Advertisement

Ecological Research

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 543–552 | Cite as

Exploring the relationship between macrofungi diversity, abundance, and vascular plant diversity in semi-natural and managed forests in north-east Hungary

  • Kinga Rudolf
  • Tamás Morschhauser
  • Ferenc Pál-Fám
  • Zoltán Botta-Dukát
Original Article

Abstract

The diversity of easy-to-study organisms (e.g. vascular plants) is often used as a proxy for the diversity of other organisms whose investigation needs more effort, time and specialist knowledge. Some previous studies have found positive relationships between plant and macrofungal diversity and thus support this approach, while others question this practice. Our aim was to explore the possibility of using plant diversity as surrogate for macrofungal diversity in the forests of the Pannonian ecoregion. A total of 19 permanent plots in north-east Hungary were sampled for vascular plants and macrofungi. The effect on macrofungal abundance and diversity, as well as degradation level, of plant evenness and richness was tested using generalized linear models. Species richness of macrofungi assemblages proved to be independent of the diversity and naturalness of vascular plant communities; however, there was congruence in the composition of the two communities. In contrast to diversity, macrofungi abundance was significantly negatively correlated to plant species richness. There was a hump-backed relationship between the abundance of terricolous macrofungi and the degradation level estimated on the basis of the occurrence of vascular plants, although degradation did not influence the abundance of lignicolous macrofungi. Our results question the reliability of decisions on nature conservation actions based on a few groups of easy-to-observe organisms, and underline the necessity of studying as wide a range of taxonomic groups as possible.

Keywords

Habitat degradation Intermediate disturbance hypothesis Macrofungi diversity Plant richness Sporocarp abundance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Department of Plant Taxonomy and Geobotany of University of Pécs for supporting the survey.

References

  1. Aczél J, Daróczy Z (1975) On measures of information and their characterization. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnolds E (1988) The changing macromycete flora in the Netherlands. Trans Br Mycol Soc 90:391–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnolds E (1991) Decline of ectomycorrhizal fungi in Europe. Agric Ecosyst Environ 35:209–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnolds E (1992) Macrofungal communities outside forests. In: Winterhoff W (ed) Fungi in vegetation science. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 113–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benedek L, Pál-Fám F, Nagy J (2005) Comparison of macrofungi communities and examination of macrofungi–plant interactions in forest stands in North Hungary. Int J Horticult Sci 11(2):101–103Google Scholar
  6. Borhidi A (1995) Social behaviour types, the naturalness and relative ecological indicator values of the higher plants in the Hungarian Flora. Acta Bot Hung 39:97–181Google Scholar
  7. Borhidi A (2003) Plant associations of Hungary (in Hungarian). Academic, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown N, Bhagwat S, Watkinson S (2006) Macrofungal diversity in fragmented and disturbed forests of the Western Ghats of India. J Appl Ecol 43:11–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bujakiewicz A (1992) Macrofungi on soil in deciduous forests. In: Winterhoff W (ed) Fungi in vegetation science. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 49–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bullock JM (2006) Plants. In: Sutherland WJ (ed) Ecological census techniques: a handbook, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Oxford, pp 186–190Google Scholar
  11. CABI (2008) The index Fungorum. http://www.indexfungorum.org
  12. Chiarucci A, D’Auria F, De Dominicis V, Laganá A, Perini C, Salerni E (2005) Using vascular plants as a surrogate taxon to maximize fungal species richness in reserve design. Conserv Biol 19:1644–1652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Connell JH (1978) Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199:1302–1310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crawley MJ (2007) The R book. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Dorgai L (1986) Cserehát (in Hungarian). BAZ Megyei Mezőgazdasági Szövetkezetek Szövetsége, MTA Miskolci Akadémiai Bizottság, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  16. Findlay CS, Houlahan J (1997) Anthropogenic correlates of species richness in Southeastern Ontario wetlands. Conserv Biol 11:1000–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Flather CH, Wilson KR, Dean DJ, McComb WC (1997) Identifying gaps in conservation networks: of indicators and uncertainty in geographic-based analyses. Ecol Appl 7:531–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fox J (2009) Car: companion to applied regression. R package version 1.2-16. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=car
  19. Gabel AC, Gabel ML (2007) Comparison of diversity of macrofungi and vascular plants at seven sites in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Am Midl Nat 157:258–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gaston KJ (1994) Rarity. Chapman and Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gómez-Hernández M, Williams-Linera G (2011) Diversity of macromycetes determined by tree species, vegetation structure, and microenvironment in tropical cloud forests in Veracruz, Mexico. Botany 89:203–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4:379–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grime JP (1973) Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 242:247–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grime JP (1979) Plant strategies and vegetation processes. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  25. Hansen L, Knudsen H (1997) Nordic macromycetes, vol 3. Nordsvamp, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  26. Hill M (1973) Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology 54:427–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hobbs RJ, Huenneke LF (1992) Disturbance diversity and invasion: implications for conservation. Conserv Biol 6:324–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Høiland K, Bendiksen E (1996) Biodiversity of wood-inhabiting fungi in a boreal coniferous forest in Sør-Trøndelag County, central Norway. Nord J Bot 16:643–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hurlbert SH (1971) The non-concept of species diversity: a critique and alternative parameters. Ecology 52:577–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johnson CN (1998) Species extinction and the relationship between distribution and abundance. Nature 394:272–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jost L (2006) Entropy and diversity. Oikos 113:363–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keylock C (2005) Simpson diversity and Shannon–Wiener index as special cases of a generalized entropy. Oikos 109:203–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kim YM, Zerbe S, Kowarik I (2002) Human impact on flora and habitats in Korean rural settlements. Preslia 74:409–419Google Scholar
  34. Kost G (1992) Macrofungi on soil in coniferous forest. In: Winterhoff W (ed) Fungi in vegetation science. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 79–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kost G, Haas H (1989) Die Pilzflora von Bannwäldern in Baden–Württenberg Waldschutzgebiete im Rahmen der Mitteilungen der Forstlichen Versuchs- und Forschunganstalt. Band 4:9–182Google Scholar
  36. Krieglsteiner GJ (1991, 1993) Verbreitungsatlas der Großpilze Deutschlands, Bander 1-2. Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  37. Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology, 2nd English edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  38. Lenzen M, Lane A, Cooper AW, Williams M (2009) Affects of land use on threatened species. Conserv Biol 23:294–306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lepczyk CA, Flather CH, Radeloff VC, Pidgeon AM, Hammer RB, Liu J (2008) Human impacts on regional avian diversity and abundance. Conserv Biol 22:405–416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Magurran A (2004) Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. McMullan-Fisher SJM (2008) Surrogates for cryptogam conservation-associations between mosses, macrofungi, vascular plants and environmental variables. PhD thesis, University of TasmaniaGoogle Scholar
  42. McMullan-Fisher SJM, Kirkpatrick JB, May TW, Pharo EJ (2010) Surrogates for macrofungi and mosses in reservation planning. Conserv Biol 24:730–736PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Miller RM, Lodge DJ (1997) Fungal response to disturbance: agriculture and forestry. In: Wicklow DT, Söderström BE (eds) The mycota IV environmental and microbial relationships. Springer, Berlin, pp 65–84Google Scholar
  44. Morschhauser T (1995) Applications of isodegradation curves in nature conservation. Acta Bot Hung 39(3–4):393–405Google Scholar
  45. Nantel P, Neumann P (1992) Ecology of ectomycorrhizal-basidiomycete communities on a local vegetation gradient. Ecology 73(1):99–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ohenoja E (1988) Effect of forest management procedures on fungal fruit body production in Finland. Acta Bot Fenn 136:81–84Google Scholar
  47. Oksanen J, Kindt R, Legendre P, O’Hara B, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Wagner H (2009) Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 1. 15-4. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan
  48. Oleksyn J, Reich PB (1994) Pollution, habitat destruction, and biodiversity in Poland. Conserv Biol 8:943–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Packham JM, May TW, Brown MJ, Wardlaw TJ, Mills AK (2002) Macrofungal diversity and community ecology in mature and regrowth wet eucalypt forest in Tasmania: a multivariate study. Austral Ecol 27:149–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pál-Fám F, Siller I, Fodor L (2007) Mycological monitoring in the Hungarian biodiversity monitoring system. Acta Mycol 42(1):35–58Google Scholar
  51. Patil GP, Taillie C (1979) An overview of diversity. In: Grassle JF, Patil GP, Smith W, Taille C (eds) Ecological diversity in theory and practice. Maryland, Fairland, pp 3–27Google Scholar
  52. Pharo EJ, Beattie AJ, Pressey RL (2000) Effectiveness of using vascular plants to select reserves for bryophytes and lichens. Biol Conserv 96:371–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pielou EC (1977) Mathematical ecology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Primack RB (1998) Essentials of conservation biology, 2nd edn. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  55. R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org
  56. Rejmánek M, Rejmánková E, Holzner W (2004) Species diversity of plant communities on calcareous screes: the role of intermediate disturbance. Preslia 76:207–222Google Scholar
  57. Rényi A (1961) On measures of entropy and information. In: Neymann J (ed) Proceedings of the 4th Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, vol. 1. University of California Press, CA, pp 547–561Google Scholar
  58. Rudolf K, Pál-Fám F, Morschhauser T (2008) The macrofungi of Cserehát (in Hungarian). Clusiana 47(1):45–74Google Scholar
  59. Ryti RT (1992) Effect of the focal taxon on the selection of nature reserves. Ecol Appl 2:404–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Saetersdal M, Gjerde I, Blom HH, Ihlen PG, Myrseth EW, Pommeresche R et al (2003) Vascular plants as a surrogate species group in complementary site selection for bryophytes, macrolichens, spiders, carabids, staphylinids, snails, and wood living polypore fungi in a northern forest. Biol Conserv 115:21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Santi E, Maccherini S, Rocchini D, Bonini I, Brunialti G, Favilli L, Perini C et al (2010) Simple to sample: vascular plants as surrogate group in a nature reserve. J Nat Conserv 18:2–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schmit JP, Mueller GM, Leacock PR, Mata JL, Wu Q, Huang Y (2005) Assessment of tree species richness as a surrogate for macrofungal species richness. Biol Conserv 121:99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Siller I (2004) Macrofungi of montane beech forest reserves. Dissertation, Szent István UniversityGoogle Scholar
  64. Simon T (2000) Identification handbook of the Hungarian vascular plants (in Hungarian). Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó RT, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  65. Sobek EA, Zak JC (2003) The Soil FungiLog procedure: method and analytical approaches toward understanding fungal functional diversity. Mycologia 95(4):590–602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stirling G, Wilsey B (2001) Empirical relationships between species richness, evenness, and proportional diversity. Am Nat 158:286–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Straatsma G, Krisai-Greilhuber I (2003) Assemblage structure, species richness, abundance, and distribution of fungal fruit bodies in a seven year plot-based survey near Vienna. Mycol Resch 107(5):632–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tofts RJ, Orton PD (1998) The species accumulation curve for Agarics and Boleti from a Caledonian Pinewood. Mycologist 12:98–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tóthmérész B (1995) Comparison of different methods for diversity ordering. J Veg Sci 6:283–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Villeneuve N, Grandtner MM, Fortin JA (1989) Frequency and diversity of ectomycorrhizal and saprophytic macrofungi in the Laurentide Mountains of Quebec. Can J Bot 67:2616–2629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Virolainen KM, Ahlroth P, Hyvarinen E, Korkeamaki E, Mattila J, Paiivinen J et al (2000) Hot spots, indicator taxa, complementarity and optimal networks of taiga. Proc R Soc London B 267:1143–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Watling R (1995) Assessment of fungal diversity: macromycetes, the problems. Can J Bot 73:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zak JC (1992) Response of soil fungal communities to disturbance. In: Carroll G, Wicklow DT (eds) The fungal community: its organization and role in the ecosystem. Dekker, New York, pp 403–425Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Ecological Society of Japan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kinga Rudolf
    • 1
  • Tamás Morschhauser
    • 1
  • Ferenc Pál-Fám
    • 2
  • Zoltán Botta-Dukát
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Plant Taxonomy and GeobotanyUniversity of PécsPécsHungary
  2. 2.Department of Botany and Plant ProductionUniversity of KaposvárKaposvárHungary
  3. 3.MTA Centre for Ecological ResearchInstitute of Ecology and BotanyVácrátótHungary

Personalised recommendations