Microhabitat scale drives fungal community structure in a viticultural landscape
; Santos, Micaela ; Pascual Tudanca, María Paula ; de la Cruz Lopez, David Jose ; Roy, Mélanie Otros responsables
Fecha
Publicador:
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
Fecha de creación:
10/2024-02/2025
Clasificación temática
Palabras clave
Resumen
This dataset is associated with the article entitled “Microhabitat scale drives fungal community structure in a viticultural landscape”. It contains fungal Operational Taxonomic Unit (OTU) data derived from environmental DNA metabarcoding. Each row represents an OTU record for a given sample and includes taxonomic identification, DNA sequence, functional annotations, sample metadata, and OTU abundance. Taxonomic information includes the best database match and identity, as well as taxonomic classifications at different ranks. Functional annotations include growth form, guild, and trophic mode. Sample metadata identify the site, habitat type, sampling reservoir, and landscape context. Samples were collected from five reservoirs: soil, bark, wildflowers, grape flowers, and grape berries. Soil, bark, and wildflowers were sampled in both vineyards and adjacent Monte Desert habitat fragments, whereas grape flowers and grape berries were sampled exclusively in vineyards.
Métodos
We conducted monthly paired sampling in the six vineyards and their adjacent natural habitat fragments from October 2024 to February 2025. Each vineyard and its adjacent natural habitat fragment were considered a paired site, resulting in six paired sites. Within each paired site, we distinguished two habitats: vineyard and natural habitat fragment. In the vineyard habitat, the sampling location was established within the cultivated area, 100 m from the natural fragment edge toward the vineyard interior. In the natural habitat, the sampling location was established at the centroid of the corresponding fragment. For both, we delimited a 30 × 30 m plot to maximize sampling coverage (Chen et al., 2026). We sampled different fungal reservoirs within each habitat. In both vineyards and natural habitat fragments, we collected soil, bark, and wild flowers. In vineyards, we additionally collected grapevine flowers and mature grape berries (Vitis vinifera cv. Malbec). Thus, the sampling design comprised eight habitat–reservoir combinations across the six paired sites: three reservoirs in natural habitat fragments —soil, bark, and wild flowers— and five reservoirs in vineyards —soil, bark, wild flowers, grapevine flowers, and grapes—. This resulted in 48 site-by-reservoir combinations (8 reservoirs × 6 paired sites), which were sampled monthly when the corresponding reservoir was available. Vine flowers were collected during the December sampling and grapes during February, whereas no fruits of native plants were available for sampling in the natural habitat fragments during that month. For soil sampling, we collected five subsamples at the four corners and the center of the 30 × 30 m plot in both the vineyard and natural habitat of each site at a depth of 10–20 cm and combined them into one composite sample of approximately 500 g. For bark sampling, in natural habitat fragments we collected five bark pieces from each shrub and tree species present, whereas in vineyards we collected five bark pieces exclusively from grapevines. For wild flowers, we collected five flowers from each flowering plant species present in both habitats. In vineyards, we additionally collected a maximum of 10 grapevine flowers and 10 mature grape berries. All samples were placed in sterile, hermetically sealed plastic bags and stored at approximately 4°C in refrigerated containers until transport to the laboratory, where they were frozen at −20°C. From each composite soil sample, we collected a 15 g subsample, which was stored in Falcon tubes and frozen alongside the other reservoir samples for subsequent molecular analyses. To minimize cross-contamination, we wore disposable gloves during sampling and replaced them between sites and reservoir types. All field sampling tools were immersed in a 2% chlorine solution for one minute to render contaminating DNA non-amplifiable (de Silva Wijeyeratne and Gweon, 2025). Before collecting soil at each sampling location, the tools were additionally rinsed with soil from the corresponding site.
Condiciones de uso
Las buenas prácticas científicas esperan que se otorgue el crédito adecuado mediante una citación. Utilice un formato de citación y aplique estas normas de reutilización:
Licencia Creative Commons
Excepto donde se indique lo contrario, la licencia de este ítem se describe como by-nc-sa
Archivos
ARCHIVO
NOTAS DE USO
TAMAÑO