Content uploaded by Katalin Tuba
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Katalin Tuba on Dec 04, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Community ECology 19(2): 141-147, 2018
1585-8553 © AkAdémiAi kiAdó, BudApest
dOi: 10.1556/168.2018.19.2.6
Introduction
Tinder fungi are natural inhabitants of the forests. The in-
sect community of mushrooms is already known in Hungary
(Dely-Draskovits 1974). However, the knowledge of tinder
fungi insect community in literature is not complete up to
now. In natural forests, dead wood and tinder fungi are impor-
tant elements in maintaining biodiversity. Biodiversity is key
element in sustainable forest management (Rollinson 2003).
Natural forests are key habitats for many species, e.g. mam-
mals, birds, invertebrates, lichens and fungi (Christensen et
al. 2005). The demolition process of tinder fungi has not
been thoroughly investigated but this knowledge is also im-
portant to discover the whole process of tinder digestion and
to know the complete forest ecosystem. In the food chain,
the saproxylic insects have an important role because they
consume dead wood. They accelerate the wood decomposi-
tion process. Tinder fungi appear on wood and fungus feeders
appear on the tinder fungi. The xylophagous insects, followed
by bracket fungi, start the demolition process of the wood.
These fungi transform the wood into forms that can be used
by the decomposing organisms. Fungi beetles also decom-
pose bracket fungi (Andrési 2015). The beetles develop in
a protected area inside the fungi which means they have a
Hungary, in addition to our own investigations earlier studies
of insect species associated with various tinder fungi were
done (Domboróczki 2006, Csóka 2011, Lakatos et al. 2014).
In the Scandinavian literature, this topic has been already in-
vestigated for a long time, so the insect community of tinder
fungi of that region has already been explored (Økland 1995,
Jonsell et al. 1999, Komonen 2001). The mycophagous in-. The mycophagous in-
sects were thought to be polyphagous, but there are also spe-
cies, which associated with only one tinder fungus (Hackman
and Meinander 1979, Lacy 1984, Hanski 1989). The my-The my-
cophagous invertebrate fauna group is also an indicator of the
naturalness of forests (Franc 1997). The most common insect
(Hammond and Lawrence 1989). This state-This state-
ment is supported by our results too but in this research, we
only focused on beetles.
This study investigated two different fungal species
(Fomes fomentarius (Fig. 1, Fig. 2) and Trametes gibbosa
(Fig. 3)). The purpose of the study was to produce a model
for further research; therefore, a sample test was made on
the beetle communities of perennial and annual tinder fungi
with this preliminary examination. In the future, this study
will be improved with larger tinder fungi sample sizes, and
fungi will be collected from different locations in the coun-
try. They were collected from the same sampling sites in the
Hidegvíz Valley, which is situated in the western part of the
Sopron Mountains, in Hungary (Király 2004) (Fig. 4). Both
fungus species belong to the Polyporaceae family. F. fomen-
tarius has a perennial fruiting body, mostly single, sessile and
ungulate. Fomes infects weakened beech, and other hard-
woods, or it is a saprophyte (Breitenbach and Kränzlin 1986).
On the contrary, T. gibbosa is an annual species, rather du-
rable, semicircular-plate-shaped, and sometimes zoned with
distinct umbo, occasionally occurring in groups. T. gibbosa
is widespread and rarely infect weakened trees (Breitenbach
Comparative study of the Fomes fomentarius and Trametes gibbosa beetle
communities in Hidegvíz Valley, Sopron Mts., Hungary
R. Andrési1,2 and K. Tuba1
1Institute of Silviculture and Forest Protection, Faculty of Forestry, University of Sopron, Sopron,
Bajcsy-Zsilinszky u. 4., H-9400, Hungary
2Corresponding author: E-mail: andresi.reka@gmail.com
Keywords: Bolitophagus reticulatus, Cis boleti, Tinder fungus, Wood decomposition, Xylophagous insects.
Abstract: The forest, which is exposed to fewer anthropogenic impacts, has a rich and complex community. In Hungary, the
insects, followed by the appearance tinder fungus, which transforms the wood into a form suitable for decomposers. Fungus
beetles decompose most of the fungus. Therefore, besides consumer organizations, demolition organizations also play an es-
sential role in building the forest ecosystem. In Central Europe, we have a little information about the beetle communities of
tinder fungi. During our research, we investigated the beetle communities of Fomes fomentarius and Trametes gibbosa, which
were collected from the Sopron-mountains in West Hungary. In F. fomentarius, the most common beetle species that we found
was Bolitophagus reticulatus with about 100 individuals in four fruiting bodies, while in T. gibbosa, Cis boleti had the largest
number of individuals with more than 5300 in four specimens. The beetle communities in the two tinder fungi were different,
the difference probably caused by the structure and the nutritional value of the fungi.
Nomenclature: Fauna Europaea (2017) for beetles, MycoBank (2016) for tinder fungi.
142 Andrési and Tuba
and Kränzlin 1986). Both fungi cause white rot of wood and
usually both species are found on beech (Fagus sylvatica)
(Domanski et al. 1973, Igmándy 1991). The Trametes sp. can
appear on trunks, on dead wood, on stored wood logs and on
the construction wood. It causes serious economic loss (Zabel
and Morrell 1992). On the other hand, Trametes sp. has an
important role in forests as a biomass-decomposing organ-
ism (Boddy 1991; Boddy and Watkinson 1995). F. fomen-
tarius, in our country, may occur on the following species:
Acer, Aesculus, Alnus, Betula, Carpinus, Fagus, Fraxinus,
Juglans, Populus, Prunus, Quercus, Salix, Tilia, Ulmus sp. In
dead wood, this species has white mycelia plates, which are
a few millimetres thick and longer than 1 m (Igmándy 1991).
T. gibbosa is a common saprophyte tinder fungus, commonly
found except in a woody-steppe climate. Typical host plants:
Fagus, Carpinus, Tilia, QuercusAbies
and Picea, but it does not like Robinia. After logging, it ap-
damage inside timber (Igmándy 1991).
One of our purposes in this research was to identify what
kind of beetle community is related to Fomes fomentarius
Figure 1. Undamaged, healthy Fomes fomentarius on a tree (left) and its cross section (right).
Figure 2. Fomes fomentarius with emergence holes and with the fruiting body consumed by beetles (left) an its cross section (right).
Figure 3. Healthy, intact Trametes gibbosa (left) and the fungi consumed by beetles (right).
Beetle communities in tinder fungi 143
and Trametes gibbosa. The other aim of this study was to
compare the beetle community of a perennial (F. fomentarius)
and an annual (T. gibbosa) tinder fungi, which were collected
from trees in the same location. Finally, the main objective
of the study was to make a model with this preliminary ex-
amination of the beetle communities in perennial and annual
tinder fungi.
As an assumption, we have established that two fungi dif-
fer in structures and characteristics. F. fomentarius is peren-
nial and the T. gibbosa is annual tinder fungi. We aimed to
differences between their beetle communities.
Material
Tinder fungi, F. fomentarius and T. gibbosa were col-
lected from different beech trees from the same area. The
altitude of the Hidegvíz Valley ranges between 390-550
m above sea level. It belongs to the watershed of the Rák
stream. Several springs of the stream are located in the area.
Thanks to these conditions, its mesoclimate has a subalpine
character. The area of the sampling site was 150.036 ha. It
covered those beech forests in the Hidegvíz Valley (Fig. 4)
in which at least 30% of the trees in the mixed forest are
beech. The Hidegvíz Valley forest reserve is situated inside
the sampling site. The total area of the reserve was 56.9 ha
with a core area of 19.7 ha and the buffer zone is 37.2 ha. In
this area, the average annual precipitation is 750-900 mm.
The average temperature in January is –2°C, and in July is
19°C (Király 2004).
F. fomentarius is a common species in Hungarian forests.
It is a facultative necrophyte, but it can also live for a long
time as saprophyte on dead wood (Folcz and Papp 2014). In
Hungary, it is found everywhere from the plains to the moun-
tains, only missing from black locust plantations. The trama
is tough and light brown with concentric zones. The mycelial
core is soft. F. fomentarius has a pleasantly fungoid smell and
a bitter taste. The surface of pileus is smooth, glabrous with
hard, dark brown crust, 0.5-2.0 mm thick. The margin is ob-
Its pores are more or less circular with a diameter of 0.2-0.3
system is trimetric. Spores are oblong-ellipsoid with thin hya-
line walls. Its spore is light yellow, and it is obtainable only
in spring, from mid-April to mid-June. It is widespread in the
Holarctic Flora Empire (Domanski et al. 1973, Breitenbach
and Kränzlin 1986, Igmándy 1991).
The upper part of the Trametes gibbosa pileus is most-
white, greyish and greenish at the base. The margin is rufous-
brown, obtuse and later thin. T. gibbosa has a homogenous
structure with up to 30 mm central part and with 2-3 mm thick
margin. Its pores are longitudinal and radially arranged. The
have thick partitions, 5-10 (15) mm long. The hyphal sys-
tem is trimetric; the generative hyphae are thin-walled; the
skeletal hyphae are thick-walled and the binding hyphae are
branched. Its spores are white and ellipsoid with thin hyaline
walls. Its sporulation is in May. It is also widespread in the
Holarctic Flora Empire (Domanski et al. 1973, Breitenbach
and Kränzlin 1986, Igmándy 1991).
Methods
Fungi were collected randomly in April 2013, near the
western border of Hungary from Hidegvíz Valley. Each fruit-
ing body was packed in a paper sack. It was important to
conserve this complex assemblage. Therefore, the fungi were
collected without bark and not cleaned. During the sample
collection process, the place and time of collection, the host
plant, the quality of the tree, the name and age of the speci-
men were recorded.
Figure 4. The location of
the study site, Hidegvíz
Valley in the Sopron
Mountains, Hungary.
144 Andrési and Tuba
The tinder fungi were stored in the laboratory of the
Institute of Silviculture and Forest Protection at 20±1 °C,with
60% humidity and 16 hours of lighting and 8 hours of dark-
ness. During spring 2013 and winter 2014, the insects were
collected from the bags every 8th week, they were removed
For those insects that we could not remove from the fun-
gal debris, detergent was used. During this process, the fungal
debris was submerged in water. Detergent was poured into
the water to reduce surface tension of the water. Thus, the
submerged.
The beetle samples were stored in plastic tubes. To avoid
-
tion, the tubes were stored in the freezer. Individual beetles
The individuals of species were counted manually. When
the number of individuals was greater than 1000, a sampling
method was used. Two hundred specimens were counted
manually. The weight of 200 specimens was measured after
that the entire sample was measured with a laboratory scale,
and this quantity was divided by the weight of the 200 speci-
mens. The number of beetles is estimated as 200*(weight of
entire sample)/(weight of 200 beetles).
The weight and volume of the fruiting bodies were meas-
ured. The volume of tinder fungus was measured by immer-
sion in water with 1 cm3 precision. The purpose of this meas-
urement was to calculate the average space, which is needed
for a beetle in a fungus. The aim of the examination was to
determine a fungus beetle’s required foraging space and ter-
ritory.
During the evaluation of the beetle community, the his-
togram and descriptive statics were calculated. The standard
t-test was used for statistical hypothesis test to determine
other.
Results and discussion
Four samples were collected from Fomes fomentarius and
four from Trametes gibbosa. There were 105 beetle specimens
in the F. fomentarius samples (Table 1), while the T. gibbosa
samples had a hundred times more, 10998 beetles (Table 2).
F. fomentarius, and
eight species from T. gibbosa. Octotemnus glabriculus and
Sulcacis nitidus were found in both fungus species. The larg-
est number of individual beetles in a F. fomentarius specimen
was 95 and the average number of individuals in a fruiting
body was 26. The reason for this high number of specimens is
that 94 specimens of Bolitophagus reticulatus, were found in
sample 2, which is typically associated with the tinder conk.
The highest number of species was two, the average number
of species was 1.5. The highest number of T. gibbosa individ-
uals was 3612, while the average number in a single fungus
was 2749.5. The maximum number of species was six, while
We observed that the average volume of F. fomentarius is
288.6 cm3, so an individual of adult fungus beetle had 10.99
cm3 of space. In contrast, the average volume of a T. gibbosa
is 102.2 cm3; thus an adult fungus feeding beetle could only
use 0.04 cm3 of space on average (Table 4). According to our
results, the larger beetles are usually in F. fomentarius, while
the smaller beetles are in T. gibbosa. The fruiting bodies of
the two species have a different structure. T. gibbosa has a
Table 1. Numbers of beetle individuals in Fomes fomentarius samples (1-4).
Beetles Family Sample 1. Sample 2. Sample 3. Sample 4.
1. Cis castaneus
Ciidae
3 0 1 0 4
2. Octotemnus glabriculus 3 0 0 0 3
3. Sulcacis nitidus 0 1 0 0 1
4. Bolitophagus reticulatus Tenebrionidae 0 94 0 3 97
6 95 1 3 105
Table 2. Numbers of beetle individuals in Trametes gibbosa samples (1-4).
Beetles Family Sample 1. Sample 2. Sample 3. Sample 4.
1. Cis boleti
Ciidae
300 1901 2914 254 5369
2. Cis micans 8 130 7 66 211
3. Octotemnus glabriculus 376 1115 317 2734 4542
4. Rhopalodontus perforatus 0 0 0 1 1
5. Sulcacis fronticornis 2 0 0 0 2
6. Sulcacis nitidus 287 465 107 8 867
7. Dacne pontica Erotylidae 0 0 0 5 5
8. Rhizophagus bipustulatus Monotomidae 0 1 0 0 1
973 3612 3345 3068 10998
Beetle communities in tinder fungi 145
thinner fruiting body of both the trama and hymenium than
F. fomentarius. However, tinder conk provides more space
and nutrition for species. Both fungi were examined regard-
ing which part of fruiting body was preferred by beetles. In
Fomes, the beetles began to consume under the crust and
then proceeded to the tubular part. Trametes was consumed
between the trama and the tubular part. Presumably, beetles
eat in both directions simultaneously. It is interesting that the
-
most only after that they fed at the umbo of the fungi.
The beetle community of the Fomes fomentarius consists
of four beetle species: Bolitophagus reticulatus, Cis casta-
neus, Octotemnus glabriculus and Sulcacis nitidus. In the
samples, there were a total of 105 individuals. In Fomes, B.
reticulatus was the most frequent with 97 individuals. The
chewing of the beetles in the F. fomentarius is very notice-
able, because two large Tenebrionidae beetles often connect-
ed with it (Merkl 2016). One of those is B. reticulatus, which
typically associated with F. fomentarius (Hurka 2005). They
are typical mycophage beetles because they grow in the fruit-
ing body (Stokland et al. 2012).
The four Trametes gibbosa specimens had eight differ-
ent beetle species, which were Cis boleti, C. micans, Dacne
pontica, Octotemnus glabriculus, Rhizophagus bipustulatus,
Fomes fomentarius Trametes gibbosa
Number of fungus specimens 4 4
Maximum number of individuals per fungus 95.00 3612.00
Minimum number of individuals per fungus 1.00 973.00
Average number of individuals per fungus 26.25 2749.50
Standard deviation 45.879 1204.98
Maximum number of species per fungus 2.00 6.00
Average number of species per fungus 1.50 5.00
Table 3. The number of individuals and number of species in F. fomentarius and T. gibbosa.
Table 4. The mean weight and the mean volume of the two tinder fungi.
Average weight (g) Average volume (cm³) Fungus volume/beetle
specimen
Fomes fomentarius 212.00 288.59 10.99
Trametes gibbosa 57.20 102.20 0.04
Figure 6. Degradation process of Trametes gibbosa (healthy, left), early stage of consumption (middle), fungal debris (right).
Figure 5. Degradation process of Fomes fomentarius (healthy, left), early stage of consumption (middle), fungal debris (right).
146 Andrési and Tuba
Rhopalodontus perforatus, Sulcacis fronticornis and S. niti-
dus. There were a total of 10998 individuals in the Trametes
fruiting bodies. Except for one species, they were typical
mycophage beetles. The exception is R. bipustulatus, which
lives under the bark of broadleaf trees, and consumes the
mycelia of the fungi. Sometimes they can consume species
from the family of Bostrichidae (Hurka 2005). In T. gibbosa
we found 6 beetle species from Ciidae family. The largest
and one of the most common species is Cis boleti (Merkl
2016). In our research, the most frequent species were C.
boleti with 5356 individuals and O. glabriculus with 4542
individuals.
Despite the fact that the tinder samples were collected at
the same time and same location from Fagus sylvatica trees,
Fomes fomentarius and Tramates gibbosa had a different
number of beetle species and specimens. Statistical analysis
was performed with the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney (WMW)
a = 0.05
(Pcalculated = 0.03) between the number of individuals. This
calculated = 0.0027)
between species numbers. The differences could be caused
by the structure of fruiting bodies and secondary metabolites.
T. gibbosa has a thinner fruiting body than F. fomentarius,
(T. gibbosa is about 1/3 of F. fomentarius) (Fig. 5, Fig. 6). In
spite of this T. gibbosa provides more nutrition for species.
Fomes has a harder fruiting body. It can be consumed only
by a few beetle species. The spread of the fungus beetles is
-
ence of substrate (Southwood 1977). The sample site was a
forest reserve; therefore, it had more dead wood and tinder
fungi than in a managed forest. Dead wood and tinder fungi
can have a positive effect for distribution strategy of the tin-
der fungi consumers. Important properties of natural forests,
such as coarse woody debris, decaying wood, dead wood and
fungi, assist in maintaining the diversity of saproxylic and
mycophagous species (Harmon et al. 1986). These factors
increase the diversity and at the same time, they reduce the
local disappearance of species, or the risk of harmful gene
Acknowledgements: This study was carried out in the pro-
gram of the ‘TÁMOP-4.2.2.A-11/1/KONV-2012-0004’ and
‘VKSZ_12-1-2013-0034 - Agrárklíma.2’. The authors thank
to O. Merkl (Hungarian Natural History Museum) for his
help in preparing the map.
References
Andrési, R. 2015. Taplógombák rovarközösségének vizsgálata.
Thesis, NYME EMK. Sopron.
The Scientic Management of Temperate Communities for
Conservation. Blackwell Scientitic Publications, Oxford. pp.
45–79.
1991. Importance of Wood Decay Fungi in Forest Ecosystems,
Handbook of Applied Mycology. Soils and Plants. Vol. 1. Marcel
Dekker Inc. New York. pp. 507–540.
Boddy, L. and Watkinson, S.C. 1995. Wood decomposition, high-
er fungi, and their role in nutrient redistribution. Can J Bot.
73:1377–1383.
Breitenbach, J. and Kränzlin, F. 1986. Fungi of Switzerland.
A Contribution to the Knowledge of the Fungal Flora of
Switzerland. Vol. 2. Verlag Mykologia, Lucerne, Switzerland.
412 p.
Christensen, M., Hahn, K., Mountford, E.P., Ódor, P., Standovár, T.,
Rozenbergar, D., Diaci, J., Wijdeven, S., Meyer, P., Winter, S.
and Vrska, T. 2005. Dead wood in European beech (Fagus syl-
vatica) forest reserves. For. Ecol. Manage. 210:267–282.
A holtfa erdő- és természetvédelmi szerepe magyar-
országi keménylombos erdőkben. Az OTKA K68618 sz. pályázat
zárójelentése. Erdészeti Tudományos Intézet. Mátrafüred.
Dely-Draskovits, Á. 1974. Systematische und ökologische Unter-
suchung an der in Ungarn als Schädlinge der Hutpilze auftre-
tenden Fliegen VI. Mycetophilidae (Diptera). Fol. Ent. Hung.
27:29–41.
Domanski, S., Orlos, H. and Skiriello, A. 1973. Fungi. Foreign
Science Publications, Warsaw.
DomboróTaplógombákban élő rovarfauna vizsgálata.
Thesis proposal. NYME EMK, Sopron.
Folcz, Á. and Papp, V. 2014. Az erdei holtfa gombavilága. In: Csóka,
Silva naturalis A holtfa. Vol. 5.
Sopron. pp. 49–74.
Franc, V. 1997. Mycetophilous beetles (Coleoptera mycetophila).
Indicators of well preserved ecosystems. Biol. Bratislava
52(2):181–186.
Hackman, W. and Meinander, M. 1979. Diptera feeding as larvae on
macrofungi in Finland. Ann. Zool. Fennici. 16:50–83.
Hanski, I. 1989. Fungivory: fungi, insects and ecology. In: Wilding
N., Collins N.M., Hammond P.M. and Webber J.F. (eds.), Insect-
Fungus Interactions. Academic Press, London. pp. 25–68.
Hammond, P.M., and Lawrence, J.F. 1989. Mycophagy in insects:
a summary. In: Wilding N., Collins N.M., Hammond P.M. and
Webber J.F. (eds.), Insect-Fungus Interactions. Academic Press,
London. pp. 275–324.
Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Adv.
Ecol. Res. 15:133–276.
Hurka, K. 2005. Beetles of the Czech and Slovak Republics.
Nakladatelství Kabourek, Czech Republic.
Igmándy, Z. 1991. A magyar erdők taplógombái. Akadémiai Kiadó,
Budapest.
Jonsson, M. 1999. Colonization
patterns of insects breeding in wood-decaying fungi. J. Insect.
Conserv. 3:145–161.
Flora Pannonica 2(1):7–12.
Komonen, A. 2001. Structure of insect communities inhabiting old-
growth forest specialist bracket fungi. Ecol. Entomol. 26:63–75.
Lacy, R.C. 1984. Predictability, toxicity, and trophic niche breadth
in fungus-feeding Drosophilidae (Diptera). Ecol. Entomol. 9:43–
54.
M., Sárándi-Kovács, J., Andrési, D., Némethné, Pogány, Cs.,
Beetle communities in tinder fungi 147
L., Kovács, T., Szabóky, Cs. and Merkl, O. 2014. A holtfa sze-
repe a diverzitás fenntartásában. In: Bartha, D. and Puskás, L.
(eds.), A folyamatos erdőborítás megvalósításának ökológiai,
konzervációbiológiai, közjóléti és természetvédelmi szempon-
tú vizsgálata. Silva naturalis Vol. 6. Nyugat-magyarországi
Egyetem Kiadó, Sopron. pp. 148–164.
Merkl, O. 2016. A szaproxilofág bogarak (Coleoptera) szerepe a holt-
fa lebontásában. In: Korda M. (ed.), Az erdőgazdálkodás hatása
az erdők biológiai sokféleségére. Tanulmánygyűjtemény. Duna-
Ipoly Nemzeti Park Igazgatóság, Budapest. pp. 129–154.
Økland, B. 1995. Unlogged forests. Important sites for preserving
the diversity of mycetophilids (Diptera: Sciaroidea). Biol. Cons.
76:297–310.
Rollinson, T. 2003. Introduction: the policy context for biodiversity.
In: J.W. Humphrey, R. Ferris and C.P. Quine (eds.), Biodiversity
in Britain’s Planted Forests: Results from the Forestry
Commission’s Biodiversity Assessment Project. Forestry
Commission, Edinburgh. pp. 3–6.
Southwood, T.R.E. 1977. Habitat, the templet for ecological
strategies? J. Anim. Ecol. 46:337–365.
Biodiversity in
Dead Wood. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Zabel, R.A. and Morrell, J.J. 1992. Wood Microbiology: Decay and
its Prevention. Academic Press, New York.
Received November 28, 2017
Revised April 20, July 23, 2018
Accepted August 9, 2018
