Small Friends of Fungi

This ar­ti­cle first ap­peared in the splen­did Cor­nell Mush­room Blog. Read­ing it, we were jolted into re­al­iz­ing that we had a dis­torted view of the liv­ing world, no less. Like most peo­ple, we be­lieved that in nat­ural ha­bitats, some an­i­mals eat plants, those an­i­mals are eaten by preda­tors, and that's about it. We thank Bob Mesi­bov for set­ting us straight. We are de­lighted to share his in­sights with you by re­pro­duc­ing his ar­ti­cle here, with per­mis­sion from him and from Kathie Hodge, ed­i­tor and blogi­fi­ca­tor of the Cor­nell Mush­room Blog.

by Bob Mesi­bov

If you stud­ied the tra­di­tional sort of bi­ol­ogy, you're pro­bably car­ry­ing around an un­for­tu­nate prej­u­dice.

You see ter­res­trial habi­tats as a sim­pli­fied nu­tri­ents-and-en­ergy pyra­mid. At the bot­tom are green plants, feed­ing on sun­light, car­bon diox­ide and soil wa­ter and min­er­als. Next layer up on the pyra­mid is the her­bi­vore mob: leaf and stem eaters, sap­suck­ers, root nib­blers, seed and fruit gob­blers. Above these green feed­ers are a cou­ple of lay­ers of preda­tors. And that about sums up the world, right?

Wrong. That's only part of the world, and a small, very spe­cialised part of it, too.

The mil­li­pede Nar­ceus amer­i­canus pho­to­graphed by Kent Lo­ef­fler, copy­right Cor­nell Uni­ver­sity. You can find this bore­scopic im­age among the many in the book Be­neath No­tice: Ad­ven­tures with a Borescope by Kent Lo­ef­fler, with "Fun­gal Out­bursts" by Kathie Hodges.

To be­gin with, most an­i­mals can't eat green food. Her­bivores are di­etary spe­cial­ists among the in­sects, mol­lusks, birds and mam­mals. Your av­er­age green leaf or stem doesn't show much her­bi­vore dam­age, and for good rea­son. It's mainly wa­ter boxed in by cel­lu­lose and other struc­tural car­bo­hy­drates, which are im­pos­si­ble or ex­tremely hard for an­i­mals to di­gest. Other nu­tri­ents are present, but at low con­centrations. You need to eat a great mass of in­di­gestible green stuff to get a de­cent re­turn of ele­ments like ni­tro­gen, phos­pho­rus, potas­sium and cal­cium. As for an­i­mals eat­ing wood, which makes up most of the bio­mass in a for­est – well, there are ter­mites, and ...um ...ter­mites...

The truth is that in the real world out­side the bi­ol­ogy class­room, only a tiny pro­por­tion of terres­trial pri­mary pro­duc­tion goes through the stom­achs of the few evo­lu­tion­ary lin­eages brave enough to tackle what green plants pro­duce. In any ter­res­trial habi­tat, the great bulk of pri­mary pro­duc­tion just does not get eaten. It sits, in­stead, at the bot­tom of a very dif­fer­ent food pyra­mid. I call it the Dead Plants So­ci­ety (DPS), as op­posed to the Green Feed­ers Guild (GFG).

In the ab­sence of fire, all that un­eaten pri­mary pro­duc­tion is first at­tacked by fungi and bac­te­ria. By 'at­tacked' I mean 'con­verted from low-nu­tri­ent in­di­gestibles to con­cen­trated yum­mies', i.e. fun­gal and bac­te­r­ial bod­ies. Stacked on top of this mi­cro­bial layer in the pyra­mid are microbivor­ous lay­ers of ne­ma­todes, mites, spring­tails, earth­worms, mil­li­pedes and other soil an­i­mals. On top of those are preda­tors – but pic­ture 'cen­tipede', not 'ea­gle'.

The GFG and DPS an­i­mal com­mu­ni­ties dif­fer in many ways. To be­gin with, in any given habi­tat the GFG has very high species di­ver­sity (think of plant-eat­ing in­sects) but low higher-taxon di­ver­sity, while the DPS has great higher-taxon di­ver­sity (lots of strange sorts of an­i­mals), but low species di­ver­sity. Next, GFG her­bi­vores tend to spe­cialise on par­tic­u­lar plants, while DPS mi­cro­bi­vores will eat any­thing that's rot­ting nicely. There are also a lot of winged GFG mem­bers ('gotta find that par­tic­u­lar plant I like…'), whereas al­most no DPS mem­bers have wings, at least in their younger, feed­ing stages. There's an ar­chi­tec­tural dif­fer­ence, too. The GFG ex­tends well up in the air, to ca. 100 m in some tall forests, while the DPS is largely con­fined to the ground.

Then there's the mat­ter of her­itage. The ear­li­est DPS fos­sils are of mites, spring­tails and milli­pedes, and they're more than 400 mil­lion years old, from a time when ter­res­trial veg­e­ta­tion was mainly mossy and ground-hug­ging. The first solid ev­i­dence for green feed­ing (early in­sects with spores in their guts) ap­pears much later in the fos­sil record, from coal swamp times. The DPS is vastly older than the GFG, and when you han­dle richly or­ganic soil you're hold­ing an­i­mal commu­nities which are spec­tac­u­larly an­cient and ro­bust. You can al­most imag­ine a spring­tail think­ing: 'Seen the di­nosaurs come and go, mam­mals are nearly done. Won­der what great lum­ber­ing dopes we'll see in the next 100 mil­lion years? Yum, love these hy­phae with yeast sprin­kles!'

 

Robert Mesibov

Dr. Robert Mesi­bov is a tax­on­o­mist from down un­der who stud­ies se­ri­ously fun­gophilic an­i­mals: mil­li­pedes. Check out his other many-legged do­ings via his web­site. A pre­vi­ous ar­ti­cle on the Dead Plants So­ci­ety is avail­able here.

 

Other Posts

3 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Eric Johnson
16 years ago

In­ter­est­ing stuff. Is this as true in grass­lands as it is in the for­est? It seems like tons of ru­mi­nants man­age to make the eco­nom­ics of grass cel­lu­lose work for them. There are also fo­li­vores in the proper sense, which eat trees, but they seem to be fewer in bio­mass and di­ver­sity if my non­sci­en­tific im­pres­sions are right. Are they more pre­da­tion-lim­ited for some rea­son than graz­ers? Do grasses bleed more en­ergy to the Green Feed­ers than trees do? Are any her­bi­vores lim­ited malthu­sianly (by par­a­sites and in­traspe­cific com­pe­ti­tion & vi­o­lence)? Or is there al­ways an apex preda­tor that can trim them down? (Li­ons of course used to ex­ist in the New World, un­til quite re­cently.)
One the­ory, which I just made up af­ter read­ing wikipedia[folivores], is based on the ob­ser­va­tion that fly­ing an­i­mals are rarely fo­li­vores be­cause the amount of cel­lu­lose di­gesta they'd need to hold is so heavy. It says that fo­liv­o­rous bats chew leaves and soon eject the re­cal­ci­trant ma­te­r­ial such as cel­lu­lose, which tal­lies with this. My sug­ges­tion is that the same thing may ap­ply more weakly to climbers, so there are less fo­li­vores than graz­ers. Cows are much freer than mon­keys to carry around many kg of di­gesta, as well as the more mas­sive di­ges­tive tract needed to deal with that stuff.
This post of John Dennehy's might be rel­e­vant:
http://evilutionarybiologist.blogspot.com/2008/06/this-weeks-citation-classic-world-is.html

16 years ago

Fas­ci­nat­ing re­work­ing of the com­mon par­a­digm, but there is also the con­sump­tion of car­ni­vores and other an­i­mals by mites, fungii, and other mi­cro­biota. They are con­sum­ing me as I write, which makes most of the veg­e­tar­ian ar­gu­ments, based on that in­ac­cu­rate pyra­mid ir­rel­e­vant.

16 years ago

is a large North Amer­i­can mil­li­pede. It in­hab­its the east­ern seaboard of the United States through south­east­ern Canada and west to cen­tral Texas. It is one of the largest North Amer­i­can mil­li­pede species, reach­ing a length of four inches. When threat­ened, they some­times curl up or re­lease a nox­ious liq­uid that con­tains large amounts of ben­zo­quinones which can cause der­ma­to­log­i­cal burns. This fluid may ir­ri­tate eyes or skin. Many other mil­li­pedes se­crete hy­dro­gen cyanide, and while there have also been claims that N. amer­i­canus re­leases hy­dro­gen cyanide, this is not true.