Table S2. The phylogenetic distributions of fungi in Basidiomycota,in plots from five forest types, were similar whether estimated from abundance or presence/absence data or data, and using comparisons against two different models of the null distribution.

plota / # of OTUs in plot / NRIb / #Obs > Simc / Pd / Pattern indicated by NRI / NTIe / # Obs > Simc / Pd / Pattern indicated by NTI
Comparison using Phylocom null distribution 2, maintaining species richness across plots; species abundance data
CH-Ru / 9 / -1.46 / 759 / ns / random / -0.93 / 1397 / ns / random
CH-Ru / 9 / -0.03 / 3994 / ns / random / 1.51 / 9947 / 0.01 / clustered
CH-Ru / 13 / -4.24 / 188 / 0.04 / overdispersed / -3.31 / 194 / 0.04 / overdispersed
CH-Rn / 9 / -0.99 / 950 / ns / random / -0.87 / 1407 / ns / random
CH-Rn / 12 / -4.94 / 100 / 0.02 / overdispersed / -5.69 / 37 / 0.01 / overdispersed
CH-Rn / 10 / -3.31 / 178 / 0.04 / overdispersed / -1.72 / 567 / ns / random
CH-Rnp / 13 / -4.48 / 21 / 0.00 / overdispersed / -4.96 / 7 / 0.00 / overdispersed
CH-Rnp / 13 / -4.05 / 118 / 0.02 / overdispersed / -4.51 / 40 / 0.01 / overdispersed
CH-Rnp / 18 / -2.54 / 355 / ns / random / -1.43 / 799 / ns / random
CH-O / 17 / -6.45 / 33 / 0.01 / overdispersed / -6.02 / 91 / 0.02 / overdispersed
CH-O / 16 / -6.29 / 19 / 0.00 / overdispersed / -5.72 / 93 / 0.02 / overdispersed
CH-O / 15 / -5.44 / 21 / 0.00 / overdispersed / -4.81 / 91 / 0.02 / overdispersed
HA / 14 / -2.15 / 421 / 0.08 / trend to overdispersed / -1.46 / 742 / ns / random
HA / 17 / 0.08 / 4642 / ns / random / 0.91 / 8962 / ns / random
HA / 17 / 0.22 / 5413 / ns / random / 0.69 / 7611 / ns / random
After deleting Craterellus tubaeformis; comparison using Phylocom null distribution 2, maintaining species richness across plots; species abundance data
CH-Ru / 8 / 1.03 / 9166 / ns / random / 0.74 / 7791 / ns / random
CH-Ru / 9 / -0.03 / 3925 / ns / random / 1.49 / 9960 / 0.01 / clustered
CH-Ru / 12 / 0.60 / 7630 / ns / random / 0.33 / 5172 / ns / random
CH-Rn / 9 / -1.03 / 883 / ns / random / -0.90 / 1368 / ns / random
CH-Rn / 11 / 0.93 / 8858 / ns / random / 0.36 / 5919 / ns / random
CH-Rn / 9 / 0.03 / 4274 / ns / random / 1.38 / 9853 / 0.03 / clustered
CH-Rnp / 12 / -0.43 / 1979 / ns / random / -0.99 / 1143 / ns / random
CH-Rnp / 12 / 0.93 / 8851 / ns / random / 0.44 / 6227 / ns / random
CH-Rnp / 17 / 0.08 / 4646 / ns / random / 0.73 / 7990 / ns / random
CH-O / 16 / 0.05 / 4430 / ns / random / 0.60 / 7079 / ns / random
CH-O / 15 / -0.09 / 3617 / ns / random / 0.50 / 6581 / ns / random
CH-O / 14 / -0.14 / 3339 / ns / random / 0.16 / 4839 / ns / random
HA / 13 / -0.47 / 2091 / ns / random / -0.14 / 3576 / ns / random
HA / 17 / 0.10 / 4837 / ns / random / 0.92 / 8975 / ns / random
HA / 17 / 0.22 / 5446 / ns / random / 0.69 / 7713 / ns / random
Comparison using Phylocom null distribution 3, maintaining species richness and frequency across plots; species abundance data
CH-Ru / 9 / 0.46 / 6087 / ns / random / 0.62 / 6217 / ns / random
CH-Ru / 9 / 1.10 / 7731 / ns / random / 1.37 / 9977 / 0.00 / clustered
CH-Ru / 13 / -0.51 / 4210 / ns / random / -0.42 / 3548 / ns / random
CH-Rn / 9 / 0.75 / 6289 / ns / random / 0.61 / 6162 / ns / random
CH-Rn / 12 / -0.82 / 3216 / ns / random / -1.10 / 1667 / ns / random
CH-Rn / 10 / -0.18 / 5231 / ns / random / 0.44 / 5934 / ns / random
CH-Rnp / 13 / -0.66 / 3708 / ns / random / -0.79 / 2475 / ns / random
CH-Rnp / 13 / -0.43 / 4462 / ns / random / -0.53 / 3259 / ns / random
CH-Rnp / 18 / 0.33 / 6354 / ns / random / 0.58 / 6701 / ns / random
CH-O / 17 / -1.35 / 239 / 0.05 / overdispersed / -2.03 / 178 / 0.04 / overdispersed
CH-O / 16 / -1.34 / 195 / 0.04 / overdispersed / -1.91 / 295 / 0.06 / trend to overdispersed
CH-O / 15 / -1.02 / 1983 / ns / random / -0.76 / 2587 / ns / random
HA / 14 / 0.51 / 6830 / ns / random / 0.61 / 6743 / ns / random
HA / 17 / 1.58 / 9223 / ns / random / 1.47 / 9667 / 0.07 / trend to clustered
HA / 17 / 1.59 / 9278 / ns / random / 1.37 / 9139 / ns / random
Comparison using Phylocom null distribution 2, which maintained species richness across plots; species presence/absence data
CH-Ru / 9 / -2.04 / 778 / ns / random / -1.72 / 763 / ns / random
CH-Ru / 9 / 0.40 / 6323 / ns / random / 1.87 / 9986 / 0.00 / clustered
CH-Ru / 13 / -1.23 / 1328 / ns / random / -1.71 / 834 / ns / random
CH-Rn / 9 / -0.79 / 1345 / ns / random / -1.13 / 1289 / ns / random
CH-Rn / 12 / -1.39 / 1239 / ns / random / -1.80 / 709 / ns / random
CH-Rn / 10 / -2.05 / 737 / ns / random / -0.68 / 2031 / ns / random
CH-Rnp / 13 / -1.40 / 1263 / ns / random / -2.03 / 481 / ns / random
CH-Rnp / 13 / -1.18 / 1429 / ns / random / -1.34 / 1229 / ns / random
CH-Rnp / 18 / -1.24 / 1547 / ns / random / -0.69 / 2329 / ns / random
CH-O / 17 / -2.39 / 162 / 0.03 / overdispersed / -1.66 / 845 / ns / random
CH-O / 16 / -2.29 / 258 / 0.05 / overdispersed / -1.61 / 931 / ns / random
CH-O / 15 / -2.79 / 39 / 0.01 / overdispersed / -2.64 / 91 / 0.02 / overdispersed
HA / 14 / -2.42 / 212 / 0.04 / overdispersed / -2.14 / 376 / 0.08 / trend to overdispersed
HA / 17 / 0.82 / 8071 / ns / random / 1.38 / 9553 / 0.04 / clustered
HA / 17 / -0.04 / 3830 / ns / random / 0.56 / 6743 / ns / random
Comparison using Phylocom null distribution 3, whichmaintained species richness and frequency across plots; species presence/absence data
CH-Ru / 9 / -0.42 / 5034 / ns / random / -0.54 / 3697 / ns / random
CH-Ru / 9 / 1.40 / 8778 / ns / random / 2.26 / 9987 / 0.00 / clustered
CH-Ru / 13 / 0.23 / 7065 / ns / random / -0.63 / 2865 / ns / random
CH-Rn / 9 / 0.54 / 6494 / ns / random / -0.03 / 5853 / ns / random
CH-Rn / 12 / 0.09 / 6700 / ns / random / -0.68 / 2698 / ns / random
CH-Rn / 10 / -0.46 / 4690 / ns / random / 0.29 / 6686 / ns / random
CH-Rnp / 13 / 0.05 / 6607 / ns / random / -0.93 / 1524 / ns / random
CH-Rnp / 13 / 0.23 / 7008 / ns / random / -0.32 / 4565 / ns / random
CH-Rnp / 18 / 0.06 / 6470 / ns / random / 0.24 / 6889 / ns / random
CH-O / 17 / -1.08 / 866 / ns / random / -0.78 / 2065 / ns / random
CH-O / 16 / -0.90 / 1494 / ns / random / -0.66 / 2633 / ns / random
CH-O / 15 / -1.31 / 288 / 0.06 / trend to overdispersed / -1.64 / 160 / 0.03 / overdispersed
HA / 14 / -0.95 / 1307 / ns / random / -1.12 / 873 / ns / random
HA / 17 / 2.20 / 9617 / 0.08 / trend to clustered / 2.43 / 9798 / 0.04 / clustered
HA / 17 / 1.35 / 8626 / ns / random / 1.58 / 8961 / ns / random

aThree plots per forest type; types were on CH, Cedar-Hemlock sites with R, 24-year-old regenerating hemlock stands; u, unfertilized; n, fertilized with nitrogen; np, fertilized with nitrogen plus phosphorus or O, old-growth hemlock stands; orHA, Hemlock-Amabilis fir sites with mature hemlock.

bNet relatedness index; positive values indicate phylogenetically clustered communities; negative values indicate overdispersion or communities of greater than expected phylogenetic evenness.

cThe rank of the observed value of the NRI or NTI, given as the number of lower values found among 9999 simulated samplings.

dP-value for two-sided comparisons of observed NRI or NTI, relative to simulated samplings.

eNearest taxon index; positive values indicate phylogenetic clustering among terminal taxa; negative values indicate phylogenetic evenness among terminal taxa.