Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:30:12.560Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The coprome: another model system – abstract

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2011

R. C. Cooke
Affiliation:
Plant Sciences Department, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, U.K.
H. O. Safar
Affiliation:
Plant Sciences Department, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, U.K.
S. N. Wood
Affiliation:
Plant Sciences Department, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, U.K.

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The ability of Ascobolus crenulatus Karsten, Chaetomium bostrychodes Zopf and Sordaria macrospora Auersw. to produce biomass within, fruit upon, and degrade rabbit faeces was followed using semi-natural faecal resource units (copromes) (Wood & Cooke 1984, 1987). On these criteria the performance of the fungi was in the order C. bostrychodes > S. macrospora > A. crenulatus. Species mixtures produced only slightly higher degradation rates than those effected by single species. This implied competition for available nutrients which was also indicated by depressed fruiting of all species in species mixtures when compared with fruiting levels of each species grown individually. For single species the time of onset and subsequent fruiting level were determined by the time at which sufficient resources could be allocated to reproduction rather than simply to hyphal extension rates.

Type
Abstract
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1988

References

Wood, S. N. & Cooke, R. C. 1984. Use of semi-natural resource units in experimental studies on coprophilous fungi. Transactions of the British Mycological Society 83, 337339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, S. N. & Cooke, R. C. 1987. Nutritional competence of Pilaira aromala in relation to exploitation of faecal resource units. Transactions of the British Mycological Society 88, 247255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar