Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42560416›Full record

SynthesisMycorrhiza2026

Shared buddies: ectomycorrhizal fungal communities in pinus and quercus and their potential relevance for mixed-forest restoration.

Fernández Verónica Natalia, Floriani Franco, Reyes Santiago, Mallerman Julieta, Zsuzsi Kovacs, Catherine Gehring

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Mycorrhiza, 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

6 authors.

Fernández Verónica NataliaGrupo de Microbiología Aplicada y Biotecnología Vegetal y del Suelo (MABVeS), Instituto Andino Patagónico de Tecnologías Biológicas y Geoambientales (IPATEC, Universidad Nacional del Comahue - CONICET), Bariloche, Río Negro, Argentina. natifernandez@comahue-conicet.gob.ar.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6483-0407
Floriani FrancoGrupo de Microbiología Aplicada y Biotecnología Vegetal y del Suelo (MABVeS), Instituto Andino Patagónico de Tecnologías Biológicas y Geoambientales (IPATEC, Universidad Nacional del Comahue - CONICET), Bariloche, Río Negro, Argentina.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6820-1066
Reyes SantiagoGrupo de Microbiología Aplicada y Biotecnología Vegetal y del Suelo (MABVeS), Instituto Andino Patagónico de Tecnologías Biológicas y Geoambientales (IPATEC, Universidad Nacional del Comahue - CONICET), Bariloche, Río Negro, Argentina.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-2201-4866
Mallerman JulietaGrupo de Microbiología Aplicada y Biotecnología Vegetal y del Suelo (MABVeS), Instituto Andino Patagónico de Tecnologías Biológicas y Geoambientales (IPATEC, Universidad Nacional del Comahue - CONICET), Bariloche, Río Negro, Argentina.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0825-9052
Zsuzsi KovacsDepartment of Biological Sciences and Center for Adaptable Western Landscapes, Northern Arizona University (NAU), Flagstaff, AZ, USA.
Catherine GehringDepartment of Biological Sciences and Center for Adaptable Western Landscapes, Northern Arizona University (NAU), Flagstaff, AZ, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9393-9556

Funding

Fulbright Foundation Researcher grant for staying 3 months in the USA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pines and oaks are ecologically and economically important taxa that co-occur in several forest and woodland systems across the northern hemisphere and that have been severely affected by diverse disturbances (e.g., wildfire, drought). Despite their relevance, the value of co-planting pines, that regenerate from seeds, and oaks, which are able to resprout, to improve forest restoration following disturbance has only recently been appreciated. An important consideration with this strategy is whether pines and oaks share root-associated fungal symbionts (ectomycorrhizas -EcM-, arbuscular mycorrhizas -AM- and dark septate endophytes -DSE-) that can be key to tree re-establishment following disturbance. However, the degree of overlap in fungal communities between pines and oaks is poorly understood. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a systematic literature review of 948 studies published from 1969 to 2024. We hypothesized that both plant taxa would host DSE in addition to EcM, and that ectomycorrhizal fungal (EcMF) assemblages would differ in pines and oaks but that both host genera would share a limited subset of generalist taxa. We found that oaks and pines were mainly colonized by different EcMF species but also shared some taxa (26%), particularly members of the Russulaceae and Cortinariaceae. Few studies measured DSE or AM in addition to EcM, and the EcMF community of pines was better studied (~ 50% of described species) than that of oaks (~ 12%). We also conducted a greenhouse experiment using P. ponderosa and Q. gambelii as model species and the same mixed-forest soil as an EcMF inoculum source. We found that, at early developmental stages, both plant species formed associations with DSE but not AMF. For EcMF, P. ponderosa and Q. gambelii showed distinct communities with 30% of taxa in common. Importantly, when relative abundance of EcMF species was considered rather than occurrence only, the overlap between oaks and pines was more striking, approaching 90%. Taken together, these results support our hypothesis that Pinus and Quercus host distinct EcMF communities, but also share significant numbers of taxa. We discuss the potential relevance of this fungal overlap for understanding belowground linkages in mixed pine-oak systems and for future restoration-oriented research.

Indexed as

ForestsMycobiomeMycorrhizaePinusQuercusSoil MicrobiologySymbiosisForest restorationFungal community overlapPinus ponderosaPlant neighborQuercus gambelii

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.