Mean reproductive traits of fungal assemblages are correlated with resource availability

Organisms have evolved a fascinating variety of strategies and organs for successful reproduction. Fruit bodies are the reproductive organ of fungi and vary considerably in size and shape among species. Our understanding of the mechanisms underlying the differences in fruit body size among species is still limited. Fruit bodies of saprotrophic fungi are smaller than those of mutualistic ectomycorrhizal fungi. If differences in fruit body size are determined by carbon acquisition, then mean reproductive traits of saprotrophic and ectomycorrhizal fungi assemblages should vary differently along gradients of resource availability as carbon acquisition seems more unpredictable and costly for saprotrophs than for ectomycorrhizal fungi. Here, we used 48 local inventories of fungal fruit bodies (plot size: 0.02 ha each) sampled along a gradient of resource availability (growing stock) across 3 years in the Bavarian Forest National Park in Germany to investigate regional and local factors that might influence the distribution of species with different reproductive traits, particularly fruit body size. As predicted, mean fruit body size of local assemblages of saprotrophic fungi was smaller than expected from the distribution of traits of the regional species pool across central and northern Europe, whereas that of ectomycorrhizal fungi did not differ from random expectation. Furthermore and also as expected, mean fruit body size of assemblages of saprotrophic fungi was significantly smaller than for assemblages of ectomycorrhizal species. However, mean fruit body sizes of not only saprotrophic species but also ectomycorrhizal species increased with resource availability, and the mean number of fruit bodies of both assemblages decreased. Our results indicate that the differences in carbon acquisition between saprotrophs and ectomycorrhizal species lead to differences in basic reproductive strategies, with implications for the breadth of their distribution. However, the differences in resource acquisition cannot explain detailed species distribution patterns at a finer, local scale based on their reproductive traits.