Table 1.
Definition of the ten habitat categories used in this study.
All categories are based on EnvO-Lite controlled vocabulary with the exception of “detritus” and “seawater”. The EnvO-Lite defined habitat “plant-associated” was extended to include algal samples as well.
Fig 1.
Number of aquatic fungal community studies and the different fungal marker genes targeted.
For the summary all community studies containing fungal sequence information were counted, which targeted one of the following marker genes: ITS, LSU or SSU.
Fig 2.
Schematic diagram of the phylogenetic tree using 18S rRNA gene sequences from aquatic fungi.
Sequence data were collected from the SILVA dataset and the KSMP-Kiel culture collection. Thickness of taxonomic triangles is proportional to the sequence amount of each taxonomic groups. Piecharts beside triangles show group-specific sequence assignments to the habitat types.
Fig 3.
Impact of habitat on fungal assemblages.
Pairwise overlap of fungal assemblages according to habitat types; significant differences (P < 0.05) shown in black.
Fig 4.
Taxonomic assemblages of different habitat types.
Subsampled assemblages inferred from clustering sequences at a 99% similarity level. OTUs0.01 counts were calculated for all habitat categories at order level and for basal fungal lineages at phylum/subphylum level. (Hot spring excluded due to low sequence number).
Fig 5.
Phylogenetic signal analyses of aquatic fungal taxa present in different habitats.
Net Relatedness Index and Nearest Taxa Index demonstrate clustering or overdispersion of fungal taxa in a habitat over the whole pool of phylogeny or within particular terminal clades, respectively. Comparison of observed data against randomly generated samples, number of generations = 9999.
Fig 6.
Positions of phylogenetic clustering or overdispersion within the phylogenetic tree tested by NODESIG analyses.
Only significant results are shown. Full circle, clustering signal; open circle, overdispersion.