Relating macrofungal diversity and forest characteristics in boreal forests in China: Conservation effects, inter‐forest‐type variations, and association decoupling
Question How conservation and forest type affect macrofungal compositional diversity is not well understood. Even less is known about macrofungal associations with plants, soils, and geoclimatic conditions. Location Southern edge of boreal forest distribution in China, named as Huzhong Nature Reserv...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Ecology and Evolution 2021-10, Vol.11 (19), p.13268-13282 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Question
How conservation and forest type affect macrofungal compositional diversity is not well understood. Even less is known about macrofungal associations with plants, soils, and geoclimatic conditions.
Location
Southern edge of boreal forest distribution in China, named as Huzhong Nature Reserve.
Methods
We surveyed a total of 72 plots for recording macrofungi, plants, and topography in 2015 and measured soil organic carbon, nitrogen, and bulk density. Effects of conservation and forest types on macrofungi and plants were compared, and their associations were decoupled by structural equation modeling (SEM) and redundancy ordination (RDA).
Results
Conservation and forest type largely shaped macrofungal diversity. Most of the macrofungal traits declined with the conservation intensities or peaked at the middle conservation region. Similarly, 91% of macrofungal traits declined or peaked in the middle succession stage of birch‐larch forests. Forest conservation resulted in the observation of sparse, larch‐dominant, larger tree forests. Moreover, the soil outside the Reserve had more water, higher fertility, and lower bulk density, showing miscellaneous wood forest preference. There is a complex association between conservation site characteristics, soils, plants, and macrofungi. Variation partitioning showed that soil N was the top‐one factor explaining the macrofungal variations (10%). As shown in SEM coefficients, conservation effect to macrofungi (1.1–1.2, p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2045-7758 2045-7758 |
DOI: | 10.1002/ece3.8049 |