seasonaloccurrenceofmarineascomycetesandanamorphicmarinefu ... · yanam of east godavari...

INTRODUCTION

MATERIALSAND METHODS

Sample examination:

Microscopy:

Mangroves are tropical and subtropical swampy forestscomprising trees of many unrelated genera that share thecommon ability to grow in estuarine and coastalenvironments. Mangroves, commonly known as mangals, areplants that develop in estuaries, bogs and lagoons, the areasthat are protected from wave action (Kohlmeyer andKohlmeyer, 1979). In terms of energy and matter mangrovesare considered as open systems having an "interface" betweenan upland terrestrial and coastal estuarine ecosystems (Lugoand Snedakar, 1974). India has a vast coastline of about 5,700km divided into east and west coasts. Mangroves as one of thecoastal wetland ecosystems offer an ideal environment forfish farming. Several species of flora and fauna, native tomangrove environment, depend on the stability of thisenvironment (Untawale, 1987). The biomass produced inmangroves is enormous and various organisms includingwoodborers, fungi and bacteria recycle it. This recycling ofnutrients helps in the sustenance and maintenance of thisenvironment. However, in recent times vast areas ofmangroves have been destroyed for commercial exploitationand other human disturbances (Jones and Alias, 1997; Ong,1995). Although such concerns have been expressed atvarious fora and remedial measures such as revegetation ofmangroves are under the process, they also need immediateattention in the form of knowledge on the detritus organisms.Among other organisms involved in nutrient recycling, fungirather than bacteria play an important role in maintaining theratio of carbon and nitrogen (Fell and Master, 1980).

Terrestrial fungi and lichens occupy the aerial parts ofmangrove plants while marine fungi occur at lower partswhere their trunks and roots are permanently or intermittentlysubmerged in water (Kohlmeyer and Kohlmeyer, 1979). Atthe high tide mark there will be an interface and overlappingof marine and terrestrial fungi. Hence mangrove trees areconsidered to be fascinating study objects for the mycologicalinvestigations (Kohlmeyer and Kohlmeyer, 1979).

Though survey type studies and a few ecological

investigations have been carried out from east (Chinnaraj,1993; Raghukumar, 1973; Ravikumar and Vittal, 1996;Sarma and Hyde, 2001; Sarma and Vittal, 1999, 2000, 2001,2002, 2004; Sarma ., 2001) and west (Borse, 1988;Ananda and Sridhar, 2004; Maria and Sridhar, 2003) coasts,however, observations on seasonal distribution of majortaxonomic groups, viz. ascomycetes and anamorphic fungi,are lacking.

In the present study substrata belonging to mangrove plantgenera and spp. were collected atbimonthly intervals from Godavari and Krishna deltas,Andhra Pradesh state, East Coast of India during January1994 to November 1995. They were examinedmicroscopically for identification of marine ascomycetes andmarine anamorphic fungi after incubating for one week or upto 2 months for fungal fruition or immediately after they werebrought from the field. The data depicting the seasonaloccurrence of the two major fungal groups was recorded. Theascomycetous and anamorphic fungi recorded are presentedin different tables and graphs and the results have beencompared and discussed in the present paper.

The samples after bringing back to thelaboratory were examined either directly or after incubationin plastic bags containing a piece of moistened sterile tissuefor one week or up to two months. The fungi were examineddirectly under a binocular microscope, identified based on thekeys (Kohlmeyer and Volkmann-Kohlmeyer, 1991). Thegeneral microbiological techniques followed were accordingto Booth (1971); Kohlmeyer and Kohlmeyer (1979); Jonesand Hyde (1988).

Direct examination method was followedwherein the dead and decomposing samples were examineddirectly under a stereo microscope and ascomata,basidiomata, conidiomata were cut and their spores/conidiawere picked up with a sharp needle for those fruit bodieswhich are superficial, whereas the host surface had to be cutwith the help of a razor for the immersed ascomata or

et al

Rhizophora Avicennia

KAVAKA48(2):61-69(2017)

V. Venkateswara Sarma* and B.P.R. Vittal

Seasonal occurrence of marine ascomycetes and anamorphic marine fungi in mangroves of Godavariand Krishna deltas, East coast of India

Department of Biotechnology, School of Life Sciences, Pondicherry University, Kalapet, Pondicherry-605 014, India.Centre forAdvanced studies in Botany, University of Madras, Guindy Campus, Chennai-600025, India.Corresponding author Email: [email protected]*

(Submitted in January, 2017;Accepted on June 25, 2017)

ABSTRACTSeasonal occurrence of marine ascomycetes and anamorphic marine fungi in mangroves of Godavari and Krishna deltas, East coast of Indiawas studied. The results showed more percentage occurrence of ascomycetes during dry period and more anamorphic fungi during wet periodand converse was true in dry and wet periods for respective groups where the percentage occurrence was less than the usual.Among the variousenvironmental factors studied such as maximum and minimum air temperatures, relative humidity, salinity, surface water temperature andaverage monthly rainfall only average monthly rainfall showed an effect on the species richness and abundance of ascomycetes and anamorphs.No or low rain fall favored higher percentage of ascomycetes and a good rainfall has favored an increase in the anamorphic fungi and a decreasein ascomycetes.

Key words: Seasonality, anamorphic marine fungi, spp., spp.Ascomycetes, Rhizophora Avicennia

61

conidiomata to expose the fruit bodies and pick the spores.They were then transferred to a microslide (in the case ofhyphomycetes the conidia were directly picked up with aneedle and transferred onto a microslide), mounted on anappropriate medium, a cover slip was placed on top of thesample material, exposed to flames of a spirit lamp for a fewseconds to remove the air bubbles and excess moisture andfinally sealed with the DPX mountant.

The mangrove plants along Godavari deltamangroves at , near Kakinada and nearYanam of East Godavari district, Andhra Pradesh, East coastof India (falling within latitudinal range of 16 31',16 45'Nand longitude 82 14', 82 20'E) and along Krishna delta atNakshatranagar, near , Repalle, Guntur district,Andhra Pradesh, East coast of India (falling within latitudinalrange of 15 50', 15 55' N and longitude 80 45', 80 50' E),were examined for manglicolous fungi during January 1994to November 1995 at bimonthly intervals. The Godavari andKrishna deltaic mangroves owing to their geographicalproximity show similarity in certain climatic factors. Theregion enjoys tropical humid climate with a mean annualtemperature of 27.7 C and with a dry season extending from 5to 6 months from December and May. The air temperaturefluctuates throughout the year with a mean minimum of 18.9-26.9 C at night and a mean maximum of 28.8-38.7 C duringthe day. The Indian coast is influenced by two monsooncycles, namely, south west and north east monsoons. Alongthe east coast major precipitation is experienced fromSeptember to December. The area receives monsoon rainsduring July-September and cyclonic rains in October-November. However, the rains may come unusually in othermonths also. Cyclones are frequent in the Bay of Bengal andoften hit the east coast. Normally the number of rainy daysvaries from 53 to 64 days. The high waters correspond tosouth west monsoon when it rains in the Western Ghats wherethe Godavari and Krishna rivers take their origin. During therainy period of at least 5 months the fresh water covers thehalophytic formations. Consequently, the salinity of the wateris low. On the other hand, the salinity increases considerablyin the hot dry season from March-June because of excessiveevaporation. The salinity varies from 35‰ between March-June to 5‰ between October and December. The magnitudeof the freshwater input controls the salinity regime. Therainfall together with the freshwater discharge seems to affectthe sequence of zones in the tidal region. The discharge offreshwater is more at Godavari delta than at Krishna delta.The mangrove forests of Godavari and Krishna rivers havesimilar climatic factors, vegetation and soil types (Sidhu,1963, Subba Reddi, 1982, Lakshminarayana, 1986,Umamaheswara Rao, and Narasimha Rao, 1988).Metereological data recorded in the study sites during thebimonthly samplings from January 1994 to December 1995has been presented in .

The number of different ascomycetous species or differentanamorphic fungal species occurring in each bimonthlysampling is expressed as species richness. Percentagescalculation was made based on the occurrence of number ofascomycetous species recorded divided by the total numberof fungal species recorded in each bimonthly sampling x 100.

Similarly, the number of anamorphic fungal species recordedin each bimonthly sampling was divided by total number offungal species recorded x 100. In the case of abundance, thetotal number of ascomycetes recorded in each bimonthlysampling was divided by the total fungal occurrences in eachbimonthly sampling and then multiplied by 100. Similarly,for calculating the abundance of anamorphic fungi the totalnumber of anamorphic fungal occurrences was divided bytotal fungal occurrences x 100.

The seasonal occurrence of ascomycetes and anamorphicfungi recorded in each bimonthly sampling was recorded anda comparison is made in terms of species richness andabundance.Accordingly, the results are explained, separately,for (i) number of species of ascomycetes or anamophic fungirecorded expressed as species richness and (ii) number offungal occurrences of ascomycetes and anamorphic fungiexpressed as abundance, on each host and at each site.Literature on the occurrence of marine fungi in mangrovesshows that around 80% belong to ascomycetes and around20% belong to anamorphic fungi. In the present study theascomycetes mostly ranged between 60% to 100% andanamorphic fungi between 0 to 40%. Hence in this paper if amention is made on the increase or decrease in the percentageof ascomycetes or anamorphic fungi then it reflects on thedifferences in the range mentioned above.

During the dry months of January,March, May 1994 anamorphic fungi contributed 22, 18 and10% of the total fungi on , at Godavaridelta ( ). They contributed 35, 35 and 28% during thewet South west and North east monsoon months of July,September and November 1994 that bring rains. Theascomycetous species percentage varied from 58.8 to 66.7%during these months. In January and May 1995 there wereunusual rains recorded however, rains were less incomparison during November 1995 which is also unusual.The following months of sampling in 1995 namely January,March, May, July and September were recorded with 30% ormore of anamorphic fungi ( ), whereas ascomycetousfungi were around 65%. However, November 95 was unusualbecause usual cyclonic rains did not occur instead very lowrainfall was recorded. The percentage of anamorphic fungibecame below 20% and that of ascomycetes was around 80%.

Sampling Area:Coringa Balusutippa

Kothapalem

Table 1

RESULTS

1. Number of species (species richness) of ascomycetesanamorphic fungi during different months of samplings1.a. Godavari delta :

Table 2

Table 2

o o

o o

o o o o

o

o o

vs.

Rhizophora apiculata

,

Table 1. Hydrographic data recorded at Godavari and Krishna deltasduring the study period (Sarma andVittal, 1998-99)

*The data is provided only for the sampling months and not the months in between

Goda-varidelta

Parameters 1994 1995Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

Max. temp. (ºC) 29.1 34.6 37.6 31.5 32.9 29.2 27 34.2 34.4 31.8 32.6 31.1Min. temp. (ºC) 20.2 24.1 28.3 25.3 25.2 22.7 20.3 24.5 26.9 25.8 26.2 22.6Surface water temp. (ºC) 25 31 33 30.5 31.5 25.5 26 31.5 32.5 30 29 26Average monthly RH (%) 74.5 79.4 72.9 85 80.1 75.7 78 73.4 82.6 84.5 82.9 74.2Salinity (‰) 14.2 20 33.1 9.6 4.4 3.5 5.8 25 28.2 6.2 5.3 5.1Average monthly rainfall (mm)* - 8.4 1.1 191 47.6 286 49.5 - 291 203 136 14.2

Kris-hna

delta

Max. temp. (ºC) 29.5 32.9 37.9 34.2 34.3 28.6 27.9 32.4 34.3 33.2 33 31.5Min. temp. (ºC) 17.5 21.5 28.2 25.5 24.6 20.9 18.1 21.3 25 25.2 24.7 21.7Surface water temp. (ºC) 26 31.5 33 30.5 31 26 26 31.5 33 31 29 26Average monthly RH (%) 94.3 84.5 67.6 73.9 73.5 88.7 87.2 83 95 82.4 81 85.7Salinity (‰) 22 24.5 37.1 11.5 8.0 3.9 7.8 27.2 32 19 8.1 7Average monthly rainfall (mm)* 0.5 - 0.6 51.3 78 430 138 0.2 192 121 90 11.3

Seasonal occurrence of marine ascomycetes and anamorphic marine fungi in mangroves of Godavari and Krishna deltas, East coast of India62

On this host, at Godavari delta, it seems that, the rainspromote more number of anamorphic fungi, while lessernumber of ascomycetous fungi was recorded indicating thatdryness might promote more number of ascomycetes. It alsopartially complements that the low salinity promotedanamorphic fungi and more saline conditions promotedascomycetes.

No definite trend was discernible in the case ofspp., at Godavari delta with any of the environmentalparameters. None of the climatic factors seem to have aconsistent effect on the seasonal occurrence of ascomycetesand anamorphic fungi on this host at Godavari delta duringthe study period ( ).

At Krishna delta, onthe percentage of anamorphic fungal species was

more or less the same throughout the sampling period exceptduring May 1994 ( ). In the case of ascomycetes, theywere around 65% throughout except during May 1994 whereall recorded fungi were ascomycetes. On spp., atKrishna delta, the anamorphic fungi were not recorded duringdry periods of 1994 (January, March, May) and less numberof anamorphic fungi were recorded during wet months i.e.July, September and November 1994. However, during May,July, September 1995, a higher percentage of 38.5%, 27.3%,26.7%, respectively of anamorphic fungi were recorded. In

November 1995 where rainfall was minimal, less anamorphicfungi were recorded. On this host, at this site, there is anindication that during dry months' ascomycetes completelydominated but when rainfall was available bringing infreshwater and moisture more anamorphic fungi wererecorded i.e. more than 25% ( ).

During dry months, ascomycetes weremore abundant than their usual percentage when compared toanamorphic fungal occurrences on at Godavaridelta in the year 1994 ( ). However, during wet season,the anamorphic fungi occupied around 40% during July, 1994and 1995 but also during March and May, 1995 of which inMay 1995, unusually, maximum rainfall and moderatetemperatures prevailed. In general, an increase in thepercentage of abundance of anamorphic fungi was observedwhen a higher monthly rainfall occurred. The otherparameters such as maximum and minimum air temperatures,salinity, relative humidity, average monthly rainfall did notshow a regular pattern for a correlation with an increase ordecrease in the percentage abundance of ascomycetes andanamorphic fungi.

In the case of spp., irrespective of the rainfall,salinity or temperature the abundance of ascomycetes wasabove 80% throughout the sampling period, while the numberof fungal occurrences of anamorphic fungi has been lowthroughout ( ). This is in contrast to data on number ofspecies recorded which was above 20% in the case ofanamorphic fungi, but when it came to the total fungaloccurrences, the anamorphic fungi seem to be below 20%when compared to ascomycetes. No definite pattern could beobserved on this host at this site for any of the parametersstudied to have a consistent effect on the percentageabundance variation in ascomycetes or anamorphic fungi.

At Krishna delta, onpercentage of fungal occurrences of anamorphic

fungi (abundance) was less during dry period but more duringwet months during September and November 1994 andJanuary 1995 months of sampling. Even though rains were

Avicennia

Rhizophoraapiculata

Avicennia

R. apiculata

Avicennia

Rhizophoraapiculata

Table 2

1b. Krishna delta:

Table 3

Table 32. Comparison on number of fungal occurrences(abundance) belonging to ascomycetes and anamorphicfungi

2a. Godavari delta:

Table 4

Table 4

2b. Krishna delta:

,

,

Host Group 1994 1995Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

RA

*Total no. of species ineach sampling 11 10 9 17 12 24 24 27 21 25 20 28

Species of anamorphicfungi 2 1 2 6 3 7 8 9 7 10 7 5

% 18 10 22.2 35.3 25 29.2 33.3 33.3 33.3 40 35 17.9

Species of ascomycetes 9 8 7 10 8 16 15 17 13 15 12 22

% 81.8 80 77.8 58.8 66.7 66.7 62.5 63 61.9 60 60 78.6

AV

*Total no. of species ineach sampling 17 11 6 16 11 30 22 16 9 16 16 28

Species of anamorphicfungi 4 3 2 4 1 8 6 3 2 4 5 6

% 23.5 27.3 33.3 25 9.1 26.7 27.3 18.8 22.2 25 31.3 21.4

Species of ascomycetes 12 7 4 11 9 21 15 12 7 11 10 21

% 70.6 63.6 66.7 68.8 81.8 70 68.2 75 77.8 68.8 62.5 75

Table 2. Number of anamorphic fungi and ascomycetes againsttotal number of species recorded during the study period atGodavari delta (Species richness)

* RA = = spp. Lonebasidiomycete was also recorded in this studybut it has not been shown

Rhizophora apiculata; AV AvicenniaHalocyphina villosa


RA

*Total no. of speciesin each sampling 10 11 11 13 16 17 30 25 20 29 27 28

Species ofanamorphic fungi 3 3 - 2 4 6 10 8 5 10 8 9

% 30 27.3 - 15.4 25 35.3 33.3 32 25 34.5 29.6 32.1Species ofascomycetes 7 8 11 11 11 11 19 16 14 18 18 18

% 70 72.7 100 84.6 68.8 64.7 63.3 64 70 62.1 66.7 64.3

AV.

Total no. of species 3 4 7 9 9 11 13 10 13 22 19 9

Species ofanamorphic fungi - - - 1 1 1 1 - 5 6 5 1

% - - - 11.1 11.1 9.1 7.7 - 38.5 27.3 26.3 11.1

Species ofascomycetes 3 4 7 7 7 9 9 9 8 15 13 8

% 100 100 100 77.8 77.8 81.8 69.2 90 61.5 68.2 68.4 88.9

Table 3. Number of anamorphic fungi and ascomycetes againsttotal number of species recorded during the study periodat Krishna delta (Species richness)*

* RA = = spp. *Lonebasidiomycete is not shown

Rhizophora apiculata; AV AvicenniaHalocyphina villosa


RA

*total samples supportingsporulating fungi 40 69 41 121 59 176 250 192 177 153 214 214

Samples supportinganamorphic fungi 3 2 3 54 11 42 55 72 68 66 55 52

% contribution 7.5 2.9 7.3 44.6 18.6 23.9 22 37.5 38.4 43.1 25.7 24.3Samples supportingascomycetes 37 63 38 63 47 131 192 116 84 87 141 160

% contribution 92.5 91.3 92.7 52.1 79.7 74.4 76.8 60.4 47.5 56.9 65.9 74.8

AV

*total samples supportingsporulating fungi 49 36 56 134 77 178 161 100 66 117 145 175

Samples supporting ana-morphic fungi 7 4 6 13 1 21 9 3 6 11 18 18

% contribution 14.3 11.1 10.7 9.7 1.3 11.8 5.6 3 9.1 9.4 12.4 10.3Samples supportingAscomycetes 40 31 50 117 75 157 144 96 60 104 118 155

% contribution 81.6 86.1 89.3 87.3 97 88.2 89.4 96 90.9 88.9 81.4 88.6

Table 4. Number of occurrences (abundance) of anamorphic fungiand ascomycetes as against total number of samplessupporting sporulating fungi recorded in each samplingduring the study period at Godavari delta*

* RA = AV = spp. * the %occurrence of a basidiomycete, is not shown

Rhizophora apiculata; AvicenniaHalocyphina villosa,

V. Venkateswara Sarma and B.P.R. Vittal 63

abundant in May and July 1995 their percentage occurrencewas low. Naturally their space was occupied by ascomycetesas per the per cent calculations ( ). On spp. atKrishna delta, however, the abundance of ascomycetes wasmore during dry period and less during rains ( ).

Fungi are known to grow rapidly in the vegetative form byexpanding their hyphal network and form extensive mycelialformation under favorable conditions. In general, they turninto reproductive phase under unfavorable conditions(Alexopoulos 1996; Webster and Weber, 2007). Thereproductive phase could be a sexual state that producesascospores within asci and enclosed in a fruit body known asascomata or basidiospores outside a basidium enclosed in afruit body known as basidiomata or asexual state whereindifferent types of conidia are formed which are diploid innature. Variation requires sexual union whereas a simplemultiplication is possible with conidial formation. Theasexual states also often have genetic variation through aprocess known as parasexual life cycle (Alexopoulos1996; Webster and Weber, 2007). Hence it is of interest toinvestigate how the changing environmental factors in a yearaffect the life cycles of marine fungi on natural substrata.The seasonal occurrence of marine fungi from Godavari andKrishna deltas was discussed in Sarma and Vittal (1998-99).However, the seasonal occurrence of sexual (ascomycetes)and asexual (anamorphic) states of marine fungi separatelywas not discussed earlier and hence is presented in this paper.There is only one publication that is available on the seasonaloccurrence of ascomycetes and anamorphic fungi as majorgroups (Shearer, 1972). But, even this study also, it was notfrom mangroves but drift wood from open sea coast (Shearer,1972). Such a meager data has been a drawback forcomparisons with other studies. Hence most of the discussionrevolves around the present study and conclusions are basedon the results obtained in the present study.The changes in the percentages of species richness orabundance fell in the range of 60% to 100% in the case ofascomycetes and 0-40% in the case of anamorphic fungi. Theseasonal effects examined in the present study though show

differences in the percentages the overall dominance ofascomycetes in the marine environment (60-100%) did notchange. Hence any increase or decrease discussed in thepresent paper is with reference to difference within the rangesof the two respective groups mentioned above.In the present study the percentage of number of differentfungal species (also referred to as species richness) (& ) and number of fungal occurrences (abundance) (& ) belonging to ascomycetes and anamorphic fungi wastabulated separately and results presented. The data wasmaintained separately in the expectation that an increase inspecies richness need not also show an increase in theabundance of ascomycetes or anamorphic fungi. However, onexamination of the data it was found that there is not much of adifference in the trends available on the variations in thespecies richness or abundance ( ).No or less amount of rainfall seem to increase the percentageoccurrence of ascomycetes both in terms of species richness( & ) and abundance ( & ) during dry seasoni.e. bimonthly samplings of January, March and May and adecrease during wet season i.e. bimonthly samplings of July,September and November. Contrary was found to be true inthe case of anamorphic fungi. This pattern has been observedin the case of at Godavari delta andspp. at Krishna delta in the year 1994. In the year 1995,however, there were unusual rains in the otherwise considereddry season i.e. January and May months of sampling in 1995.Such unusual rains also reflected on the species richness andabundance where low percentage of ascomycetes wasrecorded in January and May 1995. In the year 1995 theNovember month was relatively dry and hence the percentageof species richness and abundance of ascomycetes hadincreased. The opposite was true in the case of anamorphicfungi on these sites at the respective sites. However, on

at Krishna delta ( & ) and on spp.at Godavari delta ( & ) such a strong correlation toaverage monthly rainfall could not be established althoughbroadly it agrees with the general effect that rainfall has onthese two major groups i.e. ascomycetes and anamorphicfungi ( ; ).The rains seem to promote germination and better colonizationof anamorphic fungi and hence a relative percentage increase inthe species richness and abundance was found. Anotherargument that may be put forward is that the rains may bringmore number of propagules of anamorphic fungi thanascomycetes and that could be one of the reasons why morenumber of anamorphic fungi were recorded during the rainymonths of sampling. Whereas, dry periods associated with hotsunny days increase salinity and encourage colonization andfruiting of more percentage of ascomycetes. While rainfallseem to be a major factor in the small percentage changesobserved in the present study the salinity seems to broadlycomplementsuchchanges witha secondary role.The effect of other environmental factors such as surface watertemperature ( ) and salinity ( ) were plottedfor the percentage differences in the distributionof ascomycetesand anamorphic fungi in terms of species richness(

) andabundance( ). No definite pattern couldbe discernedwith these twoparameters.

Table 5

Table 5

DISCUSSION

tables 23 tables 45

Tables 2-5

Figs. 1 5 Figs. 4 8

Figs. 3 7Figs. 2 6

Tables 2-5 Figs. 1-8

Figs. 9-16 Figs. 17-24

Figs.9-12;17-20 Figs. 13-16; 21-24

Avicennia

et al

et al.,

R. apiculata Avicennia

R.apiculata Avicennia

.,


RA

*Samples supportingsporulating fungi 29 37 40 59 63 88 212 153 73 253 160 116

Samples supportinganamorphic fungi 8 3 - 2 16 35 64 41 8 39 38 34

Percentagecontribution 27.6 8.1 - 3.4 25.4 39.8 30.2 26.8 10.9 15.4 23.7 29.3

Samples supportingascomycetes 21 34 40 57 46 53 145 108 64 213 115 72

Percentagecontribution 72.4 91.9 100 96.6 73 60.2 68.4 70.6 87.7 84.2 71.9 62.1

AV

*Samples supportingsporulating fungi 5 16 23 32 24 60 109 52 40 176 137 36

Samples supportinganamorphic fungi - - - 1 1 1 6 - 7 27 21 1

Percentagecontribution - - - 3.1 4.2 1.7 5.5 - 17.5 15.3 15.3 2.8

Samples supportingAscomycetes 5 16 23 29 22 47 100 41 33 124 106 35

Percentagecontribution 100 100 100 90.6 91.7 78.3 91.7 78.8 82.5 70 77.4 97.2

Table 5. Number of occurrences (abundance) of anamorphic fungiand ascomycetes as against total number of samplessupporting sporulating fungi recorded in each samplingduring the study period at Krishna delta*

* RA = AV = spp. * the %occurrence of a basidiomycete, is not shown

Rhizophora apiculata; AvicenniaHalocyphina villosa,


Information on seasonal occurrence of mangrove fungi ismeagre. Aleem (1980) observed that mangrove fungi displaya seasonal periodicity with more numbers and growthintensity in wet season (May-November). During the wetseason, not only the number of species increased but also theirfrequency and growth intensity. The following fungi:

andwere found to be more frequent on mangroves

towards the end of rainy season (September October).

Another study available for comparison is that of Shearer(1972) from Chesapeake Bay, USA. The difference betweenthese two studies is that while the Godavari and Krishna deltasare mangrove sites where salinity changes occur due tofreshwater in surge, in the case of Chesapeake Bay it is a sandybeach and sea water is predominant and the samples observedwere drift wood and hence the host samples are different. AtChesapeake Bay Shearer (1972) recorded less number ofanamorphic fungi during wet season and more during the dryseason. Converse was true in the case of ascomycetes. This is incontrast to the results obtained in the present study wherein itwas observed that the dry season has affected the percentagedifferences by way of an increase in ascomycetes and decreasein anamorphic fungi and wet season favored an increase inpercentage of anamorphic fungi than ascomycetes. This is asignificant differencebetween thetwostudies

Most of the anamorphic fungi can remain in the asexual stateperennially for several generations without resorting to thesexual stage. In fact, this fact has made a separate code forsuch fungi to have a different nomenclature for asexual states.However, in the recent times, with the advent of moleculartechniques, the connection between sexual and asexual statesis being established based on homologies of highly conservedgene sequences, for example, the nuclear ITS region of DNAwhich is considered as a universal bar code for fungi (Schoch

2012). Sequences of most of the marine fungi wouldhave been deposited but gene banks may not have data on allsexual and asexual states of marine fungi. Hence no attempthas been made here as of now for such links between sexualand asexual states in this study. Moreover, even if such linksare established it is still interesting to know during whichseason the fungus may choose to prop up as a sexual state orasexual state. Future studies should be directed towards thiswith molecular inputs.

To conclude it may be stated that in the present studyexcepting rainfall no other parameter seems to have adefinitive effect on the distribution of ascomycetes andanamorphic fungi during different months of sampling. Itmay also be further stated that the seasonal effect on sexualand asexual state of fungal diversity requires long termstudies involving multiple year examinations to get anydefinitive conclusions on the effect of differentenvironmental parameters.

The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Environmentand Forests, Govt. of India for funding the project during

which period the present study was undertaken. The Director,Centre forAdvanced Studies in Botany, University of Madrasis thanked for providing the facilities. My thanks are also dueto the reviewer for constructive suggestions.

Aleem, A.A. 1980. Distribution and ecology of marine fungiin Sierra Leone (Tropical West Africa). :679-688.

Alexopoiulos, C., Mims, C.W. and Blackwell, M.M. 1996.. 4 edition. Wiley, New

York. 868 pp.

Ananda, K. and Sridhar, K.R. 2004 Diversity of filamentousfungi on decomposing leaf and woody litter ofmangrove forests in the southwest coast of India

. : 1431-1437.

Booth, C. 1971. Vol.4. AcademicPress, NewYork. 795 pp.

Borse, B.D. 1988 Frequency of occurrence of marine fungifrom Maharashtra coast, India.165-167.

Chinnaraj, S. 1993. Higher marine fungi from mangroves ofAndaman and Nicobar Islands. 109-115.

Fell, J.W. and Master, I.M. 1980. The association andpotential role of fungi in mangrove detrital systems,

. 257-263.

Jones, E.B.G. and Alias, S.A. 1997. Biodiversity ofmangrove fungi. In:

(Ed.: Hyde, K.D.), Hong KongUniversity Press, Hong Kong.

Jones, E.B.G. and Hyde, K.D. 1988. Methods for the study ofMarine fungi from the mangroves. In:

. (Eds.: Agate,A.D., Subramanian, C.V. and Vanucci ,M.), pp. 9-27.UNDP/UNESCO, New Delhi.

Kohlmeyer, J. and Kohlmeyer, E. 1979.Academic Press, N.Y, USA.

Kohlmeyer, J. and Volkmann-Kohlmeyer, B. 1991. Illustratedkey to the filamentous higher marine fungi.

: 1-64.

Lakshminarayana, K. 1986.. Technical

report.Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, India.

Lugo, A.E. and Snedaker, S.C. 1974 The ecology ofmangroves. : 39-64.

Maria, G.L. and Sridhar, K.R. 2003. Diversity of filamentousfungi on woody litter of five mangrove plant speciesfrom the southwest coast of India.

: 109-126.

Haligena viscidula, Leptosphaeria australiensis, L.avicenniae, Halorosellinia oceanica Torpedosporaradiate

et al.,

Bot. Mar.

Introductory Mycology

Current ScienceMethods in microbiology

Ind. J. Mar. Sci.

Sydowia

Bot. Mar

Biodiversity of TropicalMicrofungi

MangroveMicrobiology. Role of Microorganisms in NutrientCycle of Mangrove Soils and Waters

Marine Mycology:The Higher Fungi.

Bot.Mar.

Conservation and Managementof the mangroves of the Krishna delta

Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst.

Fungal Divers.

CONCLUSION

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

REFERENCES

23

87

17:

45:

23:

34

5

14

th

Ong, J.E. 1995. The ecology of mangrove conservation andmanagement. : 343-351.Hydrobiologia 295


Raghukumar, S. 1973. Marine lignicolous fungi from India,: 73-85.

Ravikumar, D.R. and Vitt

Kavaka 1al, B.P.R. 1996. Fungal diversity on

decomposing biomass of mangrove plantin Pichavaram estuary, east coast of

India. : 142-144.

Sarma, V.V. and Hyde, K.D. 2001. A review on frequentlyoccurring fungi in mangroves. : 1-34.

Sarma, V.V. and Vittal, B.P.R. 2002. A preliminary study onvertical distribution of mangliclous fungi on proproots of Blume at Krishnadelta, east coast of India. : 21-29.

Sarma, V.V. and Vittal, B.P.R. 1998-1999. Ecological studieson mangrove fungi from east coast of India.Observations on seasonal occurrence,

105-120.

Sarma, V.V. and Vittal, B.P.R. 2000. Biodiversity ofmangrove fungi on different substrata of

and spp. from Godavari andKrishna deltas, east coast of India. In:

(Eds.: Hyde, K.D.,Ho, W.H. and Pointing, S.B.), . 23-41.

Sarma, V.V. and Vittal, B.P.R. 2001. Biodiversity of fungi onselected mangrove plants in the Godavari andKrishna deltas, east coast of India,113-129.

Sarma, V.V. and Vittal, B.P.R. 2004. Manglicolous fungirecorded from Godavari and Krishna deltas, A.P.,east coast of India along with a dichotomous key andnotes on some taxa. : : 65-111.

Sarma, V.V., Hyde, K.D. and Vittal, B.P.R. 2001. Frequencyof occurrence of mangrove fungi from the East coastof India. : 41-53.

Sidhu, S.S. 1963. Studies on mangroves.: 129-136.

Shearer, C.A. 1972. Fungi of the Chesapeake Bay and itstributaries III. The distribution of wood-inhabitingAscomycetes and Fungi Imperfecti of the PatauxentRiver. : 961-969.

Subba Reddi, C. 1982. The Mangals of the Godavari Estuary.Proceedings of the Seminar on ResourcesDevelopment and Environment in the Eastern Ghats,Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, India, March,24-27.

Umamaheswara Rao, M. and Narasimha Rao, G.M. 1988.Mangrove Populations of the Godavari DeltaComplex. 326-329.

Untawale,A.G. 1987. Country Reports: India. In:

Technical Report of the UNDP/UNESCO Researchand Training Pilot Programme on mangroveecosystems. 51-87.

Webster, J. and R.W.S. Weber, 2007. . 3Edition. Cambridge University Press, U.K.

RhizophoraInd. J. of Mar. Sci.

Fungal Divers.

Rhizophora apiculataKavaka:

Kavaka

Rhizophoraapiculata Avicennia

AquaticMycology across the Millennium

Fungal Divers.

Fungal Divers. :

Kavaka

Hydrobiologia

Proc. Ind. Acad.Sci.

Amer. J. Bot..

Ind. J. Mar. Sci.

Mangrovesof Asia and the Pacific: Status and Management.

Introduction to Fungi

25

8

30

26&27:

32

. 455

33

59

17:

5:

6 rd

Schoch CL, Seifert KA, Huhndorf A et al., 2012. Nuclearribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region asa universal DNA barcode marker for Fungi. Proc.Nat.Acad. Sci. USA : 6241-6246.109


seasonaloccurrenceofmarineascomycetesandanamorphicmarinefu ... · yanam of east godavari...

Documents