • Tomasz Leski
  • Algis Aučina
  • Audrius Skridaila
  • Marcin Pietras
  • Edvardas Riepšas
  • Maria Rudawska
Original Paper

Abstract

In this paper, we report the effect of Scots pine genotypes on ectomycorrhizal (ECM) community and growth, survival, and foliar nutrient composition of 2-year-old seedlings grown in forest bare-root nursery conditions in Lithuania. The Scots pine seeds originated from five stands from Latvia (P1), Lithuania (P2 and P3), Belarus (P4), and Poland (P5). Based on molecular identification, seven ECM fungal taxa were identified: Suillus luteus and Suillus variegatus (within the Suilloid type), Wilcoxina mikolae, Tuber sp., Thelephora terrestris, Cenococcum geophilum, and Russuloid type. The fungal species richness varied between five and seven morphotypes, depending on seed origin. The average species richness and relative abundance of most ECM morphotypes differed significantly depending on pine origin. The most essential finding of our study is the shift in dominance from an ascomycetous fungus like W. mikolae in P2 and P4 seedlings to basidiomycetous Suilloid species like S. luteus and S. variegatus in P1 and P5 seedlings. Significant differences between Scots pine origin were also found in seedling height, root dry weight, survival, and concentration of C, K, Ca, and Mg in the needles. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient revealed that survival and nutritional status of pine seedlings were positively correlated with abundance of Suilloid mycorrhizas and negatively linked with W. mikolae abundance. However, stepwise multiple regression analysis showed that only survival and magnesium content in pine needles were significantly correlated with abundance of ECM fungi, and Suilloid mycorrhizas were a main significant predictor. Our results may have implications for understanding the physiological and genetic relationship between the host tree and fungi and should be considered in management decisions in forestry and ECM fungus inoculation programs.

Keywords

Scots pine Mycorrhizal fungi Provenance variation ITS-sequencing Suillus Wilcoxina 

References

  1. Agerer R (2001) Exploration types of ectomycorrhizae. Mycorrhiza 11:107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aučina A, Rudawska M, Leski T, Skridaila A, Riepšas E, Iwański M (2007) Growth and mycorrhizal community structure of Pinus sylvestris seedlings following the addition of forest litter. Appl Environ Microb 73:4867–4873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clarke KR, Green RH (1988) Statistical design and analysis for a “biological effects” study. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 46:213–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cline ML, Reid CPP (1982) Seed source and mycorrhizal fungus effects on growth of containerized Pinus contorta and Pinus ponderosa seedlings. Forest Sci 28:237–250Google Scholar
  5. Colpaert JV, Van Assche JA, Luijtens K (1992) Relationship between the growth of the extramatrical mycelium of ectomycorrhizal fungi and the growth response of Pinus sylvestris plants. New Phytol 120:127–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cram MM, Mexal JG, Souter R (1999) Successful reforestation of South Carolina Sandhills is not influenced by seedling inoculation with Pisolithus tinctorius in the nursery. South J Appl Forest 23:46–52Google Scholar
  7. Dahlberg A, Stenström E (1991) Dynamic changes in nursery and indigenous mycorrhiza of Pinus sylvestris seedlings planted out in forest and clearcuts. Plant Soil 136:73–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dixon RK, Garrett HE, Setlzer HE (1987) Growth and ectomycorrhizal development of loblolly pine progenies inoculated with three isolates of Pisolithus tinctorius. Silvae Genet 36:5–6Google Scholar
  9. Dunabeitia M, Rodriguez N, Salcedo I, Sarrionandia E (2004) Field mycorrhization and its influence on the establishment and development of the seedlings in a broadleaf plantation in the Basque Country. For Ecol Manag 195:129–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. El Karkouri K, Martin F, Mousain D (2002) Dominance of the mycorrhizal fungus Rhizopogon rubescens in a plantation of Pinus pinea seedlings inoculated with Suillus collinitus. Ann Forest Sci 59:197–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. El Karkouri K, Martin F, Mousain D (2004) Diversity of ectomycorrhizal symbionts in a disturbed Pinus halepensis plantation in the Mediterranean region. Ann Forest Sci 61:705–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garbaye J, Churin JL (1997) Growth stimulation of young oak plantations inoculated with the ectomycorrhizal fungus Paxillus involutus with special reference to summer drought. For Ecol Manag 98:221–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gardes M, Bruns T (1996) Community structure of ectomycorrhizal fungi in a Pinus muricata forest: above- and belowground views. Can J Bot 74:1572–1583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gehring CA, Mueller RC, Whitham TG (2006) Environmental and genetic effects on the formation of ectomycorrhizal and arbuscular mycorrhizal associations in cottonwoods. Oecologia 149:158–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Giertych M (1979) Summary of results of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) height growth in IUFRO provenance experiments. Silvae Genet 28:136–152Google Scholar
  16. Giertych M (1991) Provenance variation in growth and phenology. In: Giertych M, Mátyás C (eds) Genetics of scots pine. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, pp 87–101Google Scholar
  17. Giertych M, Oleksyn J (1981) Summary of results on Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) volume production in Ogijeskij s pre-revolutionary Russian provenance experiments. Silvae Genet 30:56–74Google Scholar
  18. Giertych M, Oleksyn J (1992) Studies on genetic variation in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) coordinated by IUFRO. Silvae Genet 41:133–143Google Scholar
  19. Gorissen A, Kuyper ThW (2000) Fungal species-specific responses of ectomycorrhizal Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) to elevated [CO2]. New Phytol 146:163–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hammer O, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST: palaeontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electrica 4:9Google Scholar
  21. Haselwandter K, Bowen GD (1996) Mycorrhizal relations in trees for agroforestry and land rehabilitation. For Ecol Manag 81:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Iwański M, Rudawska M, Leski T (2006) Mycorrhizal associations of nursery grown Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) seedlings in Poland. Ann Forest Sci 63:715–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Karst J, Jones MD, Turkington R (2009) Ectomycorrhizal colonization and intraspecific variation in growth responses of lodgepole pine. Plant Ecol 200:161–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Khasa PD, Chakravarty P, Robertson A, Thomas BR, Dancik BP (2002) The mycorrhizal status of selected poplar clones introduced in Alberta. Biomass Bioenerg 22:99–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kõljalg U, Larsson KH, Abarenkov K, Nilsson RH, Alexander IJ, Eberhardt U, Erland S, Hoiland K, Kjøller R, Larsson E, Pennanen T, Sen R, Taylor AF, Tedersoo L, Vrålstad T (2005) UNITE: a database providing web-based methods for the molecular identification of ectomycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol 166:1063–1068CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Korkama T, Pakkanen A, Pennanen T (2006) Ectomycorrhizal community structure varies among Norway spruce (Picea abies) clones. New Phytol 171:815–824CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Langlet O (1971) Two hundred years of genecology. Taxon 20:653–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ledig FT (1998) Genetic variation in Pinus. In: Richardson DM (ed) Ecology and biogeography of Pinus. Cambridge University Press, pp 251–280Google Scholar
  29. Leski T, Aučina A, Rudawska M (2008) The ectomycorrhizal status of European larch (Larix decidua Mill.) seedlings from bare-root forest nurseries. For Ecol Manag 256:2136–2144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Linnemann G (1960) Rassenunterschiede bei Pseudotsuga taxifolia hinsichtlich der Mycorrhiza. Allg Forst Jagdztg 131:41–48Google Scholar
  31. Lundeberg G (1968) The formation of mycorrhizae in different provenances of pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift Bd 62:249–254Google Scholar
  32. Marx DH, Bryan WC (1971) Formation of ectomycorrhizae on half-sib progenies of slash pine in aseptic culture. Forest Sci 17:488–492Google Scholar
  33. Menkis A, Vasiliauskas R, Taylor AFS, Stenlid J, Finlay R (2005) Fungal communities in mycorrhizal roots of conifer seedlings in forest nurseries under different cultivation systems, assessed by morphotyping, direct sequencing and mycelial isolation. Mycorrhiza 16:33–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Menkis A, Vasiliauskas R, Taylor AFS, Stenlid J, Finlay R (2007) Afforestation of abandoned farmland with conifer seedlings inoculated with three ectomycorrhizal fungi—impact on plant performance and ectomycorrhizal community. Mycorrhiza 17:337–348CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Milewski W (2007) Forests in Poland. The State Forest Information Centre, p 67Google Scholar
  36. Navratil S (1986) Seed source variation in mycorrhizae development of white spruce and lodgepole pine in Alberta, Canada. In: Program with abstracts, Roots in forest soils: biology and symbioses. University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia IUFRO, pp 201–213Google Scholar
  37. Oleksyn J, Tjoelker MG, Reich PB (1992) Growth and biomass partitioning of populations of European Pinus sylvestris L. under simulated 50˚ and 60˚ N daylengths: evidence for photoperiodic ecotypes. New Phytol 120:561–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oleksyn J, Reich PB, Karolewski P, Tjoelker MG, Chałupka W (1999) Nutritional status of pollen and needles of diverse Pinus sylvestris populations grown at sites with contrasting pollution. Water Air Soil Poll 110:195–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ortega U, Dunabeitia M, Menendez S, Gonzalez-Murua C, Majada J (2004) Effectiveness of mycorrhizal inoculation in the nursery on growth and water relations of Pinus radiata in different water regimes. Tree Physiol 24:65–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Parladé J, Luque J, Pera J, Rincon AM (2004) Field performance of Pinus pinea and P. halepensis seedlings inoculated with Rhizopogon spp. and outplanted in formerly arable land. Ann For Sci 61:507–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pera J, Álvarez IF, Rincón A, Parladé J (1999) Field performance in northern Spain of Douglas-fir seedlings inoculated with ectomycorrhizal fungi. Mycorrhiza 9:77–84Google Scholar
  42. Peterson RL, Bradbury SM (1999) Use of plant mutants, intraspecific variants and non-hosts in studying mycorrhiza formation and function. In: Varma A, Hock B (eds) Mycorrhiza structure, function, molecular biology and biotechnology. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, New York, pp 153–176Google Scholar
  43. Quoreshi AM, Piche Y, Khasa DP (2008) Field performance of conifer and hardwood species 5 years after nursery inoculation in the Canadian Prairie Provinces. New For 35:235–253Google Scholar
  44. Read DJ (1998) The mycorrhizal status of Pinus. In: Richardson DM (ed) Ecology and biogeography of Pinus. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 324–340Google Scholar
  45. Riepšas E (2000) Experience and problems of reforestation in Lithuania. Integration Environmental Values into Lithuanian Forestry. Forestry Discussion paper of Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University of Copenhagen, Vol. 31, pp 3–12Google Scholar
  46. Rincon A, de Felipe MR, Fernandez-Pascual M (2007) Inoculation of Pinus halepensis Mill. with selected ectomycorrhizal fungi improves seedling establishment 2 years after planting in a degraded gypsum soil. Mycorrhiza 18:23–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Rosado SCS, Kropp BR, Piché Y (1994) Genetics of ectomycorrhizal symbiosis. I. Host plant variability and heritability of ectomycorrhizal and root traits. New Phytol 126:105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rudawska M, Leski T, Trocha LK, Gornowicz R (2006) Ectomycorrhizal status of Norway spruce seedlings from bare-root forest nurseries. Forest Ecol Manag 236:375–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Saikkonen K, Ahonen-Jonnarth U, Markkola AM, Helander M, Tuomi J, Roitto M, Ranta H (1999) Defoliation and mycorrhizal symbiosis: a functional balance between carbon sources and belowground sinks. Ecol Lett 2:19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stanners D, Bourdeau P (1995) Europe’s environment—the dobris assessment. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, 676Google Scholar
  51. Tagu D, Rampant PF, Lapeyrie F, Frey-Klett P, Vion P, Villar M (2001) Variation in the ability to form ectomycorrhizas in the F1 progeny of an interspecific poplar (Populus spp.) cross. Mycorrhiza 10:237–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tagu D, Bastien C, Rampant PF, Garbaye J, Vion P, Villar M, Martin F (2005) Genetic analysis of phenotypic variation for ectomycorrhiza formation in an interspecific F1 poplar half-sib family. Mycorrhiza 15:87–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Thomson J, Matthes-Sears U, Peterson RL (1990) Effects of seed provenance and mycorrhizal fungi on early seedling growth in Picea mariana. Can J Forest Res 20:1739–1745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Trappe JM (1977) Selection of fungi for ectomycorrhizal inoculation in nurseries. Ann Rev Phytop 15:203–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Trocha LK, Rudawska M, Leski T, Dabert M (2006) Genetic diversity of naturally established ectomycorrhizal fungi on norway soruce seedlings under nursery conditions. Microb Ecol 52:418–425CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. van der Heijden EW, Kuyper TW (2001) Laboratory experiments imply the conditionality of mycorrhizal benefits for Salix repens: role of pH and nitrogen to phosphorus ratios. Plant Soil 228:275–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Walker C, Biggin P, Jardine DC (1986) Differences in mycorrhizal status among clones of Sitka spruce. Forest Ecol Manag 14:275–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. White TJ, Bruns T, Lee S, Taylor J (1990) Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In: Innis MA, Gelfaud DH, Sninsky JJ, White TJ (eds) A guide to methods and applications. Academic, San Diego, pp 315–322Google Scholar
  59. Wright E, Ching KK (1962) Effect of seed source on mycorrhizal formation on Douglas fir seedlings. Northwest Sci 36:1–6Google Scholar
  60. Zhu H, Navratil S (1987) Effect of seed source on growth and ectomycorrhizal formation of tamarack seedlings. In: Sylvia DM, Hung LL, Graham JH (eds) 7th North American Conference on Mycorrhizae. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, p 113Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomasz Leski
    • 1
  • Algis Aučina
    • 2
  • Audrius Skridaila
    • 2
  • Marcin Pietras
    • 1
  • Edvardas Riepšas
    • 3
  • Maria Rudawska
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of DendrologyPolish Academy of SciencesKórnikPoland
  2. 2.Botanical Garden of Vilnius UniversityVilniusLithuania
  3. 3.Department of SylvicultureLithuanian University of AgricultureKaunas districtLithuania

Personalised recommendations