Substrate affinities of slime moulds (Eumycetozoa) and their potential use as forest ecological indicators


Abstract

Background. Slime moulds (Eumycetozoa) inhabit moisture-buffered microhabitats such as bark, dead wood, bryophyte mats and litter, where their assemblages are expected to track fine-scale forest structure. However, their potential as forest bioindicators has rarely been evaluated using harmonised data and study designs that explicitly account for sampling effort.
Methods . A taxonomically standardised, georeferenced occurrence archive spanning forests in Central and Eastern Europe was used to quantify substrate affinities of Eumycetozoa and to assess their suitability as ecological indicators. Records were assigned to a consolidated set of forest substrate classes and analysed in an effort-adjusted, presence-only framework that combined generalised linear mixed models of record composition with indicator value analyses across species and higher taxa. Complementary models described species responses to elevation, and measurements of pH were used for structured screening where available.
Results. After standardisation for sampling effort, diversity and evenness remained high and similar across substrates, while assemblage composition differed systematically among corticolous, lignicolous, bryophilous, terricolous and other substrates. Composition-adjusted models and indicator statistics highlighted distinct substrate signals that were shared across taxonomic ranks and yielded shortlists of candidate indicators, particularly for lignicolous and corticolous material. Species showed broad and interpretable elevational optima, whereas pH signals were weak and strongly constrained by sparse measurements.
Conclusions. These results support the use of Eumycetozoa as substrate-level indicators in effort-aware, regionally stratified bioassessment of European forests and identify systematic co-measurement of pH and improved coverage of under-represented substrates as priorities for strengthening Eumycetozoa-based bioindication.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].