View
225
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Comparative studies on microfungi in tropical ecosystems in
Ivory Coast forest litter : behaviour on different substrata
Angelo RAMBELLI1*, Bonaria MULAS2 and Marcella PASQUALETTI1
1Dipartimento di Ecologia e Sviluppo Economico Sostenibile, Universita della Tuscia, 01100, Viterbo, Italy.2Dipartimento di Botanica ed Orto Botanico, Universita di Cagliari, 09100, Cagliari, Italy.E-mail : rambelli@unitus.it
Received 1 October 2002; accepted 17 December 2003.
Fungal colonies sporulating on 71 kinds of leaves that fell during the dry season in the Tai National Park (Ivory Coast)
were analysed. A consistent connection between certain fungal species and their substrata was detected among the184 fungal species that were identified. Each fungal species was characterized according to morphological and ecologicalfeatures. Multidimensional scaling showed that certain ubiquitous and common species have morphological characters
distinguishing them from specialised species.
INTRODUCTION
Many studies have been published on the ecology offungi in tropical forest litter and the identification ofspecific fungal communities (Subramanian & Vittal1974, Rambelli et al. 1983, 1984, 1991, Mercado-Sierra1984, Bills & Polishook 1994, Lodge & Cantrell 1995,Læssøe et al. 1996, Matsushima 1971–96, Polishook,Bills & Lodge 1996, Lodge 1997, Calduch et al. 2002).Such studies often resulted in discovery of new fungaltaxa (Rambelli & Ciccarone 1985, Mercado-Sierra,Holubova-Jechova & Mena Portales 1997, Castaneda-Ruiz, Saikawa & Guarro 1999, Pasqualetti & Rambelli1999, Siboe, Kirk & Cannon 1999, Calduch et al.2002). Other investigations have focused on possiblespecialisation among saprotrophs (Pirozynski 1972,Subramanian & Vittal 1979, 1980, Kabi Ouanyou& Rambelli 1990, Læssøe & Lodge 1994, Lodge &Cantrell 1995, Lodge & Læssøe 1995, Mulas &Rambelli 1995, Lodge, Fisher & Sutton 1996, Polishooket al. 1996, Lodge 1997, Pascholati, Piccolo Grandi& Milanez 2001).
Recently, analysis of the microfungi colonising dif-ferent litter species in natural Mediterranean ecosys-tems has been extended to assess both the number ofcolonies per surface unit and the type of optimal andadaptive colonisation (Mulas, Pasqualetti & Rambelli1995, Pasqualetti, Ialongo & Rambelli 1995). This hasincreased our knowledge of ecological characters of
particular fungal species and has shed light on theirroles in differential colonisation and decomposition ofplant debris. In this study, we analysed microfungisporulating on incubated dead leaves in the TaiNational Park in the Ivory Coast in order to detectdifferential effects exerted by the litter of different plantspecies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Description of the study area
The study area is part of the Tai National Park locatedin the south-western region of the Ivory Coast. The360 000 ha Park is covered by native forest, a sub-hygrophilous forest representative of the Eremospato-Mabetum vegetation type (Huttel 1975). Rambelli et al.(1983) published an inventory of the plant familiesforming the Park’s vegetation. The park lies in thedrainage basin of the Cavally river that forms the bor-der between Ivory Coast and Liberia. The undulatingterrain reaches about 350 m a.s.l. at some points. Thesoils are mainly saturated ferrallithic with a fine sandysurface structure. The litter layer is thin (3–4 cm deep)and discontinuous, since wind and rain tend to con-centrate the litter into pockets where it mineralisesrapidly due to high temperature and humidity thatfavour microbial growth.
The climate of the area can be defined as humid,megathermic, with a very low moisture deficit overthe year (Rambelli et al. 1983). Annual temperature* Corresponding author.
Mycol. Res. 108 (3): 325–336 (March 2004). f The British Mycological Society 325
DOI: 10.1017/S0953756204009396 Printed in the United Kingdom.
variation is low. Daily temperatures range from amaximum of 27.9 xC in April to a minimum of 25.1 x inJuly–August, with a mean of 26.4 x. Yearly rainfallranges from 1500–2000 mm yrx1 and is seasonal. Thedry season runs from December to February, and therainy season comprises the remaining eight months ofthe year with the exception of two dry weeks in August.Relative atmospheric humidity ranges from 50–75%during the day, with peaks of over 90% at night.
Sampling
Samples were collected yearly in January 1992–95during the dry season (Dec.–Feb.). Neither senescentfreshly shed leaves nor highly decayed leaves of uncer-tain identity were included in the samples. This resultedin samples that were as homogeneous and comparableas possible. The litter samples for each plant specieswere placed in sterile paper bags, and were identifiedby Laurent Ake Assi (Director, Centre National deFloristique, Abidjan University, Ivory Coast). Fifteendamp chambers were set up for each substratum toallow direct observation, collection, and determinationof the fungal species. Voucher specimens are depositedin the ROHB herbarium in Rome.
Characterisation of the fungi
Some ecological and taxonomic characteristics wererecorded for each fungal species. The ecologicalcharacters were classified as follows: S, specialisedspecies present on one or two substrates ; C, commonspecies present on three to ten substrata; or U,ubiquitous species present on more than ten substrata.The fungi were also categorized according to thefollowing morphological features based on directobservations and confirmed by bibliographic data;HC, hyaline conidia; PG, pigmented conidia; UC,unicellular conidia; SC, septate conidia ; LP, low co-nidial production; AP, abundant conidial production;PC, phialidic conidiogenesis ; PE, percurrent coni-diogenesis ; SY, sympodial conidiogenesis ; SS, presenceof sterile setae; and SA, absence of sterile setae.
Data analysis
Data were analysed using an ordination method to re-duce the dimensionality, in which the original n vari-ables are replaced by artificial variables in an attemptto achieve a more efficient representation of data infew dimensions (Podani 1994). The multidimensionalscaling method (MDS) was employed, which does notassume linear relationships between variables ; an inputmatrix of normalised Euclidean distances was utilised(Wilkinson, Hill & Vang 1992). Chi-square tests wereperformed between all variables to determine if theMDS grouped characters were significantly correlated.The table showing the results was ordered using theblock clustering method. The rearrangement of the
data matrix is based on the assumption that therows and columns are classifiable into groups. Matrixrearrangement is useful in fungal ecology such as whenexplaining classification of fungal communities in termsof species groups and visa versa (Podani 1994).
The 23 ubiquitous fungal species (occurring on morethan ten leaf species) were analysed further. For eachspecies pair we determined whether the fungal speciesoccurred together randomly on the same substratum,or whether they were positively or negatively associatedwith each other. The Yule association index (Q) and theasymptotic standard error were calculated, followed bychi-square test to determine whether the Q values weresignificantly different from 0 at P<0.01 (Wardle &Parkinson 1991, Wilkinson, Hill & Vang 1992). Clusteranalysis (Euclidean distance, Ward’s method) was alsoperformed.
RESULTS
Leaves were collected from 71 plant species represent-ing 58 genera and 32 families (Table 1). The most fre-quent families included the Leguminosae (12 species),Euphorbiaceae (7), Ebenaceae (5), and Annonaceae (4)(Table 1). Overall, 184 fungal species belonging to 96genera were observed and identified (Table 2). Thespecies in Table 2 were ordered using the block clus-tering method. Five groups of fungal species (A–E) andsix groups of plant substrata (1–6) can be distinguished.The first fungal group (A) contains species found onmore than one leaf type: these species were present insubstratum groups 1–3 and were more sporadic in theothers. Fungal species with a more specialized behav-iour or those present on few substrata can be seen in thecentral part of the Table (B and C). B contains thefungal species predominantly associated with sector 1,and in particular leaves of Memecylon lateriflorum,Caloncoba brevipes, and Uapaca guineensis. C containsthe largest number of species where several specialisedassociations between groups of fungal species andcertain plant substrata can be distinguished. The high-est proportion of specialised associations (66) wasobserved in sectors 1 and 2, while sporadic special-ised relationships involving uncommon or rare fungiwere also detected in the other sectors. The greatestnumber of specialised species was found on Newtoniaduparquetiana, which can mainly be ascribed to theoccurrence of several species of Sporidesmium (Table2). This substratum hosts 21 specialised fungi. Anotherassociation with a particularly high number of specieswas recorded in sector 1 C on Diospyros sanza-minika,and in sector 2 C on Xylopia aethiopica and Allan-blackia floribunda. Only 16 fungal species with ubiqui-tous behaviour appeared in sectors D and E. In D theywere particularly abundant in substratum groups 1 and2, whereas the species in sector E showed a more uni-form pattern and were also present in 3, 4, 6 (Table 2).
Investigations were carried out to find a possiblecorrelation between the fungal species present on one
Microfungi in tropical forest litter 326
Table 1. List of substrata with symbols, year of collection, and voucher specimen reference numbers.
Year Leaf species Family Matrix symbols Voucher specimens
1992 Anthonotha fragrans Leguminosae aa ROHB 405
1992 Berlinia occidentalis Leguminosae by ROHB 406
1992 Dialium aubrevillei Leguminosae p ROHB 407
1992 Dichapetalum toxicarium Chailletiaceae m ROHB 408
1992 Diospyros cooperi Ebenaceae n ROHB 409
1992 Diospyros gabunensis Ebenaceae ae ROHB 410
1992 Duboscia viridiflora Tiliaceae bl ROHB 411
1992 Ficus vogeliana Moraceae u ROHB 412
1992 Gilbertiodendron limba Leguminose aw ROHB 413
1992 Memecylon lateriflorum Melastomataceae r ROHB 414
1992 Neuropeltis prevosteoides Convolvulaceae ao ROHB 415
1992 Scytopetalum tieghemii Scytopetalaceae o ROHB 416
1992 Tarrietia utilis Sterculiaceae am ROHB 417
1992 Terminalia superba Combretaceae j ROHB 418
1992 Trichoscypha chevalieri Anacardiaceae bn ROHB 419
1992 Uapaca esculenta Euphorbiaceae av ROHB 420
1992 Uvaria angolensis Annonaceae x ROHB 421
1992 Xylopia acutiflora Annonaceae ah ROHB 422
1993 Alchornea cordifolia Euphorbiaceae bu ROHB 423
1993 Bridelia grandis Euphorbiaceae t ROHB 424
1993 Cleistopholis patens Annonaceae ak ROHB 425
1993 Didelotia idae Leguminosae bg ROHB 426
1993 Diospyros mannii Ebenaceae bd ROHB 427
1993 Drypetes aylmeri Euphorbiaceae a ROHB 428
1993 Grewia barombiensis Tiliaceae s ROHB 429
1993 Harungana madagascariensis Hypericaceae bx ROHB 430
1993 Hypselodelphys violacea Marantaceae ad ROHB 431
1993 Landolphia owariensis Apocynaceae ap ROHB 432
1993 Memecylon afzelii Melastomataceae d ROHB 433
1993 Memecylon donianum Melastomataceae be ROHB 434
1993 Newtonia duparquetiana Leguminosae bt ROHB 435
1993 Sacoglottis gabonensis Humiriaceae aq ROHB 436
1994 Allanblackia floribunda Guttiferae ar ROHB 437
1994 Caloncoba brevipes Flacourtiaceae as ROHB 438
1994 Chrysophyllum taiense Sapotaceae g ROHB 439
1994 Diospyros kamerunensis Ebenaceae bp ROHB 440
1994 Irvingia gabonensis Simaroubaceae an ROHB 441
1994 Lophira alata Dipterocarpaceae at ROHB 442
1994 Lovoa trichilioides Meliaceae au ROHB 443
1994 Macaranga heterophylla Euphorbiaceae z ROHB 444
1994 Piptadeniastrum africanum Leguminosae aj ROHB 445
1994 Santalodes afzelii Connaraceae e ROHB 446
1994 Thaumatococcus daniellii Scitamineae bv ROHB 447
1994 Trichoscypha arborea Anacardiaceae al ROHB 448
1994 Xylopia aethiopica Annonaceae ac ROHB 449
1995 Bambusa vulgaris Gramineae bw ROHB 450
1995 Beilschmiedia mannii Lauraceae bi ROHB 451
1995 Calpocalyx aubrevillei Leguminosae l ROHB 452
1995 Calpocalyx brevibracteatus Leguminosae c ROHB 453
1995 Canthium rubens Rubiaceae ai ROHB 454
1995 Combretum dolichopetalum Combretaceae ag ROHB 455
1995 Corynanthe pachyceras Rubiaceae q ROHB 456
1995 Coula edulis Olacaceae f ROHB 457
1995 Decorsella paradoxa Urticaceae bf ROHB 458
1995 Dictyophleba leonensis Apocynaceae af ROHB 459
1995 Diospyros sanza-minika Ebenaceae i ROHB 460
1995 Ficus sagittifolia Moraceae br ROHB 461
1995 Guarea thompsonii Meliaceae bh ROHB 462
1995 Hannoa klaineana Simaroubaceae h ROHB 463
1995 Homalium aylmeri Flacourtiaceae az ROHB 464
1995 Landolphia hirsuta Apocynaceae bs ROHB 465
1995 Leptoderris cyclocarpa Leguminosae w ROHB 466
1995 Manniophyton fulvum Euphorbiaceae b ROHB 467
1995 Newtonia aubrevillei Leguminosae ay ROHB 468
1995 Parinarium excelsum Rosacea y ROHB 469
1995 Pentaclethra macrophylla Leguminosae bc ROHB 470
1995 Pseudospondias microcarpa Anacardiaceae bm ROHB 471
1995 Strephonema pseudo-cola Combretaceae ab ROHB 472
1995 Symphonia globulifera Guttiferae ba ROHB 473
1995 Tetracera potatoria Dilleniaceae k ROHB 474
1995 Uapaca guineensis Euphorbiaceae v ROHB 475
A. Rambelli, B. Mulas and M. Pasqualetti 327
Table 2. Presence of 184 fungal species on 71 substrata; the table is ordered by the block clustering method; principal groups of fungal species and substrata are separated.
Matrix groups Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6Symbols of matrices bt a bg aw aq r as v i ac ar bm bi br af j ak bl aa c g b p k bd bc ay d at f q be z ae w an y l m ao ad s ai h bn az e aj bu by am bf ah bx bw bs al bp ag av o ap n ba ab u x t bh au bvPseudobotrytis terrestris X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Group A 16Chaetosphaeria vermicularioides X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14Chalara alabamensis X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15Cryptophiale kakombensis X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14Cryptophiale udagawae X X X X X X X X X X X X 12Dictyochaeta assamica X X X X X X X X X X 10Phaeoramularia hachijoensis X X X X X X X 7Corynespora elaeidicola X X X X 4Sporidesmium parvum X X X X 4Brooksia tropicalis X X X X X X X 7Kylindria keitae X X X X X X X 7Hansfordia pulvinata X X X 3Pseudocochliobolus eragrostidis X X X X X 5Beltrania onirica X X X X X X X X X 9Sporidesmium sp. 1 X X X X 4Periconia minutissima X X X X X 5Melanopsammella chloroconica X X X X X X 6Periconia byssoides X X X X X X 6Zygosporium minus X X X X X 5Idriella tropicalis X X X X X 5Selenosporella curvispora X X X X X X X X X 9Rhinocladiella ellisii X X X X X X X X 8Gyrothrix magica X X X X X X X X X X X 11Idriella fertilis X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13Hansfordiellopsis lichenicola X X X X X X X X X X 10Kramasamuha sibika X X X X X X X X X X 10Stachybotrys kampalensis X Group B 1Hansfordiellopsis aburiensis X 1Anungitea fragilis X 1Gyrothrix grisea X 1Solosympodiella clavata X 1Ulocladium consortiale X 1Dictyochaetopsis intermedia X X X X X X X 7Sporidesmium tropicale X X X X 4Sporidesmium ghanaense X X 2Beltrania africana X 1Cordana pauciseptata X 1Alternaria alternata X X 2Kiliophora ubiensis X 1Ardhachandra cristaspora X X X X X X X 7Zanclospora indica X X X X X 5Chaetosphaeria innumera X X X X 4Tripospermum myrti X X X 3Torula herbarum X X 2Idriella lunata X X X 3Calcarisporium acerosum X X X X 4Sporidesmium njalaense X X X X 4Circinotrichum papakurae X X X 3Chaetopsina fulva X X X X 4Speiropsis pedatospora X X X X 4Parasympodiella laxa X X X X X X X 7Arthrinium phaeospermum X X X X X X X 7Stachybotrys parvispora X X X X X X X X X X 10Sporidesmium sp. 5 X Group C 1Sporidesmium jasminicola X 1Minimidochium setosum X 1Helicosporium MCF 1847 X 1Dictyopolyschema sp.1 X 1Acrodictys erecta X 1Deightoniella jabalpurensis X 1Gyrothrix circinata X 1Hyphodiscosia jaipurensis X 1Sporidesmium adscendens X 1Sporidesmium nodipes X 1Sporidesmium sp. 6 X 1Subulispora procurvata X 1Sporidesmium afrormosiae X 1Geotrichum candidum X 1Curvularia ovoidea X 1Chaetendophragmia triangularis var. africana X 1Articulospora foliicola X 1Blastophorum uniseptatum X 1Chalara microspora X 1Dactylaria sp. 1 X 1Pseudospiropes simplex X 1Zygosporium oscheoides X 1Venturia carpophila X X 2Spiropes clavatus X 1Spiropes guareicola X 1Spegazzinia tessarthra X X 2Flosculomyces floridaensis X X 2Phialocephala sp. 1 X X 2Sporidesmium penzigii X 1Bipolaris indica X 1Circinotrichum rigidum X 1Cladosporium chlorocephalum X 1Endophragmia brevis X 1Sporidesmium sp. 2 X 1
Micro
fungiin
tropica
lforest
litter328
Sym
bols
of
mat
rice
sbt
abg
awaq
ras
vi
acar
bmbi
braf
jak
blaa
cg
bp
kbd
bcay
dat
fq
bez
aew
any
lm
aoad
sai
hbn
aze
ajbu
byam
bfah
bxbw
bsal
bpag
avo
apn
baab
ux
tbh
aubv
Per
icon
iasp
. 1X
XX
Gro
up C
3N
igro
spor
a sp
haer
ica
XX
2C
urvu
lari
a co
mor
iens
isX
X2
Coc
hlio
bolu
s sp
icif
erX
1T
ubeu
fia
heli
com
aX
XX
3C
urvu
lari
a se
nega
lens
isX
X2
Pit
hom
yces
may
dicu
s X
X2
Spor
ides
miu
m in
flat
umX
1B
ahus
akal
a s
p. 1
X1
Spir
opes
dor
ycar
pus
XX
2D
icty
ocha
eta
gony
tric
hoid
esX
XX
X4
Dic
tyoc
haet
opsi
s el
egan
tiss
ima
XX
2Sp
orid
esm
ium
lept
ospo
rum
XX
X3
Gyr
othr
ix m
icro
sper
ma
XX
2B
erkl
easm
ium
con
cinn
umX
XX
3Sp
orid
esm
ium
cof
feic
ola
XX
X3
Kio
noch
aeta
vir
tuos
aX
XX
X4
Cir
cino
tric
hum
oli
vace
um
XX
2C
ochl
iobo
lus
bico
lor
XX
2P
seud
ospi
rope
s no
dosu
sX
XX
3A
mpu
llif
era
foli
icol
a X
XX
X4
Gon
atob
otry
um a
picu
latu
m
XX
X3
Bra
chys
pori
ella
gay
ana
XX
2H
emib
eltr
ania
cym
bifo
rmis
XX
X3
Gyr
othr
ix c
him
aera
XX
XX
XX
6D
icty
ocha
eta
sim
plex
XX
XX
4N
ectr
ia m
agnu
sian
a X
1T
ripo
spor
ium
ele
gans
X1
Spor
ides
miu
m fi
life
rum
XX
2C
odin
aea
fila
men
tosa
X
XX
3T
ripo
sper
mum
trir
amif
erum
XX
2D
acty
lari
asp
. 2X
1Sp
orid
esm
ium
sp. 4
XX
X3
Cor
ynes
pora
sp. 1
X1
Gon
ytri
chum
mac
rocl
adum
X
X2
Spor
ides
miu
msp
. 3X
1Sp
orid
esm
ium
bam
busi
cola
X
1U
locl
adiu
m a
lter
nari
aeX
X2
Pse
udos
piro
pes
sp. 1
X1
Acr
emon
ium
luzu
lae
X1
Dip
loös
pora
long
ispo
raX
1B
rach
yspo
rium
nig
rum
X
1D
icty
ocha
eta
fert
ilis
X1
Ell
isio
psis
occ
ulta
X1
Pit
hom
yces
gra
min
icol
a X
1P
seud
obel
tran
ia p
enzi
gii
XX
2B
ipol
aris
pap
endo
rfii
X
1N
akat
aea
fusi
spor
a X
X2
Scol
ecob
asid
ium
hum
icol
aX
1St
achy
botr
ys a
tra
X1
Stac
hybo
trys
nep
hros
pora
X1
Ram
ichl
orid
ium
mus
aeX
1T
ubeu
fia
cere
a X
X2
Bel
tran
iops
is ta
nzan
iens
is
X1
Kio
noch
aeta
ram
ifer
a X
XX
3P
hial
ocep
hala
dim
orph
ospo
ra
XX
2B
ahus
akal
a ol
ivac
eoni
gra
X1
Pse
udod
icty
ospo
rium
wau
ense
XX
2P
hial
ocep
hala
hum
icol
aX
XX
3G
yrot
hrix
cit
rico
laX
X2
Pse
udob
eltr
ania
gue
rens
isX
X2
Cla
dosp
oriu
m h
erba
rum
XX
2Sp
orid
esm
ium
bic
olor
X
X2
Gyr
othr
ix p
odos
perm
aX
1C
urvu
lari
a ri
char
diae
X
1P
eric
onia
dig
itat
aX
1T
etra
ploa
ari
stat
aX
1G
yrot
hrix
ram
osa
X1
Scol
ecob
asid
ium
long
ipho
rum
X1
Cir
cino
tric
hum
poo
nens
eX
X2
Mem
noni
ella
ech
inat
aX
1T
orul
a he
rbar
um f
. qua
tern
ella
X1
Spor
ides
miu
m p
seud
osep
tatu
mX
X2
Stac
hyli
dium
bic
olor
XX
2Sp
orid
esm
ium
dio
scor
eae
XX
2A
nung
iteo
psis
tris
epta
ta
XX
2W
iesn
erio
myc
es ja
vani
cus
X1
Coc
hlio
bolu
s pa
lles
cens
X
X2
Dic
yma
oval
ispo
ra
XX
2M
enis
poro
psis
theo
brom
aeX
XX
X4
Per
icon
ia c
ooke
iX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XG
roup
D26
Cor
ynes
pora
cas
siic
ola
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X23
Gra
llom
yces
por
tori
cens
isX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X16
Scol
ecob
asid
ium
con
stri
ctum
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X19
Sele
nosp
orel
lasp
. 1X
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X14
Rhi
nocl
adie
lla
sele
noid
es
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X17
Cir
cino
tric
hum
mac
ulif
orm
eX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X12
Scol
ecob
asid
ium
tsha
wyt
scha
eX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
17Z
ygos
pori
um e
chin
ospo
rum
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X27
Zyg
ospo
rium
mas
onii
X
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X22
Zyg
ospo
rium
gib
bum
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
32C
lado
spor
ium
cla
dosp
orio
ides
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
Gro
up E
48P
esta
loti
asp
. 1X
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X44
Ast
eros
tom
ella
sp. 1
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
34B
eltr
ania
rho
mbi
ca
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X37
Bel
tran
iell
a po
rtor
icen
sis
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X33
Tot
al n
umbe
r of
spe
cies
in e
ach
mat
rix34
3929
3328
2938
4951
2120
2019
1313
1014
2220
1818
2226
1715
1012
1017
1919
136
74
76
63
37
75
44
54
48
65
58
815
115
49
108
712
1110
95
511
1112
A. Rambelli, B. Mulas and M. Pasqualetti 329
or two substrata and the nature of these substrata.As few data are available on the chemical compositionof the leaf litter, the current morphologically basedbotanical classification was adopted which did notreveal any specific link between fungal species andplant family or genus (Table 2). Nevertheless, the find-ing that certain plants hosted only few fungi is note-worthy. Substrata colonised by not more than threefungal species included the following: Dichapetalumtoxicarium (Dichapetalaceae) which is extremely toxicas it contains fluoroacetic acid capable of destroyingthe tricarboxylic acids of the respiratory cycle ; Neuro-peltis prevosteoides (Convolvulaceae) which is a mega-phanerophyte liana belonging to a family in whichsome species contain hallucinogenic substances;Santalodes afzelii (Connaraceae), another mega-phanerophyte liana belonging to a family comprisingspecies with calcium oxalate crystals in their cell par-enchyma and the seeds and bark of which are extremelypoisonous, although the active compounds are notknown; Hannoa klaineana (Simaroubaceae), a meso-phanerophyte belonging to a family containing specieswith poisonous compounds that are used for theproduction of insecticides; Leptoderris cyclocarpa(Leguminosae), a micro-phanerophyte liana, but theproperties of this plant are unknown; Piptadeniastrumafricanum (Leguminosae), another mega-phanero-phyte ; Trichoscypha chevalieri (Anacardiaceae), amicro-phanerophyte with an edible fruit, but thefamily also contains species having allergenic resinsin the resin canals ; and Diospyros kamerunensis(Ebenaceae), a nano-phanerophyte, Diospyros speciesbeing among the plants most resistant to micro-organisms, with all parts containing poorly knownpoisonous substances that contribute to their durability(Mabberley 1997).
In contrast, certain other substrata were colonised bynumerous fungal species. D. sanza-minika, a meso-phanerophyte that can reach a height of over 20m,unlike the other Diospyros species, was colonised bymany leaf litter saprotrophs (47 fungal species werefound fruiting on incubated litter). Drypetes aylmeri(Euphorbiaceae) is a micro-phanerophyte on which 29microfungal species fruited. In addition, the dead leavesof the following native African meso-phanerophytetrees were colonised by numerous fungal species:Uapaca guineensis (Euphorbiaceae), Xylopia aethiopica(Annonaceae ; Guinea Pepper) which is used as a med-icinal plant, Sacoglottis gabonensis (Humiriaceae), andGilbertiodendron limba (Leguminosae) (Mabberley1997).
The 184 fungal species were grouped according toecological categories (S, C, U), revealing that 39.7%were associated with a single substratum, and 20.1%with two substrata. Therefore, the percentage of fungalspecies that may be regarded as specialised with regardto the substratum was 59.8%. Ubiquitous speciescomprised 12.5%, and common species 27.7%.
Classification of the morphological characters ofthe 184 species showed the following distribution: 70%had pigmented conidia, 59% non-septate conidia,58% produced few conidia, while 21% had phialidic,37% percurrent, and 42% sympodial conidiogenesis.Sterile setae were found in 24% of the species.
MDS was carried out on the ecological and mor-phological characters detected in the 184 species. In thisanalysis the common and ubiquitous species weregrouped into a single category. The MDS plot ofFig. 1 shows two associated groups, with a statisticalsignificance exceeding 90% (chi square test for eachpaired combination of grouped characters, P<0.1).The first group contains the common and ubiquitousspecies that were positively correlated with hyalineconidia, abundant spore production, phialidic coni-diogenesis, and the presence of sterile setae. The secondgroup comprises the specialized species having pig-mented and septate conidia and low spore production.Species with percurrent or sympodial conidiogenesiswere not associated with either group (Fig. 1).
Fungal species occurring on only one (73 species) ortwo substrata (36 species) were analysed (Table 2).Species detected on two substrata did not indicate anyassociations of groups of substrata. It was also evidentthat certain leaf litters selected high numbers ofspecialist fungal species: Newtonia duparquetiana52%, Xylopia aethiopica 30%, Drypetes aylmeri 29%,Corynanthe pachyceras 28%, Allanblackia floribunda26%, Diospyros sanza-minika 26%, Didelotia idae25%, and Uapaca guineensis 17%.
The ecological characters of the substrata hostingover ten fruiting species were compared. Fig. 2a showsthe percentage presence of single categories on leafsubstrata ordered using cluster analysis. Three groupsof substrata could be distinguished, characterisedby: (1) species with numerous ubiquitous fungi fruiting
DIM
EN
SIO
N 2
-+--------------+--------------+--------------+------------2 + | | | |
++
||
|
+||
|
+||
|
+
+
||
1 +
| |
K |0 + | | |
−1 + | | |
−2 + -+--------------+--------------+--------------+------------
−2 2
DIMENSION 1
GED B
H
J
I
L A FCM
−1 0 1
A-Common and ubiquitous species (C-U)B-Specialized species (S)C-Pigmented conidia (PG)D-Hyaline conidia (HC)E-Presence of sterile setae (SS)F-Absence of sterile setae (SA)G-Phialidic conidiogenesis (PC)
H-Percurrent conidiogenesis (PE)I-Sympodial conidiogenesis (SY)J-Septate conidia (SC)K-Unicellular conidia (UC)L-Abundant conidial production (AP)M-Low conidial production (LP)
Fig. 1. MDS plot showing relationships between morpho-
logical and ecological characters of microfungi fruiting onincubated rain forest leaf litter.
Microfungi in tropical forest litter 330
Table 3. Yule coefficients of association (Q) and asymptotic standard errors calculated for fungal species present on over ten substrata; the underlined values were significant (P<0.01) in
chi-square tests.
Asterostomella Beltrania Beltraniella Chalara Chloridium Circinotrichum Cladosporium Cryptophiale Cryptophiale Grallomyces Gyrothrixsp.1 rhombica portoricensis alabamensis virescens maculiforme cladosporioides kakombensis udagawae portoricensis magica
Asterostomella sp. 1 -Beltrania rhombica 0.705±0.132 -Beltraniella portoricensis 0.542±0.176 0.743±0.120 -Chalara alabamensis 0.596±0.208 0.664±0.195 0.005±0.291 -Chloridium virescens 0.688±0.185 0.628±0.213 0.088±0.296 0.252±0.319 -Circinotrichum maculiforme 0.435±0.270 0.537±0.255 0.462±0.262 - 0.171±0.406 0.185±0.360 -Cladosporium cladosporioides 0.692±0.153 0.666±0.153 0.669±0.161 0.592±0.273 0.329±0.316 - 0.026±0.336 -Cryptophiale kakombensis 0.810±0.139 0.770±0.165 0.261±0.281 0.719±0.158 0.642±0.194 - 0.121±0.414 0.782±0.208 -Cryptophiale udagawae 0.890±0.112 0.886±0.134 0.628±0.217 0.798±0.127 0.729±0.162 - 0.432±0.446 0.735±0.248 0.990±0.012 -Grallomyces portoricensis 0.507±0.228 0.575±0.217 0.659±0.181 - 0.095±0.356 0.398±0.274 0.324±0.310 0.624±0.246 0.398±0.274 0.324±0.320 -Gyrothrix magica 0.726±0.195 0.481±0.289 - 0.024±0.329 0.436±0.288 0.251±0.354 0.360±0.334 0.416±0.342 0.481±0.275 0.370±0.334 0.391±0.299 -Idriella fertilis 0.650±0.205 0.743±0.182 0.357±0.274 0.500±0.250 0.546±0.237 0.471±0.277 0.760±0.207 0.546±0.237 0.241±0.354 0.260±0.318 0.802±0.130Chaetosphaeria vermicularioides 0.251±0.240 0.257±0.241 - 0.089±0.253 0.209±0.288 0.092±0.310 0.424±0.265 0.514±0.230 0.277±0.283 - 0.212±0.344 0.775±0.126 0.104±0.339Periconia cookei - 0.055±0.246 0.175±0.241 - 0.132±0.244 0.091±0.296 - 0.220±0.310 0.322±0.287 0.339±0.247 - 0.024±0.311 - 0.548±0.286 0.345±0.254 0.070±0.340Pestalotia sp. 1 0.719±0.135 0.642±0.155 0.610±0.168 0.680±0.217 0.648±0.234 0.346±0.316 0.880±0.071 0.832±0.165 0.793±0.200 0.862±0.138 0.525±0.298Pseudobotrytis terrestris 0.636±0.190 0.697±0.179 0.091±0.282 0.143±0.327 0.910±0.063 0.324±0.310 0.425±0.287 0.558±0.221 0.514±0.248 0.290±0.291 0.391±0.299Rhinocladiella selenoides 0.132±0.274 0.471±0.233 0.169±0.271 - 0.143±0.350 0.516±0.233 0.278±0.318 - 0.086±0.291 0.150±0.328 0.034±0.366 0.673±0.179 0.104±0.377Scolecobasidium constrictum 0.635±0.177 0.559±0.203 0.304±0.246 0.200±0.300 0.261±0.297 0.692±0.165 0.704±0.202 0.435±0.254 0.189±0.329 0.790±0.119 0.625±0.208Scolecobasidium tshawytschae 0.663±0.174 0.726±0.164 0.581±0.199 0.463±0.245 - 0.088±0.356 0.835±0.108 0.446±0.272 0.351±0.283 0.278±0.318 0.412±0.255 - 0.200±0.402Selenosporella sp. 1 0.228±0.285 0.628±0.213 0.271±0.281 0.011±0.364 0.066±0.365 0.420±0.290 0.556±0.281 0.076±0.375 0.121±0.414 0.782±0.129 - 0.059±0.421Zygosporium echinosporum 0.128±0.241 0.229±0.234 0.173±0.238 0.223±0.279 0.125±0.298 0.745±0.161 0.366±0.239 0.455±0.241 0.091±0.320 0.686±0.163 - 0.042±0.340Zygosporium gibbum 0.298±0.220 0.641±0.152 0.446±0.197 0.208±0.279 0.598±0.209 0.498±0.264 0.739±0.142 0.298±0.209 0.489±0.254 0.680±0.163 0.222±0.313Zygosporium masonii 0.316±0.234 0.561±0.192 0.102±0.254 0.410±0.249 0.607±0.196 0.608±0.207 0.481±0.241 0.316±0.277 0.065±0.336 0.713±0.150 0.356±0.292
Idriella Chaetosphaeria Periconia Pestalotia Pseudobotrytis Rhinocladiella Scolecobasidium Scolecobasidium Selenosporella Zygosporium Zygosporiumfertilis vermicularioides cookei sp.1 terrestris selenoides constrictum tshawytschae sp.1 echinosporum gibbum
Idriella fertilis -Chaetosphaeria vermicularioides 0.348±0.275 -Periconia cookei 0.293±0.293 0.726±0.131 -Pestalotia sp. 1 0.613±0.254 0.240±0.254 0.244±0.245 -Pseudobotrytis terrestris 0.455±0.272 - 0.034±0.305 0.024±0.294 0.541±0.246 -Rhinocladiella selenoides 0.212±0.324 0.249±0.270 0.126±0.280 0.245±0.282 0.412±0.256 -Scolecobasidium constrictum 0.831±0.108 0.729±0.137 0.157±0.267 0.497±0.237 - 0.059±0.325 0.265±0.279 -Scolecobasidium tshawytschae 0.697±0.169 0.396±0.242 0.280±0.260 0.577±0.231 0.239±0.297 0.186±0.302 0.553±0.205 -Selenosporella sp. 1 0.546±0.237 0.789±0.127 0.486±0.233 0.257±0.304 0.200±0.324 0.834±0.103 0.696±0.164 0.649±0.185 -Zygosporium echinosporum 0.378±0.266 0.412±0.216 0.378±0.218 0.523±0.201 - 0.014±0.293 0.513±0.211 0.392±0.231 0.724±0.146 0.455±0.241 -Zygosporium gibbum 0.690±0.185 0.547±0.186 0.034±0.247 0.670±0.153 0.429±0.239 0.335±0.248 0.771±0.129 0.606±0.190 0.725±0.167 0.700±0.137 -Zygosporium masonii 0.540±0.224 0.772±0.116 0.500±0.200 0.333±0.248 0.008±0.307 0.556±0.199 0.756±0.127 0.560±0.199 0.718±0.155 0.860±0.081 0.770±0.210
A.Rambelli,
B.MulasandM.Pasqualetti
331
(b)
(c)
(a)
S
U
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
S
C
U
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
PG
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
UCSC
100%
HC
Fig. 2. (Cont.)
Microfungi in tropical forest litter 332
(d)
(e)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
LPAP
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%SYPEPC
( f )
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%SASS
Fig. 2. (a) Percentages of single (S), common (C) and ubiquitous (U) colonizers on substrata hosting over ten fungal species ;the substrata are ordered by cluster analysis. Sporulation characters are coded as follows: (b) percentage of species withhyaline (HC) and pigmented (PG) conidia on substrata hosting over ten fungal species ; (c) percentage of species with
unicellular (UC) and septate (SC) conidia on substrata hosting over ten fungal species ; (d ) percentage of species with low(LP) and abundant conidial production (AP) on substrata hosting over ten fungal species ; (e) percentage of species withphialidic (PC), percurrent (PE) and sympodial (SY) conidiogenesis on substrata hosting over ten fungal species ; and ( f )percentage of species with (SS) and without sterile setae (SA) on substrata hosting over ten fungal species.
A. Rambelli, B. Mulas and M. Pasqualetti 333
and few unique or common fungal species (from Lovoatrichilioides – au, to Calpocalyx brevibracteatus – c);(2) species with many common and ubiquitous fungifruiting (from Memecylon lateriflorum – r, to Land-olphia hirsuta – bs) ; and (3) species with a significantnumber of specialist species fruiting (from Xylopiaaethiopica – ac, to Newtonia duparquetiana – bt).Fungal species that occurred only once were morenumerous than common and ubiquitous species inNewtonia duparquetiana (bt).
Fungal species fruiting on more than ten substratawere analysed (Q association index) in order to detectsignificant association between them (Table 3). Regularassociations were recorded between Cryptophialeudagawae and C. kakombensis (0.99), and betweenChaetosphaeria vermicularioides and Pseudobotrytisterrestris (0.91), that were practically always associatedwith the same substrata. Equally high and significantassociations (Q>0.8) were found between the above-mentioned two species of Cryptophiale and Astero-stomella sp. 1, and also between Beltrania rhombicaand C. udagawae, Circinotrichum maculiforme andScolecobasidium tshawytschae, Cladosporium clado-sporioides and Pestalotia sp. 1, C. kakombensis andPestalotia sp. 1, Grallomyces portoricensis and Pestalo-tia sp. 1, Gyrothrix magica and Idriella fertilis, I. fertilisand Scolecobasidium constrictum, Rhinocladiella sele-noides and Selenosporella sp. 1, and Zygosporium echi-nosporum and Z. masonii. Moreover, Z. echinosporum,Z. masonii and Z. gibbum showed a significant corre-lation index of over 0.7.
Morphological characters of certain species occur-ring on substrata hosting over ten colonizers wereanalysed. In Fig. 2b conidial pigmentation was takenas the criterion, and the percentage of species withpigmented conidia was calculated for each leaf typewas compared with the mean percentage value ofall fungal species. In some substrata, the distributiondiverged greatly from the mean value (70% ofpigmented conidia). Over 80% of the fungi fruitingon litter of Xylopia aethiopica, Allanblackia floribunda,and Symphonia globulifera had pigmented spores ; inparticular, S. globulifera did not host any species withhyaline conidia. In contrast, less than 60% of thefruiting fungi had pigmented conidia on Calpocalyxbrevibracteatus, Chrysophyllum taiense, Tetracerapotatoria, Memecylon lateriflorum, Anthonotha fra-grans, Sacoglottis gabonensis, Lophira alata, Diospyrosmannii,Memecylon donianum, and Decorsella paradoxa(Fig. 2b).
Furthermore, in some substrata the distributionof fungi with septate conidia deviated from themean distribution (41%). In particular, Newtoniaduparquetiana hosted over 60% of fruiting specieswith septate conidia, whereas Calpocalyx brevi-bracteatus, Tetracera potatoria, Lophira alata, Dios-pyros mannii, Guarea thompsonii, and Landolphiahirsuta had over 80% of fruiting fungal species withone celled conidia (Fig. 2c). Finally, abundant conidial
production (mean value 42%) exceeded 60% inCoula edulis, Memecylon lateriflorum, Lophira alata,Newtonia aubrevillei, and Guarea thompsonii, while itwas below 30% in Lovoa trichilioides and Newtoniaduparquetiana (Fig. 2d ).
Fig. 2e shows the percentages of the various types ofconidiogenous cells. Phialidic conidiogenous cells oc-curred in about 20% the 184 species; in litter of manyspecies hosting more than ten fruiting species, thisnumber deviated greatly from this average. In particu-lar, litter of Manniophyton fulvum, Calpocalyx brevi-bracteatus, Chrysophyllum taiense, Dialium aubrevillei,Lophira alata, Lovoa trichilioides, Newtonia aubrevillei,Diospyros mannii, and Guarea thompsonii hosted over40% of phialidic-fruiting species, while Symphoniaglobulifera and Ficus sagittifolia had less than 10%.Fungal species with sympodial conidiogenesis (meanvalues 42%) often exceeded 50%, such as in Tetracerapotatoria, Diospyros cooperi, Corynanthe pachyceras,Memecylon lateriflorum, Xylopia aethiopica, Symphoniaglobulifera, Beilschmiedia mannii, and Ficus sagittifolia,while it was below 30% in Manniophyton fulvum andNewtonia duparquetiana. In particular, N. aubrevilleiand Ficus sagittifolia did not host any fruiting fungiwith percurrent conidiogenesis, and over 90% of thespecies had sympodial conidiogenesis in the latter(Fig. 2e). Plant species hosting fewer than 20% fruitingfungi with percurrent conidiogenesis (average 37%)included: Manniophyton fulvum, Calpocalyx brevi-bracteatus, Coula edulis, Chrysophyllum taiense, Dios-pyros sanza-minika, Tetracera potatoria, Diospyroscooperi, Corynanthe pachyceras, Lophira alata, Lovoatrichilioides, Diospyros mannii, and Beilschmiedia man-nii. In contrast, N. duparquetiana had more than 60%of the fruiting species with percurrent conidiogenesis(Fig. 2e).
Finally, some plant substrata were found wherethe presence of sterile setae in the fruiting structuresexceeded the mean value (24%). Presence of setaeexceeded 40% of the fruiting species in Calpocalyxbrevibracteatus, Chrysophyllum taiense, Tetracerapotatoria, Anthonotha fragrans, Lophira alata,Memecylon donianum, Ficus sagittifolia, and Land-olphia hirsuta (Fig. 2 f ).
DISCUSSION
The study focuses on relationships between plant hostand associated saprotrophic fungal communities, andbuilds on other comparative investigations on micro-fungi in the tropical environments of Tai National Park(Rambelli et al. 1983, 1984, 1991). Microfungal speciesthat fruited on incubated leaf litter samples wereidentified and characterised, and the characteristics ofthe fungal communities were then correlated with thehost plants. The detection on specialized plant-fungusspecies relationships is noteworthy as it confirms theexistence in tropical forest ecosystems of the previouslyobserved saprotrophic specialisation (Lodge & Cantrell
Microfungi in tropical forest litter 334
1995). In totally different environmental conditions,fungal communities supporting major environmentalstress were observed in the Mediterranean maquis(Mulas et al. 1995, Pasqualetti et al. 1999). These pre-liminary observations show that saprotrophic special-isation is not linked to particular environments andsubstrata, but is a natural phenomenon occurring todifferent degrees in all environments. It can be assumedthat in environments where conditions are optimal formicrofungal development (humidity and temperature),such as in tropical forests, saprotrophic specialisation ismainly related to nutritional factors and the secondarychemistry of the substrata.
The data presented were analysed for the distri-bution of 184 saprotrophic fungi on litter of 71 plantspecies. This enabled us to observe significant corre-lations between certain morphological and ecologicalparameters of hosts and fungal colonizers. The dataobtained revealed that ubiquitous-common and special-ist fungi have quite distinct characteristics, except forpercurrent and sympodial conidiogenesis which occursin both groups (Fig. 1).
Specialist species show limited production of oftenmulticellular, resistant, pigmented and scarcely vulner-able conidia. This may imply that these species aregreatly involved in vegetative propagation and are themain driving force behind the degradation of the sub-strata. In fact, it seems reasonable to suggest that ifthere is a high degree of fungal sepcialisation relatedto the substrata, the microfungi involved may haveadopted vital strategies whereby energy is mostly con-sumed for vegetative growth and not for reproduction.These species need not compete for the substratum andtheir highly resistant conidia permit colonisation ofadjacent similar substrata, not in competition withother fungi but as selected by the substratum. Thecommon or ubiquitous species showed a differentbehaviour with divergent morphological and ecologicalcharacters. These species may compensate for theirlimited nutritional specialisation by a greater sub-stratum colonisation capacity, as this colonisation mustbe achieved within a short time because of the vulner-ability of the hyaline ephemeral conidia. From anutritional point of view, the specialist species may actas primary colonisers capable of attacking the morerecalcitrant substrata and thus pave the way for sec-ondary colonisers.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thankWalter Gams for critically reading the manuscript, Laurent
Ake Assi for identification of plant matrices, and the Italian Embassy
in Abidjan for help and assistance.
REFERENCES
Bills, G. F. & Polishook, J. D. (1994) Abundance and diversity of
microfungi in leaf litter of a lowland rain forest in Costa Rica.
Mycologia 86 : 187–198.
Calduch, M., Gene, J., Guarro, J., Mercado-Sierra, A. & Castaneda-
Ruiz, R. F. (2002) Hyphomycetes from Nigerian rain forest.
Mycologia 94 : 127–135.
Castaneda-Ruiz, R. F., Saikawa, M. & Guarro, J. (1999) A new
species of Heteroconium from a tropical rainforest. Mycotaxon 71 :
295–300.
Huttel, C. (1975) Recherches sur l’ecosysteme de la foret sub-
equatoriale de basse Cote d’Ivoire. III. Inventaire et structure de la
vegetation ligneuse. Revue d’Ecologie Applique 29 : 178–191.
Kabi Ouanyon, M. & Rambelli, A. (1990) Influenza del substrato
sulla morfologia di Beltrania rhombica Penzig. Micologia Italiana
2(2): 33–36.
Læssøe, T. & Lodge, D. J. (1994) Three host-specific Xylaria species.
Mycologia 86 : 436–446.
Læssøe, T. R., Ryvarden, L., Watling, R. & Whalley, A. J. S. (1996)
Saprotrophic fungi of the Guinea-Congo Region. Proceedings of
the Royal Society of Edinburgh 104 : 335–347.
Lodge, D. J. (1997) Factors related to diversity of decomposer fungi
in tropical forests. Biodiversity and Conservation 6 : 681–688.
Lodge, D. J. & Cantrell, S. (1995) Fungal communities in wet tropical
forests: variation in time and space. Canadian Journal of Botany
73(Suppl. 1) : S1391–S1398.
Lodge, D. J., Fisher, P. J. & Sutton, B. C. (1996) Endophytic fungi of
Manilkara bidentata leaves in Puerto Rico.Mycologia 88 : 733–738.
Lodge, D. J. & Læssøe, T. (1995) Host preference in Camillea verru-
culospora. Mycologist 9 : 152–153.
Mabberley, D. J. (1997) The Plant-Book: a portable dictionary of the
vascular plants. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Matsushima, T. (1971–96) Matsushima Mycological Memoirs. 9 vols.
T. Matsushima, Kobe.
Mercado-Sierra, A. (1984) Hifomicetes Demaciaceos de Sierra del
Rosario, Cuba. Academia de Ciencias de Cuba, La Habana.
Mercado-Sierra, A., Holubova-Jechova, V. & Mena Portales, J.
(1997) Hifomicetos demaciaceos de Cuba enteroblasticos. [Mono-
grafie No. 23.] Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali Torino,
Torino.
Mulas, B., Pasqualetti, M. & Rambelli, A. (1995) Analysis of the
litter microfungal communities in a Mediterranean maquis eco-
system. Atti dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rendiconti 6 :
65–86.
Mulas, B. & Rambelli, A. (1995) Contribution to the study of the
microfungi in the saprotrophic specialization in tropical forest
litter. Giornale Botanico Italiano 129 : 1225–1232.
Pascholati Gusmao, L. F., Piccolo Grandi, R. A. & Milanez, A. I.
(2001) Hyphomycetes from leaf litter of Miconia cabussu in the
Brazilian Atlantic rain forest. Mycotaxon 79 : 201–213.
Pasqualetti, M., Ialongo, M. & Rambelli, A. (1995) Rapporti ospite-
saprotrofo. I. Struttura delle colonie di Beltrania rhombica Penzig
su lettiera di Pistacia lentiscus L. Giornale Botanico Italiano 129 :
141–148.
Pasqualetti, M., Mulas, B., Zucconi, L. & Rambelli, A. (1999) Suc-
cession of microfungal communities onMyrtus communis leaf litter
in a Sardinian Mediterranean maquis ecosystem. Mycological
Research 103 : 724–728.
Pasqualetti, M. & Rambelli, A. (1999) Dactylaria asymetrica, a new
species of mitosporic fungi from Ivory Coast forest litter. Myco-
taxon 72 : 27–31.
Pirozynski, K. A. (1972) Microfungi of Tanzania. I. Miscellaneous
fungi on oil palm. II. New hyphomycetes. Mycological Papers 129 :
1–64.
Podani, J. (1994) Multivariate Data Analysis in Ecology and
Systematics. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague.
Polishook, J. D., Bills, G. F. & Lodge, D. J. (1996) Microfungi from
decaying leaves of two rain forest trees in Puerto Rico. Journal of
Industrial Microbiology 17 : 284–294.
Rambelli, A. & Ciccarone, C. (1985) Two new dematiaceous hypho-
mycetes from humid tropic forest litter. Giornale Botanico Italiano
119 : 291–294.
Rambelli, A., Persiani, A. M., Maggi, O., Lunghini, D., Onofri, S.,
Riess, S., Dowgiallo, G. & Puppi, G. (1983)Comparative Studies on
A. Rambelli, B. Mulas and M. Pasqualetti 335
Microfungi in Tropical Ecosystems. Mycological Studies in South
Western Ivory Coast forest. [Report no. 1 to MAB-UNESCO.]
A. Rambelli, Rome.
Rambelli, A., Persiani, A. M., Maggi, O., Onofri, S., Riess, S.,
Dowgiallo, G. & Zucconi, L. (1984) Comparative studies on
microfungi in tropical ecosystems. Further mycological studies in
south western Ivory Coast forest. Report no. 2. Giornale Botanico
Italiano 118 : 201–243.
Rambelli, A., Zucconi, L., Onofri, S. & Quadraccia, L. (1991)
Comparative studies on microfungi in tropical ecosystems.
Conclusive mycological studies in south western Ivory Coast forest
litter. Report no. 3. Giornale Botanico Italiano 125 : 779–796.
Siboe, G. M., Kirk, P. M. & Cannon, P. F. (1999) New dematiace-
ous hyphomycetes from Kenyan rare plants. Mycotaxon 73 :
283–302.
Subramanian, C. V. & Vittal, B. P. R. (1974) Hyphomycetes on
litter from India. I. Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Science
80 : 216–221.
Subramanian, C. V. & Vittal, B. P. R. (1979) Studies on litter fungi.
II. Fungal colonization of Atlantia monophylla Corr. leaves and
litter. Nova Hedwigia 63 : 361–369.
Subramanian, C. V. & Vittal, B. P. R. (1980) Studies on litter
fungi. IV. Fungal colonization of Gymnosporia emarginata
leaves and litter. Transactions of the Mycological Society Japan 21 :
339–344.
Wardle, D. A. & Parkinson, D. (1991) Analysis of co-occurrence in a
fungal community. Mycological Research 95 : 504–507.
Wilkinson, L., Hill, M. A. & Vang, E. (1992) SYSTAT: Statistics.
Version 5.2. Systat, Evanston, IL.
Corresponding Editor: D. J. Lodge
Microfungi in tropical forest litter 336
Recommended