patrickbdevaney/mia9 · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 6.44k
mesocosm levels are required to tease out specific fungal functions and directly test the causality of
important management decisions and environmental variables not manipulated here (e.g., understory
composition). Second, field studies characterizing fungal communities on natural healthy tree islands
and ghost islands would determine if fungal diversity on constructed islands closely reflects natural
communities and help identify pathogens or other taxa involved in reduced ecosystem function.
Collectively, the results of the work presented here and those of the suggested studies will help inform
management that increases the benefit of fungal communities for the restoration and conservation of
fungal diversity in this threatened ecosystem.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/12/9/0324/s1:
Figure S1: The layout of LILA includes eight tree islands, half of which were constructed with peat cores and half of
which were constructed with limestone cores. Limestone core islands are indicated with hashed lines. Each island
was divided into four quadrants in 2006 and randomly assigned to one of four tree planting density treatments.
Initial tree planting density is indicated by the color of quadrants on each island; red: 1 m, green:1.67 m, blue:2.33 m,
purple: 3 m spacing (i.e., distance between trees), Figure S2: An example map of one tree island within LILA.
Each colored point represents one of 8 different tree species, initially planted in four density treatments. Each white
plus indicates locations where soil samples were collected. The following tree species were planted in 2006 and
are included in the tree species legend above: AG = Annona glabra; AR = Acer rubrum; BS = Bursera simaruba;
CI = Chrysobolanus icaco; FA = Ficus aurea; IC = Ilex cassine; MC = Morella cerifera; PP = Persea palustris. In 2007,
Eugenia axillaris and Myrsine floridana were added to replace trees that did not survive initial plantings, Figure S3:
Distribution of fungal functional guilds (A) and trophic modes (B) across the eight experimental tree islands.
(A) Each color represents the relative abundance of one of the 15 guilds to which FUNGuild assigned fungal taxa.
(B) Each color represents the relative abundance of one of the four trophic modes that fungal taxa were assigned
by FUNGuild. In both graphs, each vertical bar represents an individual site, and sites are grouped based on tree
island (represented by numbers 1–8, island numbers 1, 4, 6, and 7 were limestone core islands and 2, 3, 5 and 8
were peat core islands), Table S1: Indicator taxa for limestone (L) and peat (P) core island communities identified
by the indicator taxa analysis. A is the probability that a site belongs to a core type, given the taxa has been found
at that site. B is the probability of finding that taxa in sites with that core type. The indicator values are between 0
and 1 with greater indicator values demonstrating greater specificity of a taxa to that core type.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, B.K.A. and M.E.A. with advice from E.C., F.S., M.S.R., and S.L.S.;
methodology, all authors; experimental facility management, E.C. and F.S. formal analysis, B.K.A.; investigation,
Diversity 2020, 12, 0324 13 of 17
B.K.A. and M.E.A.; data curation, B.K.A., M.S.R., J.P.S., and S.L.S.; writing—original draft preparation,
B.K.A. and M.E.A.; writing—review and editing, all authors; visualization, B.K.A.; supervision, M.E.A.;
funding acquisition, M.E.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study has been supported primarily by funding from the South Florida Water Management District
to M.E.A. with additional support from NSF DEB-1922521 to M.E.A. and the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship
Program to B.K.A.
Acknowledgments: We thank D. Hernandez, K. Kiesewetter, D. Revillini, C. Searcy, C. Mothes, H. Howell,
and S. Clements for feedback on this manuscript and J. Richards, J. Orias, K. Maravillas and K. Nguyen for
assistance with field sample and data collections. We also acknowledge the South Florida Water Management
District for access to DBHydro.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Treseder, K.K.; Lennon, J.T. Fungal traits that drive ecosystem dynamics on land. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.
2015, 79, 243–262. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Dighton, J. Fungi in Ecosystem Processes; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016.
3. Waring, B.G.; Averill, C.; Hawkes, C.V. Differences in fungal and bacterial physiology alter soil carbon
and nitrogen cycling: Insights from meta-analysis and theoretical models. Ecol. Lett. 2013, 16, 887–894.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Joergensen, R.G.; Emmerling, C. Methods for evaluating human impact on soil microorganisms based on
their activity, biomass, and diversity in agricultural soils. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2006, 169, 295–309. [CrossRef]
5. Gougoulias, C.; Clark, J.M.; Shaw, L.J. The role of soil microbes in the global carbon cycle: Tracking the
below-ground microbial processing of plant-derived carbon for manipulating carbon dynamics in agricultural
systems. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2014, 94, 2362–2371. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Heilmann-Clausen, J.; Barron, E.S.; Boddy, L.; Dahlberg, A.; Griffith, G.W.; Nordén, J.; Ovaskainen, O.;
Perini, C.; Senn-Irlet, B.; Halme, P. A fungal perspective on conservation biology. Conserv. Biol. 2015, 29, 61–68.
[CrossRef]
7. Ritz, K.; Young, I.M. Interactions between soil structure and fungi. Mycologist 2004, 18, 52–59. [CrossRef]
8. Begum, N.; Qin, C.; Ahanger, M.A.; Raza, S.; Khan, M.I.; Ashraf, M.; Ahmed, N.; Zhang, L. Role of Arbuscular
Mycorrhizal Fungi in Plant Growth Regulation: Implications in Abiotic Stress Tolerance. Front. Plant Sci.
2019, 10, 1068. [CrossRef]
9. Latef, A.A.H.A.; Hashem, A.; Rasool, S.; Abd_Allah, E.F.; Alqarawi, A.A.; Egamberdieva, D.; Jan, S.;
Anjum, N.A.; Ahmad, P. Arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis and abiotic stress in plants: A review. J. Plant Biol.
2016, 59, 407–426. [CrossRef]
10. Ferrol, N.; Azcón-Aguilar, C.; Pérez-Tienda, J. Review: Arbuscular mycorrhizas as key players in sustainable
plant phosphorus acquisition: An overview on the mechanisms involved. Plant Sci. 2019, 280, 441–447.
[CrossRef]
11. Fr ˛ac, M.; Hannula, S.E.; Bełka, M.; J ˛edryczka, M. Fungal Biodiversity and Their Role in Soil Health.
Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 707. [CrossRef]
12. Powell, J.R.; Rillig, M.C. Biodiversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and ecosystem function. New Phytol.
2018, 220, 1059–1075. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Avis, P.G.; Gaswick, W.C.; Tonkovich, G.S.; Leacock, P.R. Monitoring fungi in ecological restorations of
coastal Indiana, U.S.A. Restor. Ecol. 2017, 25, 92–100. [CrossRef]
14. Barea, J.M.; Palenzuela, J.; Cornejo, P.; Sánchez-Castro, I.; Navarro-Fernández, C.; Lopéz-García, A.;
Estrada, B.; Azcón, R.; Ferrol, N.; Azcón-Aguilar, C. Ecological and functional roles of mycorrhizas in
semi-arid ecosystems of Southeast Spain. J. Arid Environ. 2011, 75, 1292–1301. [CrossRef]
15. Asmelash, F.; Bekele, T.; Birhane, E. The Potential Role of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in the Restoration of
Degraded Lands. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1095. [CrossRef]
16. Van der Heijden, M.G.A.; Streitwolf-Engel, R.; Riedl, R.; Siegrist, S.; Neudecker, A.; Ineichen, K.; Boller, T.;
Wiemken, A.; Sanders, I.R. The mycorrhizal contribution to plant productivity, plant nutrition and soil
structure in experimental grassland. New Phytol. 2006, 172, 739–752. [CrossRef]
Diversity 2020, 12, 0324 14 of 17
17. Van der Heijden, M.G.A.; Klironomos, J.N.; Ursic, M.; Moutoglis, P.; Streitwolf-Engel, R.; Boller, T.;
Wiemken, A.; Sanders, I.R. Mycorrhizal fungal diversity determines plant biodiversity, ecosystem variability
and productivity. Nature 1998, 396, 69–72. [CrossRef]
18. Delgado-Baquerizo, M.; Maestre, F.T.; Reich, P.B.; Jeffries, T.C.; Gaitan, J.J.; Encinar, D.; Berdugo, M.;
Campbell, C.D.; Singh, B.K. Microbial diversity drives multifunctionality in terrestrial ecosystems.
Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 10541. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Maltz, M.R.; Treseder, K.K. Sources of inocula influence mycorrhizal colonization of plants in restoration
projects: A meta-analysis. Restor. Ecol. 2015, 23, 625–634. [CrossRef]
20. Wubs, E.R.J.; van der Putten, W.H.; Bosch, M.; Bezemer, T.M. Soil inoculation steers restoration of terrestrial
ecosystems. Nat Plants 2016, 2, 16107. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Emam, T. Local soil, but not commercial AMF inoculum, increases native and non-native grass growth at a
mine restoration site. Restor. Ecol. 2016, 24, 35–44. [CrossRef]
22. Rowe, H.I.; Brown, C.S.; Claassen, V.P. Comparisons of Mycorrhizal Responsiveness with Field Soil and
Commercial Inoculum for Six Native Montane Species and Bromus tectorum. Restor. Ecol. 2007, 15, 44–52.
[CrossRef]
23. Brown, M.T.; Cohen, M.J.; Bardi, E.; Ingwersen, W.W. Species diversity in the Florida Everglades, USA: A systems
approach to calculating biodiversity. Aquat. Sci. 2006, 68, 254–277. [CrossRef]
24. Sklar, F.H.; Chimney, M.J.; Newman, S.; McCormick, P.; Gawlik, D.; Miao, S.; McVoy, C.; Said, W.; Newman, J.;

mesocosm levels are required to tease out specific fungal functions and directly test the causality of

important management decisions and environmental variables not manipulated here (e.g., understory

composition). Second, field studies characterizing fungal communities on natural healthy tree islands

and ghost islands would determine if fungal diversity on constructed islands closely reflects natural

communities and help identify pathogens or other taxa involved in reduced ecosystem function.

Collectively, the results of the work presented here and those of the suggested studies will help inform

management that increases the benefit of fungal communities for the restoration and conservation of

fungal diversity in this threatened ecosystem.

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/12/9/0324/s1:

Figure S1: The layout of LILA includes eight tree islands, half of which were constructed with peat cores and half of

which were constructed with limestone cores. Limestone core islands are indicated with hashed lines. Each island

was divided into four quadrants in 2006 and randomly assigned to one of four tree planting density treatments.

Initial tree planting density is indicated by the color of quadrants on each island; red: 1 m, green:1.67 m, blue:2.33 m,

purple: 3 m spacing (i.e., distance between trees), Figure S2: An example map of one tree island within LILA.

Each colored point represents one of 8 different tree species, initially planted in four density treatments. Each white

plus indicates locations where soil samples were collected. The following tree species were planted in 2006 and

are included in the tree species legend above: AG = Annona glabra; AR = Acer rubrum; BS = Bursera simaruba;

CI = Chrysobolanus icaco; FA = Ficus aurea; IC = Ilex cassine; MC = Morella cerifera; PP = Persea palustris. In 2007,

Eugenia axillaris and Myrsine floridana were added to replace trees that did not survive initial plantings, Figure S3:

Distribution of fungal functional guilds (A) and trophic modes (B) across the eight experimental tree islands.

(A) Each color represents the relative abundance of one of the 15 guilds to which FUNGuild assigned fungal taxa.

(B) Each color represents the relative abundance of one of the four trophic modes that fungal taxa were assigned

by FUNGuild. In both graphs, each vertical bar represents an individual site, and sites are grouped based on tree

island (represented by numbers 1–8, island numbers 1, 4, 6, and 7 were limestone core islands and 2, 3, 5 and 8

were peat core islands), Table S1: Indicator taxa for limestone (L) and peat (P) core island communities identified

by the indicator taxa analysis. A is the probability that a site belongs to a core type, given the taxa has been found

at that site. B is the probability of finding that taxa in sites with that core type. The indicator values are between 0

and 1 with greater indicator values demonstrating greater specificity of a taxa to that core type.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, B.K.A. and M.E.A. with advice from E.C., F.S., M.S.R., and S.L.S.;

methodology, all authors; experimental facility management, E.C. and F.S. formal analysis, B.K.A.; investigation,

Diversity 2020, 12, 0324 13 of 17

B.K.A. and M.E.A.; data curation, B.K.A., M.S.R., J.P.S., and S.L.S.; writing—original draft preparation,

B.K.A. and M.E.A.; writing—review and editing, all authors; visualization, B.K.A.; supervision, M.E.A.;

funding acquisition, M.E.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This study has been supported primarily by funding from the South Florida Water Management District

to M.E.A. with additional support from NSF DEB-1922521 to M.E.A. and the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship

Program to B.K.A.

Acknowledgments: We thank D. Hernandez, K. Kiesewetter, D. Revillini, C. Searcy, C. Mothes, H. Howell,

and S. Clements for feedback on this manuscript and J. Richards, J. Orias, K. Maravillas and K. Nguyen for

assistance with field sample and data collections. We also acknowledge the South Florida Water Management

District for access to DBHydro.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Treseder, K.K.; Lennon, J.T. Fungal traits that drive ecosystem dynamics on land. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.

2015, 79, 243–262. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

2. Dighton, J. Fungi in Ecosystem Processes; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016.

3. Waring, B.G.; Averill, C.; Hawkes, C.V. Differences in fungal and bacterial physiology alter soil carbon

and nitrogen cycling: Insights from meta-analysis and theoretical models. Ecol. Lett. 2013, 16, 887–894.

[CrossRef] [PubMed]

4. Joergensen, R.G.; Emmerling, C. Methods for evaluating human impact on soil microorganisms based on

their activity, biomass, and diversity in agricultural soils. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2006, 169, 295–309. [CrossRef]

5. Gougoulias, C.; Clark, J.M.; Shaw, L.J. The role of soil microbes in the global carbon cycle: Tracking the

below-ground microbial processing of plant-derived carbon for manipulating carbon dynamics in agricultural

systems. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2014, 94, 2362–2371. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

6. Heilmann-Clausen, J.; Barron, E.S.; Boddy, L.; Dahlberg, A.; Griffith, G.W.; Nordén, J.; Ovaskainen, O.;

Perini, C.; Senn-Irlet, B.; Halme, P. A fungal perspective on conservation biology. Conserv. Biol. 2015, 29, 61–68.

[CrossRef]

7. Ritz, K.; Young, I.M. Interactions between soil structure and fungi. Mycologist 2004, 18, 52–59. [CrossRef]

8. Begum, N.; Qin, C.; Ahanger, M.A.; Raza, S.; Khan, M.I.; Ashraf, M.; Ahmed, N.; Zhang, L. Role of Arbuscular

Mycorrhizal Fungi in Plant Growth Regulation: Implications in Abiotic Stress Tolerance. Front. Plant Sci.

2019, 10, 1068. [CrossRef]

9. Latef, A.A.H.A.; Hashem, A.; Rasool, S.; Abd_Allah, E.F.; Alqarawi, A.A.; Egamberdieva, D.; Jan, S.;

Anjum, N.A.; Ahmad, P. Arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis and abiotic stress in plants: A review. J. Plant Biol.

2016, 59, 407–426. [CrossRef]

10. Ferrol, N.; Azcón-Aguilar, C.; Pérez-Tienda, J. Review: Arbuscular mycorrhizas as key players in sustainable

plant phosphorus acquisition: An overview on the mechanisms involved. Plant Sci. 2019, 280, 441–447.

[CrossRef]

11. Fr ˛ac, M.; Hannula, S.E.; Bełka, M.; J ˛edryczka, M. Fungal Biodiversity and Their Role in Soil Health.

Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 707. [CrossRef]

12. Powell, J.R.; Rillig, M.C. Biodiversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and ecosystem function. New Phytol.

2018, 220, 1059–1075. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

13. Avis, P.G.; Gaswick, W.C.; Tonkovich, G.S.; Leacock, P.R. Monitoring fungi in ecological restorations of

coastal Indiana, U.S.A. Restor. Ecol. 2017, 25, 92–100. [CrossRef]

14. Barea, J.M.; Palenzuela, J.; Cornejo, P.; Sánchez-Castro, I.; Navarro-Fernández, C.; Lopéz-García, A.;

Estrada, B.; Azcón, R.; Ferrol, N.; Azcón-Aguilar, C. Ecological and functional roles of mycorrhizas in

semi-arid ecosystems of Southeast Spain. J. Arid Environ. 2011, 75, 1292–1301. [CrossRef]

15. Asmelash, F.; Bekele, T.; Birhane, E. The Potential Role of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in the Restoration of

Degraded Lands. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1095. [CrossRef]

16. Van der Heijden, M.G.A.; Streitwolf-Engel, R.; Riedl, R.; Siegrist, S.; Neudecker, A.; Ineichen, K.; Boller, T.;

Wiemken, A.; Sanders, I.R. The mycorrhizal contribution to plant productivity, plant nutrition and soil

structure in experimental grassland. New Phytol. 2006, 172, 739–752. [CrossRef]

Diversity 2020, 12, 0324 14 of 17

17. Van der Heijden, M.G.A.; Klironomos, J.N.; Ursic, M.; Moutoglis, P.; Streitwolf-Engel, R.; Boller, T.;

Wiemken, A.; Sanders, I.R. Mycorrhizal fungal diversity determines plant biodiversity, ecosystem variability

and productivity. Nature 1998, 396, 69–72. [CrossRef]

18. Delgado-Baquerizo, M.; Maestre, F.T.; Reich, P.B.; Jeffries, T.C.; Gaitan, J.J.; Encinar, D.; Berdugo, M.;

Campbell, C.D.; Singh, B.K. Microbial diversity drives multifunctionality in terrestrial ecosystems.

Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 10541. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

19. Maltz, M.R.; Treseder, K.K. Sources of inocula influence mycorrhizal colonization of plants in restoration

projects: A meta-analysis. Restor. Ecol. 2015, 23, 625–634. [CrossRef]

20. Wubs, E.R.J.; van der Putten, W.H.; Bosch, M.; Bezemer, T.M. Soil inoculation steers restoration of terrestrial

ecosystems. Nat Plants 2016, 2, 16107. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

21. Emam, T. Local soil, but not commercial AMF inoculum, increases native and non-native grass growth at a

mine restoration site. Restor. Ecol. 2016, 24, 35–44. [CrossRef]

22. Rowe, H.I.; Brown, C.S.; Claassen, V.P. Comparisons of Mycorrhizal Responsiveness with Field Soil and

Commercial Inoculum for Six Native Montane Species and Bromus tectorum. Restor. Ecol. 2007, 15, 44–52.

[CrossRef]

23. Brown, M.T.; Cohen, M.J.; Bardi, E.; Ingwersen, W.W. Species diversity in the Florida Everglades, USA: A systems

approach to calculating biodiversity. Aquat. Sci. 2006, 68, 254–277. [CrossRef]

24. Sklar, F.H.; Chimney, M.J.; Newman, S.; McCormick, P.; Gawlik, D.; Miao, S.; McVoy, C.; Said, W.; Newman, J.;