Efficiency of the traditional practice of traps to stimulate black truffle production, and its ecological mechanisms
Dataset 1: Analysis of truffle growers archivesWe selected eleven T. melanosporum orchards located across the South-West France, from Montpellier (43°44′01.4″N 3°42′13.2″E) to Jonzac (45°27′17.7″N, 0°25′26.9″W; Fig. 2). These sites were selected for (1) the quality of the records of fruitbody production and practices by truffle growers (Table S1), including the detail of inoculations since plantation (amount and frequency of added crushed sporocarps), (2) the use of truffle traps by the owners and the quality of the record from these devices, and (3) the presence of oaks (Quercus ilex, Q. pubescens and Q. suber) as the only hosts tree species. Based on the archives of truffle growers, including a systematic recording of truffle production within and outside traps, we reported at each study site the contribution of truffle traps to the annual fruitbody production of the entire truffle grounds, by using number and/or weight of collected fruitbodies within (Pin) and outside (Pout) truffle traps.Dataset 2: In situ experiment tracing the inoculation effectThree orchards located near Angoulème (45°74′35.5″N, − 0°63′78.4″W), Jonzac (45°44′09.8″N, 0°43′96.7″W), and Arles-sur-Tech (42°45′44.9″N, 2°62′89.4″W), hereafter referred to Site 1 to 3 (Fig. 2) were selected for testing both disturbance effect and inoculum effect on fruitbody production in truffle traps. These sites presented a high fruitbody production and a high Pin/Pout ratio, thus optimum conditions to test mechanisms underlying how truffle traps influence fruitbody production. Host trees were between 5 and 18 years old at the beginning of the experiment (Fig. 2). At each site, we selected three non-adjacent trees (four on Site 3) that displayed a continuous fruitbody production over the three previous years. Under each selected tree, we excavated, at two-thirds of the distance between the tree trunk and the limit of brûlé (a vegetation-poor zone that shows the extension mycelia in the soil40, eight equidistant truffle traps [20 × 20 cm large × 20 cm deep] as shown in Fig. 3a. Under each tree, two traps were filled with only a mixture of peat and vermiculite (hereafter referred as non-inoculated controls) to test for disturbance effect. The used mixture was identical to that which is currently applied in commercial orchards. In three other traps, 5 g of crushed material from a single black truffle fruitbody (including its gleba and spores) were added to the previous mixture (hereafter referred as one mating-type inoculum). In the three last traps, 5 g of crushed material from two ascocarps with gleba of opposite mating types (hereafter referred as two mating-type inoculum) were added to the previous mixture. We added the two mating-type condition to accurately test a potential contribution of the gleba (haploid and thus with a single mating type) on future production. As quoted in Introduction, maternal individuals with opposite mating types tend to exclude each other locally (spatial segregation of clusters of individuals of same mating types26. Thus, the two mating-type inoculum allows us to detect in each trap a maternal contribution by the introduced gleba, despite potential exclusion by pre-installed individuals of the locally dominant mating type in the surrounding. Moreover, it allows us to detect a paternal contribution by the introduced gleba of the mating type opposite to the locally dominant. The eight truffle traps were randomly arranged, so that two repetitions of same modality were always separated by a repetition of another modality (Fig. 3a).In March 2013, six freshly collected truffles (weighting > 60 g) were molecularly analyzed for the mating type of their gleba as in18. On Site 1 and Site 2, the inoculum was made of fruitbodies collected at Site 1. On Site 3, fruitbodies used as inoculum originated from truffle grounds in Sarrion (Spain). In April 2013, truffles traps were installed as explained above (in all, 8 traps × 3 (or 4) trees × 3 sites) and monitored for two years by truffle growers. Harvesting was performed by trained dogs (one different dog per site) checking truffle traps and the surrounding brûlés at each visit of the orchard by truffle growers. When dogs detected truffles, a small hole was excavated to collect ascocarps without disturbing the trap further. At the end of January, 2015, all truffle traps were completely excavated, remnant truffles overlooked by dogs were systematically collected (Fig. 3b). Three soil aliquots were collected within all traps and pooled. All truffles and soil aliquots were frozen for subsequent DNA analysis.Molecular and genetic analysesDNA extractions, mating typing and genotyping were done as in18. Briefly, DNA was extracted from the gleba and from spores of each fruitbody to get access to the maternal and zygotic DNA, respectively. Simple sequence repeat (SSRs) genotyping was performed using 12 polymorphic markers and the mating-type locus as in18. Gleba extracts displaying apparent heterozygous genotypes, likely due to contamination by spore DNA were systematically discarded from further analyses. For each fruitbody, the haploid paternal genotype was then deduced by subtracting the haploid maternal genotype from the zygotic diploid genotype. This data set was used for relatedness estimations. We discarded from all further analysis the marker me11, which displayed more than 39% missing data, as well as all samples with missing data for at any locus.Multilocus genotypes comparisonsBased on the 11 remaining SSRs and the mating-type (Table S5 and Figure S2), MLGs were identified on all maternal and paternal haploid genomes using GenClone v.2.041, and the probability that MLGs represented more than once resulted from independent events of sexual reproduction was calculated (PSex41,42). On each site, clonal diversity was measured as R = (G − 1)/(N − 1) according to43, where N is the number of fruitbodies and G the number of MLGs. For testing whether the gleba of the inoculated fruitbody contributed, either paternally (H1) or maternally (H2) to the harvested fruitbodies (Fig. 1c), the inoculated maternal MLG was compared to the paternal and maternal MLG of the harvested fruitbodies.Relatedness estimationFor testing whether the spores of the inoculum, which carry many distinct haploid MLGs due to meiosis, had paternal or maternal contribution(s) to the harvested fruitbodies (H3; Fig. 1c), we used relatedness estimation.For testing whether spores of the inoculum had a paternal contribution, an individual relatedness estimate to the spore inoculum was computed for each paternal genome detected in truffle traps. Relatedness r here describes the expected frequency E[p_offpat] of each allele in a given genome, E[p_offpat] = p_pop + r * (p_inoc − p_pop), where p_pop is the allele frequency in the local population (here estimated from the glebas of other truffles collected under the focal tree), and p_inoc is the frequency of the allele in the inoculum. Thus, p_offpat takes values 0 or 1, and p_inoc takes values 0, 0.5 or 1, except when two fruitbodies were used as inoculum (two gleba mating types traps). Thus r = (p_offpat − p_pop)/(p_inoc − p_pop). An individual relatedness estimate for each genome is then obtained by summing over alleles and loci the observed values of the numerator and denominator in this expression. A population-level estimate is further obtained by summing numerators and denominators over the paternity events in each population.To test whether such estimates are compatible with the hypothesis that the paternal individuals are not from the inocula, we obtained the distribution of population-level relatedness estimates by simulating samples under this hypothesis: paternal genotypes were randomly simulated according to alleles frequencies in the local population. For each population, 10,000 samples were simulated, and p-values were estimated as the proportion of simulations with higher population-level relatedness with inocula than the observed one. Confidence intervals for these p-values were computed from the binomial distribution for 10,000 draws, and Bonferroni-corrected over the three populations.For testing whether spores of the inoculum had a maternal contribution (H4, Fig. 1c), we estimated the relatedness of the locally used spore inoculum to each maternal genome detected in truffle traps (deduced from the gleba), and we confronted it to simulated samples as previously but with one modification: if the focal fruitbody was harvested in a trap inoculated with the inoculum A1, all genomes of truffles from traps inoculated with the same inoculum (A1 or A1 + A2 + A3, see Fig. 3c.) were discarded from the estimation of p_pop.Assessment of T. melanosporum mycelium concentration in truffle trapsOn Sites 1, 2 and 3, soil samples were collected in all traps and in the surrounding brûlés at harvesting date (January, 2015). In collected soils, total DNA was extracted and quantified as in19. Briefly, after sieving and homogenizing soil collected in each trap and from out of the brûlés, aliquots (10 g) were analyzed as follows. After extraction with the kit Power Soil (MoBio Laboratories, Carlsbad, CA, USA), the extra-radical mycelium of T. melanosporum was quantified using quantitative Taqman™ PCR (qPCR) with the primers and probe described in44. Triplicate real-time PCR were performed on each sample using the same concentration of primer and the same thermocycling program as in19. Standards were prepared using fresh immature T. melanosporum ascocarp, and a standard curve was generated for each site by plotting serial tenfold dilutions against corresponding initial amount of ascocarp. Absolute quantification of mycelium biomass of T. melanosporum was expressed in mg of mycelium per g of soil.Statistical analysesStatistics were done using R version 4.0.445.Effect of truffle traps on fruitbody production—The contribution of truffle traps to the overall production of orchards was assessed by (1) data mining of truffle growers’ archives (Dataset 1) and (2) comparing the density of truffles harvested in traps (expressed in number of truffles per m2 per orchard; for each sampled tree, traps correspond to an investigated soil surface of s = 8 × 0.2 x 0.2 = 0.32 m2) with the density measured within surrounding brûlés (Dataset 1). On Dataset2, at each site, the area occupied by brûlés was evaluated by measuring in the field the surface of soil devoid of vegetation consecutively to spontaneous T. melanosporum brûlé.Fruitbody production under different conditions (i.e. non-inoculated controls versus one gleba mating type traps versus two gleba mating type traps) were compared using generalized linear mixed models with negative binominal family and log link (R, spam package46). The full model included the logarithm of the sampled area as offset to account for variations in this sampled area, interactions of trap-modality effects with site effect. Formal likelihood ratio tests are based on one-step deletions from this full model, applied to subsets of the data relevant for each hypothesis tested. Additional bootstrap tests (1000 iterations) were run to correct any bias in small sample likelihood ratio tests.Concentrations of T. melanosporum mycelium in soil—Similarly as above, the inoculum effect on mycelium concentrations was compared using generalized linear mixed models with Gamma log family.Plant materialThe use of plants in the present study complies with international, national and/or institutional guidelines. All permissions to collect T. melanosporum fruitbodies in truffle orchards were obtained. The formal identification of biological material used in the study (T. melanosporum fruitbodies) was undertaken by F. Richard and E. Taschen. Voucher specimens of all collected fruitbodies have been deposited in the Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive herbarium in Montpellier (France).Ethical approvalAll co-authors approve the ethical statement regarding the submitted manuscript.Consent to participateAll co-authors consent to participate to the research and agree with the content of the submitted manuscript. All authors reviewed and submitted manuscript. More
