Advertisement

Mycopathologia

, Volume 90, Issue 3, pp 165–176 | Cite as

Nematophagous fungi from the maritime antarctic: factors affecting distribution

  • N. F. Gray
Article

Abstract

Soil collected from throughout the maritime Antarctic was analyzed to determine the effects of a range of abiotic and biotic soil parameters on the distribution of nematophagous fungi. Endoparasites were far more abundant than predatory fungi due to the greater efficiency of endoparasites in attracting and infecting nematodes, which resulted in a rapid completion of the infection cycle. This allowed endoparasites to colonise even the most exposed soil habitats where conditions favourable for nematode activity were restricted to only a few hours daily. 76% of all endoparasites isolated formed adhesive conidia. The success of this group of endoparasites was due to the ability of the conidia to attract nematodes.

Spontaneous trap forming predators were far more abundant than nonspontaneous trap formers. The former have a clear competitive advantage over the latter, as they are able to attract nematodes to the conidia which subsequently germinate and form traps only when induced by direct chemical stimulation of nematodes. These predators are able to use internal reserves only and so rapidly respond to short periods when the soil is unfrozen and the nematodes are active.

Although nematodes were utilized by all the species isolated, many were also capable of using Protozoa and Rotifera as a food source. While endoparasites were capable of infecting Rotifera, they were never observed infecting, or were isolated from soil containing, Protozoa. The distribution of endoparasites and spontaneous trap forming predators was largely independent of abiotic soil parameters. They were however significantly associated with the presence and abundance of suitable prey. These species survive solely on nematodes and therefore do not require prolonged periods of suitable soil conditions in order to produce vegetative mycelium to adsorb nutrients saprophytically from the soil, which is a significant ecological advantage over the other groups of microfungi found in the Antarctic.

Keywords

Soil Parameter Chemical Stimulation Internal Reserve Vegetative Mycelium Nematophagous Fungus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Allen, S. E., 1974. Chemical analysis of ecological materials. Blackwell, Oxford: 565 pp.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barron, G. L., 1977. The nematode-destroying fungi. Topics in Mycobiology: 1. Canadian Biological Publications Ltd., Guelph, Canada: 140 pp.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barron, G. L., 1978. Nematophagousfungi: endoparasites of Rhabditis terricola. Microb. Ecol. 4: 157–163.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cooke, R. C., 1962. The ecology of nematode-trapping fungi in the soil. Ann. Appl. Biol. 50: 507–513.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cooke, R. C., 1963. Ecological characteristics of nematodetrapping Hyphomycetes. I. Preliminary studies. Ann. Appl. Biol. 52: 431–437.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cooke, R. C., 1963. Succession of nematophagous fungi during the decomposition of organic matter in the soil. Nature (London) 197: 205.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cooke, R. C., 1964. Ecological characteristics of nematodetrapping Hyphomycetes II. Germination of conidia in soil. Ann. Appl. Biol. 54: 375–379.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dean, W. E., 1974. Determination of carbonate and organic matter in calcareous sediments and sedimentary rocks by loss on ignition: comparison with other methods. J. Sed. Petrol. 44: 242–248.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dickinson, C. H. & J. W. Kent, 1972. Critical analysis of fungi in two sand dune soils. Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc. 58: 269–280.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dowding, P. & P. Widden, 1974. Some relationships between fungi and their environment in tundra regions. In: A. J. Holding et al. (eds.), Soil Organism and Decomposition in Tundra. Tundra Biome Steering Committee (Stockholm): 123–150.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Duddington, C. L., 1955. Notes on the technique of handling predaceous fungi. Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc. 38: 322–331.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Engelmann, L., 1981. Stepwise logistic regression. In: W. J. Dixon (ed.), BMDP Statistical Software, 1981, pp. 330–344. University of California Press, Los Angeles: 725 pp.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Field, J. I. & J. Webster, 1977. Traps of predacious fungi attract nematodes. Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc. 59: 213–218.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gray, N. F., 1982. Psychro-tolerant nematophagous fungi from the maritime Antarctic. Plant Soil 64: 431–435.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gray, N. F., 1983. Ecology of nematophagous fungi: distribution and habitat. Ann. Appl. Biol. 102: 501–509.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gray, N. F., 1984. Ecology of nematophagous fungi: effect of soil moisture, organic matter, pH and nematode density on distribution. Ann. Appl. Biol. (in press).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gray, N. F., 1984. Ecology of nematophagous fungi: comparison of the soil sprinkling method with the Baermann funnel technique in the isolation of endoparasites. Soil Biol. Biochem. 16: 81–83.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gray, N. F., 1984. Ecology of nematophagous fungi: collection, isolation and maintenance of predatory and endoparasitic fungi. Mycopathologia 89 (in press).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gray, N. F., 1984. Ecology of nematophagous fungi: predatory and endoparasitic species new to Ireland. Irish Nat. J. 21 (in press).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gray, N. F. & R. I. L. Smith, 1984. The distribution of nematophagous fungi in the maritime Antarctic. Mycopathologia 85: 81–92.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jansson, H. B., 1982. Attraction of nematodes to endoparasitic nematophagous fungi. Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc. 79: 25–29.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jansson, H. B. & B. Nordbring-Hertz, 1979. Attraction of nematodes to living mycelium of nematophagous fungi. J. Gen. Microbiol. 112: 89–93.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kent, J. W., 1972. Application of statistical techniques to the analysis of fungal populations. Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc. 58: 253–268.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Longton, R. E. & M. W. Holdgate, 1967. Temperature relationships in Antarctic vegetation. In: J. E. Smith (ed.), A Discussion on the Terrestrial Antarctic Ecosystem. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. 252, Series B (777): 237–250.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shepherd, A. M., 1956. A short survey of Danish nematophagous fungi. Friesia 5: 396–408.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Siegel, S., 1956. Non-Parametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. McGraw-Hill, Tokyo: 312 pp.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Walton, D. W. H., 1977. Radiation and soil temperatures 1972–74: Signy Island terrestrial reference sites. Data Brit. Antarctic Sur. 1: 1–49.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wood, F. H., 1973. Nematode-trapping fungi from a tussock grassland soil in New Zealand. N. Zeal. J. Bot. 11: 231–240.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff/Dr W. Junk Publishers 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. F. Gray
    • 1
  1. 1.Environmental Sciences Unit, Trinity CollegeUniversity of DublinDublin 2Eire

Personalised recommendations