Submitted:
20 August 2024
Posted:
22 August 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Inga punctata Reforestation Site Description and Soil Sample Collection
2.2. Soil Respiration, Biomass-C, and qCO2
2.3. DNA Extraction, Sequencing, and Bioinformatics
2.4. Differences in Fungal Community Compositions
2.5. Indicators of Fungal Community Successional Development
2.6. Potential Influence of Fungal Taxa on the Carbon Metrics
3. Results
3.1. Differences in C Metrics
3.2. Differences in Fungal Community Compositions
3.3. Indicators of Fungal Community Successional Development
3.4. Potential Influence of Fungal Taxa on the Carbon Metrics
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Addison, S., Daley, K., 2023. Getting to the Root of Tree Soil Microbiome Sampling. Phytobiomes, 2023, ISSN: 2471-2906.
- Aide, T.M., Clark, M.L., Ricardo Grau, H., Lopez-Carr, D., et al., 2013. Deforestation and reforestation of Latin America and the Caribbean (2001–2010). Biotropica 45,262–271.
- Allison, S.D., Martiny, J.B.H.,2008. Colloquium paper: resistance, resilience, and redundancy.
- in microbial communities. PNAS 105,11512–11519.
- Amazonas, N.T., Martinelli, L.A., Piccolo, M.D.C., Rodrigues, R.R., (2011) Nitrogen dynamics during ecosystem development in tropical forest restoration. For. Ecol. Manag. 262,1551–1557.
- Anderson, M.J., Gorley, R.N., Clarke, K.R., 2008. PERMANOVA+ for PRIMER: guide to software and statistical methods PRIMER-E Ltd. Plymouth UK.
- Anderson, M.J., Willis, T.J. 2003. Canonical analysis of principal coordinates: a useful method of constrained ordination for ecology. Ecology 84, 511–525.
- Arai, H., Hadi, A., Darung, U., Limin, S.H., 2014. Land use change affects microbial biomass and fluxes of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide in tropical peatlands. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 60, 423–434.
- Banerjee, S., Kirkby, C.A., Schmutter, D., Bissett, A.,2016. Network analysis reveals functional redundancy and keystone taxa amongst bacterial and fungal communities during organic matter decomposition in an arable soil. Soil Biol. Biochem, 97,188-198.
- Bardgett, R.D., van der Putten, W.H. 2014. Belowground biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Nature 515, 505–511.
- Batterman, S.A., Hedin, L.O., van Breugel, M., Ransijn, J.,, et al., 2013. Key role of symbiotic dinitrogen fixation in tropical forest secondary succession. Nature 502,224–227.
- Berg, G., Smalla, K. 2009. Plant species and soil type cooperatively shape the structure and function of microbial communities in the rhizosphere: Plant species, soil type and rhizosphere communities. FEMS Microb. Ecol. 68, 1–13.
- Bredeweg, E.L. , Baker, S.E. 2020. Horizontal Gene Transfer in Fungi. In: Nevalainen, H. (eds) Grand Challenges in Fungal Biotechnology. Grand Challenges in Biology and Biotechnology. Springer, Cham. [CrossRef]
- Chazdon, R.L. 2008. Beyond Deforestation: Restoring Forests and Ecosystem Services on Degraded Lands. Science 3201458-1460.
- Clarke, K.R., Gorley, R.N. 2006. PRIMER v6: User manual PRIMER-E Ltd. Plymouth UK.
- Davidson, E.A., de Carvalho, C.J.R., Figueira, A.M., Ishida, F.Y.,et al., 2007. Recuperation of nitrogen cycling in Amazonian forests following agricultural abandonment. Nature 447, 995–998. [CrossRef]
- Eaton, W.D., McGee, K.M., Donnelly, R., Lemenze, A., Karas, O., Hajibabaei, M., 2019. Differences in the soil microbial community and carbon--use efficiency following development of Vochysia guatemalensis tree plantations in unproductive pastures in Costa Rica. Restor. Ecol. [CrossRef]
- Eaton, W.D., McGee, K.M., Alderfer, K., Jimenez, A.R., Hajibabaei, M. 2020a. Increase in abundance and decrease in richness of soil microbes following Hurricane Otto in three primary forest types in the Northern Zone of Costa Rica. Special Topics Issue: “Microbial Ecology of Changing Environments”, PLoS ONE 15: e0231187. [CrossRef]
- Eaton, W.D., McGee, K.M., Hoke, E., Lemenze, A., Hajibabaei, M. 2020b. Influence of Two Important Leguminous Trees on Their Soil Microbiomes and Nitrogen Cycle Activities in a Primary and Recovering Secondary Forest in the Northern Zone of Costa Rica. Soil Syst. 4,65. [CrossRef]
- Eaton, W.D., Hamilton, D.A. 2022. Enhanced carbon, nitrogen and associated bacterial community compositional complexity, stability, evenness, and differences within the tree-soils of Inga punctata along an age gradient of planted trees in reforestation plots. Plant Soil 484, 327–346.
- Eaton, W.D., Hamilton, D.A., Chen, W., Lemenze, A., Soteropoulos, P. 2024. Use of high throughput DNA analysis to characterize the nodule-associated bacterial community from four ages of Inga punctata trees in a Costa Rican cloud forest. AIMS Microbiol.10, 572-595. [CrossRef]
- Ettema. C., 2002. Spatial soil ecology. Trends Ecol.Evol.17, 177–183.
- . [CrossRef]
- Gardes, M. , Bruns, T.D. 1993. ITS primers with enhanced specificity for basidiomycetes -- application to the identification of mycorrhizae and rusts. Mol. Ecol. 2, 113–118.
- Griffiths, B.S., Philippot, L. 2013. Insights into the resistance and resilience of the soil microbial community. FEMS Microb. Rev. 37,112–129.
- Grimm, V., Wissel, C. 1997 Babel, or the ecological stability discussions: an inventory and analysis of terminology and a guide for avoiding confusion. Oecologia 109,323–334.
- Groppo, J.D., Lins, S.R.M., Camargo, P.B., Assad, E.D., Pinto, H.S., et al., 2015. Changes in soil carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus due to land-use changes in Brazil. Biogeosci. 12,4765–4780.
- Hamilton, D., 2022. Offsetting Destruction: The Important Functional Contribution of Carbon Sequestration in the Restoration of a Tropical Forest in Monteverde, Costa Rica. Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences, Elsevier, 2022. ISBN 9780124095489. [CrossRef]
- He, H., Liu, Y., Hu, Y., Zhang, M., et al., 2020. Soil Microbial Community and Its Interaction with Soil Carbon Dynamics Following a Wetland Drying Process in Mu Us Sandy Land. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17, 4199.
- Kardol, P., Wardle, D.A. 2010. How understanding aboveground-belowground linkages can assist restoration ecology. Trends Ecol.Evol. 25, 670–679.
- Krych, L., Hansen, C.H.F., Hansen, A.K., van den Berg, F.W.J., Nielsen, D.S. 2013. Quantitatively Different, yet Qualitatively Alike: A meta-analysis of the mouse core gut microbiome with a view towards the human gut microbiome. PLoS ONE 8: e62578.
- Lai, H.R., Hall, J.S., Batterman, S.A., Turner, B.L., Breugel, M., 2018. Nitrogen fixer abundance has no effect on biomass recovery during tropical secondary forest succession. J. Ecol. 106,1415–1427.
- Lammel, D.R., Feigl, B.J., Cerri, C.C., Nüsslein, K., 2015. Specific microbial gene abundances and soil parameters contribute to C, N, and greenhouse gas process rates after land use change in Southern Amazonian Soils. Front Microbio 6. [CrossRef]
- Leblanc, H.A., McGraw, R.L., Nygren, P., Roux, C.L. 2005. Neotropical legume tree Inga edulis forms N2-fixing symbiosis with fast-growing Bradyrhizobium strains. Plant Soil 275,123–133.
- Liu, K-L., Porras-Alfaro, A., Kuske, C.R., Eichorst, S.A., et al., 2012. Accurate, rapid taxonomic classification of fungal large-subunit rRNA genes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 78,1523–1533.
- Liu, J. , Jia, X., Yan, W., Zhong, Y., Shangguan, Z. 2020. Changes in microbial community structure during secondary succession. Land Degrad. Develop. 1–16. [CrossRef]
- Lojka, B., Dumas, L., Preininger, D., Polesny, Z., Banout, J., 2010. The use and integration of Inga edulis in agroforestry systems in the amazon – review article. Agricult. Trop. Subtrop. 43, 352–359.
- Louca, S., Doebeli, M. (016. Transient dynamics of competitive exclusion in microbial communities. Environ Microbiol 18,1863-1874.
- Louca, S., Jacques, S.M.S., Pires, A.P.F., Leal, J.S., et al., 2016. High taxonomic variability despite stable functional structure across microbial communities. Nature Ecol. Evol. 1,0015.
- Louca, S., Polz, M.F., Mazel, F., Albright, M.B.N., et al., 2018. Function and functional redundancy in microbial systems. Nature Ecol. Evol. 2, 936–943.
- Lucas, Y., Santin, R.C., Da Silva, W.T.L., Merdy, P., et al., 2020. Soil sample conservation from field to lab for heterotrophic respiration assessment. MethodsX. 7:101039.
- Macedo, M.O., Resende, A.S., Garcia, P.C., Boddey, R.M., et al., 2008. Changes in soil C and N stocks and nutrient dynamics 13 years after recovery of degraded land using leguminous nitrogen-fixer trees. For. Ecol. Manag. 255,1516–1524.
- Martínez-García, L. B. , Korthals, G., Brussaard, L., Jørgensen, H. B., et al., 2018. Organic management and cover crop species steer soil microbial community structure and functionality along with soil organic matter properties. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 263, 7–17.
- Mori, A.S., Isbell, F., Fujii, S., Makoto, K., Matsuoka, S., Osono, T. 2015. Low multifunctional redundancy of soil fungal diversity at multiple scales. Ecol. Lett. 19, 249–259.
- Nemergut, D.R., Schmidt, S.K., Fukami, T., O’Neill, S.P., et al., 2013. Patterns and Processes of Microbial Community Assembly. Microbioland MolecBiol Rev 77, 342–356.
- Ortiz-Álvarez, R., Fierer, N., de los Ríos, A., Casamayor, E.O., Barberán, A., 2018. Consistent changes in the taxonomic structure and functional attributes of bacterial communities during primary succession. ISME Journal 12:1658–1667.
- Pinto-Figueroa, E.A. , Seddon, E., Yashiro, E., Buri, A., et al., 2019. Archaeorhizomycetes Spatial Distribution in Soils Along Wide Elevational and Environmental Gradients Reveal Co-Abundance Patterns with Other Fungal Saprobes and Potential Weathering Capacities. Front Microbiol 10, 656.
- Piotto, D., Montagnini, F., Ugalde, L., Kanninen, M. 2003. Performance of forest plantations in small and medium-sized farms in the Atlantic lowlands of Costa Rica. For. Ecol. Manag. 175,195–204.
- Põlme, S. , Abarenkov, K., Henrik, N.R., Lindah, B.D., et al., 2020. FungalTraits: a user-friendly traits database of fungi and funguslike stramenopiles. FungDivers 105,1–16.
- Rodrigues, J.L.M., Pellizari, V.H., Mueller, R., Baek, K., et al., 2013. Conversion of the Amazon rainforest to agriculture results in biotic homogenization of soil bacterial communities. PNAS 110, 988-993.
- Rosling, A. , Cox, F., Cruz--Martinez, K., Ihrmark, K., et al., 2011. Archaeorhizomycetes: unearthing an ancient class of ubiquitous soil fungi. Science 333: 876–879.
- Rosling, A. , Timling, I., Taylor, D.L. 2013. “Archaeorhizomycetes: patterns of distribution and abundance in soil,” in Genomics of Soil- and Plant-Associated Fungi. Soil Biology, eds B. Horwitz, P. Mukherjee, M. Mukherjee, and C. Kubicek (Heidelberg: Springer), 333–349. [CrossRef]
- Saiya-Cork, K.R., Sinsabaugh, R.L., Zak, D.R., 2002. The effects of long-term nitrogen deposition on extracellular enzyme activity in an Acer saccharum forest soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 34,1309-1315.
- Schelhas, J., Sánchez-Azofeifa, G.A., 2006. Post-frontier forest change adjacent to Braulio Carrillo National Park Costa Rica. Human Ecol. 34, 407-431.
- Shade, A., Peter, H., Allison, S.D., Baho, D.L., et al., 2012. Fundamentals of microbial community resistance and resilience. Front. Microbiol. 3,417.
- Shim, J.E., Lee, T., Lee, I., 2017. From sequencing data to gene functions: co-functional network approaches. Animal Cells Syst 21, 77–83.
- Sinsabaugh, R.L., 2010. Phenol oxidase, peroxidase and organic matter dynamics of soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 42, 391–404.
- Six, J., Frey, S.D., Thiet, R.K., Batten, K.M. 2006. Bacterial and Fungal Contributions to Carbon Sequestration in Agroecosystems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 70: 555-569.
- Spohn, M. 2015. Microbial respiration per unit microbial biomass depends on litter layer carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, Biogeosci. 12, 817–823.
- Stürmer, S.L. , Kemmelmeier, K., 2021. The Glomeromycota in the Neotropics. Front. Microbiol.11,553679.
- Taylor, B.N., Chazdon, R.L., Bachelot, B., Menge, D.N.L., 2017. Nitrogen-fixer trees inhibit growth of regenerating Costa Rican rainforests. PNAS 114, 8817–8822.
- Tedersoo, L. , Bahram, M., Puusepp, R., Nilsson, R.H., et al., 2017. Novel Soil-Inhabiting Clades Fill Gaps in the Fungal Tree of Life. Microbiome 5,42.
- Tilman, D., Reich, P.B., Knops, J.M., 2006. Biodiversity and ecosystem stability in a decade-long grassland experiment. Nature 441,629-32.
- Turatsinze, A.N. , Kang, B., Zhu, T., Hou, F., et al., 2021. Soil Bacterial and Fungal Composition and Diversity Responses to Seasonal Deer Grazing in a Subalpine Meadow. Diversity 13:84.
- Turbé, A., De Toni, A., Benito, P., Lavelle, P., et al., 2010. Soil biodiversity: functions, threats and tools for policy makers. Bio Intelligence Service, IRD, and NIOO, Technical Report 2010-49 for European Commission (DG Environment).
- van der Heijden, M.G.A., Bardgett, R.D., van Straalen, N.M., 2008. The unseen majority: soil microbes as drivers of plant diversity and productivity in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 11, 296–310.
- Wagg, C., Jansa, J., Schmid, B., van der Heijden, M.G., 2011. Belowground biodiversity effects of plant symbionts support aboveground productivity. Ecol. Lett. 14.1001-9.
- Wallenstein, M.D., Burns, R.G., 2011. Ecology of extracellular enzyme activities and organic matter degradation in soil: a complex community-driven process. In: Dick R (ed) Methods of Soil Enzymology. 9:35-55.
- Wallenstein, M.D., Hall, E.K. 2011. A trait-based framework for predicting when and where microbial adaptation to climate change will affect ecosystem functioning. Biogeochem. 109: 35–47.
- Weiss, S., Xu, Z.Z., Peddada, S., Amir, A., et al., 2017. Normalization and microbial differential abundance strategies depend upon data characteristics. Microbiome 5. [CrossRef]
- Xu, C.Y., Du, C., Jian, J.S., Hou, L., et al., 2021. The interplay of labile organic carbon, enzyme activities and microbial communities of two forest soils across seasons. Science Reports 11: 5002.
- Xu, H., Detto, M., Li, Y.,He, F., Fang, S., 2019. Do N-fixing legumes promote neighbor diversity in the tropics? J Ecol. 107, 229–239.


| A | ||||||
| Habitat | Biomass-C (µgCO2/g soil) | Resp (µgCO2/g soil) | qCO2 (Resp/Biomass-C) | |||
| PAS | 806.32 ± 64.57 | 261. 04 ± 22.58 | 0.33 ± 0.06 | |||
| Inga 4 | 547.50 ± 31.05 | 180.67 ± 19.49 | 0.33 ± 0.04 | |||
| Inga 8 | 540.67 ± 17.13 | 181.33 ± 14.17 | 0.34 ± 0.03 | |||
| Inga 11 | 725.33 ± 58.29 | 201.65 ± 28.90 | 0.28 ± 0.03 | |||
| Old Inga | 934.83 ± 70.06 | 209.83 ± 30.47 | 0.22 ± 0.04 | |||
| B | ||||||
| B | p values for comparisons of means | |||||
| Comparisons | Biomass C | Respiration | qCO2 | |||
| PAS to Inga 4 | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | 1 | |||
| PAS to Inga 8 | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | 1 | |||
| PAS to Inga 11 | 0.0001 | 0.022 | 0.034 | |||
| PAS to Old Inga | 0.031 | 0.008 | 0.006 | |||
| Old Inga to Inga 4 | < 0.0001 | 0.054 | 0.0002 | |||
| Old Inga to Inga 8 | < 0.0001 | 0.051 | 0.0005 | |||
| Old Inga to Inga 11 | 0.0002 | 0.644 | 0.015 | |||
| Inga 11 to Inga 4 | 0.0001 | 0.145 | 0.006 | |||
| Inga 11 to Inga 8 | 0.0001 | 0.143 | 0.033 | |||
| Inga 8 to Inga 4 | 0.6472 | 0.942 | 0.635 | |||
| Taxa | Function | MPS PAS | MPS Inga 4 | MPS Inga 8 | MPS Inga 11 | MPS Old Inga |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apiotrichum | CCDec | 5.37 | 0.19 | 6.16 | 43.61 | 41.96 |
| Archaeorhizomyces | RADec | 32.11 | 3.74 | 5.31 | 2.02 | 3.53 |
| Chaetomium | CCDecWRT | 0.29 | 1.73 | 0.99 | 0.3 | 0.57 |
| Dipodascus | CCDec | 4.21 | 0 | 0.56 | 2.02 | 0.54 |
| Geotrichum | CCDecWRT | 0.18 | 0 | 0.07 | 1.28 | 0.22 |
| Glomeromycota | ARM | 4.8 | 19.29 | 18.41 | 12.65 | 15.93 |
| Leohumicola | SAPDec | 2.46 | 0.05 | 0.17 | 0 | 0.38 |
| Lipomyces | CCDec | 0 | 0.23 | 1.54 | 1.01 | 0.99 |
| Mortierella | CCDec | 0.37 | 1.15 | 0.38 | 0.02 | 0.45 |
| Phialocephala | CCDec | 1.87 | 3.56 | 2.23 | 1.84 | 0.89 |
| Pleosporales | SAPDec | 1.64 | 0.46 | 0.38 | 0.28 | 0.2 |
| Pyrenochaetopsis | CCDec | 0.79 | 0.23 | 1.94 | 0.77 | 0 |
| Rozella | PAR | 7.97 | 0.76 | 1.92 | 1.61 | 0.84 |
| Saitozyma | CCDec | 0.74 | 29.42 | 28.89 | 7.68 | 8.77 |
| Sordariaceae | CCDec | 1.44 | 7.98 | 11.6 | 0.29 | 1.05 |
| Starmerella | SAPDec | 0 | 2.95 | 2.35 | 8.13 | 11.44 |
| Tremella | CCDec | 0.04 | 0.67 | 1.5 | 0.22 | 8.21 |
| MPS of CCDec Taxa | 15.30 | 47.16 | 55.86 | 59.04 | 63.65 |
| ANOSIM of Total Fungal Taxa | CAP of Total Fungal Taxa | |||||
| Global R = 0.404 | CAP model p value = 0.0024 | |||||
| Global p value 0.0001 | ||||||
| Pairwise Groups | R Statistic | p Values | Comparisons | R2 Value | Strength of Diff | |
| PAS and Inga 4 | 0.369 | 0.015 | PAS and Inga 4 | 0.568 | moderate | |
| PAS and Inga 8 | 0.439 | 0.002 | PAS and Inga 8 | 0.568 | moderate | |
| PAS and Inga 11 | 0.576 | 0.002 | PAS and Inga 11 | 0.791 | strong | |
| PAS and Old Inga | 0.564 | 0.009 | PAS and Old Inga | 0.791 | strong | |
| Inga 4 and Inga 8 | 0.097 | 0.182 | Inga 4 and Inga 8 | 0.044 | No difference | |
| Inga 4 and Inga 11 | 0.669 | 0.002 | Inga 4 and Inga 11 | 0.791 | strong | |
| Inga 4 and Old Inga | 0.564 | 0.016 | Inga 4 and Old Inga | 0.791 | strong | |
| Inga 8 and Inga 11 | 0.323 | 0.019 | Inga 8 and Inga 11 | 0.449 | weak | |
| Inga 8 and Old Inga | 0.503 | 0.053 | Inga 8 and Old Inga | 0.568 | moderate | |
| Inga 11 and Old Inga | 0.201 | 0.037 | Inga 11 and Old Inga | 0.044 | No difference | |
| ANOSIM of CCDec Fungal Taxa | CAP of CCDec Fungal Taxa | |||||
| Global R = 0.473 | CAP model p value = 0.0006 | |||||
| Global p value 0.0001 | ||||||
| Pairwise Groups | R value | p Value | Pairwise Groups | R2 Value | Strength of Diff | |
| PAS and Inga 4 | 0.379 | 0.019 | PAS and Inga 4 | 0.582 | moderate | |
| PAS and Inga 8 | 0.533 | 0.004 | PAS and Inga 8 | 0.687 | moderate | |
| PAS and Inga 11 | 0.654 | 0.002 | PAS and Inga 11 | 0.745 | strong | |
| PAS and Old Inga | 0.616 | 0.006 | PAS and Old Inga | 0.745 | strong | |
| Inga 4 and Inga 8 | 0.027 | 0.359 | Inga 4 and Inga 8 | 0.019 | No difference | |
| Inga 4 and Inga 11 | 0.853 | 0.002 | Inga 4 and Inga 11 | 0.745 | strong | |
| Inga 4 and Old Inga | 0.648 | 0.024 | Inga 4 and Old Inga | 0.745 | strong | |
| Inga 8 and Inga 11 | 0.368 | 0.039 | Inga 8 and Inga 11 | 0.233 | weak | |
| Inga 8 and Old Inga | 0.607 | 0.002 | Inga 8 and Old Inga | 0.582 | moderate | |
| Inga 11 and Old Inga | 0.320 | 0.017 | Inga 11 and Old Inga | 0.019 | No difference | |
| % Contribution of Fungal Taxa to the Total Fungal Community Composition in PAS Soils | % Contribution of Fungal Taxa to the Total Fungal Community Composition in Inga 4 Soils | |||||
| Species | % Contribution | Function | Species | % Contribution | Function | |
| Archaeorhizomyces | 18.22 | RADec | Glomeromycota | 22.63 | ARM | |
| Rozella | 13.69 | PAR | Saitozyma | 16.48 | CCDec | |
| Apiotrichum | 9.48 | CCDec | Phialocephala | 9.84 | RACCDec | |
| Glomeromycota | 9.45 | ARM | Sordariaceae | 9.39 | CCDec | |
| Dipodascus | 7.32 | CCDEC | Archaeorhizomyces | 6.25 | RADec | |
| Leohumicola | 3.91 | SAPDec | Starmerella | 5.96 | SAPDec | |
| Pleosporales | 3.58 | SAPDec | Chaetomium | 3.69 | CCDecWRT | |
| Sordariaceae | 3.48 | CCDec | Mortierella | 3.01 | CCDec | |
| Phialocephala | 2.98 | CCDec | Rozella | 2.61 | PAR | |
| Pyrenochaetopsis | 1.85 | CCDec | Pleosporales | 1.78 | SAPDec | |
| Total % Contr CCDec | 25.11 | Total % Contr CCDec | 42.41 | |||
| % Contribution of Fungal Taxa to the Total Fungal Community Composition In Inga 8 Soils | % Contribution of Fungal Taxa to the Total Fungal Community Composition in Inga 11 Soils | |||||
| Species | % Contribution | Function | Species | % Contribution | Function | |
| Glomeromycota | 18.65 | ARM | Apiotrichum | 22.38 | CCDec | |
| Saitozyma | 15.35 | CCDec | Glomeromycota | 16.28 | ARM | |
| Archaeorhizomyces | 11.12 | RADec | Saitozyma | 10.95 | CCDec | |
| Sordariaceae | 9.85 | CCDec | Starmerella | 10.45 | SAPDec | |
| Apiotrichum | 6.99 | CCDec | Dipodasus | 8.16 | CCDec | |
| Phialocephela | 6.06 | CCDec | Archaeorhizomyces | 6.24 | RADec | |
| Starmerella | 5.18 | SAPDec | Phialocephala | 5.16 | CCDec | |
| Rozella | 5.11 | PAR | Rozella | 4.82 | PAR | |
| Pyrenochaetopsis | 4.63 | CCDec | Geotrichum | 4.35 | CCDecWRT | |
| Lipomyces | 4.14 | CCDec | Lipomyces | 4.13 | CCDec | |
| Total % Contr CCDec | 47.02 | Total % Contr CCDec | 55.13 | |||
| % Contribution of Fungal Taxa to the Total Fungal Community Composition in Old Inga Soils | ||||||
| Species | % Contribution | Function | ||||
| Apiotrichum | 25.53 | CCDec | ||||
| Glomeromycota | 17.62 | ARM | ||||
| Starmerella | 14.77 | SAPDec | Key To Functions | |||
| Saitozyma | 10.24 | CCDec | Dec: simple C decomposer | |||
| Tremella | 10.23 | CCDec | RA: root associated | |||
| Archaeorhizomyces | 8.19 | RADec | SAP: saprobe | |||
| Sordariaceae | 5.84 | CCDec | CCDec: complex C decomposer | |||
| Rozella | 4.24 | PAR | PAR: endoparasite | |||
| Lipomyces | 3.85 | CCDec | WRT: wood rot | |||
| Phialocephala | 3.07 | CCDec | ||||
| Total % Contr CCDec | 58.76 | |||||
| Effects on All C metrics | AICc | Pseudo-F | p value | % Var | Cumul. % Var |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saitozyma | 24.793 | 11.03 | 0.0001 | 29.79 | 29.79 |
| Apiotrichum | 20.996 | 6.3272 | 0.0093 | 14.18 | 43.97 |
| Effects on Biomass-C | AICc | Pseudo-F | p value | % Var | Cumul. % Var |
| Saitozyma | 16.549 | 24.656 | 0.0003 | 48.67 | 48.67 |
| Effects on Respiration | AICc | Pseudo-F | p value | % Var | Cumul. % Var |
| Saitozyma | 16.362 | 17.637 | 0.0003 | 40.42 | 40.42 |
| Apiotrichum | 11.137 | 7.9661 | 0.0096 | 14.40 | 54.82 |
| Effects on qCO2 | AICc | Pseudo-F | p value | % Var | Cumul. % Var |
| Apiotrichum | 7.7003 | 9.1392 | 0.0055 | 26.00 | 26.00 |
| Saitozyma | 3.4048 | 6.8898 | 0.0153 | 15.99 | 41.99 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).