Title: Early successional ectomycorrhizal fungi are more likely to naturalize outside their native range than other ectomycorrhizal fungi
Abstract: New PhytologistVolume 227, Issue 5 p. 1289-1293 LettersFree Access Early successional ectomycorrhizal fungi are more likely to naturalize outside their native range than other ectomycorrhizal fungi Lukáš Vlk, Lukáš Vlk orcid.org/0000-0001-9201-8715 Institute of Microbiology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Vídeňská 1083, CZ-142 20 Prague, Czech Republic Institute of Botany, Czech Academy of Sciences, Zámek 1, CZ-252 43 Průhonice, Czech Republic Faculty of Science, Charles University, Viničná 7, CZ-128 44 Prague, Czech RepublicSearch for more papers by this authorLeho Tedersoo, Leho Tedersoo orcid.org/0000-0002-1635-1249 Natural History Museum, University of Tartu, 14a Ravila, 50411 Tartu, Estonia Institute of Ecology and Earth Science, University of Tartu, 14a Ravila, 50411 Tartu, EstoniaSearch for more papers by this authorTomáš Antl, Tomáš Antl Institute of Botany, Czech Academy of Sciences, Zámek 1, CZ-252 43 Průhonice, Czech Republic Faculty of Science, Charles University, Viničná 7, CZ-128 44 Prague, Czech RepublicSearch for more papers by this authorTomáš Větrovský, Tomáš Větrovský Institute of Microbiology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Vídeňská 1083, CZ-142 20 Prague, Czech RepublicSearch for more papers by this authorKessy Abarenkov, Kessy Abarenkov orcid.org/0000-0001-5526-4845 Institute of Ecology and Earth Science, University of Tartu, 14a Ravila, 50411 Tartu, EstoniaSearch for more papers by this authorJan Pergl, Jan Pergl orcid.org/0000-0002-0045-1974 Institute of Botany, Czech Academy of Sciences, Zámek 1, CZ-252 43 Průhonice, Czech RepublicSearch for more papers by this authorJana Albrechtová, Jana Albrechtová orcid.org/0000-0001-6912-1992 Faculty of Science, Charles University, Viničná 7, CZ-128 44 Prague, Czech RepublicSearch for more papers by this authorMiroslav Vosátka, Miroslav Vosátka orcid.org/0000-0002-1378-3185 Institute of Botany, Czech Academy of Sciences, Zámek 1, CZ-252 43 Průhonice, Czech Republic Faculty of Science, Charles University, Viničná 7, CZ-128 44 Prague, Czech RepublicSearch for more papers by this authorPetr Baldrian, Petr Baldrian orcid.org/0000-0002-8983-2721 Institute of Microbiology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Vídeňská 1083, CZ-142 20 Prague, Czech RepublicSearch for more papers by this authorPetr Pyšek, Petr Pyšek orcid.org/0000-0001-8500-442X Institute of Botany, Czech Academy of Sciences, Zámek 1, CZ-252 43 Průhonice, Czech Republic Faculty of Science, Charles University, Viničná 7, CZ-128 44 Prague, Czech Republic Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University, Matieland, South AfricaSearch for more papers by this authorPetr Kohout, Corresponding Author Petr Kohout [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-3985-2310 Institute of Microbiology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Vídeňská 1083, CZ-142 20 Prague, Czech Republic Institute of Botany, Czech Academy of Sciences, Zámek 1, CZ-252 43 Průhonice, Czech Republic Faculty of Science, Charles University, Viničná 7, CZ-128 44 Prague, Czech RepublicAuthor for correspondence: tel +42 0728 228 263; email [email protected] for more papers by this author Lukáš Vlk, Lukáš Vlk orcid.org/0000-0001-9201-8715 Institute of Microbiology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Vídeňská 1083, CZ-142 20 Prague, Czech Republic Institute of Botany, Czech Academy of Sciences, Zámek 1, CZ-252 43 Průhonice, Czech Republic Faculty of Science, Charles University, Viničná 7, CZ-128 44 Prague, Czech RepublicSearch for more papers by this authorLeho Tedersoo, Leho Tedersoo orcid.org/0000-0002-1635-1249 Natural History Museum, University of Tartu, 14a Ravila, 50411 Tartu, Estonia Institute of Ecology and Earth Science, University of Tartu, 14a Ravila, 50411 Tartu, EstoniaSearch for more papers by this authorTomáš Antl, Tomáš Antl Institute of Botany, Czech Academy of Sciences, Zámek 1, CZ-252 43 Průhonice, Czech Republic Faculty of Science, Charles University, Viničná 7, CZ-128 44 Prague, Czech RepublicSearch for more papers by this authorTomáš Větrovský, Tomáš Větrovský Institute of Microbiology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Vídeňská 1083, CZ-142 20 Prague, Czech RepublicSearch for more papers by this authorKessy Abarenkov, Kessy Abarenkov orcid.org/0000-0001-5526-4845 Institute of Ecology and Earth Science, University of Tartu, 14a Ravila, 50411 Tartu, EstoniaSearch for more papers by this authorJan Pergl, Jan Pergl orcid.org/0000-0002-0045-1974 Institute of Botany, Czech Academy of Sciences, Zámek 1, CZ-252 43 Průhonice, Czech RepublicSearch for more papers by this authorJana Albrechtová, Jana Albrechtová orcid.org/0000-0001-6912-1992 Faculty of Science, Charles University, Viničná 7, CZ-128 44 Prague, Czech RepublicSearch for more papers by this authorMiroslav Vosátka, Miroslav Vosátka orcid.org/0000-0002-1378-3185 Institute of Botany, Czech Academy of Sciences, Zámek 1, CZ-252 43 Průhonice, Czech Republic Faculty of Science, Charles University, Viničná 7, CZ-128 44 Prague, Czech RepublicSearch for more papers by this authorPetr Baldrian, Petr Baldrian orcid.org/0000-0002-8983-2721 Institute of Microbiology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Vídeňská 1083, CZ-142 20 Prague, Czech RepublicSearch for more papers by this authorPetr Pyšek, Petr Pyšek orcid.org/0000-0001-8500-442X Institute of Botany, Czech Academy of Sciences, Zámek 1, CZ-252 43 Průhonice, Czech Republic Faculty of Science, Charles University, Viničná 7, CZ-128 44 Prague, Czech Republic Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University, Matieland, South AfricaSearch for more papers by this authorPetr Kohout, Corresponding Author Petr Kohout [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-3985-2310 Institute of Microbiology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Vídeňská 1083, CZ-142 20 Prague, Czech Republic Institute of Botany, Czech Academy of Sciences, Zámek 1, CZ-252 43 Průhonice, Czech Republic Faculty of Science, Charles University, Viničná 7, CZ-128 44 Prague, Czech RepublicAuthor for correspondence: tel +42 0728 228 263; email [email protected] for more papers by this author First published: 26 March 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16557Citations: 10AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Introduction Ectomycorrhizal fungi (EcMF) are the key symbionts of numerous woody plants in many ecosystems worldwide (Smith & Read, 2008; Tedersoo, 2017). They positively affect host plant nutrient uptake (Smith & Read, 2008) and take part in essential ecosystem processes such as carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling and decomposition of organic matter (Read & Perez-Moreno, 2003; Clemmensen et al., 2014; Shah et al., 2016). The majority of ectomycorrhizal (EcM) plants fully depend on the mycorrhizal symbionts and cannot complete their life cycle without these root associations (Smith & Read, 2008). It has been long recognized that the absence of co-evolved EcMF can present a significant barrier to successful establishment of introduced EcM trees (Mikola, 1969; Poynton, 1979; Richardson et al., 2000a; Pringle et al., 2009). Dickie et al. (2010, 2017) proposed different strategies of alien EcM plants to overcome detrimental losses of mutualistic symbionts: (1) co-introduction of co-evolved mutualists; (2) association with familiar mutualists native to both native and alien ranges; and (3) novel associations with local species. Co-introductions of exotic EcMF with their plant hosts have been increasingly reported as a global phenomenon in recent years (Vellinga et al., 2009). In some cases, exotic EcMF can alter nutrient cycling and soil biochemistry (Chapela et al., 2001) or plant derived carbon competitive links (Wolfe et al., 2010). EcMF introductions have been recorded in the past based on fruiting body collections (Vellinga et al., 2009). However, these aboveground sexual structures do not represent the whole EcMF communities associated with host plant roots (Gardes & Bruns, 1996; Kjøller, 2006), because many EcM fungal species produce either resupinate, hypogeous or microscopic fruiting bodies (e.g. Tomentella, Amphinema) or lack them altogether. In addition, many fungal species do not fruit frequently, making it difficult to record their presence. Therefore, methods of molecular identification are better suited for detection of many EcMF species compared to fruiting body surveys (Nilsson et al., 2019). Furthermore, in the past few years, the rise of well-developed and maintained databases such as UNITE (Abarenkov et al., 2010) and a newly developed database of fungal next-generation sequencing studies (Větrovský et al., 2019) provide significantly improved information about the distribution and biogeography of many fungal taxa. In plants, the EcM symbiosis has arisen independently on multiple occasions in evolutionary time since at least the Cretaceous Period (Brundrett & Tedersoo, 2018). Over 80 EcMF independent evolutionary lineages have been described to date (Tedersoo & Smith, 2017). In general, EcMF lineages differ in evolutionary age, geographic distribution, diversity, host specificity and ecology (Tedersoo & Smith, 2013). Phylogenetically, EcMF lineages mostly correspond to genus level, although some EcMF lineages are comprised of more genera. 'Early' and 'late' successional status has been recognized for some EcMF species (Mason et al., 1982; Last et al., 1984). Several fungal functional traits, such as spore germination rate, spore dormancy and spore longevity and ability to colonize tree seedlings are usually associated with early successional EcMF (Agerer, 2001; Bruns et al., 2009). Because many alien tree species have been frequently transported to new areas as seedlings along with soil from their native range (Mikola, 1969; Schwartz et al., 2006), EcMF with early successional strategy should be better preadapted to spread into new areas (Hayward et al., 2015). However, this assumption has never been tested before. In this study, we explore the diversity of EcMF species introductions based on literature review and our own unpublished data from all continents. We expect that a relative number of naturalized EcMF species will be higher in EcMF lineages with prevalence in early successional stages. Materials and Methods This global-scale meta-study of EcMF co-introductions associated with alien woody plants is based on Web of Science and Google Scholar (as of 15 December 2019) search of studies, using combination of terms 'non-native', 'alien*', 'invasion*' and 'introduction*' with 'ectomycorrhiza*'. This search yielded 267 papers. In addition, we also searched for sequences of EcM mycobionts associated with exotic EcM plants in public sequence depositories, such as UNITE (Abarenkov et al., 2010) or INSD (International Nucleotide Sequence Database). The analysis included studies in which at least one EcM plant species was sampled outside its native range (corresponding to the definition of 'alien' following the criteria of Richardson et al. (2000b)) and root-associated EcMF were identified using sequencing of the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region of ribosomal ribonucleic acid (rRNA) operon. The ITS region was chosen, because it represents the most commonly used barcoding region for fungal species (Schoch et al., 2012), which serves as a basis for molecularly defined fungal species hypotheses (SHs; Kõljalg et al., 2013). Studies with experimentally manipulated soil treatments were excluded. If more than one alien EcM plant species per study was sampled, each species was treated as separated dataset. This procedure yielded 50 datasets from 30 studies (Supporting Information Table S1). In addition we included our seven unpublished datasets, which fulfilled all criteria listed earlier in the text. The ITS sequences of root-associated EcMF were assigned to existing fungal SHs (version 8.0; Kõljalg et al., 2013) based on Blastn (Altschul et al., 1990) search on 98.5% similarity level. Detected SHs were assigned to existing EcM lineages based on Tedersoo & Smith (2017). To determine putative native ranges of EcM SHs, we used (1) the SH distribution maps implemented in UNITE (5 November 2018), after excluding all sequences associated with non-native EcM vegetation or well known cases of EcMF introductions (i.e. introduced Amanita phalloides associating with native trees in North America; Wolfe et al., 2010) and (2) a newly developed database of studies determining fungal community composition in natural vegetation based on next-generation sequencing (Větrovský et al., 2019). Combining these two independent sources enabled us to determine the putative native ranges of EcM SHs from Sanger sequencing (UNITE) as well as next generation sequencing (NGS) based studies (Větrovský et al., 2019). It gives probably the most comprehensive overview of global distribution of fungal SHs so far. Based on this information, we defined co-introduction as either concurrent or asynchronous introduction of naturalized SH with alien plant (Nuñez & Dickie, 2014; Dickie et al., 2017). Putative native ranges were not defined for SHs with a low number of records in UNITE or NGS databases (less than six records). Total numbers of all SHs (on 1.5% dissimilarity level) per EcM fungal lineage were obtained from the UNITE database to calculate the proportion of naturalized EcMF SHs among all SHs in the lineage. EcM fungal lineages were classified into early and late successional according to their appearance along the successional gradients. So far the most comprehensive review of the appearance of different EcMF genera during succession was published several years ago (Dickie et al., 2013), which is a relatively long time given the rapid development of the field and its methodological tools. We extended the data provided by Dickie et al. (2013) with studies published since then (Table S2). If some EcMF were not recorded in studies describing EcMF communities along successional gradient, we identified their putative strategy based on the appearance on seedling roots or newly developed substrates (indicating early successional EcMF) or in mature forest vegetation (indicating late successional species). To test whether there are differences in the share of naturalized EcMF in different EcMF lineages (based on Tedersoo & Smith, 2017), their counts were analysed by row × column contingency tables, using generalized linear models with the log-link function and a Poisson distribution of errors (Crawley, 2007). For the models that showed significant effects of the lineages, adjusted standardized residuals of G-tests were then compared with critical values of the normal distribution to ascertain the naturalized EcMF species counts per lineage that are lower or higher than expected by chance (Řehák & Řeháková, 1986; see e.g. Vinogradova et al., 2018). All calculations were done in R v.3.5.0 software (R Development Core Team, 2019). Results and Discussion In total, 130 co-introduced EcM fungal SHs associated with roots of alien EcM plants were recorded in 57 analysed datasets worldwide (Table S3). So far, the most complete list of co-introduced EcMF compiled by Vellinga et al. (2009) based on fruiting bodies surveys, identified 224 co-introduced EcMF species worldwide. Interestingly, only 56 naturalized EcMF species were shared between our dataset and that of Vellinga et al. (2009). Collectively, these two studies identified almost 300 co-introduced EcMF species worldwide. Although 300 species represent a relatively small share of the tremendous EcMF diversity, we assume that the number of co-introduced species is much higher based on the low share of the EcMF species between the two data sets. The introductions are also probably on the rise due to increasing global trade and planting exotic material in attempts to counteract climate change effects on native trees. The richness of naturalized species largely differed among EcMF lineages (Fig. 1). We identified numerous naturalized EcMF taxa in the /tomentella-thelephora lineage associated with both gymnosperms and angiosperms (Walbert et al., 2010; Bogar et al., 2015). Considering the resupinate fruiting bodies of Tomentella spp., these species may have been often overlooked in fruiting body surveys. Therefore, Vellinga et al. (2009) recognized only a few alien Thelephora spp., and no Tomentella spp., while our data indicated 18 species from the /tomentella-thelephora as co-introduced. Several of these were successfully co-introduced to more than one continent. Nonetheless, these naturalized taxa represented only a small proportion (< 1%) of all known /tomentella-thelephora SHs. Fig. 1Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Number of naturalized and all ectomycorrhizal fungal species hypotheses (SH; a molecularly defined fungal taxa used as a substitute of biological species) in different ectomycorrhizal fungal lineages. Numbers on left and right sides of the row bars indicate sums of naturalized and all ectomycorrhizal fungal SHs per lineage, respectively. Numbers on the x-axis correspond to the share of naturalized SHs in different ectomycorrhizal fungal lineages. Arrows indicate significant deviation of naturalized ectomycorrhizal fungi numbers from random distribution. Up arrows indicate overrepresentation and down arrows indicate underrepresentation. ↑↑↑, P < 0.001; ↑↑, P < 0.01; ↑, P < 0.05. Importantly, several EcMF lineages contained a higher share of naturalized EcMF than expected by chance (Fig. 1). These lineages, /wilcoxina, /suillus-rhizopogon, /descolea, /laccaria and /pisolithus-scleroderma, likely include species with ecological traits favouring successful co-introduction with their alien EcM partners. As previously proposed by Hayward et al. (2015), such traits (i.e. production of resistant propagules or preferential association with widely introduced Pinaceae; Glassman et al., 2015), could have allowed successful introductions of relatively small subset of EcMF in the past, which can subsequently drive host plant invasion (Policelli et al., 2019). Although comprehensive databases of fungal species-level functional traits are still lacking, information about species distribution as well as their appearance during succession in previous studies enables us to estimate rough ecological strategies in EcMF. Species from the earlier-mentioned lineages were previously repeatedly detected in early successional plant communities (Table S2). With a few exceptions, members of these lineages are easily culturable and exhibit rapid mycelial growth (Chu-Chou, 1979; de la Bastide et al., 1995; Kennedy et al., 2011). Species from the Holarctic /wilcoxina lineage dominate on seedlings of EcM plants in tree nurseries (Mikola, 1965), early stages of succession after wildfire or following clear-cut harvesting (Barker et al., 2013). Similarly, species from the Southern Hemisphere /descolea lineage are also known as common fungal symbionts on post-fire sites (Palfner et al., 2008) or on EcM plant seedlings (Kuhar et al., 2017). Also other more likely co-introduced species from /laccaria lineage often occur on early successional sites (Table S2) and they are widespread in nurseries and fruit commonly on disturbed ground (Danielson, 1984). The Pinaceae-specific Suillus and Rhizopogon species are among the earliest colonizers of isolated seedlings (Peay et al., 2012). Rhizopogon spp. build persistent, extensive spore banks in soil (Taylor & Bruns, 1999) that may support colonization of emerging seedlings after stand-replacing wild-fires (Horton et al., 1998). Early successional strategy was also proposed for species from the /pisolithus-scleroderma lineage (Gardner & Malajczuk, 1988; Thompson et al., 1994). However, the situation here may be more difficult, because species from both Pisolithus and Scleroderma have been widely used in commercial inoculation programmes and may have been co-introduced intentionally (Sulzbacher et al., 2018). The documented ability of EcMF from all these lineages to grow on early-successional sites can be potentially explained by ease of germination of their spores and infectivity from small amounts of spores (Nara, 2009), but to identify particular functional traits that would explain why EcMF with pioneering life strategy more often become naturalized is beyond the scope of our study. We also identified several EcMF lineages, such as /boletus, /russula-lactarius and /cortinarius, where the proportion of naturalized species was lower than expected by chance. Members of these lineages more often occur in late successional, mature forests (Table S2) and are known to colonize new hosts mostly through mycelial growth and to establish less easily from spores (Nara, 2009). Also, only a very few species of these groups can be isolated into pure culture and these few are very difficult to maintain. However, the alien EcMF can sometimes also recruit from the late successional fungi, such as Amanita muscaria and A. phalloides, which are frequently reported as co-introduced (Vellinga et al., 2009) with ability to invasively spread into native vegetation in North America (Wolfe et al., 2010) and New Zealand (Orlovich & Cairney, 2004; Dickie & Johnston, 2008). Although simpler recognizability of A. muscaria and A. phalloides may cause over-reporting on introduced sites relative to more cryptic EcMF species, it is clear, that late successional fungi may also naturalize outside the native range. Importantly, our results based on the analysis of environmental DNA are in accordance with data provided by fruiting body surveys summarized in Vellinga et al. (2009). Re-analysis of Vellinga et al.'s (2009) data showed also a greater share of alien EcMF than expected by chance in EcMF genera with early successional strategy (Fig. S1). We believe that such concordance between sequencing-based data and fruiting body surveys gives strength to our conclusion that early successional EcMF are better adapted to become naturalized than other EcMF. What particular traits associated with early successional strategy play the most fundamental role in alien EcMF introductions, remains an open question. Acknowledgements The study was supported by the grant Biotic threats to monuments of garden art: algae, cyanobacteria and invasive plants (DG16P02M041; NAKI II of the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic). The authors also thank Prof. Ian Dickie and four anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on a previous version of the manuscript. Author contributions LV, LT and PK jointly conceived the study. LV, TA and PK identified data sources, processed and analysed sequencing data. LT, TA, TV, KA, JA, MV and PK provided unpublished data. LV, TA and PK performed bioinformatics. LV, LT, PK, JP, PB and PP contributed to the development of data analysis tools and performed statistical analyses. PK drafted the manuscript along with LV and LT provided chief contributions. All authors wrote and reviewed the manuscript. Supporting Information Please note: Wiley Blackwell are not responsible for the content or functionality of any Supporting Information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing material) should be directed to the New Phytologist Central Office. Filename Description nph16557-sup-0001-FigS1.pdfPDF document, 82.8 KB Fig. S1 Number of co-introduced and all ectomycorrhizal fungal species in different ectomycorrhizal fungal genera based on Vellinga et al. (2009). nph16557-sup-0002-TableS1.xlsxMS Excel, 17.8 KB Table S1 List of datasets of naturalized ectomycorrhizal fungal associated with alien ectomycorrhizal trees, included in this study. nph16557-sup-0003-TableS2.xlsxMS Excel, 14.5 KB Table S2 Frequency of observation of ectomycorrhizal fungal genera across successional chronosequences. nph16557-sup-0004-TableS3.xlsxMS Excel, 20.2 KB Table S3 Taxonomy of the naturalized ectomycorrhizal fungal species hypotheses (SHs) determined in this study with their putative native ranges. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article. References Abarenkov K, Nilsson RH, Larsson KH, Alexander IJ, Eberhardt U, Erland S, Høiland K, Kjøller R, Larsson E, Pennanen T et al. 2010. The UNITE database for molecular identification of fungi-recent updates and future perspectives. New Phytologist 186: 281– 285. Agerer R. 2001. Exploration types of ectomycorrhizae. Mycorrhiza 11: 107– 114. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. 1990. Basic local alignment search tool. Journal of Molecular Biology 215: 403– 410. Barker JS, Simard SW, Jones MD, Durall DM. 2013. Ectomycorrhizal fungal community assembly on regenerating Douglas-fir after wildfire and clearcut harvesting. Oecologia 172: 1179– 1189. de la Bastide PY, Piché Y, Kropp BR. 1995. Vegetative interactions among mycelia of Laccaria bicolor in pure culture and in symbiosis with Pinus banksiana. Canadian Journal of Botany 73: 1768– 1779. Bogar LM, Dickie IA, Kennedy PG. 2015. Testing the co-invasion hypothesis: ectomycorrhizal fungal communities on Alnus glutinosa and Salix fragilis in New Zealand. Diversity and Distributions 21: 268– 278. Brundrett MC, Tedersoo L. 2018. Evolutionary history of mycorrhizal symbioses and global host plant diversity. New Phytologist 220: 1108– 1115. Bruns TD, Peay KG, Boynton PJ, Grubisha LC, Hynson NA, Nguyen NH, Rosenstock NP. 2009. Inoculum potential of Rhizopogon spores increases with time over the first 4 yr of a 99-yr spore burial experiment. New Phytologist 181: 463– 470. Chapela IH, Osher LJ, Horton TR, Henn MR. 2001. Ectomycorrhizal fungi introduced with exotic pine plantations induce soil carbon depletion. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 33: 1733– 1740. Chu-Chou M. 1979. Mycorrhizal fungi of Pinus radiata in New Zealand. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 11: 557– 562. Clemmensen KE, Finlay RD, Dahlberg A, Stenlid J, Wardle DA, Lindahl BD. 2014. Carbon sequestration is related to mycorrhizal fungal community shifts during long-term succession in boreal forests. New Phytologist 205: 1525– 1536. Crawley MJ. 2007. The R book. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Danielson RM. 1984. Ectomycorrhizal associations in jack pine stands in northeastern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Botany 62: 932– 939. Dickie IA, Bolstridge N, Cooper JA, Peltzer DA. 2010. Co-invasion by Pinus and its mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytologist 187: 475– 484. Dickie IA, Bufford JL, Cobb RC, Desprez-Loustau ML, Grelet G, Hulme PE, Klironomos J, Makiola A, Nuñez MA, Pringle A et al. 2017. The emerging science of linked plant–fungal invasions. New Phytologist 215: 1314– 1332. Dickie IA, Johnston PR. 2008. Invasive fungi research priorities, with a focus on Amanita muscaria. Lincoln, New Zealand: Landcare Research. Dickie IA, Martínez-García LB, Koele N, Grelet G-A, Tylianakis JM, Peltzer DA, Richardson SJ. 2013. Mycorrhizas and mycorrhizal fungal communities throughout ecosystem development. Plant and Soil 367: 11– 39. Gardes M, Bruns TD. 1996. Community structure of ectomycorrhizal fungi in a Pinus muricata forest: above- and below-ground views. Canadian Journal of Botany 74: 1572– 1583. Gardner JH, Malajczuk N. 1988. Recolonisation of rehabilitated bauxite mine sites in Western Australia by mycorrhizal fungi. Forest Ecology and Management 24: 27– 42. Glassman SI, Peay KG, Talbot JM, Smith DP, Chung JA, Taylor JW, Vilgalys R, Bruns TD. 2015. A continental view of pine-associated ectomycorrhizal fungal spore banks: a quiescent functional guild with a strong biogeographic pattern. New Phytologist 205: 1619– 1631. Hayward J, Horton TR, Nuñez MA. 2015. Ectomycorrhizal fungal communities coinvading with Pinaceae host plants in Argentina: Gringos bajo el bosque. New Phytologist 208: 497– 506. Horton TR, Cázares E, Bruns TD. 1998. Ectomycorrhizal, vesicular-arbuscular and dark septate fungal colonization of bishop pine (Pinus muricata) seedlings in the first 5 months of growth after wildfire. Mycorrhiza 8: 11– 18. Kennedy PG, Higgins LM, Rogers RH, Weber MG. 2011. Colonization-competition tradeoffs as a mechanism driving successional dynamics in ectomycorrhizal fungal communities. PLoS ONE 6: e25126. Kjøller R. 2006. Disproportionate abundance between ectomycorrhizal root tips and their associated mycelia. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 58: 214– 224. Kõljalg U, Nilsson RH, Abarenkov K, Tedersoo L, Taylor AFS, Bahram M. 2013. Towards a unified paradigm for sequence-based identification of fungi. Molecular Ecology 22: 5271– 5277. Kuhar F, Smith ME, Mujic A, Truong C, Nouhra E. 2017. A systematic overview of Descolea (Agaricales) in the Nothofagaceae forests of Patagonia. Fungal Biology 121: 876– 889. Last FT, Mason PA, Ingleby K, Fleming LV. 1984. Succession of fruitbodies of sheathing mycorrhizal fungi associated with Betula pendula. Forest Ecology and Management 9: 229– 234. Mason PA, Last FT, Pelham J, Ingleby K. 1982. Ecology of some fungi associated with an ageing stand of birches (Betula pendula and B. pubescens). Forest Ecology and Management 4: 19– 39. Mikola P. 1965. Studies on the ectendotrophic mycorrhiza of Scots pine in Finland. Acta Forestalia Fennica 79: 1– 56. Mikola P. 1969. Mycorrhizal fungi of exotic forest plantations. Karstenia 10: 169– 176. Nara K. 2009. Spores of ectomycorrhizal fungi: ecological strategies for germination and dormancy. New Phytologist 181: 245– 248. Nilsson RH, Anslan S, Bahram M, Wurzbacher C, Baldrian P, Tedersoo L. 2019. Mycobiome diversity: high-throughput sequencing and identification of fungi. Nature Reviews Microbiology 17: 95– 109. Nuñez MA, Dickie IA. 2014. Invasive belowground mutualists of woody plants. Biological Invasions 16: 645– 661. Orlovich DA, Cairney JWG. 2004. Ectomycorrhizal fungi in New Zealand: current perspectives and future directions. New Zealand Journal of Botany 42: 721– 738. Palfner G, Canseco MI, Casanova-Katny A. 2008. Post-fire seedlings of Nothofagus alpina in southern Chile show strong dominance of a single ectomycorrhizal fungus and a vertical shift in root architecture. Plant and Soil 313: 237– 250. Peay KG, Schubert MG, Nguyen NH, Bruns TD. 2012. Measuring ectomycorrhizal fungal dispersal: macroecological patterns driven by microscopic propagules. Molecular Ecology 21: 4122– 4136. Policelli N, Bruns TD, Vilgalys R, Nuñez MA. 2019. Suilloid fungi as global drivers of pine invasions. New Phytologist 222: 714– 725. Poynton RJ. 1979. Tree planting in Southern Africa, vol. 1. The pines. Pretoria, JAR, South Africa: Department of Forestry. Pringle A, Bever JD, Gardes M, Parrent JL, Rillig MC, Klironomos JN. 2009. Mycorrhizal symbioses and plant invasions. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 40: 699– 715. R Development Core Team. 2019. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Development Core Team. Read DJ, Perez-Moreno J. 2003. Mycorrhizas and nutrient cycling in ecosystems – a journey towards relevance? New Phytologist 157: 475– 492. Řehák J, Řeháková B. 1986. Analýza kategorizovaných dat v sociologii [Analysis of categorical data in sociology]. Prague, Czech Republic: Academia. Richardson DM, Allsopp N, D'Antonio CM, Milton SJ, Rejmánek M. 2000a. Plant invasions – the role of mutualism. Biological Review 75: 65– 93. Richardson DM, Pyšek P, Rejmánek M, Barbour MG, Panetta FD, West CJ. 2000b. Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Diversity and Distributions 6: 93– 107. Schoch CL, Seifert KA, Huhndorf S, Robert V, Spouge JL, Levesque CA, Chen W, Consortium FB. 2012. Nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region as a universal DNA barcode marker for Fungi. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 109: 6241– 6246. Schwartz MW, Hoeksema JD, Gehring CA, Johnson NC, Klironomos JN, Abbott LK, Pringle A. 2006. The promise and the potential consequences of the global transport of mycorrhizal fungal inoculum. Ecology Letters 9: 501– 515. Shah F, Nicolás C, Bentzer J, Ellström M, Smits M, Rineau F, Canbäck B, Floudas D, Carleer R, Lackner G et al. 2016. Ectomycorrhizal fungi decompose soil organic matter using oxidative mechanisms adapted from saprotrophic ancestors. New Phytologist 209: 1705– 1719. Smith SE, Read DJ. 2008. Mycorrhizal symbiosis. New York, NY, USA: Academic Press. Sulzbacher MA, Grebenc T, Bevilacqua CB, Steffen RB, Coelho G, Silveira AO, Jacques RJS, Antoniolli ZI. 2018. Co-invasion of ectomycorrhizal fungi in the Brazilian Pampa biome. Applied Soil Ecology 130: 194– 201. Taylor DL, Bruns TD. 1999. Community structure of ectomycorrhizal fungi in a Pinus muricata forest: minimal overlap between the mature forest and resistant propagule communities. Molecular Ecology 8: 1837– 1850. Tedersoo L. 2017. Global biogeography and invasions of ectomycorrhizal plants: Past, present and future. In: L Tedersoo, ed. Biogeography of mycorrhizal symbiosis. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International, 469– 531. Tedersoo L, Smith ME. 2013. Lineages of ectomycorrhizal fungi revisited: foraging strategies and novel lineages revealed by sequences from belowground. Fungal Biology Reviews 27: 83– 99. Tedersoo L, Smith ME. 2017. Ectomycorrhizal fungal lineages: detection of four new groups and notes on consistent recognition of ectomycorrhizal taxa in high-throughput sequencing studies. In: L Tedersoo, ed. Biogeography of mycorrhizal symbiosis. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International, 125– 142. Thompson BD, Grove TS, Malajczuk N, Hardy GES. 1994. The effectiveness of ectomycorrhizal fungi in increasing the growth of Eucalyptus globulus Labill in relation to root colonization and hyphal development in soil. New Phytologist 126: 517– 524. Vellinga EC, Wolfe BE, Pringle A. 2009. Global patterns of ectomycorrhizal introductions. New Phytologist 181: 960– 973. Větrovský T, Kohout P, Kopecký M, Machač A, Man M, Bahnmann BD, Brabcová V, Choi J, Meszárošová L, Human ZR et al. 2019. A meta-analysis of global fungal distribution reveals climate-driven patterns. Nature Communications 10: 1– 9. Vinogradova Y, Pergl J, Essl F, Hejda M, van Kleunen M, Pyšek P. 2018. Invasive alien plants of Russia: insights from regional inventories. Biological Invasions 20: 1931– 1943. Walbert K, Ramsfield TD, Ridgway HJ, Jones EE. 2010. Ectomycorrhizal species associated with Pinus radiata in New Zealand including novel associations determined by molecular analysis. Mycorrhiza 20: 209– 215. Wolfe BE, Richard F, Cross HB, Pringle A. 2010. Distribution and abundance of the introduced ectomycorrhizal fungus Amanita phalloides in North America. New Phytologist 185: 803– 816. Citing Literature Volume227, Issue5September 2020Pages 1289-1293 FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation