The Importance of Within-Log Sampling Replication in Bark- and Wood-Inhabiting Fungal Metabarcoding Studies

IF 6.2 Q1 Agricultural and Biological Sciences
D. Naranjo-Orrico, J. Purhonen, B. Furneaux, K. Ketola, O. Ovaskainen, N. Abrego
{"title":"The Importance of Within-Log Sampling Replication in Bark- and Wood-Inhabiting Fungal Metabarcoding Studies","authors":"D. Naranjo-Orrico,&nbsp;J. Purhonen,&nbsp;B. Furneaux,&nbsp;K. Ketola,&nbsp;O. Ovaskainen,&nbsp;N. Abrego","doi":"10.1002/edn3.70181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Despite the widespread use of metabarcoding approaches in wood-inhabiting fungal studies, there is currently no standardized procedure for sampling deadwood. How to sample and how much to replicate within logs varies among studies, making comparisons difficult. Here, we provide quantitative results about how bark- and wood-inhabiting fungi vary along logs in early decay stages, compared to how they vary between logs. For this, we used two datasets: one representing variation in the sample's location along the logs (tree part; bottom, middle or top) and across tree species (pine or spruce), and another representing small-scale variation (tens of centimeters) in sampling location and variation in sample type (wood or bark). Additionally, we conducted a visual survey of epiphytic lichens to assess the efficiency of bark metabarcoding for surveying epiphytic lichens. Our results show that the diversity of fungi varies greatly between tree species and among the tree parts. Yet, within the tree parts, fungal community composition is relatively homogeneous, with an increasing number of samples only moderately increasing the number of species detected. Strikingly, our results reveal bark samples to be especially species-rich, holding threefold the diversity of the wood beneath it, which represents a subset of the diversity found in bark. This finding suggests that the common practice of excluding bark-inhabiting fungal diversity in studies of saproxylic species in early decay-stage logs overlooks a substantial part of the saproxylic diversity. We found a poor overlap between lichen species identified morphologically and those detected via bark metabarcoding; however, both methods captured consistent patterns in how lichen diversity varied across the logs. We conclude that to gain a representative view of the fungal community composition in early decay-stage deadwood, bark should be included in fungal surveys and that replication within logs should focus on covering the different tree parts.</p>","PeriodicalId":52828,"journal":{"name":"Environmental DNA","volume":"7 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/edn3.70181","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental DNA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/edn3.70181","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite the widespread use of metabarcoding approaches in wood-inhabiting fungal studies, there is currently no standardized procedure for sampling deadwood. How to sample and how much to replicate within logs varies among studies, making comparisons difficult. Here, we provide quantitative results about how bark- and wood-inhabiting fungi vary along logs in early decay stages, compared to how they vary between logs. For this, we used two datasets: one representing variation in the sample's location along the logs (tree part; bottom, middle or top) and across tree species (pine or spruce), and another representing small-scale variation (tens of centimeters) in sampling location and variation in sample type (wood or bark). Additionally, we conducted a visual survey of epiphytic lichens to assess the efficiency of bark metabarcoding for surveying epiphytic lichens. Our results show that the diversity of fungi varies greatly between tree species and among the tree parts. Yet, within the tree parts, fungal community composition is relatively homogeneous, with an increasing number of samples only moderately increasing the number of species detected. Strikingly, our results reveal bark samples to be especially species-rich, holding threefold the diversity of the wood beneath it, which represents a subset of the diversity found in bark. This finding suggests that the common practice of excluding bark-inhabiting fungal diversity in studies of saproxylic species in early decay-stage logs overlooks a substantial part of the saproxylic diversity. We found a poor overlap between lichen species identified morphologically and those detected via bark metabarcoding; however, both methods captured consistent patterns in how lichen diversity varied across the logs. We conclude that to gain a representative view of the fungal community composition in early decay-stage deadwood, bark should be included in fungal surveys and that replication within logs should focus on covering the different tree parts.

Abstract Image

树干内采样复制在树皮和木材真菌元条形码研究中的重要性
尽管元条形码方法在木材真菌研究中被广泛使用,但目前尚无对枯木取样的标准化程序。在不同的研究中,如何采样以及在日志中复制多少是不同的,这使得比较变得困难。在这里,我们提供了关于树皮和木材栖息真菌如何在早期腐烂阶段沿着原木变化的定量结果,与它们如何在原木之间变化相比。为此,我们使用了两个数据集:一个数据集代表样本沿原木(树的底部、中间或顶部)和树种(松树或云杉)的位置变化,另一个数据集代表采样位置和样本类型(木材或树皮)的小尺度变化(几十厘米)。此外,我们还对附生地衣进行了目视调查,以评估树皮元条形码对附生地衣调查的效率。我们的研究结果表明,真菌的多样性在不同树种和不同树木部位之间差异很大。然而,在树木内部,真菌群落组成相对均匀,随着样品数量的增加,检测到的物种数量仅适度增加。引人注目的是,我们的结果显示树皮样本的物种特别丰富,其下面的木材多样性是其三倍,这代表了树皮中发现的多样性的一个子集。这一发现表明,在早期腐烂阶段的原木物种研究中,通常排除树皮真菌多样性的做法忽略了腐殖酸多样性的很大一部分。我们发现形态学鉴定的地衣物种与树皮元条形码检测到的地衣物种之间很少重叠;然而,这两种方法都捕捉到了地衣多样性如何在原木上变化的一致模式。我们的结论是,为了获得早期腐木真菌群落组成的代表性观点,真菌调查应包括树皮,并且在原木内的复制应侧重于覆盖不同的树木部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Environmental DNA
Environmental DNA Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信