Paper · 2009 · Canadian Journal of Microbiology

Fungi from two forests of southern India: a comparative study of endophytes, phellophytes, and leaf litter fungi

T. S. Suryanarayanan; E. Thirumalai; C. P. Prakash; et al.

4
claims
8
verbatim quotes
11
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The species diversity and distribution of 3 ecological groups of fungi (viz., foliar endophytes, phellophytes, and leaf litter fungi of 6 tree hosts of a dry thorn forest and 6 tree hosts of an evergreen forest of southern India) were studied. As the methods of sampling and the isolation procedure were maintained constant, the results could be compared across hosts and fungal assemblages. The diversity of endophytes was less in both forests, owing to host recurrence. The litter fungi showed a higher diversity in both forests when compared with endophytes or phellophytes. There was little overlap between the species assemblages of the 3 ecological groups of fungi. Hence, to be cost effective, diversity estimation exercises for fungi in the tropics should include different fungal substrates rather than one substrate (or ecological group); it appears that even small sample sizes of different substrates would provide an approximation that is the near-real species diversity, rather than using large sample sizes of any one particular indicator group of fungi.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 4

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Endophyte diversity was lower in both forests owing to host recurrence.

Taxon
forestst0
Interactor
endophytese0symbiont
Outcome
diversity of endophytese0
Direction
lesse0
Qualifier
owing to host recurrencee0

Verbatim

e0

“The diversity of endophytes was less in both forests, owing to host recurrence”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 392–470 · show in text ↑
t0

“two forests”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–22 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Litter fungi were more diverse than endophytes or phellophytes in both forests.

Taxon
forestst0
Interactor
litter fungie0other
Outcome
litter fungie0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
endophytes or phellophytese0

Verbatim

e0

“The litter fungi showed a higher diversity in both forests when compared with endophytes or phellophytes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 472–576 · show in text ↑
t0

“two forests”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–22 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The three fungal ecological groups had little species-assemblage overlap.

Taxon
forestst0
Interactor
fungiFungie0other
Outcome
little overlap between the species assemblagese0

Verbatim

e0

“There was little overlap between the species assemblages of the 3 ecological groups of fungi”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 578–670 · show in text ↑
t0

“two forests”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–22 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend sampling different fungal substrates to estimate tropical fungal diversity cost effectively.

Taxon
forestst0
Interactor
fungiFungie0other
Outcome
should include different fungal substrates rather than one substratee0

Verbatim

e0

“diversity estimation exercises for fungi in the tropics should include different fungal substrates rather than one substrate (or ecological group)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 701–847 · show in text ↑
t0

“two forests”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–22 · show in text ↑