Advertisement

Mycological Progress

, 15:5 | Cite as

Unexpected species diversity and contrasting evolutionary hypotheses in Hebeloma (Agaricales) sections Sinapizantia and Velutipes in Europe

  • Edmondo Grilli
  • Henry J. Beker
  • Ursula Eberhardt
  • Nicole Schütz
  • Marco Leonardi
  • Alfredo Vizzini
Original Article

Abstract

Hebeloma velutipes is one of the most common and abundant members of the ectomycorrhizal basidiomycete genus and H. sinapizans is one of its oldest and most commonly recorded species. Using large sample sizes, several loci and the analysis of types, we explored the taxonomy, species limits, distribution and the infrageneric classification of these two species and their relatives. By relying almost exclusively on sequenced material, we were able to attain a marked refinement of species descriptions. Phylogenetic results are congruent with respect to the delimitation of species, but suggest conflicting evolutionary histories of the species phylogeny. Using multi-species coalescent analysis, phylogenetic support for H. sects. Velutipes and Sinapizantia was assessed, finding clear support for H. sect. Sinapizantia but ambiguous results for H. sect. Velutipes. One species, H. subconcolor, previously accommodated in H. sect. Denudata, is placed in H. sect. Velutipes. Hebeloma bulbiferum, so far not considered in systematic treatments, is shown to belong to H. sect. Sinapizantia. Unexpectedly, H. velutipes turned out to be distinct from H. leucosarx. Hebeloma erebium comb. nov., H. celatum sp. nov. and H. quercetorum, formerly treated as a single species (H. quercetorum), are demonstrated to be three taxa that are clearly distinct in molecular terms, even though, morphologically, they can be deceptively similar; H. erebium and H. quercetorum are, moreover, geographically distinct. The morphological characters used to distinguish the ten recognised European species are outlined. Finally, a lectotype and an epitype are designated for H. sinapizans and a lectotype for H. quercetorum.

Keywords

Agaricomycetes Basidiomycota Biological species Europe Infrageneric classification Species delimitation StarBEAST Type studies 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are very much obliged to A. Bogaerts from the herbarium in Meise (BR) and G. Lalli (AQUI) for handling loans. Our grateful thanks also go to Th.W. Kuyper for kindly making available to us material used by D.K. Aanen from WBS now L, as well as the curators of the herbaria BR, C, E, G, K, IB, L, LIP, LY, MCVE, MICH, MPU, PC, RO, SOMF, TUR, WU and ZT for the loan of collections for study and sequencing. Furthermore, we very much appreciated the help of A. Andrews, P. Ardron, B. Assyov, I. Assyova, L. Ballester, E. Bizio, J. Borovička, A. Bracke, B. Brand, E. Campo, A. Cappelli, M. Carbone, G. Corriol, P. Cullington, L. Davies, D. Deschuyteneer, E. Egli, F. Draye, A. Gennari, M. Ghyselinck, A. Hausknecht, J. Heilmann-Clausen, A. Henrici, P. Hilb, C. Hobart, S. Huhtinen, L. Jalink, I. Kałucka, M.Karadelev, D. Karansinski, S. Kelly, G. Kibby, D. Laber, C. Lecuru, M. Lenne, B. Levesen, M. Lozides, J.P. Marice, M. Meusers, G. Mir, P.-A. Moreau, S. Poumarat, I. Salcedo, J.C. Schou, S. Pizzardo, S. Skeates, A. Szczepkouski, M. Tassi, A. Taylor, M. Theiss, T. Tokov, M. Tortelli, J. Vauras, J. Volders, R. Watling and J. Weir for supplying us with interesting Hebeloma collections. G. Pacioni of the Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L’Aquila, Italy, is thanked for the use of sequencing facilities. Numerous people have helped in the lab to generate Hebeloma sequence data that were used directly or indirectly in this study. We would like to thank K. Dukik (CBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre Utrecht), U. Fürst, S. Garnica and J. Schade (Universität Tübingen), and R. Gadjieva, M. Jonsson, C. Lundström, J. Petterson and D. Öncü (SLU Uppsala), as well as the Uppsala University Genome Center, the Hubrecht Institute sequence facility and LGC. Special thanks go to P.-A. Moreau for suggesting that Naucoria erebia might be a Hebeloma. Finally, we are indebted to Luis Parra Sanchez and David Hawksworth for their invaluable help in solving several knotty nomenclatural problems posed by some of the taxa treated in this study.

References

  1. Aanen DK, Kuyper TW (1999) Intercompatibility tests in the Hebeloma crustuliniforme complex in northwestern Europe. Mycologia 91:783–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aanen DK, Kuyper TW (2004) A comparison of the application of a biological and phenetic species concept in the Hebeloma crustuliniforme complex within a phylogenetic framework. Persoonia 18:285–316Google Scholar
  3. Aanen DK, Kuyper TW, Boekhout T, Hoekstra RF (2000) Phylogenetic relationships in the genus Hebeloma based on ITS1 and 2 sequences, with special emphasis on the Hebeloma crustuliniforme complex. Mycologia 92:269–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aanen DK, Kuyper TW, Hoekstra RF (2001) A widely distributed ITS polymorphism within a biological species of the ectomycorrhizal fungus Hebeloma velutipes. Mycol Res 105:284–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boekhout T (1982) De sekties Denudata (Fr.) Sacc. en Anthracophila Boekhout nom. prov. van het geslacht Hebeloma (Fr.) Kummer in Nederland en aangrenzende gebieden. Dissertation, Rijksherbarium, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  6. Bon M (1986) Novitates. Validations et taxons nouveaux. Doc Mycol 17:51–56Google Scholar
  7. Borchsenius F (2009) FastGap version 1.2. Department of Biosciences, Aarhus University, Denmark. Home page at: http://www.aubot.dk/FastGap_home.htm
  8. Bouckaert RR, Heled J (2014) DensiTree 2: seeing trees through the forest. doi: 10.1101/012401
  9. Bouckaert R, Heled J, Kühnert D, Vaughan T, Wu C-H, Xie D, Suchard MA, Rambaut A, Drummond AJ (2014) BEAST 2: a software platform for Bayesian evolutionary analysis. PLoS Comput Biol 10(4), e1003537. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003537 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boyle H, Zimdars B, Renker C, Buscot F (2006) A molecular phylogeny of Hebeloma species from Europe. Mycol Res 110:369–380. doi: 10.1016/j.mycres.2005.11.015 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bruchet G (1970) Contribution à l’étude du genre Hebeloma (Fr.) Kumm. Bull Mens Soc Linn Lyon 6:1–132Google Scholar
  12. Eberhardt U (2012) Methods for DNA barcoding of fungi. Methods Mol Biol 858:183–205. doi: 10.1007/978-1-61779-591-6_9 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eberhardt U, Beker HJ, Vesterholt J, Dukik K, Walther G, Vila J, Fernández Brime S (2013) European species of Hebeloma section Theobromina. Fungal Divers 58:103–126. doi: 10.1007/s13225-012-0188-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eberhardt U, Beker HJ, Vesterholt J (2015a) Decrypting the Hebeloma crustuliniforme complex: European species of Hebeloma section Denudata subsection Denudata (Agaricales). Persoonia 35:101–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eberhardt U, Ronikier A, Schütz N, Beker HJ (2015b) The genus Hebeloma in the alpine belt of the Carpathians including two new species. Mycologia, preliminary version published online: September 9th. doi: 10.3852/15-097
  16. Favre J (1960) Catalogue descriptif des champignons supérieurs de la zone subalpine du Parc National Suisse. Soc Helv Sci Nat 6:323–610Google Scholar
  17. Flot J-F (2010) SeqPHASE: a web tool for interconverting PHASE input/output files and FASTA sequence alignments. Mol Ecol Resour 10:162–166. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2009.02732.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Flot J-F, Tillier A, Samadi S, Tillier S (2006) Phase determination from direct sequencing of length-variable DNA regions. Mol Ecol Notes 6:627–630. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-8286.2006.01355.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fries EM (1838) Epicrisis Systematis Mycologici seu Synopsis Hymenomycetum. Typographia Academica, Uppsala, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  20. Gonzalez P, Labarère J (1998) Sequence and secondary structure of the mitochondrial small-subunit rRNA V4, V6, and V9 domains reveal highly species-specific variations within the genus Agrocybe. Appl Environ Microbiol 64:4149–4160PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Grilli E (2004) Type studies in Hebeloma. On Hebeloma bulbiferum and H. colossus. Micol Veg Medit 12:83–107Google Scholar
  22. Grilli E (2005) Studies on the genus Hebeloma, Hebeloma megacarpum A.H. Smith ex Grilli sp. nov. Beitr Kenntn Pilze Mitteleurop 14:81–91Google Scholar
  23. Grilli E (2007) Type studies in Hebeloma. Unravelling a taxonomic-nomenclatural tangle: what is Hebeloma leucosarx? Micol Veg Medit 22:133–176Google Scholar
  24. Grilli E (2008) Type studies in Hebeloma. On some little known North American species described by F.S. Earle and W.A. Murrill. Micol Veg Medit 23:83–119Google Scholar
  25. Grilli E (2009a) Revisione del genere Hebeloma. In: Maire J-C, Moreau P-A, Robich G (eds) Compléments à la Flore des champignons supérieurs du Maroc de G. Malençon et R. Bertault. Confédération Européenne de Mycologie Méditerranéenne (CEMM), Nice, pp. 299–318Google Scholar
  26. Grilli E (2009b) Type studies in Hebeloma. On Hebeloma longicaudum and H. claviceps, two highly critical taxa. Micol Veg Medit 24:137–180Google Scholar
  27. Grilli E, Parra LA, Beker HJ, Eberhardt U (2015) Some nomenclatural and taxonomic considerations on Agaricus subtestaceus Batsch 1789 and A. testaceus Fr. 1838. Boll Assoc Micol Ecol Romana 94:3–11Google Scholar
  28. Gröger F (1987) Wurzelnde Hebeloma-Arten. Z Mykol 53:49–58Google Scholar
  29. Heinemann P (1983) Clé de détermination de Micropsalliota (Agaricaceae) et description de deux espèces nouvelles. Bull du Jardin Bot Nat de Belgique 53:85–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heled J, Drummond AJ (2010) Bayesian inference of species trees from multilocus data. Mol Biol Evol 27:570–580. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msp274 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hesler LR (1977) New species of Hebeloma. Kew Bull 31:471–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huijsman HSC (1977) A new species of Naucoria. Kew Bull 31:585–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jamoni PG (1993) Funghi ad alta quota in Valsesia (8° contributo). Funghi Amb 62–63:61–64Google Scholar
  34. Katoh K, Standley DM (2013) MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol Biol Evol 30:772–780. doi: 10.1093/molbev/mst010 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Katoh K, Kuma K, Toh H, Miyata T (2005) MAFFT version 5: improvement in accuracy of multiple sequence alignment. Nucleic Acids Res 33:511–518. doi: 10.1093/nar/gki198 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kauff F, Lutzoni F (2002) Phylogeny of the Gyalectales and Ostropales (Ascomycota, Fungi): among and within order relationships based on nuclear ribosomal RNA small and large subunits. Mol Phylogenet Evol 25:138–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kühner R, Lamoure D (1986) Catalogue des Agaricales de la zone alpine du Parc National de la Vanoise et des régions limitrophes. Trav Sci Parc Natl Vanoise 15:103–187Google Scholar
  38. Kühner R, Romagnesi H (1953) Flore analytique des champignons supérieurs. Masson et Cie, ParisGoogle Scholar
  39. Lanfear R, Calcott B, Ho SYW, Guindon S (2012) PartitionFinder: combined selection of partitioning schemes and substitution models for phylogenetic analyses. Mol Biol Evol 29:1695–1701. doi: 10.1093/molbev/mss020 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Laursen GA, Ammirati JF (1982) The FISAM in retrospect. In: Laursen GA, Ammirati JF (eds) Arctic and alpine mycology. University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, pp 532–544Google Scholar
  41. Marmeisse R, Gryta H, Jargeat P, Fraisinet-Tachet L, Gay G, Debaud JC (1999) Hebeloma. In: Cairney JWG, Chambers SM (eds) Ectomycorrhizal fungi: key genera in profile. Springer, Berlin, pp 89–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Matheny PB, Curtis JM, Hofstetter V, Aime MC, Moncalvo JM, Ge ZW, Yang ZL, Slot JC, Ammirati JF, Baroni TJ, Bougher NL, Hughes KW, Lodge DJ, Kerrigan RW, Seidl MT, Aanen DK, DeNitis M, Daniele GM, Desjardin DE, Kropp BE, Norvell LL, Parker A, Vellinga EC, Vilaglys R, Hibbett DS (2006) Major clades of Agaricales: a multilocus phylogenetic overview. Mycologia 98:982–995. doi: 10.3852/mycologia.98.6.982 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McNeill J, Barrie FR, Buck WR, Demoulin V, Greuter W, Hawksworth DL, Herendeen PS, Knapp S, Marhold K, Prado J, Prud’homme van Reine WF, Smith GF, Wiersema JH, Turland NJ (2012) International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Melbourne Code): adopted by the Eighteenth International Botanical Congress Melbourne, Australia, July 2011. Regnum Vegetabile 154. Koeltz Scientific Books, Königstein. Available online at: http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php
  44. Miller MA, Pfeiffer W, Schwartz T (2010) Creating the CIPRES Science Gateway for inference of large phylogenetic trees. in: Proceedings of the Gateway Computing Environments Workshop (GCE), New Orleans, LA, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  45. Moncalvo J-M, Vilgalys R, Redhead SA, Johnson JE, James TY, Aime MC, Hofstetter V, Verduin SJW, Larsson E, Baroni TJ, Thorn RG, Jacobsson S, Clémençon H, Miller OK Jr (2002) One hundred and seventeen clades of euagarics. Mol Phylogenet Evol 23:357–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moreau P-A (2005) A nomenclatural revision of the genus Alnicola (Cortinariaceae). Fungal Divers 20:121–155Google Scholar
  47. Parra LA, Beker H, Grilli E, Eberhardt U, Hawksworth DL (2015) (16–18) Proposals to add the unpaginated index of Traité des Champignons and two editions of Tabula plantarum fungosarum by J.-J. Paulet to the list of “Suppressed Works” (ICN App. VI). Taxon 64:644–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Paulet J-J (1793) Traité des champignons, ouvrage dans lequel, on trouve après l’histoire analytique & chronologique des découvertes & des travaux sur ces plantes, vol 2. Biodiversity Heritage library. Available online at: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/5417#/summary
  49. Paulet J-J (1808–1835) Iconographie des champignons. J.B. Baillière, ParisGoogle Scholar
  50. Quadraccia L (1984) Novitates—combinaisons et taxons nouveaux. Doc Mycol 14:27–32Google Scholar
  51. Quadraccia L (1988) Ricerche su Hebeloma (Agaricales, Cortinariaceae). II. Validazione di Hebeloma remyi ed H. stenocystis e due nuove combinazioni. Mycol Helv 3:191–205Google Scholar
  52. Quadraccia L (1993) Research on Hebeloma (Agaricales, Cortinariaceae). III: three new species from the Italian middle Tyrrhenian slope. Mycotaxon 49:279–301Google Scholar
  53. Rambaut A (2012) FigTree. Tree figure drawing tool version 1.4.0. Institute of Evolutionary Biology, University of Edinburgh. Home page at: http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/
  54. Romagnesi H (1983) Études sur le genre Hebeloma. II. Sydowia 36:255–268Google Scholar
  55. Roux P (2006) Mille et un champignons. Édition Roux, Sainte-SigolèneGoogle Scholar
  56. Saccardo PA (1887) Sylloge fungorum V. Friedlander & Sohn, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  57. Simmons MP, Ochoterena H (2000) Gaps as characters in sequence-based phylogenetic analyses. Syst Biol 49:369–381PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Singer R (1962) The Agaricales in modern taxonomy, 2nd edn. J. Cramer, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  59. Singer R (1975) The Agaricales in modern taxonomy, 3rd edn. J. Cramer, VaduzGoogle Scholar
  60. Singer R (1986) The Agaricales in modern taxonomy, 4th edn. Sven Koeltz Scientific Books, KoenigsteinGoogle Scholar
  61. Smith AH (1984) Studies of species of Hebeloma (Fr.) Kummer from the great lakes region of North America I. Sydowia 37:271–283Google Scholar
  62. Stamatakis A (2014) RAxML Version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30:1312–1313PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Suchard MA, Rambaut A (2009) Many-core algorithms for statistical phylogenetics. Bioinformatics 25:1370–1376. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp244 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Swofford DL (2002) PAUP* 4.0: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  65. Vaidya G, Lohman DJ, Meier R (2011) SequenceMatrix: concatenation software for the fast assembly of multi-gene datasets with character set and codon information. Cladistics 27:171–180. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2010.00329.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vesterholt J (2004) The identity of Hebeloma fastibile, the type species of Hebeloma. Ann Micol AGMT 1(53–63):125–126Google Scholar
  67. Vesterholt J (2005) The genus Hebeloma, vol 3. Fungi of Northern Europe. Svampetryk, TilstGoogle Scholar
  68. Vesterholt J (2008) Hebeloma (Fr.) P. Kumm. In: Knudsen H, Vesterholt J (eds) Funga Nordica. Nordsvamp, Copenhagen, pp 804–817Google Scholar
  69. Vesterholt J, Eberhardt U, Beker HJ (2014) Epitypification of Hebeloma crustuliniforme. Mycol Prog 13:553–562. doi: 10.1007/s11557-013-0938-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© German Mycological Society and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edmondo Grilli
    • 1
  • Henry J. Beker
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ursula Eberhardt
    • 4
    • 5
  • Nicole Schütz
    • 4
  • Marco Leonardi
    • 6
  • Alfredo Vizzini
    • 7
  1. 1.PopoliItaly
  2. 2.BrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.Royal Holloway, University of LondonEghamUK
  4. 4.Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde StuttgartStuttgartGermany
  5. 5.Department of BiologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  6. 6.Department of Life, Health and Environmental SciencesUniversity of L’AquilaCoppitoItaly
  7. 7.Department of Life Sciences and Systems BiologyUniversità degli Studi di TorinoTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations