Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41641568›Full record

ArticleThe New phytologist2026

Differences in mycelial turnover and persistence of wood-decay fungi at the microscale.

Roos-Marie I J van Bokhoven, Kristin Aleklett, Dimitrios Floudas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The New phytologist, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Roos-Marie I J van BokhovenDepartment of Materials, ETH Zürich, Zürich, 8093, Switzerland.ORCID 0009-0009-3638-2841
Kristin AleklettFunctional Ecology, Biology Department, Lund University, Lund, 22362, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-0593-9271
Dimitrios FloudasFunctional Ecology, Biology Department, Lund University, Lund, 22362, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-6119-2590

Funding

Crafoordska Stiftelsen 20230845Crafoordska Stiftelsen 20230881Vetenskapsrådet 2022-03505V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How long do fungal hyphae persist in the environment? And how does this differ between groups and species of fungi? Despite growing knowledge of fungal contributions to decomposition and soil carbon cycles, surprisingly little is known about the turnover of mycelia: What happens to fungal hyphae over time? And how this impacts different fungi's contribution to carbon sequestration? In this study, we compared microscale persistence of fungal hyphae using microfluidic chip technology and visual quantification of hyphal degradation and turnover across six different wood-decay Basidiomycete species. Measured traits included hyphal extension, coverage, turnover rates, and changes in hyphal morphology over time when supplied with two carbon sources of differing recalcitrance. Species clustered into two groups: one with a frugal nutrient strategy (high turnover capacity, active persistence of cytoplasmic hyphae) and one with a wasteful strategy (low turnover of hyphae and large remnants of skeletonized hyphae). Differences matched the ephemeral or long-lasting nature of their fruiting bodies and the substrates they inhabit. Carbon type also influenced hyphal persistence over time. Our results suggest that hyphal turnover has a genetic basis linked to species ecology yet is also shaped by environmental factors such as carbon availability, highlighting the dynamic nature of fungal mycelia.

Indexed as

BasidiomycotaMyceliumWoodCarbonHyphaeSpecies SpecificityTime FactorsCarbonhyphal traitsmicrofluidicsmycelial dynamicsnecromasspersistenceturnoverwood decomposition

Identifiers

PMID41641568
PMCPMC13020671

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.