-
Before the start of this research, the proposal was presented to the Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) on February 2023. Permit with No. III-2023-008 (New) was issued in May 2023 by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, San Fernando, Pampanga, The Philippines.
Study site
-
The Mt. Arayat Protected Landscape (MAPL) (15°12'00" N/120°43'59" E) popularly known as Mt. Arayat National Park was reclassified as a protected landscape through Republic Act 11684 in April 2022. This remote mountain is situated at the center plain of Luzon with an altitude between 100 and 1,030 meters above sea level (masl). Its topography is rolling to moderately steep at the lower parts and generally steep and rugged at the upper portions. The western part is covered by a circular volcanic crater about 1.2 km in diameter, while the northern rim had collapsed due to soil erosion. The mountain consists of three peaks; the North Peak (15°12'00" N/120°44'00" E) is where the main summit is located with the highest elevation of about 1,030 m via Barangay Ayala, Magalang route, while the South Peak (15°17'35" N/120°76'42" E) is about 984 m via Barangay San Juan Banyo, Arayat route, and the Pinnacle Peak (15°10'60" N/120°43'59" E) is about 786 masl, situated between the North and the South Peaks (Fig. 1). Due to a dangerous ridgeline of the Pinnacle, the North Peak and South Peak were the only designated areas as collection sites. Collection of macrofungal species was conducted along the trail lines due to the steep terrain of the study sites. The Mt. Arayat Protected Landscape falls under climatic type I and has an annual temperature range of 22−31 °C and an annual rainfall range of 284−1,844 mm. Moreover, MAPL is characterized by a moist tropical climate where the maximum rainfall period is from May to October and dry period from November to April[27].
Field sampling of macrofungi
-
Purposive sampling was used as the collection procedure[12]. Macrofungi were documented in their natural habitat and three transect lines (1,000 m long each) were used to represent the collection sites. Each study site was visited every month from July to December of 2023. Records of temperature, rainfall, and relative humidity during the time of collection were obtained from The Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical, and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA). Such data represented the weather conditions of the site investigated. Also, the substrate type and growth habits of macrofungi were documented. Using Global Positioning System (GPS), the location and elevation of the habitat of each macrofungal species were recorded. Macrofungi were photo-documented in their natural habitat before collection. Fruiting bodies were carefully dug in their substrate to prevent damaging the base. The collected specimens were properly labeled, wrapped in wax paper, and placed in a paper bag for identification in the laboratory. Samples of macrofungi were rescued using the tissue-culture method using potato dextrose agar for further analysis[12].
Morphological identification
-
Identification of the collected samples was carried out using morphometric data. Their macro- and microscopic attributes were analyzed for morphological identification. This includes features of the cap, gill, and stalk. Spore color, shape, and size were observed under the microscope. Macrofungal identity was compared to several species listings and taxonomic works and was authenticated by a mycologist[12,28−33].
Data analysis
-
The percentage composition of the macrofungal taxa was computed to assess the occurrence of macrofungal species in two collection sites, six collection months, and three elevation ranges. The formula used is as follows:
$ {\mathrm {Composition}}\;({\text{%}})=\dfrac{\mathrm{Total\;number\;of\;macrofungi\;occurred}}{\mathrm{Total\;number\;of\;macrofungal\;taxa}}\times 100 $ The diversity indices and level of distribution in the two study sites and three elevation ranges were analyzed using PAST 4.03 software. Shannon diversity index (H), Margalef index (R), and evenness (E) were used to calculate diversity, richness, and equality of distribution respectively.
-
The Mt. Arayat Protected Landscape (MAPL) is known to have a diverse climate depending on the height of the landscape. Although some areas are isolated to a certain extent from other territories, its central part comprises accessible agricultural land and grasslands. At higher altitudes, the vegetation becomes denser, and the deciduous forest where mostly dipterocarp trees are prominent is at the top of the mountain. During the collection of the species, the temperature, and relative humidity were recorded between 7:00−8:00 and 13:00 in the natural environment where each macrofungus was obtained. The average temperature during the collection months July to December recorded the lowest at 23 °C and highest at 35 °C. The humidity was high at 85% in the first four months and dropped at 74% in the last two months of investigation. The soil type is clayish with a measured pH value of 5.4−6.7. In this study, the most intense precipitation was observed in July to September with precipitation varying from 275 to 308 mm. On the other hand, December recorded the least precipitation of only 34 mm. This is because the dry season starts towards the latter months of the year. Altogether a total of 224 macrofungi were collected and documented during the six months of sampling.
Grassland was the habitat of most macrofungal species collected. As shown in Table 1, out of 108 collected species, 59 were not edible. The collected macrofungi were mostly solitary, scattered to gregarious and only a few were caespitose. The majority of the mushrooms were wood-rotting inhabiting dead logs, trunks, decaying twigs, and bamboo as their natural substrates. However, some were found growing in soil, termite mounds, and piles of leaf litter. They were also observed to be symbiotic, parasitic, and saprophytic according to the natural habitats they were recorded. Thus, this investigation can lead to further studies to determine the ecological roles of these macrofungi in the biological cycle of this forest.
Table 1. Edibility, growth habits, substrate, and habitat of 108 macrofungal species in MAPL.
Species Edibility Substrate Growth habit Habitat Agaricus campestris edible soil /bamboo leaf litters solitary grassland Agaricus comtulus edible soil solitary grassland Agaricus moelleri not edible soil solitary grassland Agaricus trisulphuratus not edible soil solitary forest Amanita rubescens not edible rotten log gregarious grassland Amanita sp. 1 not edible soil scattered grassland Amanita sp. 2 not edible soil solitary forest Amanita sp. 3 not edible soil scattered grassland Amanita sp. 4 not edible dead log scattered grassland Amanita sp. 5 not edible soil scattered grassland Amanita sp. 6 not edible soil scattered forest Armillaria mellea edible soil gregarious grassland Auricularia auricula-judae edible dead mango stem scattered grassland, forest Auricularia polytricha edible dead trunk scattered forest Auricularia sp. 1 edible dead trunk scattered forest Calocera viscosa not edible soil solitary forest Calvatia sp. edible at young soil solitary grassland Candolleomyces bivelatus edible soil with leaf litters scattered grassland Coltricia sp. not edible dead trunk scattered forest Cookeina sp. not edible rotten log scattered forest Coprinellus disseminatus edible soil gregarious grassland, forest Coprinellus micaceus edible soil gregarious grassland Coprinopsis atramentaria not edible soil solitary forest Coprinus comatus edible at young soil solitary grassland Coprinus sp. 1 not edible soil solitary grassland Cortinarius violaceus edible but not recommended soil solitary forest Cupophyllus pratensis edible but waxy rotten trunk solitary forest Cyathus striatus not edible dead log gregarious grassland Daedaleopsis sp. not edible dead log scattered forest Daldinia concentrica not edible rotten log solitary forest Flammulina sp. 1 edible dead log gregarious grassland Flammulina sp. 2 edible dead log scattered grassland Fomitopsis feei not edible dead log gregarious forest Fomitopsis pinicola not edible dead log gregarious forest Galiella rufa not edible rotten twig gregarious grassland Ganoderma applanatum edible but not palatable dead trunk solitary forest Ganoderma australe edible but not palatable soil solitary forest Ganoderma carnosum edible but not palatable rotten log solitary grassland Ganoderma ellipsoideum edible but not palatable rotten log solitary forest Ganoderma lucidum edible but not palatable soil solitary grassland Ganoderma sp. 1 edible but not palatable rotten trunk solitary forest Ganoderma sp. 2 edible but not palatable rotten log scattered forest Ganoderma sp. 3 edible but not palatable soil solitary forest Gymnopilus lepidotus not edible rotten log scattered grassland Hypholoma sp. not edible soil caespitose forest Laccaria sp. edible soil solitary grassland Lactocollybia subvariicytis edible leaf litters solitary forest Lentinus tigrinus edible rotten acacia trunk gregarious forest Lepiota cristita not edible soil scattered grassland Lepiota sp. 1 not edible soil solitary grassland Leucoagaricus leucothites edible soil solitary forest Leucoagaricus meleagris edible but not palatable soil scattered grassland Leucocoprinus cepistipes not edible soil scattered grassland Leucocoprinus fragilissimus not edible soil solitary grassland Leucopaxillus amareus edible soil gregarious grassland Lycoperdon perlatum edible when young soil scattered grassland Lycoperdon sp. 1 edible when young soil gregarious grassland Marasmiellus candidus not edible rotten tamarind tree scattered grassland, forest Marasmius albogriseus edible soil gregarious grassland Marasmius oreades not edible soil scattered grassland Marasmius rotula edible rotten twig gregarious forest Marasmius sp. 1 not edible rotten log gregarious forest Marasmius sp. 2 not edible soil solitary forest Marasmius sp. 3 not edible leaf litters solitary grassland Microporus affinis not edible rotten twig of mahogany tree scattered grassland, forest Microporus xanthopus not edible dead twig scattered forest Mycena sp.1 not edible soil with leaf litters gregarious grassland, forest Mycena sp. 2 not edible soil gregarious grassland Mycena sp. 3 not edible soil gregarious grassland Oudemansiella canarii edible rotten mango trunk solitary grassland, forest Oudemansiella mucida edible rotten trunk solitary forest Panaeolus antillarum not edible carabao dung scattered grassland Panaeolus cyanescens not edible carabao dung scattered grassland Pluteus cervinus edible soil gregarious grassland Podosypha elegans not edible dead twig solitary forest Polyporus alveolaris edible dead trunk scattered grassland Polyporus hirsutus edible dead twig scattered grassland Polyporus sp. 1 edible dead trunk scattered forest Polyporus sp. 2 edible dead trunk scattered forest Postia caesia edible rotten trunk scattered grassland Psilocybe inversa not edible soil solitary grassland Pycnoporus sanguineus not edible dead log scattered forest Russula adusta edible soil solitary grassland Russula sp. 1 edible dead log scattered grassland Russula sp. 2 edible soil scattered grassland Russula sp. 3 not edible soil solitary grassland Schizophyllum commune edible rotten bamboo wood, dead log of tamarind tree gregarious grassland, forest Scytinopogon sp. edible soil with leaf litters caespitose to gregarious grassland Stereopsis radicans edible soil caespitose forest Stereum inisignitum not edible rotten log gregarious forest Stereum ostrea not edible rotten log gregarious grassland, forest Stereum sp. 1 not edible rotten twig gregarious forest Termitomyces striatus edible soil gregarious forest Tetrapyrgos subcinerea not edible dead twigs and leaf litters gregarious forest Trametes elegans not edible dead bamboo tree solitary grassland Trametes ellipsospora not edible rotten acacia trunk gregarious forest Trametes gibbosa not edible dead log scattered forest Trametes hirsuta not edible dead log solitary grassland, forest Trametes parvispora not edible dead log gregarious forest Trametes pubescens not edible rotten twig solitary forest Trametes sp. 1 not edible dead log gregarious forest Trametes sp. 2 not edible dead mango tree solitary forest Trametes sp. 3 not edible dead tamarind stem scattered forest Trametes sp. 4 not edible dead trunk of mahogany tree gregarious forest Trametes versicolor not edible dead twig scattered grassland Tricholoma sp. edible soil solitary grassland Xylaria schweinitzii not edible dead log scattered grassland, forest Xylaria sp. 1 not edible dead mahogany tree caespitose to gregarious grassland Physical distribution of macrofungi
-
The distribution of different macrofungal species in the two collection areas (Fig. 2) during the collection months, and in three different elevations are shown in Table 2. It can be noted that the South Peak recorded a higher percentage of macrofungal composition at 70.37% while lower macrofungal composition was observed in the North Peak at 52.78%. In the present study, the different macrofungal species in three elevations were documented such as 100−250, 251−500, and 501−750 masl. In general, as shown in Table 2, the macrofungal composition decreased as the elevation increased.
Figure 2.
Distribution of 224 collected macrofungi in two collection sites (South and North Peak), in six collection months July to December (labelled as J, A, S, O, N, and D).
Table 2. Distribution of 108 collected macrofungi in two collection sites, six collections months, and three elevation ranges.
Macrofungi Collection site Collection month Elevation (masl) Site A (S) Site B (N) Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 100−250 251−500 501−750 Agaricus campestris ▪ • • • ◆ Agaricus comtulus ▪ • • ◆ Agaricus moelleri ▪ • ◆ Agaricus trisulphuratus ▪ • • ◆ Amanita rubescens ▪ ▪ • • ◆ Amanita sp. 1 ▪ • • ◆ Amanita sp. 2 ▪ • ◆ Amanita sp. 3 ▪ • • • ◆ Amanita sp. 4 ▪ • ◆ Amanita sp. 5 ▪ • ◆ Amanita sp. 6 ▪ • • • ◆ Armillaria mellea ▪ • ◆ Auricularia auricula-judae ▪ ▪ • • ◆ ◆ Auricularia polytricha ▪ • • ◆ Auricularia sp. 1 ▪ • ◆ Calocera viscosa ▪ • ◆ Calvatia sp. ▪ • • ◆ Candolleomyces bivelatus ▪ • ◆ Coltricia sp. ▪ • ◆ Cookeina sp. ▪ • ◆ Coprinellus disseminatus ▪ ▪ • • • ◆ ◆ Coprinellus micaceus ▪ • ◆ Coprinopsis atramentaria ▪ • ◆ Coprinus comatus ▪ ▪ • • • ◆ ◆ Coprinus sp. 1 ▪ • • • ◆ Cortinarius violaceus ▪ • ◆ Cuphophyllus pratensis ▪ • ◆ Cyathus striatus ▪ • ◆ Daedaleopsis sp. ▪ ▪ • • ◆ Daldinia concentrica ▪ ▪ • • ◆ Flammulina sp. 1 ▪ • ◆ Flammulina sp. 2 ▪ • ◆ Fomitopsis pinicola ▪ ▪ • • ◆ Fomitopsis feei ▪ • ◆ Galiella rufa ▪ • ◆ Ganoderma applanatum ▪ ▪ • • • • • • ◆ ◆ Ganoderma australe ▪ • • • ◆ ◆ Ganoderma carnosum ▪ ▪ • • • • ◆ ◆ Ganoderma ellipsoideum ▪ • ◆ Ganoderma lucidum ▪ ▪ • • • • • • ◆ ◆ Ganoderma sp. 1 ▪ • • • • • • ◆ ◆ Ganoderma sp. 2 ▪ • • • ◆ ◆ Ganoderma sp. 3 ▪ • • • ◆ Gymnopilus lepidotus ▪ • ◆ Hypholoma sp. ▪ • ◆ Laccaria sp. ▪ • ◆ Lactocollybia subvariicytis ▪ • ◆ Lentinus tigrinus ▪ • ◆ Lepiota cristita ▪ • • ◆ Lepiota sp. 1 ▪ • ◆ Leucoagaricus leucothites ▪ • ◆ Leucoagaricus meleagris ▪ ▪ • • ◆ Leucocoprinus cepistipes ▪ • ◆ Leucocoprinus fragilissimus ▪ ▪ • • ◆ Leucopaxillus amareus ▪ • ◆ Lycoperdon perlatum ▪ ▪ • • • ◆ Lycoperdon sp. 1 ▪ • ◆ Marasmiellus candidus ▪ ▪ • • • ◆ ◆ Marasmius albogriseus ▪ • ◆ Marasmius oreades ▪ • ◆ Marasmius rotula ▪ • • ◆ Marasmius sp. 1 ▪ • • • ◆ Marasmius sp. 2 ▪ • ◆ Marasmius sp. 3 ▪ • ◆ ◆ Microporus affinis ▪ ▪ • • • • • • ◆ ◆ Microporus xanthopus ▪ ▪ • • • • • • ◆ ◆ Mycena sp. 1 ▪ ▪ • • • ◆ ◆ Mycena sp. 2 ▪ • • ◆ Mycena sp. 3 ▪ • • ◆ Oudemansiella canarii ▪ ▪ • • ◆ ◆ Oudemansiella mucida ▪ • ◆ Panaeolus antillarum ▪ • ◆ Panaeolus cyanescens ▪ • ◆ Pluteus cervinus ▪ • ◆ Podoscypha elegans ▪ ▪ • • ◆ ◆ Polyporus alveolaris ▪ • • ◆ Polyporus hirsutus ▪ • • • • ◆ Polyporus sp. 1 ▪ • • ◆ Polyporus sp. 2 ▪ • ◆ Postia caesia ▪ ▪ • • ◆ Psilocybe inversa ▪ • ◆ Pycnoporus sanguineus ▪ • ◆ Russula adusta ▪ • ◆ Russula sp. 1 ▪ • ◆ Russula sp. 2 ▪ • ◆ Russula sp. 3 ▪ • • ◆ Schizophyllum commune ▪ ▪ • • • • • • ◆ ◆ ◆ Scytinopogon sp. ▪ • ◆ Stereopsis radicans ▪ • ◆ Stereum ostrea ▪ ▪ • • • • • ◆ ◆ Stereum insignitum ▪ • • • • ◆ Stereum sp. 1 ▪ • ◆ Termitomyces striatus ▪ • ◆ Tetrapyrgos subcinerea ▪ • ◆ Trametes elegans ▪ • • ◆ Trametes ellipsospora ▪ ▪ • • • • • • ◆ ◆ ◆ Trametes gibbosa ▪ • • ◆ Trametes hirsuta ▪ • • • • • ◆ ◆ Trametes parvispora ▪ ▪ • • • • • • ◆ ◆ Trametes pubescens ▪ • • ◆ ◆ Trametes versicolor ▪ ▪ • • • • • • ◆ ◆ ◆ Trametes sp. 1 ▪ • ◆ Trametes sp. 2 ▪ • • • ◆ Trametes sp. 3 ▪ • • • • • • ◆ Trametes sp. 4 ▪ • ◆ Tricholoma sp. ▪ • ◆ Xylaria schweinitzii ▪ • • ◆ ◆ Xylaria sp. 1 ▪ • ◆ Total 76 57 56 48 55 31 21 17 61 47 28 Composition (%) 70.37 52.78 51.85 44.44 50.93 28.7 19.44 15.74 56.48 43.52 25.93 Composition (%) = (Total number of macrofungi occurred/Total number of macrofungal taxa) × 100; (▪•◆) = present. Abundance of macrofungi
-
After the field collection and documentation of the physical characteristics of the study sites and the distribution of macrofungi based on the different criteria used, the collected specimens were processed and morphologically identified, and a checklist of the collected macrofungi was prepared.
Based on their morphological characteristics, the 224 macrofungal collections were morphologically identified as belonging to two phyla, four classes, 12 orders, 36 families, 53 genera, and 108 species (Table 3). However, the Agaricales order has two incertae sedis fungal genera which means they have not been assigned to a family. Out of 108 species, 70 were identified morphologically up to the species level. The majority of the 103 macrofungal species belong to the phylum Basidiomycota and five species were classified under Ascomycota. Among Basidiomycota, the Agaricaceae and Polyporaceae registered the highest number of genera. Moreover, the genera of Trametes (11), Ganoderma (8), Amanita (7), and Marasmius (6) listed the most number of species. Species of Ganoderma applanatum, G. lucidum, Microporus affinis, Schizophyllum commune, and several species of Trametes were the most dominant species found during the collection months. Schizophyullum commune, Trametes ellipsospora, and T. versicolor were the only species that occurred in all elevation levels.
Table 3. Taxonomic classification of the 108 macrofungal species discovered in MAPL.
Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species Ascomycota Pezizomycetes Pezizales Sarcoscyphaceae Cookeina Cookeina sp. Sarcosomataceae Galiella G. rufa Sordariomycetes Xylariales Xylariaceae Xylaria X. schweinitzii; Xylaria sp. 1 Hypoxylaceae Daldinia D. concentrica Basidiomycota Agaricomycetes Agaricales Agaricaceae Agaricus A. campestris; A. comtulus; A. moelleri;
A. trisulphuratusCoprinus C. comatus; Coprinus sp. 1 Lepiota L. cristita; Lepiota sp. 1 Leucoagaricus L. leucothites; L. meleagris Leucocoprinus L. cepistipes; L. fragilissimus Amanitaceae Amanita A. rubescens; Amanita sp. 1; Amanita sp. 2; Amanita sp. 3; Amanita sp. 4; Amanita sp. 5; Amanita sp. 6 Cortinariaceae Cortinarius C. violaceus Hydnangiaceae Laccaria Laccaria sp. Hygrophoraceae Cuphophyllus C. pratensis Hymenogastraceae Gymnopilus G. lepidotus Psilocybe P. inversa Lycoperdaceae Calvatia Calvatia sp. Lycoperdon L. perlatum; Lycoperdon sp. 1 Lyophyllaceae Termitomyces T. striatus Marasmiaceae Marasmius Marasmius albogriseus; M. oreades; M. rotula; Marasmius sp. 1; Marasmius sp. 2; Marasmius sp. 3 Tetrapyrgos T. subcinerea Mycenaceae Mycena Mycena sp. 1; Mycena sp. 2; Mycena sp. 3 Omphalotaceae Marasmiellus M. candidus Physalacriaceae Armillaria A. mellea Flammulina Flammulina sp. 1; Flammulina sp. 2 Oudemansiella O. canarii; O. mucida Pluteaceae Pluteus P. cervinus Psathyrellaceae Candolleomyces C. bivelatus Coprinellus C. disseminatus; C. micaceus Coprinopsis C. atramentaria Schizophyllaceae Schizophyllum S. commune Strophariaceae Hypholoma Hypholoma sp. Tricholomataceae Leucopaxillus Leucopaxillus amareus Tricholoma Tricholoma sp. Incertae sedis Panaeolus P. antillarum; P. cyanescens Lactocollybia L. subvariicytis Auriculariales Auriculariaceae Auricularia A. auricula-judae; A. polytricha; Auricularia sp. 1 Boletales Boletaceae Pycnoporus P. sanguineus Geastrales Geastraceae Cyathus C. striatus Hymenochaetales Hymenochaetaceae Coltricia Coltricia sp. Polypolares Dacryobolaceae Postia P. caesia Fomitopsidaceae Fomitopsis F. pinicola; F. feei Ganodermataceae Ganoderma G. applanatum; G. australe; G. carnosum;
G. ellipsoideum; G. lucidum; Ganoderma sp. 1; Ganoderma sp. 2; Ganoderma sp. 3Podoscyphaceae Podoscypha P. elegans Polyporaceae Daedaleopsis Daedaleopsis sp. Lentinus L. tigrinus Microporus M. affinis; M. xanthopus Polyporus P. alveolaris; P. hirsutus; Polyporus sp. 1;
Polyporus sp. 2Trametes T. elegans; T. ellipsospora; T. gibbosa; T. hirsuta; T. parvispora; T. pubescens; T. versicolor; Trametes sp. 1; Trametes sp. 2; Trametes sp. 3; Trametes sp. 4 Russulales Russulaceae Russula R. adusta; Russula sp. 1; Russula sp. 2; Russula sp. 3 Stereaceae Stereum S. ostrea; S. insignitum; Stereum sp. 1 Stereopsidales Stereopsidaceae Stereopsis S. radicans Trechispolares Hydnodontaceae Scytinopogon Scytinopogon sp. Dacrymycetes Dacrymycetales Dacrymycetaceae Calocera C. viscosa Diversity and distribution of macrofungi
-
There were 224 collections of macrofungi found in the two collection sites of Mt. Arayat Protected Landscape (MAPL) where 135 species reside in the South Peak and 89 in the North Peak (Fig 3). The macrofungal diversity, richness, and evenness in MAPL were calculated based on Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index (H), Margalef (R), and Evenness (E) respectively to provide representation of species diversity along with rarity and commonness of their distribution in the investigated sites. As revealed in Table 4, the computed Shannon Index in the two collection sites was very high. However, the South Peak, (H) = 4.16, obtained slightly higher diversity than the North Peak, (H) = 3.892. This result indicates that the South Peak reflects a potentially well-abundant species due to a more balanced and favorable resource conditions of its microhabitats. On the other hand, Margalef indices of the two peaks revealed high species richness. A slight difference was noted in their richness composition as South Peak obtained (R) = 15.49 compared to the North Peak (R) = 12.25. The results also implied an equitable distribution of macrofungal species in the two collection sites of South Peak (E) = 0.8322 and North Peak = 0.875. The similarity index value of Sorensen obtained a value of 0.366 indicating a moderate level of overlap in species between the two collection sites.
Figure 3.
Observed species diversity in the South Peak and North Peak of the Mt. Arayat Protected Landscape.
Table 4. Species diversity and similarity index in the two peaks of the Mt. Arayat Protected Landscape.
Collection site No. of taxa Shannon
index (H)Margalef (R) Evenness (E) South Peak 135 4.16 15.49 0.8322 North Peak 89 3.892 12.25 0.875 Sorensen similarity index South Peak vs
North Peak0.366 As shown in Table 5, the diversity, richness, and evenness of macrofungi in MAPL along elevation gradients were also calculated. The highest diversity of species was recorded in the lowest elevation of 100−250 masl with the following results (H) = 4.066, (R) = 13.8, and (E) = 0.9113. On the other hand, the highest elevation of 501−750 masl has the lowest species diversity among the three elevation ranges as shown in Fig. 4. This suggests that the rich community of macrofungi in a lower elevation can be attributed to several factors such as microclimatic conditions temperature, humidity, and rainfall, and type of vegetation, for optimum growth and development. The lowest elevation, 100−250 masl also shows the highest Margalef index of 13.80, confirming its greater species richness relative to the number of individuals suggesting a decrease in species richness as the elevation increases.
Table 5. Species diversity and similarity index of different elevation ranges in the Mt. Arayat Protected Landscape.
Elevation ranges (masl) No. of taxa Shannon index (H) Margalef (R) Evenness (E) 100–250 96 4.066 13.80 0.9113 251–500 82 3.696 10.21 0.8761 501–750 46 3.120 6.53 0.8711 Sorensen similarity index 251–500 vs 100–250 0.36 251–500 vs 501–750 0.197 501–750 vs 100–250 0.141 Figure 4.
Observed species diversity in different elevations: 100−250 masl, 251−500 masl, and 501−750 masl of the Mt. Arayat Protected Landscape.
The evenness values relative to the three elevations showed that 100−250 masl has the highest evenness value of 0.9113 which indicates a relatively more even distribution of individuals across species. The evenness decreased slightly at 251−500 masl with a value of 0.8761 but remained similar at 501−750 masl with a value of 0.8711. Sorensen similarity index among the three studied elevations revealed that the 251−500 masl vs 100−250 masl = 0.36 indicates a relatively moderate similarity in the macrofungal species present in between these elevations. Moreover, in a higher elevation, shared species were rarely observed specifically between 251−500 and 501−750 masl. Similar results were found between 100−250 and 501−750 masl. Some of the identified species are shown in Fig. 5.
-
This current study is the first to document the macrofungal diversity and distribution in the Mt. Arayat Protected Landscape, of The Philippines. The diversity and richness of macrofungi were high in the South Peak. The elevation of vegetation type, availability of tree species, climatic factors, and anthropogenic disturbances were the main factors affecting the distribution patterns. These results suggest significant information on the diversity of macrofungal communities in MAPL leading to the conservation of the forest landscape as a valuable source of macrofungal resources. The short-term assessment of the abundance and distribution patterns provided a more profound understanding of the total macrofungal ecology of the forest. Therefore, constant and long-term monitoring of macrofungal species combined with high-throughput soil analysis is necessary to determine the diversity and distribution patterns. Further ethnomycological investigations should also be encouraged to document local and Indigenous knowledge of macrofungi for valuable species and exploration of their natural wealth.
-
About this article
Cite this article
Bustillos RG, Dulay RMR, Kalaw SP, Reyes RG. 2024. Diversity of macrofungi along elevation gradients in Mt. Arayat Protected Landscape, Arayat, Pampanga, The Philippines. Studies in Fungi 9: e017 doi: 10.48130/sif-0024-0017
Diversity of macrofungi along elevation gradients in Mt. Arayat Protected Landscape, Arayat, Pampanga, The Philippines
- Received: 31 July 2024
- Revised: 10 November 2024
- Accepted: 13 December 2024
- Published online: 27 December 2024
Abstract: The present study was carried out to document the diversity and distribution of macrofungi in Mt. Arayat Protected Landscape (MAPL), (Pampanga, The Philippines). Purposive sampling was conducted monthly from July to December of 2023 from the baseline (100−750 masl) in South Peak and North Peak collection sites. A total of 224 macrofungi which belong to two phyla, four classes, 12 orders, 36 families, 53 genera, and 108 species were documented. Out of 108 species, 70 were identified at the species level. Most of the documented taxa belong to the phylum Basidiomycota, wherein class Agaricales recorded the highest number of species, followed by Polyporales. The South Peak recorded a higher percentage macrofungal composition of 70.37% than the North Peak with 52.78%. The distribution of macrofungi in the two collection sites was statistically analyzed based on Shannon diversity index (H) Margalef index (R) and evenness (E) revealed higher in the South Peak with 4.16 (H) and 15.49 (R), respectively. Evenness was almost uniform in both collection sites. Sorensen similarity index of 0.366 indicated a moderate level of shared species between the two collection sites. Regarding elevation, the highest number of macrofungal composition was found at 100−250 masl (56.48%), comprised mainly of grass and trees. The lowest number of macrofungal composition was found at 501−750 masl (25.93%), dominated mostly by canopies. The distribution of macrofungi was also higher in 100−250 masl, (H) = 4.066 and (R) = 13.8. The three elevations obtained almost an even distribution. Similarity of shared species was moderately high between 100−250 masl vs 251−500 masl and relatively low between 100−250 masl vs 750 masl. Most macrofungi were found as non-edible and growing solitarily on dead logs and twigs trunks of trees, bamboo, and rotten stumps. Climatic factors such as temperature, humidity, and rainfall, and human-made disturbances affected macrofungal abundance and distribution. The composition was high during the rainy month of July (51.85%) and low in the drier month of December (15.74%). Species of Ganoderma, Microporus, Schizophyllum, and Trametes were commonly found in both collection sites, during the collection months, and at three different elevations (100−250 masl, 251−500 masl, and 501−750 masl). Twenty-two macrofungi were identified and considered as newly recorded species in the Philippines and eight species were successfully tissue-cultured in the laboratory. This high diversity of species observed in MAPL was intricately linked to the functioning of its forest ecosystem which could be a promising source of medicinal macrofungi. Thus, the conservation and sustainability of the forest is deemed necessary.
-
Key words:
- Mt. Arayat Protected Landscape /
- Wild macrofungi /
- Diversity /
- Distribution /
- Elevations