The economic potential of mushrooms in an artificial <em>Pinus nigra</em> forest
10.6092/issn.2531-7342/7287
La comunità macromicetica di alcuni habitat, come i rimboschimenti di Pinus nigra, impiegati spesso in progetti di ripristino ambientale, è ad ora poco studiata. Questo lavoro ha avuto lo scopo di iniziare lo studio della micodiversità in un impianto artificiale di pino nero sul Monte Amiata in Toscana. In quest’area, dall’autunno 2014 alla primavera 2015, in soli 5 rilievi, sono state censite 106 specie, con un totale di 3220 carpofori, di cui Phellodon niger è stata la più abbondante. Dalla ripartizione in gruppi trofici risulta che 31 sono le specie simbionti, 52 quelle saprotrofe umicole, 17 quelle lignicole, 3 di lettiera e 3 sono quelle parassite. Gli indici di biodiversità (Pielou (E) = 0,67, Shannon (H) = 1,62 e Simpson (D’) = 0,66) e la curva di rango-abbondanza rivelano un discreto grado di biodiversità, ma con la dominanza di alcune specie sulle altre. All’interno dell’area di studio sono state censite anche specie eduli di macrofunghi epigei (Hydnum repandum, Lactarius deliciosus, L. sanguifluus, Suillus granulatus e S. luteus) e anche alcune specie di Tuber (ad esempio Tuber aestivum, T. borchii and T. macrosporum), la cui raccolta nell’area del Monte Amiata, è consolidata da antiche tradizioni. Considerata l’importanza economica di questi prodotti non legnosi del bosco, la gestione forestale dovrebbe tenere conto della loro presenza e garantirne la salvaguardia.
application/pdf
2531-7342
7287
en
Elena Salerni
Italian Journal of Mycology
Tuscany
The economic potential of mushrooms in an artificial <em>Pinus nigra</em> forest
Text.Serial.Journal
https://italianmycology.unibo.it/
46
Articles
2017-10-11
2017-10-11
2017-01-24
2018-08-20
48-59
Ital J Mycol
Elena Salerni
2017/10/11
10.6092/issn.2531-7342/7287
48
University of Siena
2531-7342
Tuscany
en
59
The economic potential of mushrooms in an artificial <em>Pinus nigra</em> forest
https://italianmycology.unibo.it/article/download/7287/7029
46
P. Leonardi, S. Graziosi, A. Zambonelli, E. Salerni             Italian Journal of Mycology vol. 46 (2017) ISSN 2531-7342
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-7342/7287




  The economic potential of mushrooms in an
  artificial Pinus nigra forest
  ________________________________________________________________________________

       Pamela Leonardi1, Simone Graziosi1, Alessandra Zambonelli1, Elena Salerni2
  1
      Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Università di Bologna, Viale Fanin, 46 – 40127 Bologna.
  2
      Dipartimento di Scienze della Vita, Università degli Studi di Siena, Via P.A. Mattioli, 4 – 53100 Siena.

  Correspondig Author e-mail: elena.salerni@unisi.it

  Abstract

       Mushroom community in artificial Pinus nigra forest in Amiata mount (Tuscany, Italy) was described. 3220
       fruit bodies belonging to 106 different species were found during five surveys from autumn 2014 to spring
       2015. The biodiversity indices and the dominance–diversity curves indicate a discrete fungal diversity with the
       dominance of few species. Edible mushrooms such as Hydnum repandum, Lactarius deliciosus, L. sanguifluus,
       Suillus granulatus S. luteus and truffles (Tuber aestivum, T. borchii and T. macrosporum) were found in the
       study area. These fungi are traditionally harvested and are an important complementary economical source for
       local population. Considering the economic importance of these non-wood forest products, forest management
       should play major attention to their safeguard.

       Keywords: macrofungal biodiversity; non-wood forest products; forest management; black pine; Tuscany.


  Riassunto

       La comunità macromicetica di alcuni habitat, come i rimboschimenti di Pinus nigra, impiegati spesso in
       progetti di ripristino ambientale, è ad ora poco studiata. Questo lavoro ha avuto lo scopo di iniziare lo studio
       della micodiversità in un impianto artificiale di pino nero sul Monte Amiata in Toscana.
       In quest’area, dall’autunno 2014 alla primavera 2015, in soli 5 rilievi, sono state censite 106 specie, con un
       totale di 3220 carpofori, di cui Phellodon niger è stata la più abbondante. Dalla ripartizione in gruppi trofici
       risulta che 31 sono le specie simbionti, 52 quelle saprotrofe umicole, 17 quelle lignicole, 3 di lettiera e 3 sono
       quelle parassite.
       Gli indici di biodiversità (Pielou (E) = 0,67, Shannon (H) = 1,62 e Simpson (D’) = 0,66) e la curva di rango-
       abbondanza rivelano un discreto grado di biodiversità, ma con la dominanza di alcune specie sulle altre.
       All’interno dell’area di studio sono state censite anche specie eduli di macrofunghi epigei (Hydnum repandum,
       Lactarius deliciosus, L. sanguifluus, Suillus granulatus e S. luteus) e anche alcune specie di Tuber (ad esempio
       Tuber aestivum, T. borchii and T. macrosporum), la cui raccolta nell’area del Monte Amiata, è consolidata da
       antiche tradizioni.
       Considerata l’importanza economica di questi prodotti non legnosi del bosco, la gestione forestale dovrebbe
       tenere conto della loro presenza e garantirne la salvaguardia.

       Parole chiave: diversità macrofungina; prodotti del bosco non legnosi; gestione del bosco; pino nero;
       Toscana.

  48
P. Leonardi, S. Graziosi, A. Zambonelli, E. Salerni        Italian Journal of Mycology vol. 46 (2017) ISSN 2531-7342
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-7342/7287



  Introduction

  Forest management is traditionally focused to wood production (Bengstonn et al., 2000; Farrell et al., 2000).
  Recently, as consequence of the major attention given to the environment, the conservation of forest
  biodiversity, and of its capacity to maintain ecosystem processes and services (Bonet et al., 2010) are
  pursued. Moreover, no wood forest products (NWFP) are an economically important forest resource which
  can be exploited for rural income and sustainable forestry. In the Mediterranean region the estimated value of
  the NWFP is about 822.4 million of euros, and about 245.6 million of euros only in Italy (Masiero et al.,
  2016). For these reasons, the new techniques of forest management are devoted to safeguard and increase the
  wood production and the NWFP are considered an important business nowadays.
  Mushrooms are one of the most important NWFP (Boa, 2004) for their economic, ecologic and social value.
  In several countries mushroom picking has become a widespread recreational activity providing an
  alternative or complementary source of income to timber (Molina et al., 1993; Pilz et al., 1998; Sisak, 1998;
  Nanagulyan, 2000; Manzi et al., 2001; Bonet et al., 2004; 2010; 2014). Fungi have also an important
  ecological role in forest ecosystem: most of the marketable edible forest mushrooms are mycorrhizal and
  promote plant growth (Trappe, 1987; Trappe & Luoma, 1992; Smith & Read, 1997; Luoma et al., 2004)
  improving the plant nutrition (Marks & Kozlowski, 1973; Smith & Read, 1997; Luoma et al., 2004; Martín-
  Pinto et al., 2006). Mycorrhizal fungi facilitate tree establishment in the primary succession (Schram, 1966;
  Miller, 1987) and improve soil structure contributing to form a relatively stable aggregate; subsequently they
  increase soil aeration and porosity (Tisdall & Oades, 1979; Fernández-Toirán et al., 2006). On the other
  hand, saprobic fungi are able to decompose plant and animal dead matter recycling nutrients back into the
  soil (Ferrisa et al., 2000).
  Pinus nigra Arnold, a typical pioneer species, has been widely used across Italy for reforest Apennine
  mountainous areas in the 20th century. The commercial value of these pine forests was not a priority; the
  main purpose of establishing pine forests in Italy was both, to protect the soil from erosion, and to facilitate
  the natural succession toward mixed forests with a strong component of deciduous species (Cantiani et al.,
  2010). Because of the scarce economic value of these pine forests for timber production, silvicultural
  treatments are not applied regularly (Cantiani & Chiavetta, 2015), and limited to the more accessible areas
  which can be mechanically treated.
  In this context the NWFP add an important value to the Pinus nigra forests. The aim of this work was to
  study the mushroom diversity in a plantation of P. nigra located on Amiata mount in Tuscany, and to
  evaluate their potential economic value.

  Materials and methods

  The study area is located on Amiata mount in Castiglion d’Orcia municipality (Siena, Italy) (latitude
  42°56’8’’N, longitude 11°38’13’’E,) inside the forest called “Madonna delle Querce”. The mean altitude is
  780 m a.s.l., the prevalent exposition is N-E with slope inclination of 15%.
  It is situated on a long and wavy side and shows various geological formations of clay, including the so
  called “Unità delle Argille a Palombini”, calcareous and marly lithofacies, lithological formation by fissile
  clays, silty clays, marly clays. Occasionally there are rock outcrops and stoniness of medium and large size,
  while a small surface stoniness is common. Phenomena of erosion are apparently lacking. The soils in the
  sampling area are deep with high content in organic matter in A horizon, predominantly loamy silty clay and
  clay, from weakly to moderately calcareous, slightly alkaline, with high-level of bases saturation. According
  to the Köppen and Geiger climate classification its rank is Csb. The average temperature is 12.5°C, with July
  the hottest month (mean temperature 21.7 °C) and January the coldest month (mean temperature 4.5 °C). The
  average rainfall is 687 mm, with November the wettest month. The forest is prevalently composed of P.
  nigra (more than of 90% of plants) of 44 years of age and of Quercus cerris L., Quercus robur L. and other
  sporadic species typical of deciduous oak forests (Cantiani, 2016; Cantiani et al., 2017) (Fig. 1).




                                                                                                               49
P. Leonardi, S. Graziosi, A. Zambonelli, E. Salerni      Italian Journal of Mycology vol. 46 (2017) ISSN 2531-7342
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-7342/7287




  Fig. 1. Pinus nigra forest on Amiata mount.
  Fig. 1. Foresta di Pinus nigra sul monte Amiata.

  The mushroom survey was carried out in 27 round plots (radius 10 m) covering a total area of 8478 m2.
  Mushrooms were harvested in autumn (01/10/2014; 15/10/2014; 27/10/2014; 11/11/2014; 24/11/2014) and
  late spring (10/06/2015). Hypogeous fungi were collected using a trained dog. Fruit bodies were counted,
  and weighted (when dimensions are > 1 mm) as suggested by Arnolds (1981). Identification was performed
  with the usual morphological techniques and employing general analytic keys and monographs (Salerni et
  al., 2010). Each species was classified in different trophic categories: M = Mycorrhizal; Sh = saprobic
  humicolous; Sl = saprobic litter decaying; Sw = saprobic wood decaying; P = parasite, following Arnolds et
  al. (1995) and on the basis of field direct observations. Most of the collected specimens were conserved in
  Herbarium Universitatis Senensis (SIENA). The fungal nomenclature follows CABI list
  (http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/NAMES.ASP) updated at July 2015.
  To estimate the mushroom communities, Pielou (E = 0 → 1), Shannon Wiener (H’ = 0 → ∞), and Simpson
  ((D’ = 1/D) indices (Magurran, 2004) were calculated using software package PcOrd (McCune & Mefford,
  2011). The dominance–diversity curves were constructed by ranking the abundance values of the mushroom
  species from the highest to the lowest (Magurran 1988).

  Results and discussion

  During six surveys from the autumn 2014 to the spring 2015, 3220 fruit bodies were collected belonging to
  106 different fungal species (Tab. 1). Seven species (Phellodon niger, Gymnopus brassicolens, Hydnellum
  ferrugineum, Galerina marginata, Lycoperdon perlatum, Hemimycena cucullata e Hypholoma fasciculare)
  produced more than 100 fruit bodies, whereas 32 taxa were observed only once. The most abundant species
  was P. niger, with 660 fruit bodies (Tab. 1).




  50
P. Leonardi, S. Graziosi, A. Zambonelli, E. Salerni                       Italian Journal of Mycology vol. 46 (2017) ISSN 2531-7342
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-7342/7287


  Tab. 1. Results of mycocoenological surveys in the study area.
  Tab. 1. Sintesi dei rilievi micocenologici effettuati nell’area di studio.

      TC      SPECIES                                                                          Edibility   Fruit bodies n. Weight (g)
      Sh      Agaricus comtulus Fr.                                                              NE              1           2,42
      Sh      Arrhenia velutipes (P.D. Orton) Redhead, Lutzoni, Moncalvo & Vilgalys              NE              1           0,02
      Sh      Artomyces pyxidatus (Pers.) Jülich                                                 NE              2           8,32
    Sl(Sh)    Atheniella flavoalba (Fr.) Redhead, Moncalvo, Vilgalys, Desjardin & B.A. Perry     NE             23            0,7
      Sw      Auriscalpium vulgare Gray                                                          NE             35           15,45
      Sw      Baeospora myosura (Fr.) Singer                                                     NE              7           0,51
      M       Balsamia vulgaris Vittad.                                                          NE              1           2,34
      M       Chroogomphus rutilus (Schaeff.) O.K. Mill.                                           E            10           85,76
      Sh      Clitocybe brumalis (Fr.) Quél.                                                     NE              7           5,22
      Sh      Clitocybe fragrans (With.) P. Kumm.                                                 E              3           4,94
      Sh      Clitocybe odora (Bull.) P. Kumm.                                                    E              1           4,28
      Sh      Clitocybe phaeophthalma (Pers.) Kuyper                                             NE              2             1
      Sh      Clitocybe vibecina (Fr.) Quél.                                                     NE              3           5,76
      Sh      Conocybe filipes (G.F. Atk.) Kühner                                                NE              1           0,09
      Sw      Cyathus striatus (Huds.) Willd.                                                    NE             11           1,87
      Sh      Cystolepiota sistrata (Fr.) Singer ex Bon & Bellù                                  NE             47           1,83
    Sw(Sh)    Delicatula integrella (Pers.) Fayod                                                NE             10           0,167
      Sh      Entoloma cetratum (Fr.) M.M. Moser                                                 NE              1           1,22
      Sh      Entoloma farinasprellum Arnolds                                                    NE              1           0,47
      Sh      Entoloma hirtipes (Schumach.) M.M. Moser                                           NE              1           0,15
      Sh      Entoloma xanthochroum (P.D. Orton) Noordel.                                        NE              1           0,83
      P       Fomitopsis pinicola (Sw.) P. Karst.                                                NE              1          277,24
      Sh      Galerina badipes (Pers.) Kühner                                                    NE              4           0,38
      Sw      Galerina marginata (Batsch) Kühner                                                 NE             219         84,509
      P       Ganoderma resinaceum Boud.                                                         NE              1           70,49
      Sh      Geastrum fimbriatum Fr.                                                            NE              3           2,42
      Sh      Geastrum quadrifidum DC. ex Pers.                                                  NE              3           0,32
      Sh      Geastrum triplex Jungh.                                                            NE              1           0,93
      M       Genea verrucosa Vittad.                                                            NE              1            0,3
      Sl      Gymnopus brassicolens (Romagn.) Antonín & Noordel.                                 NE             500         302,04
      Sh      Gymnopus dryophilus (Bull.) Murrill                                                 E             85          137,98
      Sh      Gymnopus ocior (Pers.) Antonín & Noordel.                                           E              1           0,23
      Sh      Gymnopus peronatus (Bolton) Gray                                                   NE             31           8,49
      M       Hebeloma crustuliniforme (Bull.) Quél.                                             NE             37          330.41
      M       Hebeloma laterinum (Batsch) Vesterh.                                               NE              2             8
      M       Hebeloma sacchariolens Quél.                                                       NE              7           15.6
      Sh      Hemimycena cryptomeriae Noordel. & Antonín                                         NE              4            0.1
    Sw(Sh)    Hemimycena cucullata (Pers.) Singer                                                NE             212         27.183
      Sl      Hemimycena delectabilis (Peck) Singer                                              NE              1          0.0072
      Sh      Hemimycena gracilis (Quél.) Singer                                                 NE             31           0.985
      Sh      Hemimycena lactea (Pers.) Singer                                                   NE             51           1.572
      Sh      Hemimycena pithya (Fr.) Dörfelt                                                    NE              8           0.61
      P       Heterobasidion annosum (Fr.) Bref.                                                 NE              1           1.04
      M       Hydnellum ferrugineum (Fr.) P. Karst.                                              NE             309         1183.33
      M       Hydnum repandum L.                                                                 EMI            37          144.22


                                                                                                                                     51
P. Leonardi, S. Graziosi, A. Zambonelli, E. Salerni                 Italian Journal of Mycology vol. 46 (2017) ISSN 2531-7342
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-7342/7287


       TC     SPECIES                                                                    Edibility   Fruit bodies n. Weight (g)
       Sh     Hydropus floccipes (Fr.) Singer                                              NE              1            0.1
       M      Hygrophorus agathosmus (Fr.) Fr.                                             NE              8           73.34
    Sw(P)     Hymenopellis radicata (Relhan) R.H. Petersen                                  E              1           6.73
       Sw     Hypholoma fasciculare (Huds.) P. Kumm.                                       NE             178         561.66
       Sh     Infundibulicybe alkaliviolascens (Bellù) Bellù                               NE              1           10.54
       M      Inocybe geophylla (Bull.) P. Kumm.                                           NE             17           22.3
       M      Inocybe mixtilis (Britzelm.) Sacc.                                           NE              2           1.58
       M      Inocybe splendens R. Heim                                                    NE              1            2.1
       M      Lactarius deliciosus (L.) Gray                                               EMI             4           86.1
       M      Lactarius sanguifluus (Paulet) Fr                                            EMT            18          443.39
       Sh     Lepiota griseovirens Maire                                                   NE              1           0.07
       Sh     Lepista nuda (Bull.) Cooke                                                    E             17          280.91
       Sh     Lycoperdon perlatum Pers.                                                     E             213         535.26
       Sh     Lycoperdon umbrinum Pers.                                                     E              2           1.08
       Sh     Lyophyllum semitale (Fr.) Kühner                                              E              5           15.25
       Sh     Lyophyllum transforme (Sacc.) Singer                                          E              1           16.16
       Sh     Marasmiellus pseudogracilis (Kühner & Maire) Singer                          NE              3           0.019
       Sh     Melanoleuca cavipes Métrod ex Bon                                            NE              1           1.25
       Sh     Melanoleuca graminicola (Velen.) Kühner & Maire                              NE              9           88.25
       Sh     Melanoleuca melaleuca (Pers.) Murrill                                         E              1           10.58
       Sw     Merulius tremellosus Schrad.                                                 NE             19          311.21
       Sh     Mutinus caninus (Huds.) Fr.                                                  NE              2           1.55
    Sh(Sw)    Mycena abramsii (Murrill) Murrill                                            NE              8           0.73
       Sw     Mycena acicula (Schaeff.) P. Kumm.                                           NE              3           0.033
       Sh     Mycena aetites (Fr.) Quél.                                                   NE             17           0.773
       Sh     Mycena amicta (Fr.) Quél.                                                    NE              4           0.09
    Sw(Sh)    Mycena arcangeliana Bres.                                                    NE             35           1.783
       Sh     Mycena epipterygia (Scop.) Gray                                              NE              1            0.2
       Sh     Mycena galopus (Pers.) P. Kumm.                                              NE             39           3.392
       Sh     Mycena metata (Secr. ex Fr.) P. Kumm.                                        NE              6           0.132
       Sw     Mycena olida Bres.                                                           NE              3           0.082
       Sh     Mycena olivaceomarginata (Massee) Massee                                     NE              1            0.1
       Sh     Mycena pelianthina (Fr.) Quél.                                               NE              5           9.39
       Sh     Mycena pura (Pers.) P. Kumm.                                                 NE              1           2.25
       Sw     Mycena stipata Maas Geest. & Schwöbel                                        NE              2           0.44
       Sh     Mycena vitilis (Fr.) Quél.                                                   NE              2           0.13
    Sh (Sc)   Panaeolus ciNEtulus (Bolton) Sacc.                                           NE              3           2.14
       M      Phellodon niger (Fr.) P. Karst.                                              NE             660         1871.56
       Sw     Pholiota gummosa (Lasch) Singer                                              NE             24           27.58
       Sh     Ramaria flaccida (Fr.) Bourdot                                               NE              1           6.62
       Sh     Rickenella fibula (Bull.) Raithelh.                                          NE             15           0.621
       M      Russula atropurpurea (Krombh.) Britzelm.                                     NE              7           96.54
       M      Russula fragilis Fr.                                                         NE              2           16.51
       M      Russula torulosa Bres.                                                       NE              6           84.11
       Sh     Stropharia aeruginosa (Curtis) Quél.                                         NE              7           22.03
       M      Suillus granulatus (L.) Roussel                                              EMI             9          214.63
       M      Suillus luteus (L.) Roussel                                                  EMI            25          762.01


  52
P. Leonardi, S. Graziosi, A. Zambonelli, E. Salerni           Italian Journal of Mycology vol. 46 (2017) ISSN 2531-7342
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-7342/7287


     TC      SPECIES                                                                 Edibility   Fruit bodies n. Weight (g)
     Sw      Tapinella atrotomentosa (Batsch) Šutara                                    NE             9          171.97
     Sw      Tapinella panuoides (Fr.) E.-J. Gilbert                                    NE            27           35.61
      M      Tricholoma aurantium (Schaeff.) Ricken                                     E              3           26.21
      M      Tricholoma fracticum (Britzelm.) Kreisel                                   NE             3           31.59
      M      Tricholoma pessundatum (Fr.) Quél.                                         NE             1           38.22
      M      Tricholoma psammopus (Kalchbr.) Quél                                       NE            37          159.09
     Sw      Tricholomopsis rutilans (Schaeff.) Singer                                  NE             3           27.3
      M      Tuber aestivum Vittad.                                                    EMI            10          137.53
      M      Tuber borchii Vittad.                                                     EMI             1           1.14
      M      Tuber dryophilum Tul. & C. Tul.                                            E              2           1.73
      M      Tuber excavatum Vittad.                                                    NE             7           61.34
      M      Tuber macrosporum Vittad.                                                 EMI             1           1.12
      M      Tuber puberulum Berk. & Broome                                             NE             1            1.4
      M      Tuber rufum Pico                                                           NE             5           15.49

  (TC: trophic category; M = mycorrhizal; P = parasite; Sh = saprobic humicolous; Sl = saprobic litter decaying; Sw =
  saprobic wood decaying;E: edible species; EMI: edible species marketable at national level; EMT: edible species
  marketable only in Tuscany; NE: not edible species)
  (TC: gruppo trofico; M: micorrizici; P: parassiti; Sh: saprotrofi umicoli; Sl: saprotrofi di lettiera; Sw: saprotrofi
  lignicoli; E: specie commestibili; EMI: sp. commestibili e commercializzabili a livello nazionale; EMT: sp.
  commestibili e commercializzabili solo in Toscana; NE: sp. non commestibili).

  P. niger, H. ferrugineum, S. luteus, H. fasciculare and L. perlatum contributed with 54 % to the total fungal
  biomass (Tab. 1). The weight of the collected fruit bodies was 1871.56 g for P. niger, 1183.33 g for H.
  ferrugineum and 762.01g for S. luteus. These species are reported to fructify abundantly in favorable
  conditions (Jülich, 1989; Galli, 1998). P. niger and H. ferrugineum are both common species in Europe in
  broadleaves forests. Although they have monomitic hyphal system their consistency is woody-corky (Jülich,
  1989). In contrast S. luteus is a mycorrhizal species specifically associated to Pinus spp. it is the biggest
  species inside the genus Suillus with a cap till 20 cm in diameter (Galli, 1998).
  The following common species have a wide ecological range and can grow in both coniferous and broad
  leaves forests: Hemimycena gracilis, Mycena aetites, M. arcangeliana, M. galopus (Antonìn & Noordeloos,
  2004; Breitenbach & Kränzlin, 1986, 1991; Maas Geesteranus, 1992; Moser, 1980; Robich, 2003). It is not
  surprising that several species such as Chroogomphus rutilus, Galerina marginata, H. ferrugineum, L.
  sanguifluus, S. luteus and Tricholoma psammopus, are typically associates with coniferous forest and in
  particular Pinus spp. (Alessio, 1985; Basso, 1999; Breitenbach & Kränzlin, 1986; 1991; 2000; Moser, 1980;
  Riva, 1988). The presence of Gymnopus brassicolens, Hebeloma sacchariolens, Inocybe splendens, Lepiota
  griseovirens, Mycena acicula, M. olida, M. pelianthina, etc. associated at broad leaved forests (Breitenbach
  & Kränzlin, 1991; 1995; 2000; Maas Geesteranus, 1992; Robich, 2003) is related to the natural regeneration
  of the pine forest with native broad leaved species.
  Most of the fungi were saprobic (72 species), 31 were mycorrhizal and only 3 parasitic (Tab.2). Some
  species are assigned to more trophic categories (Tab.1) because they combine different nutritional strategies
  (Arnolds et al.,1995). Sh (saprobic humicolous species) is the most common trophic group (49%), probably
  due to the deep soil rich in organic matter (http://www.selpibio.eu/pubblicazioni/item/46-le-aree-d-indagine-
  del-progetto-selpibiolife.html).
  Symbionts of pine are considered by various authors (Angelini et al., 2015) as fungi with a good invasive
  ability, but in this study their percentage is rather low. In order to better represent the mycorrhizal fungal
  community, we should have added below ground assessment, such as mycorrhizal root tip and soil mycelium
  analyses, as suggested by some authors (Richard et al., 2005; Salerni et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2007). In fact
  fruit bodies formation by mycorrhizal species is more related to the environmental parameters (altitude,
  number of tree species and tree cover) and in particular to the climate (above all rainfall) than those of
  saprobic or parasitic species (Laganà et al., 1999; Salerni et al., 2002; Salerni & Perini, 2004).


                                                                                                                           53
P. Leonardi, S. Graziosi, A. Zambonelli, E. Salerni                  Italian Journal of Mycology vol. 46 (2017) ISSN 2531-7342
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-7342/7287


  Tab. 2. Fungal community diversity in the study area.
  Tab. 2. Sintesi dei principali caratteri della compagine macrofungina rilevata nell’area di studio
                                                               M*          P*         Sh*         Sl*         Sw*   Total
  Species n.                                                   31          3          52          3           17     106
  Fruit bodies n.                                             1234         3          661        524          798   3220
  Weight (g)                                                  5919        349        1200        303         1274   9045
  Edible species n.                                            11          0          10          0            1     22
  Edible fruit bodies n.                                       120         0          329         0            1     450
  Weight of edible fruit bodies (g)                           1904         0         1007         0            7    2917
  Marketable species n.                                         8          0           0          0            0      8
  Marketable fruit bodies n.                                   105         0           0          0            0     105
  Weight of marketable fruit bodies (g)                       1790         0           0          0            0    1790
  Pielou index (E)                                            0,56         -         0,64        0,03        0,60   0,67
  Shannon index (H)                                           0,82         -         1,03        0,02        0,70   1,62
  Simpson index (D’ = 1/D)                                    0,42         -         0,50        0,01        0,39   0,66
  *M = mycorrhizal; P = parasite; Sh = saprobic humicolous; Sl = saprobic litter decaying; Sw = saprobic wood
  decaying;
  *M: micorriziche; P: parassiti; Sh: saprotrofi umicoli; Sl: saprotrofi di lettiera; Sw: saprotrofi lignicoli.

  The diversity indices indicate that there is a discrete degree of biodiversity (H = 1.62), a good species
  repartition (E = 0.67), and a partial dominance of few species (D’= 0.66) in the study area in respect to other
  unpublished studies carried out in Italian Pinus nigra forest (Zotti et al., 2013). The dominance–diversity
  curves (Fig. 2) confirm these results, showing that there are few dominant species. The species with a major
  relative abundance are Phellodon niger, Gymnopus brassicolens and Hydnellum ferrugineum followed by
  Lycoperdon perlatum, Galerina marginata, Hemimycena cucullata and Hypholoma fasciculare. The not
  uniform distribution of the fungal species, with few dominants is a typical characteristic of fungal
  communities (Tofts & Orton, 1998). Phellodon niger and Hydnellum ferrugineum are reported to be synergic
  in forest poor of nutrients (Pegler et al., 1997), and they have a tendency to dominate on other fungal species.




  Fig 2. Dominance–diversity curves of the fungal species found in this study.
  Fig.2. Curva di rango abbondanza delle specie rinvenute all’interno di tutti i plot campionati. A sinistra si posizionano
  le specie più abbondanti ed a destra quelle meno abbondanti.
  (CYS SIS - Cystolepiota sistrata; GAL MAR - Galerina marginata; GYM BRA - Gymnopus brassicolens;
  GYM DRY - Gymnopus dryophilus; HEM CUC - Hemimycena cucullata; HEM LAC - Hemimycena lactea;
  HYD FER - Hydnellum ferrugineum; LYC PER - Lycoperdon perlatum; MYC GAL - Mycena galopus; PHE
  NIG - Phellodon niger)

  54
P. Leonardi, S. Graziosi, A. Zambonelli, E. Salerni           Italian Journal of Mycology vol. 46 (2017) ISSN 2531-7342
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-7342/7287




  Fig. 3. Some of the edible fungi found in this study.
  Fig. 3 – Alcune delle specie eduli reperite in questo studio.
  Hydnum repandum (a), Lactarius deliciosus (b), Suillus luteus (c.), Tuber aestivum (d); Tuber macrosporum (e) e Tuber
  borchii (f).

  30% of the 106 fungal species found in this study are edible (Tab. 1), with a total weight of 5 kg (Tab. 2),
  and 8 of these are commercialized in Italy.
  In table 3, the marketable species found in this study, their common Italian name, and the price on Italian
  markets are reported. Whereas the prices of truffles (Tuber spp.) are published and updated every year (for
  example        in     the      following      websites:       http://acqualagna.com/fiere-tartufo/borsa-tartufo/
  http://www.tuber.it/it/borsino-del-tartufo.php,         http://www.fieradeltartufo.org/2016/it/borsino-tartufo-

                                                                                                                    55
P. Leonardi, S. Graziosi, A. Zambonelli, E. Salerni              Italian Journal of Mycology vol. 46 (2017) ISSN 2531-7342
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-7342/7287



  2015.php.), the commercial value of other fungal species was obtained by a market survey with the most
  important Italian companies specialized in commercialization and transformation of wild edible mushrooms
  (Masiero et al., 2016; Vidale et al., 2014).

  Tab. 3. Market prices for the edible species found in the study area
  Tab. 3. Quotazioni di mercato per le specie commmercializzabili rinvenute nell’area di studio

  Scientific name                                     Italian common name                         Price /kg
  Hydnum repandum L.                                  Steccherino dorato, dentino                 € 8,00
  Lactarius deliciosus (L.) Gray                      Sanguinello, pennecciola                    € 15,00
  Lactarius sanguifluus (Paulet) Fr                   Sanguinello, pennecciola                    € 15,00
  Suillus granulatus (L.) Roussel                     Pinarolo, pinarello                         € 5,00
  Suillus luteus (L.) Roussel                         Pinarolo, pinarello                         € 5,00
  Tuber aestivum Vittad.                              Tartufo scorzone                            € 350,00
  Tuber borchii Vittad.                               Tartufo bianchetto                          € 300,00
  Tuber macrosporum Vittad.                           Tartufo nero liscio                         € 400,00


  The prices reported in table 3 are the average prices and they can vary depending on the annual seasonal
  trend, with a considerable increasing when the mushrooms production is scarce. The prices vary also in
  relation to the local use. For example, Lactarius deliciosus is scarcely appreciated in Italy, with the exception
  of some small local market, whereas it is the most appreciated mushroom in Spain (Bonet et al., 2012). The
  species of the genus Suillus, not commercialized as fresh product in Italy, are used by the Italian companies
  to prepare mixed frozen cubes of mushrooms; consequently these species are imported from South America.
  In contrast, the truffles are highly appreciated around the world. Because the most expensive Tuber spp.
  naturally grow only in Mediterranean countries and their production is decreasing due several anthropic and
  natural factors, they command very high prices (Donnini et al., 2008).

  Conclusions

  This study confirm that mushrooms are no wood forest products with an important economic value (Merlo &
  Croitoru, 2005; Bonet et al., 2010; Oria de Rueda et al., 2010). In a rather small area less than 1 ha of forest
  and in only 5 surveys, we found almost 5 kg of edible mushrooms. The most economically important species
  found were Lactarius sanguifluus, Suillus granulatus and several Tuber spp., such as Tuber aestivum, Tuber
  macrosporum and Tuber borchii which are traditionally harvested in this area and become an important
  complementary sources of income for local population. However till now the mushrooms are not considered
  as an economically important NWFP, and the Italian forest management politics do not play enough
  attention at their safeguard and valorization. In particular forest cultural practices should also consider the
  effects on mushroom production. The ongoing LIFE project (project SelPiBioLife, LIFE13 BIO/IT/000282)
  devoted to study the effects of innovative selvicultural management considers also this important aspect.

  Acknowledgement

  This study was funded by European Commission (project SelPiBioLife, LIFE13 BIO/IT/000282). Thanks to
  the partners of the project, to Dr. Nicola Sitta and to all companies which gave information on fungal market
  and prices. We would like also to thank Diego Cantini for the figs 3a, 3b and 3c.

  References

  Alessio C.L. (1985). Boletus Dill. ex L. Libreria editrice Giovanna Biella Saronno, Italia, 712 pp.
  Angelini P., Bistocchi G., Arcangeli A., Bricchi E., Venanzoni R. (2015). Diversity and ecological
      distribution of macrofungi in site of community importance of Umbria (Central Italy). The Open
      Ecology Journal, 8,1-8.
  56
P. Leonardi, S. Graziosi, A. Zambonelli, E. Salerni        Italian Journal of Mycology vol. 46 (2017) ISSN 2531-7342
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-7342/7287


  Antonín V., Noordeloos M. E. (2004). A monograph of the genera Hemimycena, Delicatula, Fayodia,
      Gamundia, Myxomphalia, Resinomycena, Rickenella and Xeromphalina in Europe. IHW Verlag,
      Frankfurt, Germany, 279 pp.
  Arnolds E. (1981). Ecology and coenology of macrofungi in grassland and moist heathland in Drenthe, the
      Netherlands. Biblioteca Mycologica, 407 pp.
  Arnolds E., Kuyper Th.W., Noordeloos E.M. (1995). Overzicht van de paddestoelen in Nederland. Wijster,
      Newtherland, 871 pp.
  Basso M.T. (1999). Fungi Europaei. Vol 7, Lactarius Pers. Mycoflora, Alassio. Italia, 845 pp.
  Bengtsson J., Nilsson S.G., Franc A., Menozzi P. (2000). Biodiversity, disturbances, ecosystem function and
      management of European forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 132, 39–50.
  Boa E. (2004). Wild edible fungi: a global overview of their use and importance to people. Food &
      Agriculture Organization of the united nations, 147 pp.
  Bonet J.A., Fischer C., Colinas C. (2004). The relationship between forest age and aspect on the production
      of sporocarps of ectomycorrhizal fungi in Pinus sylvestris forest of the central Pyrenees. Forest Ecology
      and Management, 203,157–175.
  Bonet, J.A., Palahí, M., Colinas, C., Pukkala, T., Fischer, C.R., Miina, J., Martínez de Aragón, J. (2010).
      Modelling the production and species richness of wild mushrooms in pine forests of Central Pyrenees in
      north-eastern Spain. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 40: 347–356. doi:10.1139/X09-198.
  Bonet J.A., De-Miguel S., Martinez de Aragon J., Pukkala T., Palahí M. (2012). Immediate effect of thinning
      on the yeld of Lactarius group deliciosus in Pinus pinaster forests in Northeastern Spain. Forest
      Ecology and Management, 265, 211-217.
  Bonet J.A., Gonzales-Olabarria J.R., Martinez De Aragon J. (2014). Mushroom production as an alternative
      for rural development in a forested montainous area. Journal of Mountain Science, 11(2). doi:
      0.1007/S11629-013-2877-0.
  Breitenbach J., Kränzlin F. (1986). Fungi of Switzerland. Vol. 2 Non gilled fungi. Ed. Mykologica, Lucerne,
       Switzerland, 412 pp.
  Breitenbach J., Kränzlin F. (1991). Fungi of Switzerland. Vol. 3 Boletes and agarics 1st part. Ed.
       Mykologica, Lucerne, Switzerland, 361 pp.
  Breitenbach J., Kränzlin F. (1995). Fungi of Switzerland. Vol. 4 Agarics 2sd part. Ed. Mykologica, Lucerne,
       Switzerland, 368 pp.
  Breitenbach J. & Kränzlin F. (2000). Fungi of Switzerland. Vol. 5 Agarics 3rd part. Ed. Mykologica,
       Lucerne, Switzerland, 338 pp.
  Cantiani P., Plutino M., Amorini E. (2010). Effects of silvicultural treatment on the stability of black pine
       plantations. Annals of Silvicultural Research 36, 49-58.
  Cantiani P., Chiavetta U. (2015). Estimating the mechanical stability of Pinus nigra Arn. using an alternative
       approach across several plantations in central Italy. iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry, 846–852.
  Cantiani P. (2016). Il diradamento selettivo. Accrescere stabilità e biodiversità in boschi artificiali di pino
       nero. Manuale tecnico SelPiBioLife. Compagnia delle Foreste. Arezzo, Italia, 62 pp.
  Cantiani P., Marchi M., Plutino M. (2017). SelPiBioLife per i popolamenti di pino nero. Una strategia
       selvicolturale per pinete artificiali con funzioni e destinazioni diverse. Sherwood, 225, 21-24.
  Donnini D., Baciarelli Falini L., Di Massimo G., Benucci N., Bencivenga M. (2008). Competizione o
      sinergia di funghi ectomicorrizici in tartufaie coltivate. Micologia Italiana, 37 (3), 47-51.
  Farrell E.P., Führer E., Ryan D., Andersson F., Hüttl R., Piussi P. (2000). European forest ecosystems:
       building the future on the legacy of the past. Forest Ecology and Management 132 (1), 5-20.
  Fernández-Toirán, L.M., Ágreda, T., Olano, J.M. (2006). Stand age and sampling year effect on the fungal
      fruit body community in Pinus pinaster forests in central Spain. Canadian Journal of Forest Research
      84 (8), 1249–1258.
  Ferrisa, R., Peace, A.J., Newton, C. (2000). Macrofungal communities of lowland Scots pine (Pinus
       sylvestris L.) and Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karsten.) plantations in England: relationships with
       site factors and stand structure. Forest Ecology and Management 131, 255–267.

                                                                                                              57
P. Leonardi, S. Graziosi, A. Zambonelli, E. Salerni         Italian Journal of Mycology vol. 46 (2017) ISSN 2531-7342
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-7342/7287


  Galli R. (1998). I Boleti. Edinatura, Milano, Italia, 286 pp.
  Jülich W. (1989). Guida alla determinazione dei Funghi. Vol. 2. Aphyllophorales, Heterobasidiomycetes,
       Gasteromycetes. Saturnia, Trento, Italia ,598 pp.
  Laganà A., Loppi S., De Dominicis V. (1999). Relationship between environmental factors and the
      proportions of fungal trophic groups in forest ecosystems of the central Mediterranean area. Forest
      Ecology and Management 124 (2-3), 145-151.
  Luoma D.L., Eberhart J.L., Molina R., Amaranthus M.P. (2004). Response of ectomycorrhizal fungus
      sporocarp production to varying levels and patterns of green-tree retention. Forest Ecology and
      Management 202: 337–354.
  Maas Geesteranus R. A. (1992). Mycenas of the Northern Hemisphere. Vol. 2. Magurran A.E., 2004.
      Measuring biological diversity. Wiley Publishing, Oxford, UK, 493 pp.
  Magurran A. E. (1988). Ecological Diversity and its Measurement. Croom-Helm, London, 178 pp.
  Magurran A. E. (2004). Measuring biological diversity. African Journal of Aquatic Science 29, 285–286.
  Manzi P., Aguzzi A., Pizzoferrato L. (2001). Nutritional value of mushrooms widely consumed in Italy.
     Food Chemistry 73, 321-325.
  Marks, G.C., Kozlowski, T.T. (1973). Ectomycorrhizae, their Ecology and Physiology. Academic Press,
      New York, USA, 444 pp.
  Martín-Pinto, P., Pajares, J., Díez, J. (2006). In vitro effects of four ectomycorrhizal fungi, Boletus edulis,
      Rhizopogon roseolus, Laccaria laccata and Lactarius deliciosus on Fusarium damping off in Pinus
      nigra seedlings. New Forests 32, 323–334.
  Masiero M., Pettenella D.M., Secco L. (2016). From failure to value: economic valuation for a selected set of
      products and services from Mediterranean forests. Forest Systems, Volume 25, Issue 1, e051.
      http://dx.doi.org/10.5424/fs/ 2016251-08160.
  McCune B., Mefford M.J. (2011). PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data. Version 6.0 MjM
     Software, Gleneden Beach, Oregon.
  Merlo M., Croitoru L. (2005). Valuing Mediterranean Forests. Towards Total Economic Value. Ed. CABI
      Publishing,Wallingford, UK.
  Miller R.M. (1987). Mycorrhizae and succession. In: Restoration Ecology: A Synthetic Approach to
       Ecological Research. (Jordan, W.R., Gilpin, M.E. & Aber, J.D.), Cambridge University Press,
       Cambridge, UK, pp 205-220.
  Molina R., O’Dell, T., Luoma D., Amaranthus M., Castellano M., Russell K. (1993). Biology, ecology, and
      social aspects of wild edible mushrooms in the forests of the Pacific northwest: A preface to managing
      commercial harvest. Forest Service general technical report Forest Service, Portland, OR (USA).
      Pacific Northwest Research Station 42 pp.
  Moser M. (1980). Guida alla determinazione dei funghi. Saturnia, Trento, Italia, 564 pp.
  Nanagulyan S.G., (2000). Applied research on edible mushrooms in the Republic of Armenia. In: “Science
      and Cultivation of Edible Fungi.” (Van Griensven L.J.L.D.), Rotterdam, Balkema, NL, 783-787.
  Oria De Rueda JA., Hernández-Rodríguez M., Martín-Pinto P., PandoV., Olaizola J. (2010). Could artificial
       reforestations provide as much production and diversity of fungal species as natural forest stands in
       marginal Mediterranean areas?. Forest Ecology and Management 260, 171-180.
  Pegler D.N. (1997). The agarics of Sao Paulo: an account of the agaricoid fungi (Holobasidiomycetes) of Sao
       Paulo State, Brazil. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK.
  Pilz D., Brodie F., Alexander S. Molina, R. (1998). Relative value of chanterelles and timber as commercial
       forest products. AMBIO Special Report No. 9, 14–16.
  Richard F., Millot S., Gardes M., Selosse M-A. (2005). Diversity and specificity of ectomycorrhizal fungi
      retrieved from an old-growth Mediterranean forest dominated by Quercus ilex. New Phytologist, 166,
      1011-23.
  Riva A. (1988). Tricholoma (Fr.) Staude. Libreria editrice Giovanna Biella, Saronno, Italia, 618 pp.
  Robich G. (2003). Mycena d’Europa. Associazione Micologica Bresadola, Trento, Italia, 728 pp.


  58
P. Leonardi, S. Graziosi, A. Zambonelli, E. Salerni        Italian Journal of Mycology vol. 46 (2017) ISSN 2531-7342
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-7342/7287


  Salerni E., Laganà A., Perini C., Loppi S., De Dominicis V. (2002). Effects of temperature and rainfall on
       fruiting of macrofungi in oak forests of the mediterranean area. Israel Journal of Plant Sciences, 50,
       189-198.
  Salerni E., Perini C. (2004). Experimental study for increasing productivity of Boletus edulis s.l. in Italy.
       Forest Ecology and Management, 201, 161-170.
  Salerni E., Baglioni F., Mazzei T., Gardin L., Ciabatti F., Leonardi P., Vesprini J., Perini C. (2010). Efectos
       de las diversas técnicas culturales sobre la producción de Tuber aestivumVitt. y de Tuber
       melanosporum Vitt. en dos plantaciones experimentales en Italia central. ZIZAK 7: 47-62.
  Salerni E., D’Aguanno M., Leonardi P., Perini C. (2014). Ectomycorrhizal communities above and below
       ground and truffle productivity in a Tuber aestivum orchard.. Forest Systems, 23: 329-338, doi:
       10.5424/fs/2014232-04777
  Schram J.E. (1966). Plant colonization studies on black wastes from anthracite mining in Pennsylvania.
      American Philosophical Society 56, 1–194.
  Sisak L. (1998). Importance of main non-wood forest products in the Czech Republic. In: “European
       Forestry Institute Proceedings” (Lund, G., Pajari, B. & Korhonen, M.), No. 23, pp 79–86.
  Smith S.E., Read D.J. (1997). Mycorrhizal Symbiosis, second edition. Academic Press, New York, 605 pp.
  Smith M.E. Douhan G.W., Rizzo D.M. (2007). Ectomycorrhizal community structure in a xeric Quercus
      woodland based on rDNA sequence analysis of sporocarps and pooled roots. New Phytologist, 63, 174-
      847.
  Tisdall, J.M., Oades, J.M. (1979). Stabilization of soil aggregates by the root system of ryegrass. Australian
       Journal of Soil Research 17, 429–441.
  Tofts R.J., Orton P.D. (1998). The species accumulation curve for agarics and boleti from a Caledonian
       pinewood. The Mycologist, 12, 98-102.
  Trappe J.M. (1987). Phylogenetic and ecologic aspects of mycotrophy in the angiosperms form and
      evolutionary standpoint. In: “Ecophysiology of VA Mycorrhizal Plants” (Safir, G.R.), CRC Press, Boca
      Raton, FL. USA, pp. 5–25.
  Trappe J.M., Luoma, D.L. (1992). The ties that bind: fungi in ecosystems. In: “The Fungal Community: Its
      Organization and Role in the Ecosystem.” Second edition (Carrol, G.C., Wicklow, D.T.), Marcel
      Dekker, New York, USA, pp. 17–27.
  Vidale E., Da Re R., Lovric M., Corradini G., Pettenella D. (2014). International trade of the NWFP: any
      opportunity for the Italian forest sector? In: Proceedings of the Second International Congress of
      Silviculture. Florence, November 26th - 29th 2014, pp. 734-753.
  Zotti M., Di Piazza S., Ambrosio E., Mariotti M.G., Roccotiello E., Vizzini A. (2013). Macrofungal diversity
       in Pinus nigraplantations in Northwest Italy (Liguria). Sydowia 652, 223-245.




                                                                                                              59
