DOI: 10.5061/dryad.mb756c7
title: Data from: Exclusion of invertebrates influences saprotrophic fungal community and wood decay rate in an experimental field study

description: 1. Decomposer communities perform an essential ecosystem function by
 recycling nutrients. However, the effect of higher trophic levels on
 microbial decomposer communities and rate of decomposition is poorly
 understood. We therefore conducted an exclusion experiment to test the
 effect of invertebrates on fungal decomposer communities in dead wood,
 repeated at 30 sites in two landscapes, and measured wood density to
 assess effect on decay rate. 2. Invertebrates were excluded from recently
 cut logs by cages with a 1 mm mesh net, and fungal communities in caged
 logs were compared to logs accessible to invertebrates by DNA
 metabarcoding analyses. Accessible logs included control logs, cage
 control logs and positive control logs. 3. We found that exclusion of
 invertebrates had a significant effect on fungal community composition.
 For example, the wood decay fungi Trametes versicolor and T. ochracea were
 significantly more abundant in accessible logs than in caged logs. The
 strongest effect on fungal community composition, however, was attributed
 to differing baseline conditions in the individual trees. When accounting
 for these baseline differences, caged logs had significantly higher wood
 density than control logs after two years, indicating lower rates of wood
 decay in caged logs. 4. Further studies, spanning several years, are
 required to fully understand the influence of invertebrates on fungi and
 wood decay. However, our results indicate that invertebrates influence
 both the composition of saprotrophic communities in dead wood and their
 decomposition function, which is vital to forest ecosystems.
description: Jacobsen_FuncEcol_2018_OTU_table_and_FUNGuild_outputExcel-document containing table of operational taxonomic units (OTUs) extracted from wood samples. The OTU table in sheet 1 includes negatives and repetitions, and samples (in columns) are tagged by their PCR IDs (see mapping file). The OTU table in sheet 2 does not include negatives and repetitions, OTUs are annotated according to database matches, and samples (in rows) are categorized according to treatment and other design variables (see Jacobsen et al. 2018). Sheet 2 lists the information extracted for the annotated taxa of each OTU from the database FUNGUILD (see Jacobsen et al. 2018).Jacobsen_FuncEcol_2018_mapping_file_DNAExcel-document containing metadata for the raw data (the output from high-throughput sequencing). Sheet 1 contains information on the samples, linking PCR IDs to molecular identifiers (MIDs), sequencing pool (A/B) and design variables (treatment, landscape etc). Negatives and repetitions are also listed here. Sheet 2 lists the barcodes for MIDs 1-100, and the oligos when combined with fITS7 or ITS4. Sheet 3 lists the barcodes for MIDs 246-345, and the oligos when combined with fITS7 or ITS4.Jacobsen_wood2018_pool_A_S1_L001_R1_001.fastqRaw sequence data (gzipped fastq-file) from high-throughput sequencing of wood samples. Pool A, forward reads.Jacobsen_wood2018_pool_A_S1_L001_R2_001.fastqRaw sequence data (gzipped fastq-file) from high-throughput sequencing of wood samples. Pool A, reverse reads.Jacobsen_wood2018_pool_B_S1_L001_R1_001.fastqRaw sequence data (gzipped fastq-file) from high-throughput sequencing of wood samples. Pool B, forward reads.Jacobsen_wood2018_pool_B_S1_L001_R2_001.fastqRaw sequence data (gzipped fastq-file) from high-throughput sequencing of wood samples. Pool B, reverse reads.