Fungal biodiversity and in situ conservation in Italy

Abstract

A remarkable increase in knowledge of fungal biodiversity in Italy has occurred in the last five years. The authors report up-to-date numbers of fungi (Basidiomycota and Ascomycota) by regions together with distributional and ecological data on hypogeous fungi. Specific case studies such as alpine fungi, orchid mycorrhizas symbionts, invasive species, and the use of macrofungi as food by red squirrels are analyzed. In situ conservation strategies carried out on target species and/or taxonomic groups are also indicated.

Full text

This article was downloaded by: [Universita di Palermo]
On: 03 January 2012, At: 02:29
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Plant Biosystems - An International Journal Dealing
with all Aspects of Plant Biology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tplb20
Fungal biodiversity and in situ conservation in Italy
G. Venturella a , E. Altobelli b , A. Bernicchia c , S. Di Piazza d , D. Donnini e , M. L. Gargano
a , S. P. Gorjòn f , V. M. Granito g , A. Lantieri h , D. Lunghini g , A. Montemartini d , F.
Padovan i , M. Pavarino d , L. Pecoraro j , C. Perini k , G. Rana l , C. Ripa m , E. Salerni k , E.
Savino b , P. E. Tomei n , A. Vizzini o , A. Zambonelli p & M. Zotti d
a Dipartimento di Biologia Ambientale e Biodiversità, Sezione Botanica, Via Archirafi 38,
I-90123 Palermo, Italy
b Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra e dell'Ambiente, Università di Pavia, Via S. Epifanio
14, I-27100 Pavia, Italy
c Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Agroambientali, Annarosa Bernicchia, Università
degli Studi di Bologna, Viale Fanin 42 – 40127, Bologna, Italy
d Dipartimento per lo Studio del Territorio e delle sue Risorse (Dip.Te.Ris), Polo Botanico
Hanbury Laboratorio di Micologia, Università degli Studi di Genova, Corso Dogali 1M, I-16136
Genoa, Italy
e Dipartimento di Biologia Applicata, Università di Perugia, Borgo XX Giugno, 74 – I-06121
Perugia, Italy
f Centro de Investigación y Extensión Forestal Andino Patagónico (CIEFAP), Area de Patología
Forestal, Ruta 259, Km 2.9, 9200 Esquel, Argentina
g Dipartimento di Biologia Ambientale, Sapienza Università di Roma, P.le Aldo Moro, 5 00185
Roma, Italy
h Department of Biology “Marcello La Greca”, University of Catania, Via Antonino Longo 19,
I-95125 Catania, Italy
i Gruppo Associazione Micologica Bresadola di Belluno, Via Mier, 73 – 32100 Belluno, Italy
j Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences,
Riia St. 181, 51014 Tartu, Estonia
k Department of Environmental Sciences “G. Sarfatti”, via Mattioli 4, 53100 Siena, Italy
l Dipartimento diBiologia, Difesa e Biotecnologie Agro-Forestali, Università degliStudi della
Basilicata, Via Ateneo Lucano, n. 10, 85100 Potenza, Italy
m Dipartimento di Scienze Ecologiche e Biologiche, Università degli Studi della Tuscia, Largo
dell'Università snc – 01100 Viterbo, Italy
n Dipartimento di Agronomia e Gestione dell'Agroecosistema, Via del Borgetto 80, 56124
Pisa, Italy
o Dipartimento di Biologia Vegetale, Università di Torino, Viale P.A. Mattioli 25, I-10125
Torino, Italy
p Dipartimento di Protezione e Valorizzazione Agroalimentare, Via Fanin 46, 40127 Bologna,
Italy
Available online: 24 Oct 2011
To cite this article: G. Venturella, E. Altobelli, A. Bernicchia, S. Di Piazza, D. Donnini, M. L. Gargano, S. P. Gorjòn, V. M.
Granito, A. Lantieri, D. Lunghini, A. Montemartini, F. Padovan, M. Pavarino, L. Pecoraro, C. Perini, G. Rana, C. Ripa, E.

Salerni, E. Savino, P. E. Tomei, A. Vizzini, A. Zambonelli & M. Zotti (2011): Fungal biodiversity and in situ conservation in
Italy, Plant Biosystems - An International Journal Dealing with all Aspects of Plant Biology, 145:4, 950-957
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2011.633115
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded by [Universita di Palermo] at 02:29 03 January 2012

THE CURRENT STATUS OF FUNGAL BIODIVERSITY IN ITALY
Fungal biodiversity and in situ conservation in Italy
G. VENTURELLA
1
, E. ALTOBELLI
2
, A. BERNICCHIA
3
, S. DI PIAZZA
4
, D. DONNINI
5
,
M. L. GARGANO
1
, S. P. GORJO
`N
6
, V. M. GRANITO
7
, A. LANTIERI
8
, D. LUNGHINI
7
,
A. MONTEMARTINI
4
, F. PADOVAN
9
, M. PAVARINO
4
, L. PECORARO
10
, C. PERINI
11
,
G. RANA
12
, C. RIPA
13
, E. SALERNI
11
, E. SAVINO
2
, P. E. TOMEI
14
, A. VIZZINI
15
,
A. ZAMBONELLI
16
& M. ZOTTI
4
1
Dipartimento di Biologia Ambientale e Biodiversita`, Sezione Botanica, Via Archirafi 38, I-90123 Palermo, Italy,
2
Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra e dell’Ambiente, Universita` di Pavia, Via S. Epifanio 14, I-27100 Pavia, Italy,
3
Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Agroambientali, Annarosa Bernicchia, Universita` degli Studi di Bologna, Viale Fanin
42 – 40127 Bologna, Italy,
4
Dipartimento per lo Studio del Territorio e delle sue Risorse (Dip.Te.Ris), Polo Botanico Hanbury
Laboratorio di Micologia, Universita` degli Studi di Genova, Corso Dogali 1M, I-16136 Genoa, Italy,
5
Dipartimento di
Biologia Applicata, Universita` di Perugia, Borgo XX Giugno, 74 – I-06121 Perugia, Italy,
6
Centro de Investigaciœn y
Extensiœn Forestal Andino Patagœnico (CIEFAP), Area de PatologU
´a Forestal, Ruta 259, Km 2.9, 9200 Esquel, Argentina,
7
Dipartimento di Biologia Ambientale, Sapienza Universita` di Roma, P.le Aldo Moro, 5 00185 Roma, Italy,
8
Department of
Biology ‘‘Marcello La Greca’’, University of Catania, Via Antonino Longo 19, I-95125 Catania, Italy,
9
Gruppo Associazione
Micologica Bresadola di Belluno, Via Mier, 73 – 32100 Belluno, Italy,
10
Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences,
Estonian University of Life Sciences, Riia St. 181, 51014 Tartu, Estonia,
11
Department of Environmental Sciences
‘‘G. Sarfatti’’, via Mattioli 4, 53100 Siena, Italy,
12
Dipartimento diBiologia, Difesa e Biotecnologie Agro-Forestali,
Universita` degliStudi della Basilicata, Via Ateneo Lucano, n. 10, 85100 Potenza, Italy,
13
Dipartimento di Scienze Ecologiche
e Biologiche, Universita` degli Studi della Tuscia, Largo dell’Universita` snc – 01100 Viterbo, Italy,
14
Dipartimento di
Agronomia e Gestione dell’Agroecosistema, Via del Borgetto 80, 56124 Pisa, Italy,
15
Dipartimento di Biologia Vegetale,
Universita` di Torino, Viale P.A. Mattioli 25, I-10125 Torino, Italy and
16
Dipartimento di Protezione e Valorizzazione
Agroalimentare, Via Fanin 46, 40127 Bologna, Italy
Abstract
A remarkable increase in knowledge of fungal biodiversity in Italy has occurred in the last five years. The authors report
up-to-date numbers of fungi (Basidiomycota and Ascomycota) by regions together with distributional and ecological data on
hypogeous fungi. Specific case studies such as alpine fungi, orchid mycorrhizas symbionts, invasive species, and the use of
macrofungi as food by red squirrels are analyzed. In situ conservation strategies carried out on target species and/or
taxonomic groups are also indicated.
Keywords: Ascomycota,Basidiomycota, biodiversity, Italy, mycology
Introduction
A year before the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro
(Brazil), the Italian Botanical Society’s Working
Group for Mycology drafted a document containing
two priority targets: increased mycological research
and evaluation of fungal diversity in Italy with
particular reference to larger fungi. As a result,
regional checklists were published for Campania,
Liguria, Sicily, and Tuscany, and these collectively
contribute to the checklist of Italian fungi (Basidio-
mycetes) (Onofri et al. 2005). After that, a descriptive
and iconographic review dealing of Italian Basidio-
mycota was released by Boccardo et al. (2008). It
covered 1616 taxa of Agaricomycotina, focusing
mainly on the Agaricales, Boletales, and Russulales.
Correspondence: G. Venture lla, Dipartimento di Biologia Ambientale e Biodiversituˆ , Sezione Botanica, Via Archirafi 38, I-90123 Palermo, Italy.
Tel: þ39 091 23891234; þ39 0916238211. Fax: þ39 0916238203. Email: gvent@unipa.it
Plant Biosystems, Vol. 145, No. 4, December 2011, pp. 950–957
ISSN 1126-3504 print/ISSN 1724-5575 online ª2011 Societa` Botanica Italiana
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2011.633115
Downloaded by [Universita di Palermo] at 02:29 03 January 2012

Several papers have also been published on aphyllo-
phoroid fungi, updating the number of species and
supplying new distributional and ecological data.
Furthermore, a string of scientific papers, cited by
Saitta et al. (2011), together with compiled checklists
of the Polyporaceae s.l. and Corticiaceae s.l., reported
in Bernicchia (2005) and Bernicchia and Gorjo´n
(2010), respectively, collectively constitute an ex-
haustive revision of those fungi. From 1974 onwards,
a remarkable number of studies on Laboulbeniales
have been carried out with more than 200 taxa
recorded and/or described (W. Rossi, pers. comm.).
Ecological and distributional information about
larger fungi is fragmented, being distributed through
a huge number of papers published by a few
mycologists employed in universities and a massive
number of amateurs. For this reason, and taking into
consideration the diversity of environments in Italy,
the variety of geographical, climatic, geological, and
pedological features, together with difficulties en-
countered in co-operation between academics and
amateurs (Barron 2010), it is currently hard to
evaluate how many fungal species the country really
has.
Despite those problems, Italian mycologists have
been able to contribute to different Biodiversity
Assessment and Strategy initiatives (Blasi et al. 2005,
2009) with a list of 4296 Basidiomycota taxa,
including 3973 species, 6 subspecies, 263 varieties,
and 54 forms. On the basis of the checklist of
Basidiomycota, 56 of those species are endemic and
87 taxa are rare. Preliminary redlists for macrofungi
at a national and regional level have also been carried
out (Venturella et al. 2002; Antonini & Antonini
2006). As reported in thematic contributions to the
National Biodiversity Strategy in Italy (Blasi et al.
2009, 2010), the estimated number of larger fungi is
currently 20,000 with at least 20 new species being
described every year. Italian mycologists have also
contributed to a project for mapping Important Plant
Areas in Italy (the term ‘‘Important Fungus Areas’’
has not yet been adopted) by providing information
about 42 species of macromycetes (36 with georefer-
enced data) and 394 georeferenced records high-
lighting eight important areas for fungi at a national
level. Work by Italian mycologists has also resulted
in Pleurotus nebrodensis (Inzenga) Que´ l., a critically
endangered species (Venturella 2000; Gargano et al.
2011) being included in the IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species (www.iucnredlist.org). Ongoing
ex situ and in situ conservation strategies drawn up by
mycologists working in the universities of Bologna,
Palermo, Perugia, Siena, and Turin are devoted to
target species and/or different taxonomic groups.
They will be also presented in this article, together
with other contributions on fungal biodiversity in
Italy (Onofri et al. 2011; Persiani et al. 2011; Picco
et al. 2011; Saitta et al. 2011; Varese et al. 2011).
These activities in assessing fungal diversity in Italy
should be still considered as starting point and that
has been a major reason for producing an updated
report on the status of fungal diversity and mycolo-
gical research in Italy.
Magnitude of biodiversity
There has been a remarkable increase in knowledge
of fungal diversity in Italy over the last five years. An
up-to-date estimate of the number of fungi per
region, including data reported in Saitta et al.
(2011), is provided in Figure 1 in comparison with
data included by Onofri et al. (2005). Numbers from
Sardinia are impressive (6500 taxa, M. Contu, pers.
comm.) followed by Tuscany (3117 taxa). Over 2000
Figure 1. Number of fungi (Basidiomycota and Ascomycota) per region (update December 2010).
Fungal biodiversity in Italy 951
Downloaded by [Universita di Palermo] at 02:29 03 January 2012

fungal taxa are reported for Emilia Romagna,
Lombardy, Piedmont, Trentino-Alto Adige, and
Veneto. In some Italian regions, the greatest limiting
factor for documentation of fungal numbers is the
lack of mycologists and/or the unavailability of
records kept by amateur groups of mycologists. This
is clearly evident for some regions (Figure 1) where
the number of fungi has not changed from earlier
estimates. Distributional and ecological information
about hypogeous fungi is usually very limited in
mycological studies. Detection of such fungi is
usually only possible using dogs, and only a low
number of semi-hypogeous fungi can be easily
found by moving the superficial layer of plant litter.
Distributional and ecological data on hypogeous
fungi were provided in a monograph by Montecchi &
Sarasini (2000), while other information is avail-
able from a number of scientific papers published
by research groups working in the universities
(Zambonelli & Morara 1994; Venturella & Bencivenga
1999; Cerone et al. 2000; Ceruti et al. 2003; Marino
et al. 2003; Venturella et al. 2004, 2006; Saitta et al.
2008; Rana et al. 2010; Zotti et al. 2010b). The
number of hypogeous fungi in Italy is currently 167
(including varieties and forms). These comprise 73
Basidiomycota,85Ascomycota,3Zygomycota,and
8Glomeromycota. Recorded taxa belong to 55 genera
and 28 families. The best represented families are
Pezizaceae Dumort. (eight taxa), Tuberaceae Dumort.
(five taxa), Agaricaceae Chevall. (four taxa), and
Pyronemataceae Corda (four taxa). The best repre-
sented genera are Tuber P. Micheli ex F.H. Wigg.
(27 taxa), Elaphomyces Nees (16 taxa), Hymenogaster
Vittad. (14 taxa), Hysterangium Vittad. (eight taxa),
Rhizopogon Fr. (eight taxa), Genea Vittad. (seven taxa)
and Melanogaster Corda (six taxa). The current
numbers of hypogeous fungi taxa by regions are
reported in Figure 2.
In the case of hypogeous and semi-hypogeous
fungi, the term ‘‘rare’’ is difficult to apply but the
expansion of surveyed areas in Italy over the last
10 years and an increased knowledge of their ecology
and distribution permit a better evaluation of their
status. In particular, Choiromyces meandriformis
Vittad., Choiromyces venosus (Fr.) Th. Fr., Gauteria
morchelliformis Vittad., and Picoa lefebvrei (Pat.)
Maire are rare in Umbria. In Emilia Romagna
several species are found only rarely. These include
the ascomycetes Balsamia polysperma Vittad., Ela-
phomyces aculeatus Vittad., Elaphomyces anthracinus
Vittad., Elaphomyces asperulus Vittad., Elaphomyces
leveillei Tul. & C. Tul., Elaphomyces maculatus
Vittad., Elaphomyces morettii Vittad., Elaphomyces
septatus Vittad., Fischerula macrospora Mattir., Genea
hispidula Berk. ex Tul., Hydnotrya cerebriformis (Tul.
& C. Tul.) Harkn., Hydnotrya michaelis (E. Fisch.)
Trappe, Leucangium carthusianum (Tul. & C. Tul.)
Paol., and Tuber monosporum (Mattir.) Vizzini. They
also include the basidiomycetes Chamonixia caespito-
sa Rolland, Gautieria otthii Trog, Gautieria trabutii
Chatin, Gymnomyces ellipsosporus (Zeller) Trappe,
T. Lebel & Castellano, Hymenogaster aromaticus
Velen., Hymenogaster bulliardii Vittad., Hymenogaster
calosporus Tul., Hymenogaster muticus Berk. &
Broome, Hymenogaster rehsteineri Bucholtz, Hymeno-
gaster thwaitesii Berk. & Broome, Hysterangium
nephriticum Berk., Sclerogaster compactus (Tul. &
C. Tul.) Sacc., Sclerogaster hysterangioides (Tul. &
C. Tul.) Zeller & C.W. Dodge, Stephanospora
caroticolor (Berk.) Pat., and Wakefieldia macrospora
Figure 2. Number of hypogeous fungi per region and related number of Tuber species. [*Source: Montecchi & Sarasini (2000); **source:
Gori (2005); ud ¼unknown data].
952 G. Venturella et al.
Downloaded by [Universita di Palermo] at 02:29 03 January 2012

(Hawker) Hawker (Montecchi & Sarasini 2000;
Zambonelli & Morara pers. comm.). In Liguria,
Alpova rubescens (Vittad.) Trappe and Rhizopogon
rocabrunae M.P. Martı´n are remarkable for their
rarity (Zotti et al. 2010a,b). A. rubescens, also found
in the nearby region Tuscany (Gori 2005), is
characterized by a strict symbiotic association with
members of the Fagaceae (Fagus sylvatica L., Quercus
sp. pl., Castanea sativa Miller). According to the
molecular study by Vizzini et al. (2010), the genus
Alpova C.W. Dodge is clearly polyphyletic. Alpova
olivaceotinctus (A.H. Sm.) Trappe and Alpova alexs-
mithii Trappe,fall within the Suillineae,whereas
A. rubescens,Alpova diplophloeus (Zeller & C.W.
Dodge) Trappe & A.H. Sm., Alpova austroalnicola
L.S. Domı´nguez, and Alpova trappei Fogel cluster
within the Paxillineae.Inthissuborder,A. rubescens is
not related to A. diplophloeus, type of the genus Alpova
(Trappe, 1975), or to other Alpova species, and it
probably represents a new and independent evolu-
tionary line of hypogeous Paxillineae.Hypogeous
fungi rare at a European level and found in Sicily
include E. citrinus,E.maculatus,F.macrospora,
Gymnomyces xanthosporus (Hawker) A.H. Sm., Mela-
nogaster umbriniglebus Trappe & Guzma´n, Schenella
simplex T. Macbr., S.pityophilus (Malenc¸on &
Riousset) Estrada & Lado, Sclerogaster compactus
(Tul. & C. Tul.) Sacc. and Setchelliogaster tenuipes
(Setch.) Pouzar var. rheophyllus (Bertault & Malen-
c¸on) G. Moreno & M.P. Martı´n (Saitta et al., 2009).
Schenella pityophilus seems not to be rare in Salento
(Apulia) or Basilicata, and in the last three years,
several natural localities for S.pityophilus were found
in those regions (Signore et al., 2008).
The high level of diversity of these hypogeous
fungi arises mainly from oak woods, followed by pine
and fir woods, hazel-tree cultivation, chestnut
woods, beech woods, mixed woods with a prevalence
of conifers and eucalyptus reafforestations. Many
hypogeous fungi grow in the Mediterranean maquis
ecosystems while Genabea fragilis Tul. & C. Tul. is
usually collected under willow and poplar trees. In
Mediterranean regions Descomyces albus (Berk.)
Bougher & Castellano, Hydnangium carneum Wallr.,
Hydnocystis clausa (Tul. & C. Tul.) Ceruti, Hyster-
angium inflatum Rodway, Reddellomyces donkii (Mal-
enc¸on) Trappe, Castellano & Malajczuk, S. tenuipes
are frequently collected on sandy dunes and con-
sidered are strictly linked to Eucalyptus camaldulensis
Dehnh., Acacia saligna (Labill.) H.L. Wendl.,
Pistacia lentiscus L., and Cistus sp. pl. Stephensia
bombycina (Vittad.) Tul. is reported additionally
from public gardens close to lime trees and from
certain broad-leaved forests in the northern part of
Italy where Tuber magnatum Pico is also found
(Tibiletti & Zambonelli, 1999, Mello et al., 2010).
Terfezia boudieri Chatin and T.claveryi Chatin,
strictly linked to Helianthemum sp. pl., grow in
Sardinia and Apulia, in environments very similar
to those of Algeria, France and Morocco. Mattir-
olomyces terfezioides (Mattir.) E. Fisch. is associated
with disturbed areas and cultivated fields with Ficus
carica L. and Prunus sp. pl. or Asparagus cultivation
in the sandy littoral of the Adriatic (Montecchi &
Lazzari, 1993). Alpova diplophloeus (Zeller & C.W.
Dodge) Trappe & A.H. Sm. is usually collected in
woods of Alnus sp. pl. (Montecchi & Sarasini, 2000).
The endomycorrhizal Gigaspora lazzarii Montecchi,
Ruini & G. Gross grows in mixed grasslands directly
attached to Lathyrus pratensis L. subsp. pratensis
stalks.
Italy boasts a long tradition in the study, harvesting
and marketing of truffles. Researchers at the uni-
versities of Turin, Bologna, Perugia and L’Aquila
have maintained this tradition and more recently
other research teams have been set up in the
Universities of Genova, Siena, Basilicata, and
Palermo. Tuber magnatum has a scattered distribu-
tion in northern and central Italy and recently new
localities were found in southern Italy, but not Sicily
or Sardinia. Tuber aestivum Vittad. is a very common
truffle distributed in broad-leaved and conifer woods
in many regions, at different altitudes and in different
ecological conditions. The quality of this truffle
varies so greatly, depending on environmental
conditions, that for a long time it was thought there
were two different species: T. aestivum growing
mainly in south Italy and T.uncinatum Chatin in
the north. Molecular tools have now, however,
demonstrated that there is only a single species
which for reasons of nomenclatural priority should
be called T.aestivum (Paolocci et al., 2004; Weden
et al., 2005). Tuber asa-foetida Lesp. is an infrequent
species mainly distributed in dry regions and linked
to shrubs and herbaceous plants.
Distribution maps have been produced for truffles
in some Italian regions. These include: Tuscany
(Baglioni & Gardin 1998); Emilia Romagna
(Tibiletti & Zambonelli, 1999; Biagioni et al.
2005); Abruzzo (De Laurentis & Spinelli, 2006);
Piedmont (http://www.regione.piemonte.it/montagna/
osservatorio/webgiscmcc/potenziali_tart.htm); Liguria
(Pavarino et al., 2011). The scales available vary
between 1:10,000 and 1:200,000. These maps are
mainly based on overlay queries of data layers in a
GIS environment. In particular, the map of the
Ligurian pilot area is characterized by a high resolu-
tion being based on a raster grid detailed map with a
spatial resolution of five metres.
Knowledge of Italian fungal diversity has also
improved as a result of various specific case studies.
Research has been carried out on communities of
macrofungi which have been only infrequently
studied in alpine habitats of Italy (Jamoni, 2008).
Fungal biodiversity in Italy 953
Downloaded by [Universita di Palermo] at 02:29 03 January 2012

Dwarfism, expressed through a reduced number of
gills and smaller sporocarps, is very common in
alpine macrofungi and it is not clear whether a
number of alpine fungal taxa with smaller sporocarps
than their forest analogues should be considered as
separate species (Boertmann & Knudsen 2006).
Another interesting field of investigation is orchid
mycorrhizas. Molecular methods, recently applied in
several studies, have shown that mycoheterotrophic
orchids have a strong mycorrhizal specificity to a
narrow band of fungal taxa, such as Russula Pers.,
Tuber P. Micheli ex F.H. Wigg., and Hymenogaster
Vittad. These, in most cases, form ectomycorrhizas
with surrounding green plants (Selosse et al., 2004;
Girlanda et al., 2006). Most fungi recorded as orchid
mycorrhizal symbionts belong to the anamorphic
form-genus Rhizoctonia DC. which is linked to a
variety of teleomorphic genera. Among these, most
of the orchid-associated Rhizoctonia species belong in
the families Ceratobasidiaceae,Sebacinaceae, and
Tulasnellaceae (Otero et al., 2002).
Evaluation of fungal diversity does not rule out
investigation of alien invasive macrofungi. These are
considered to be a major cause of global biodiversity
loss (Pringle & Vellinga, 2006). One case study is the
palaeotropical wood-inhabiting saprotroph Favo-
laschia calocera R. Heim (Mycenaceae). The Eighth
International Mycological Congress, held in Austra-
lia, dedicated an online session to this fungus (IMC8
2006). Favolaschia calocera was found in 1999 in
Multedo di Pegli (Genoa, Italy) in front of an
important harbour area, and that collection was the
first report of this species in Europe (Vizzini & Zotti,
2002). Vizzini et al. (2009) studied, by ITS
molecular analysis, the origin of the strain found in
Italy and provided new insights into the distribution
and the spreading strategy of this species within Italy.
Favolaschia calocera was observed growing on debris
of various vascular plant species (Pteridophytes,
Conifers, Mono- and Dicotyledons), thus showing
it to be a polyphagous. It prefers ruderal sites along
transport routes and other locations subject to
human disturbance. In such places, the fungus can
become dominant, particularly in late summer. The
abundance of F.calocera basidiomes in these areas
suggests it may be displacing native wood-inhabiting
species, and field studies on wood inhabiting
macrofungi of these Italian sites have shown a very
poor level of biodiversity. On the basis of field
observations and phylogenetic analysis it seems likely
that the first recorded occurrences of F. calocera in
Italy probably arrived from New Zealand, via timber.
Inter specimen genetic comparison mirrors a low
polymorphism, as suggested by the identity of
their ITS sequences. The territorial expansion
of F. calocera is probably due to a combination of
factors including its selfing life strategy and the
production of antifungal compounds (strobilurins
and oudemansins), as well as its ability to fill
ecological niches emptied by human disturbance.
Its colonizing strategy relies on wind dispersal of
basidiospores.
Bertolino et al. (2004) investigated the importance
of macrofungi as a food resource for red squirrels
(Sciurus vulgaris L. 1758) in subalpine conifer forests
in the Gran Paradiso National Park (Aosta Valley)
and the role of the species as a spore dispersal agent.
They determined the frequency of occurrence,
species diversity, and abundance of fungal spores in
dung samples collected in two mixed forests of Picea
excelsa (Lam.) Link and Larix decidua Miller. Spores
found in spring all belongs to Balsamia Vittad.,
Elaphomyces Nees, Gautieria Vittad., Hysterangium
Vittad. and Rhizopogon Fr., except in one case when
spores of Boletus L. were found. In summer and
autumn, spores of Boletus,Laccaria Berk. & Broome,
Balsamia,Elaphomyces,Gautieria,Hysterangium,
Hydnotrya Berk. & Broome, Hymenogaster Vittad.,
Leucogaster R. Hesse, Melanogaster Corda and Rhi-
zopogon were detected. Rhizopogon was the most
frequent genus consumed by squirrels (56.6% of all
dung samples), followed by Gautieria (44.4%),
Balsamia (33.3%), and Hysterangium (25.8%). Bole-
tus and Laccaria were present in dung with a mean
frequency of 18.5 and 8.0%, respectively.
In situ conservation
Fungi are still very seldom legally protected and
examples of in situ conservation remain infrequent.
Courtecuisse (2001) recognized three types of
conservation strategies: a) conservation of natural
habitats, b) establishment of mycological reserves,
and c) use of ecological corridors. In Italy, conserva-
tion of natural habitats is determined through a
project sponsored by the Italian Ministry for the
Environment and Protection of the Land and Sea
aimed at mapping Important Plant Areas in Italy
(Blasi et al. 2009, 2010), and for protecting fungi,
conservation of their habitats is the most important
tool (Courtecuisse, 2001). A list of rare, threatened
and/or endemic fungi species was recently compiled
by national experts to fulfill one of the three criteria
for selection of good sites: criterion A is based on the
presence of species from the European Red List, lists
of the Habitat Directive and the Bern Convention.
Analysing information emerging from the Checklist
of Italian Fungi (Basidiomycetes) and the preliminary
Red Lists (Onofri et al., 2005; Venturella et al.,
2002) and taking into account the Bern Convention,
42 macromycetes have been chosen. Of these 26 are
among the 33 species proposed for the Bern Con-
vention appendix, while Alnicola tantilla (J. Favre)
Gulden is a very rare basidiomycete growing in
954 G. Venturella et al.
Downloaded by [Universita di Palermo] at 02:29 03 January 2012

alpine woods of Trentino Alto Adige and Inocybe
tricolor Ku¨ hner, reported from Lombardy and
Veneto, is evaluated as Least Concern (LC) using
the IUCN categories (D. & M. Antonini, pers.
comm). Further attempts to select important sites for
fungi have been made by Leonardi et al. (2010),
Parmasto et al. (2004), Perini & Lagana` (2003),
Perini & Salerni (2004), Perini et al. (in press). Fungi
can increase the interest of stakeholders in protecting
some areas. This was the case in a study carried out
in mountain peatbogs (a habitat listed in the EU
project Natura 2000) showing not only the presence
of rare and threatened vascular plants and bryophytes
but also of interesting macromycetes linked to
sphagnum communities (Perini et al., 2002). Simi-
larly, in the Simbruini Mountains Natural Park, the
widest protected area in Latium, three hundred and
forty-seven species of fungi were recorded (Doveri
et al. 2005; Granito & Lunghini 2004, 2006, 2011;
Guzman et al. 2006). Particularly noteworthy was
the presence of numerous grassland species of the
genera Entoloma (Fr.) P. Kumm., Hygrocybe (Fr.)
P. Kumm., and Camarophyllus (Fr.) P. Kumm., all
considered to be indicators of grassland suitable for
conservation. Another noteworthy result was the
finding of Poronia punctata (L.) Fr., considered one
of the rarest fungi in Europe and therefore included
in the IUCN/WCMC RDL, and of two other
species, Sarcosphaera coronaria (Jacq.) J. Schro¨ t. and
Phylloporus rhodoxanthus (Schwein.) Bres., both
proposed for inclusion in Appendix I of the Bern
Convention on the Conservation of European Wild-
life and Natural Habitats. The first in situ collection
of benefcial symbiotic microorganisms (arbuscular
mycorrhizal fungi) in the world, located in an
integrally protected area of coastal sand dunes,
within the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve ‘‘Selva
Pisana’’, in Tuscany, Italy was recently established
by Turrini et al. (2008). A pilot project for
implementing IUCN categories and criteria for the
editing of Red Lists (Rossi et al., 2008, Dahlberg &
Mueller 2011) was carried out by relevant Working
Groups of the Italian Botanical Society (WG for
Conservation of Nature, WG for Mycology, WG
for Bryology, WG for Lichenology and WG for
Floristics). Boletus dupainii Boud. and Psathyrella
ammophila (Durieu & Le´v.) P. D. Orton were
selected as representatives of the fungi by Perini &
Venturella (2008a,b). Boletus dupainii is a rare
symbiont of broad-leaved plants with fruiting only
occasionally. The species is mainly threatened by
reforestation with conifers and by silvicultural
management of woods. According to IUCN criterion
A, B. dupainii should be considered as Vulnerable
(VU A2c) since silvicultural practices are causing
30% reductions of natural habitat. According to
criterion B the species comes out as Vulnerable [VU
B2ab (ii, iii)] since the area of distribution is
extremely fragmented and less than 2,000 km
2
.
The regional status of B. dupainii is Not Evaluated
(NE) at the national level and Endangered (EN) in
Tuscany. Conservation strategies for this fungus are
mainly oriented towards protection of its habitat
included in parks and nature reserves. Psathyrella
ammophila, included in Red Lists of the Czech
Republic, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Norway, Po-
land and Sweden, is a common species in Italy
growing in sandy coastal areas. Heavy pressure from
human use of coastal sandy dune environments has
resulted in P. ammophila being rated as Near
threatened (NT) (A2c) on the basis of criterion A
and Vulnerable [VU B2ab (iii)] because of suspected
reduction of population size and an estimated 15%
progressive reduction of habitat. In situ conservation
strategies for this fungus are similar to those for B.
dupainii. In the IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species, Pleurotus nebrodensis (Inzenga) Que´ l., is
listed as CR (Critically Endangered) because the
area where it is found is less than 100 kmoˆ˙, the
population is severely fragmented, and there is a
decline in the number of localities and mature
individuals. This mushroom only occurs in northern
Sicily, growing in scattered localities in the Madonie
mountains from 1200 to 2000 m in altitude. It is
estimated that fewer than 250 individuals reach
maturity each year and the population is decreasing
(Gargano et al., 2011). Pleurotus nebrodensis grows on
limestone substrates, in pastures containing Cachrys
ferulacea (L.) Calestani, a member of the Apiaceae or
celery family. The population declines are due to the
increasing number of mushroom gatherers, both
professional and amateur, who are encouraged by the
high price this mushroom commands. In addition to
this increased human pressure on the remaining
natural populations, unripe fungi are usually col-
lected. The conservation action for this fungus is
legally binding since the Madonie Park administra-
tion has issued rules controlling mushroom collect-
ing within the Park. In particular, collection of
P. nebrodensis is totally forbidden in zone A of the
Park which is an integral reserve area. In other zones
the collection of unripe mushrooms (i.e., basidio-
mata less than 3 cm in diameter) is forbidden. Other
in situ conservation action involves inoculation of
roots of the associated plant C. ferulacea with grain
mycelia of P. nebrodensis in the hope of increasing
mushroom fructification in the wild.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. David Minter
(UK) for his help with linguistic revision and
E. Roca, M. Contu, D. Antonini, M. Antonini and
D. Puntillo for providing regional data.
Fungal biodiversity in Italy 955
Downloaded by [Universita di Palermo] at 02:29 03 January 2012

References
Antonini D, Antonini M., editors. 2006. Libro rosso dei
macromiceti della Toscana. Dal censimento alla redlist.
ARSIA Regione Toscana, Firenze, pp. 344 (CDROM).
Baglioni F, Gardin L. 1998. Carta della vocazione naturale del
territorio toscano alla produzione di tartufo scorzone. In:
Mazzei, editor. I Tartufi in Toscana. ARSIA, Regione
Toscana, Firenze, pp. 167–170.
Barron ES. 2010. The emergence and coalescence of fungal
conservation social networks in Europe and the USA. Fungal
Ecol XXX: 1–10.
Bernicchia A. 2005. Polyporaceae s.l. Fungi Europaei. 10th ed.
Alassio, Italy: Candusso. p. 808.
Bernicchia A, Gorjo´ n SP. 2010. Corticiaceae s.l Fungi Europaei.
12th ed. Alassio, Italy: Candusso. p. 1008.
Bertolino S, Vizzini A, Wauters LA, Tosi G. 2004. Consumption
of hypogeous and epigeous fungi by the red squirrel (Sciurus
vulgaris) in subalpine conifer forests. Forest Ecol Manage 202:
227–233.
Biagioni V, Carletti G, Patrizzoli W, Marletto V, Zambonelli A.
2005. La cartografia delle aree tartuficole della provincia di
Modena. In: G. Mondadori, editor. Appennino Modenese
Terre da Tartufo. Editoriale Giorgio Mondadori. pp. 44 59.
Boitani L, La Posta S, Manes F, Marchetti M. 2005. Stato
della biodiversita` in Italia. In: Blasi C, editor. Contributo alla
strategia nazionale per la biodiversita` . Roma: Palombi. pp. 446.
Blasi C, Marignani M, Copiz R, Fipaldini M. editors. 2009.
A thematic contribution to the National Biodiversity Strategy.
Mapping the Important Plant Areas in Italy. Rome: Palombi &
Partner s.r.l. p. 31.
Blasi C, Marignani M, Copiz R, Fipaldini M, Del Vico E, editors.
2010. Le aree importanti per le piante nelle regioni d’Italia: il
presente e il futuro della conservazione del nostro patrimonio
botanico. Roma: Progetto Artiser. p. 224.
Boccardo F, Traverso M, Vizzini A, Zotti M. 2008. Funghi
d’Italia. Bologna: Zanichelli. p. 623.
Boertmann D, Knudsen H, editors. 2006. Arctic and Alpine
mycology 6. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium
on Arcto-Alpine Mycology (ISAM 6), Greenland, 11–21
August 2000. Danish Polar Center. – Meddr Greenland.
Bioscience 56: 161.
Cerone G, Marino R, Rana GL. 2000. Studi sui funghi ipogei
della Basilicata. Riv Micol 4: 333–346.
Ceruti A, Fontana A, Nosenzo C. 2003. Le specie europee del
genere Tuber, una revisione storica. Torino: Regione Piemonte.
p. 467.
Courtecuisse R. 2001. Current trends and perspectives for the global
conservation of fungi. In: Moore D, Nauta MM, Evans SE,
Rotheroe M. editors. Fungal Conservation. Issues and solutions.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 7–18.
Dahlberg A, Mueller GM. 2011. Applying IUCN red-listing
criteria for assessing and reporting on the conservation status of
fungal species. Fungal Ecol 4: 147–162.
De Laurentis G, Spinelli D. 2006. Carta della vocazionalita`
tartuficola della Regione Abruzzo. Lanciano, CH: ARSSA.
p. 95.
Doveri F, Granito VM, Lunghini D. 2005. Nuovi ritrovamenti di
Coprinus s.l. fimicoli in Ialia. – new findings of fimicolous
Coprinus s.l. in Italy. Riv Micol 4: 319–340.
Gargano ML, Saitta A, Zervakis GI, Venturella G. 2011. Building
the jigsaw puzzle of the critically endangered Pleurotus
nebrodensis: Historical collection sites and an emended descrip-
tion. Mycotaxon 115: 107–114.
Girlanda M, Selosse MA, Cafasso D, Brilli F, Delfine S, Fabbian
R, et al. 2006. Inefficient photosynthesis in the Mediterranean
orchid Limodorum abortivum is mirrored by specific association
to ectomycorrhizal Russulaceae. Mol Ecol 15: 491–504.
Gori L. 2005. Funghi ipogei della Lucchesia, di altre province
italiane e dall’estero. Pacini Fazzi: Maria. p. 320.
Granito VM, Lunghini D. 2004. Some Psilocybe species from
Monti Simbruini Regional Natural Park, Italy. Micol Veget
Medit 19: 115–130.
Granito VM, Lunghini D. 2006. Updated observations on Poronia
punctata. Micol Veget Medit 21: 71–76.
Granito VM, Lunghini D. 2011. Biodiversity of macrofungi in the
beech forests and calcareous grasslands of the Simbruini
Mountains Regional Park (central Apennines, Italy). Plant
Biosyst 145: 381–396.
Guzman G, Granito VM, Lunghini D, Gandara E, Ramirez-
Guillen F. 2006. An emendation of Psilocybe liniformans,an
uncommon species found in the Central Apennines (Italy).
Micol Veget Medit 21: 117–122.
IMC8. 2006. International Mycological Congress, Cairns, Aus-
tralia – Fungus of the month July 2005, Favolaschia calocera.
Available: http://www. rbg.vic.gov.au/research_and_conserva-
tion/fungi. Accessed Nov 2011 3.
Jamoni PG. 2008. Funghi alpini delle zone alpine superiori e
inferiori. Associazione Micologica Bresadola. Trento: Fonda-
zione, Centro Studi Micologici. p. 544.
Leonardi P, Salerni E, Pecoraro L, Perini C. 2010. Riserve per
funghi: l’esperienza toscana nel progetto IPAs (important plant
areas). Micol Ital 39: 3–8.
Marino R, Cerone G, Rana GL. 2003. Studi sui funghi ipogei
della Basilicata. II contributo. Rivista di Micologia. Associa-
zione Micologica Bresadola Trento, 1: 53–62.
Mello A, Miozzi L, Vizzini A, Napoli C, Kowalchuk G, Bonfante
P. 2010. Bacterial and fungal communities associated with
Tuber magnatum-productive niches. Plant Biosyst 144: 323–
332.
Montecchi A, Lazzari G. 1993. Atlante fotografico dei funghi
ipogei. Chiavi di determinazione a cura di G. Gross. – Trento :
Associazione Micologica Bresadola; Vicenza: Centro studi
micologici.
Montecchi A, Sarasini M. 2000. Funghi ipogei d’Europa.
Associazione Micologica Bresadola, Fondazione Centro Studi
Micologici. Vicenza. p. 714.
Onofri S, Bernicchia A, Filipello Marchisio V, Padovan F, Perini C,
et al. 2005. Checklist dei funghi italiani – Checklist of Italian
fungi, Basidiomycetes. Sassari: C. Delfino ed. pp. 1–380.
Onofri S, Anastasi A, Del Frate G, Di Piazza S, Garnero N,
Guglielminetti M, et al. 2011. Biodiversity of rock, beach and
water fungi in Italy. Plant Biosyst 145: 981–990.
Otero JT, Ackerman JD, Bayman P. 2002. Diversity and host
specificity of endophytic Rhizoctonia-like fungi from tropical
orchids. Am J Bot 89: 1852–1858.
Paolocci F, Rubini A, Riccioni C, Topini F, Arcioni S. 2004.
Tuber aestivum and Tuber uncinatum: Two morphotypes or two
species? FEMS Microbiol Lett 235: 109–115.
Parmasto E, Perini C, Rahko T. 2004. Attempts to introduce fungi
in nature conservation activities. Fourth European Conference
on the Conservation of Wild Plants, Valencia 17–20 Septem-
ber. p. 7 (book of abstract).
Pavarino M, Rellini I, Bozzano M, Mariotti MG, Zotti M. 2011.
Indicator-based approach for mapping and assessing Tuber
magnatum Pico presence in Western Liguria (Italy). Atti del 38
Convegno Internazionale sul Tartufo, Spoleto, 2008. pp. 273–
281.
Perini C, Bonini I, Romagnoli P, Antonini D, Antonini M. 2002.
Macrofungi and bryophytes of montane mires (Tuscany, Italy):
Organisms worthy of conservation. Feddes Repertorium 113:
152–160.
Perini C, Lagana` A. 2003. Towards selection of IFA (Important
Fungus Areas): the Italian experience. XIV Congress of
European Mycologists, Yalta, Ukraine, 22–27 September.
p. 35 (book of abstract).
956 G. Venturella et al.
Downloaded by [Universita di Palermo] at 02:29 03 January 2012

Perini C, Leonardi P, Pecoraro L, Salerni E. in press. The
important plant areas program from a mycological point of
view: The regional experience in an European context.
Fitosociologia 48. suppl. 1.
Perini C, Salerni E. 2004. Identificazione di aree particolarmente
importanti per la conservazione dei funghi. 998Congresso della
Societa` Botanica Italiana, Torino 22–24 settembre. p. 175.
Perini C, Venturella G. 2008a. Funghi: Boletus dupainii Boud. In:
Rossi G, Gentili R, Abeli T, Gargano D, Foggi B, Raimondo
FM et al., editors. Flora da conservare. Iniziativa per
l’implementazione in Italia delle categorie e dei criteri IUCN
(2001) per la redazione di nuove Liste Rosse. Inform Bot Ital
40: 7–185.
Perini C, Venturella G. 2008b. Funghi: Psathyrella ammophila
(Durieu et Le´v.) P.D. Orton. pp. 151–152. In: Rossi G, Gentili
R, Abeli T, Gargano D, Foggi B, Raimondo FM, editors. Flora
da conservare. Iniziativa per l’implementazione in Italia delle
categorie e dei criteri IUCN (2001) per la redazione di nuove
Liste Rosse. Inform Bot Ital 40: 7–185.
Persiani AM, Tosi S, Del Frate G, Granito VM, Guglielminetti M,
Lunghini D, et al. 2011. High spots for diversity of soil and
litter microfungi in Italy. Plant Biosyst 145: 972–980.
Picco AM, Angelini P, Ciccarone C, Franceschini A, Ragazzi A,
Rodolfi M, et al. 2011. Biodiversity of emerging pathogenic
and invasive fungi in plants, animals and humans in Italy. Plant
Biosyst 145: 991–999.
Pringle A, Vellinga EC. 2006. Last chance to know? Using
literature to explore the biogeography and invasion biology of
the death cap mushroom Amanita phalloides (Vaill. ex Fr.:Fr.)
Link. Biol Invasions 8: 1131–1144.
Rana GL, Signore SF, Fascetti S, Marino R, Mang SM, Zotta T.
2010. Seconda segnalazione del Pachyphloeus prieguensis in
Italia ed acquisizioni recenti sui funghi ipogei lucani e pugliesi.
Micol Veg Medit 25: 47–80.
Rossi G, Gentili R, Abeli T, Gargano D, Foggi B, Raimondo FM,
et al. editors. 2008. Flora da conservare. Iniziativa per
l’implementazione in Italia delle categorie e dei criteri IUCN
(2001) per la redazione di nuove Liste Rosse. Inform. Bot. Ital
40: 7–185.
Saitta A, Gargano ML, Morara M, Ilice M, Venturella G. 2008.
The hypogeous fungi from Sicily (southern Italy): New
additions. Mycol Balcanica 5: 147–152.
Saitta A, Gargano M, Venturella G. 2009. Elaphomyces citrinus and
Elaphomyces maculatus in Sicily (Southern Italy). Mycotaxon
109: 269–274.
Saitta A, Bernicchia A, Gorjo´ n SP, Altobelli E, Granito VM, Losi
C, et al. 2011. Biodiversity of wood-decay fungi in Italy. Plant
Biosyst 145: 961–971.
Selosse MA, Faccio A, Scappaticci G, Bonfante P. 2004.
Chlorophyllous and achlorophyllous specimens of Epipactis
microphylla (Neottieae, Orchidaceae) are associated with ecto-
mycorrhizal septomycetes, including truffles. Microbial Ecol
47: 416–426.
Signore SF, Rana GL, Lolli G, Laurita A. 2008. Schenella
pityophyla, un raro gasteromicete rinvenuto nel Salento. Micol
Veget Medit 23: 135–145.
Tibiletti E, Zambonelli A. 1999. I tartufi nella provincia di Forlı`-
Cesena. Bologna: Patron. p. 178.
Tkal
cec Z, Mesˇic
´A, Antonic
´O. 2005. Survey of the gasteral
Basidiomycota (fungi) of Croatia. Nat Croat 14: 99–120.
Trappe JM. 1975. A revision of the genus Alpova with notes on
Rhizopogon and the Melanogastraceae.Beih. Nova Hedwigia 51:
270–309.
Turrini A, Avio L, Bedini S, Giovannetti M. 2008. In situ
collection of endangered arbuscular mycorrhizal in a Medi-
terranean UNESCO biosphere reserve. Biodivers Conserv 17:
643–657.
Varese GC, Angelini P, Bencivenga M, Buzzini P, Donnini D,
Gargano ML, et al. 2011. Ex-situ conservation and exploita-
tion of fungi in Italy. Plant Biosyst 145: 1000–1008.
Venturella G. 2000. Typification of Pleurotus nebrodensis. Myco-
taxon 75: 229–231.
Venturella G, Bencivenga M. 1999. Distribution and ecology of
Tuber borchii in Sicily. Doc Mycol 29: 59–61.
Venturella G, Bernicchia A, Filipello Marchisio V, Pacioni G,
Perini C, Onofri S, et al. 2002. Harmonisation of Red Lists in
Europe: Some critical fungal species from Italy. Seminar on
‘‘The harmonisation of National Red Lists in Europe’’, 27–28
novembre. Leiden, the Netherlands. p. 46–47.
Venturella G, Saitta A, Sarasini M, Montecchi A, Gori L. 2004.
Contribution to the knowledge of hypogeous fungi from Sicily
(S-Italy). – Fl. Medit 14: 275–284.
Venturella G, Pecorella E, Saitta A, Zambonelli A, Morara M.
2006. Ecology and distribution of hypogeous fungi from
Sicily (southern Italy). Cryptogamie, Mycologie 27: 201–217.
Vizzini A, Zotti M. 2002. Favolaschia calocera, a tropical species
collected in Italy. Mycotaxon 82: 169–176.
Vizzini A, Zotti M, Mello A. 2009. Alien fungal species
distribution: the study case of Favolaschia calocera. Biol
Invasions 11: 417–429.
Vizzini A, Zotti M, Ryman S, Ghignone S. 2010. Typification of
Octaviania rubescens (Paxillineae, Boletales) and phylogenetic
hypotheses for the genus Alpova. Mycologia 102: 967–975.
Weden C, Danell E, Tibell L. 2005. Species recognition in the
truffle genus Tuber – the synonyms Tuber aestivum and Tuber
uncinatum. Environ Microbiol 7: 1535–1546.
Zambonelli A, Morara M. 1994. Le specie di Tuberales dell’Emilia
Romagna, ecologia e distribuzione. Natura e Montagna 4: 9–
32.
Zotti M, Di Piazza S, Vizzini A. 2010a. First records of Rhizopogon
rocabrunae and R. pumilionum (Boletales) from Italy. Mycotaxon
113: 291–296.
Zotti M, Di Piazza S, Vizzini A, Pavarino M, Mariotti MG. 2010b.
Hypogeous fungi in Liguria (Italy): distribution and ecology.
Cryptogamie Mycologie 31: 47–57.
Fungal biodiversity in Italy 957
Downloaded by [Universita di Palermo] at 02:29 03 January 2012