Tinya, F. | bioRxiv Science

bioRxiv2026

Silvicultural practices and interannual variation shape ectomycorrhizal fungal diversity and community composition in an oak-hornbeam forest in northern Hungary

Ectomycorrhizal (ECM) fungi are well-known for their crucial roles in forest health and productivity, yet their responses to various forest management practices are understudied, particularly in oak-dominated forests. The purpose of this study was to better understand the effects of silvicultural treatments on the diversity and community composition of ECM fungi in an oak-hornbeam forest in northern Hungary. We analyzed ITS2 rDNA metabarcoding data of soil-borne fungi to compare richness and community composition of ECM fungi among forest treatment types (clear-cutting, gap-cutting, preparation-cutting, tree retention in clear-cut areas, and control) and between sampling years (2020 and 2021). We found 268 ECM fungal genotypes, with the most diverse phylogenetic clades being /russula-lactarius (52), /tomentella-thelephora (47), /inocybe (40), /sebacina (27), and /cortinarius (20). We found significant compositional difference of ECM fungi among silvicultural treatments in both years, with some variations in richness. There were also small, but still significant compositional differences between the two years. Treatment effect was partly explained by altered environmental variables, such as relative humidity and soil temperature. These results highlight the importance of forest structure and the abiotic environment in driving community dynamics of plant-symbiotic fungi, with potential implications for forest health and productivity.

ecology↗

bioRxiv2024

One to rule them all? Assessing the performance of Forest Europe's biodiversity indicators against multitaxonomic data

Several regional initiatives and reporting efforts assess the state of forest biodiversity through broad-scale indicators based on data from national forest inventories. Although valuable, these indicators are essentially indirect and evaluate habitat quantity and quality rather than biodiversity per se. Therefore, their link to biodiversity may be weak, which decreases their usefulness for decision-making. For several decades, Forest Europe indicators assessed the state of European forests, in particular their biodiversity. However, no extensive study has been conducted to date to assess their performance - i.e. the capacity of the indicators to reflect variations in biodiversity - against multitaxonomic data. We hypothesized that no single biodiversity indicator from Forest Europe can represent overall forest biodiversity, but that several indicators would reflect habitat quality for at least some taxa in a comprehensive way. We tested the set of Forest Europes indicators against the species richness of six taxonomic and functional groups across several hundreds of sampling units over Europe. We showed that, while some indicators perform relatively well across groups (e.g. deadwood volume), no single indicator represented all biodiversity at once, and that a combination of several indicators performed better. Forest Europe indicators were chosen for their availability and ease of understanding for most people. However, we showed that gaps in the monitoring framework persist, and that surveying certain taxa along with stand structure is necessary to support policymaking and tackle forest biodiversity loss at the large scale. Adding context (e.g. forest type) may also contribute to increase the performance of biodiversity indicators. Impact statementBiodiversity indicators used to assess the state of Europes forests perform unequally; a combination of indicators is more informative

ecology↗