Ectomycorrhizal dynamics of white fir stands at Teakettle

A.D. Izzo and T.D. BrunsPlant and Microbial BiologyUniversity of California, Berkeley

Questions

• what is the community structure of ectomycorrhizal fungi associated with white fir?

• how does species richness and diversity change following fire/thinning?

• what is the role of the spore bank in these scenarios?

• how does the spore bank respond to heat/ash?

Sampling

US plot

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

0 5 10 20

White fir stand

1999 2000 2001UN July June MayUC July JuneUS July JuneBN July JuneBC JuneBS June

Techniques: RFLP matching

ID of root tips by RFLP matches

separate morphotypesfreeze dry, weigh

PCR RFLP

DNA sequence (ITS)

PCR RFLPmatch

Species ID

Taxonomic ID (Phylum, “Family”, Genus, RFLP taxon)

ITS1F

ITS4

Biomass by plot by treatment

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

BN UC UN US

Treatment

Biomass by depth by treatment

020406080

100120140160180

L M U

Depth

BN

UC

UN

US

UN plot wt comparisson season and year

0

50

100

150

200

250

9 11 14 18 23 27 41 43 46

Plot number

May 2001

July/Aug 1999

Biomass by layer by year

0

100

200

300

400

500

L M U

Layer

May 2001

July/Aug 1999

ECM biomass highly variable

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

phylum class family genus TOT spp biomass

Tota

l R

el

Ab

un

dan

ce

BN UC UN US

Agaricales

Russulaceae

Cortinariaceae

Pezizales Otideaceae Wilcoxina

Cortinarius

Russula

Cortinarioid1

Russuloid1

Thelephoroid2

Cencococcum

Wilcoxina1

BK

AB

Basidio18

Basidiomycete

Ascomycete

Cencococcum3

Piloderma2Piloderma

RFLP-taxon

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

Cenoc

occu

m

Wilc

oxina

taxo

n3

taxo

n4

taxo

n5

taxo

n6

taxo

n7

taxo

n8

Spring 2001

Summer 1999

Note minimal temporal similarity

Comparison of treatmentsUN UC US BN

ID'd mg ECM 56.2 59.2 123.3 97.6% biomass ID'd (species level) 87 48 86 90# RFLP-taxa 29 26 28 17shannon diversity 2.60 2.66 2.74 1.92simpson diversity 0.89 0.91 0.91 0.76

BN

01530

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

UC

0.0

7.5

15.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

UN

0

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

US

0

10

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Minimal overlap of dominant RFLP-taxa

Family-level comparisonB

N

0

30

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

UC

0

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

UN

0

15

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

US

0

30

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

TK99

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Ru

ssu

loid

Co

rtin

ari

od

Ce

no

cocc

um

Wil

coxi

na

The

lep

ho

roid

Go

mp

ho

id

Tric

ho

lom

ato

id

UN

K

rela

tive a

bundance

TK01

TK99

TK01/99 (2 yrs)

Importance - all plotstop 75% importance shown

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18W

ilco

xin

a1

Ru

ssu

loid

1

Ce

no

cocc

um

1

BK

Ce

no

cocc

um

3

BL K

BJ

Co

rt4

The

lep

ho

roid

2

BC

AB

Asc

o1

Lact

ari

us5

Co

rtin

ari

us1

Co

rt2

Phia

lop

ho

ra2

Ru

ssu

la7 B

Lact

ari

us3

Ru

ssu

la2

Ce

no

cocc

um

2

Ga

uti

eri

a1

Phia

loce

ph

ala

1

Wil

coxi

na

3

Ru

ssu

loid

2

Lact

ari

us2 AD

Tric

ho

lom

a1

Ru

ssu

la3

Lact

ari

us1 AN

Wil

coxi

na

2

RFLP taxon

import

ance

* 2

% biomass

% freq

All taxa included

1

2

3

ECM “islands of dominance”

Additional studies Spatial bioassays

- soils from all 54 plots pre-treatment

- ABCO, PIJE, ABCO + PIJE

Heat and Ash bioassays

Pooled soil from 7-8 mature white fir stands across Teakettle

C, 40, 55, 70 deg C, ash

ABCO, PIJE

Soil heating rates

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-25 25 75 125 175

Time (min)

Acknowledgements

Collectors 1999/2001Martin BidartondoRyan BowmanFrancisco CamachoLisa GrubishaErik Lilleskov

Molecular analysisJosephine Agbowo

Bioassay setupKari Cheng

FundingUSDA, PMB dept