| Literature DB >> 19219458 |
Stefan Hempel1, Claudia Stein, Sybille B Unsicker, Carsten Renker, Harald Auge, Wolfgang W Weisser, François Buscot.
Abstract
The majority of plants are involved in symbioses with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), and these associations are known to have a strong influence on the performance of both plants and insect herbivores. Little is known about the impact ofEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19219458 PMCID: PMC2757589 DOI: 10.1007/s00442-009-1294-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oecologia ISSN: 0029-8549 Impact factor: 3.225
Fig. 1Mean shoot biomass (a) and mean root biomass (b) at harvest. Closed bars without aphids, open bars with aphids. c Aphid population growth rates per day, d proportion of aphid populations with negative growth rates. Different letters above bars indicate a significant difference between arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal (AMF) treatments, asterisks indicate a significant difference between aphid-infested and -uninfested plants within the AMF treatments (P < 0.05) according to orthogonal contrasts, whiskers standard error
Results of ANCOVA on shoot and root biomass of Phleum pratense at harvest
| Source of variation | Shoot biomass | Root biomass | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MS | MS | ||||||
| Initial plant size | 1 | 0.09 | 3.21 | 0.08 | 0.63 | 4.13 | 0.04* |
| Block | 9 | 0.10 | 3.34 | <0.001* | 0.92 | 6.06 | <0.001* |
| Aphid presence | 1 | 0.43 | 14.57 | <0.001* | 0.61 | 3.99 | 0.05* |
| AMF | 2 | 0.12 | 3.91 | 0.02* | 1.04 | 6.84 | 0.001* |
| AMF vs. control | 1 | 0.21 | 6.94 | 0.009* | 2.07 | 13.60 | <0.001* |
| Intra vs. moss | 1 | 0.03 | 0.86 | 0.36 | 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.76 |
| Aphid presence × AMF | 2 | 0.01 | 0.47 | 0.62 | 0.53 | 3.48 | 0.03* |
| Residuals | 162 | 0.03 | 0.15 | ||||
* Significant at P < 0.05
AMF, Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; ANCOVA, analysis of covariance
Orthogonal contrasts are calculated for AMF treatments (see Materials and methods for details)
Mean foliar nutrient concentrations and element ratios of five randomly chosen plants
| Foliar nutrients | Control | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C (mg g−1) | 417 ± 2.6 | 410 ± 1.0 | 414 ± 1.0 | 3.78 | 0.06 |
| N (mg g−1) | 23.5 ± 1.9 | 23.4 ± 1.6 | 21.4 ± 1.1 | 0.53 | 0.60 |
| P (mg g−1) | 4.15 ± 0.27 | 4.25 ± 0.07 | 3.73 ± 0.15 | 1.79 | 0.21 |
| C/N ratio | 18.3 ± 1.49 | 17.8 ± 1.13 | 19.6 ± 1.05 | 0.87 | 0.44 |
| N/P ratio | 5.6 ± 0.2 | 5.5 ± 0.3 | 5.7 ± 0.2 | 0.25 | 0.78 |
Values are given as the mean ± standard error (SE)
There were no significant differences due to AMF inoculation
Results of ANCOVA on aphid population growth rates and of the analysis of deviance on the proportion of aphid populations with negative growth rates
| Source of variation | Aphid population growth rates | Populations with negative growth rates | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MS | Log likely-hood ratio | |||||
| Initial plant size | 1 | 23.00 | 0.27 | 0.61 | 3.12 | 0.07 |
| Block | 9 | 154.11 | 1.78 | 0.09 | 23.46 | 0.005* |
| Parasitoid presence | 1 | 71.35 | 0.82 | 0.37 | 0.16 | 0.69 |
| AMF | 2 | 280.84 | 3.24 | 0.04* | 6.01 | 0.05* |
| AMF vs. control | 1 | 491.36 | 5.67 | 0.02* | 45.47 | 0.01* |
| Intra vs. moss | 1 | 60.53 | 0.70 | 0.41 | 42.50 | 0.90 |
| Residuals | 75 | 86.59 | ||||
* Significant at P < 0.05
Orthogonal contrasts are calculated for AMF treatments (see Materials and methods for details)
Fig. 2Mean parasitoid dry weight (+SE) plotted against mean parasitoid developmental time (+SE) for both sexes separately. Circles Non-mycorrhizal control, squares plants inoculated with Glomus intraradices, diamonds plants inoculated with G. mosseae. Open and closed symbols represent data for female and male parasitoids, respectively
Results of ANCOVA on mean parasitoid dry mass and development time as means per pot
| Source of variation | Dry weight | Development time | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MS | MS | ||||||
| Number of aphids | 1 | 357.3 | 0.44 | 0.52 | 28.84 | 9.14 | 0.007* |
| Sex ratio | 1 | 4316.9 | 5.27 | 0.03* | 1.99 | 0.63 | 0.44 |
| AMF | 2 | 2726.6 | 3.33 | 0.05* | 19.64 | 6.22 | 0.008* |
| AMF vs. control | 1 | 5401.8 | 6.59 | 0.02* | 33.78 | 10.70 | 0.004* |
| Intra vs. moss | 1 | 28.4 | 0.03 | 0.85 | 4.84 | 1.53 | 0.23 |
| Residuals | 21 | 819.8 | 3.16 | ||||
* Significant at P < 0.05
Orthogonal contrasts are calculated for AMF treatments (see Materials and methods for details)
Fig. 3Scatterplot of the number of unparasitized against the number of parasitized aphids per pot for control (circles), G. intraradices (squares), and G. mosseae (diamonds) treatments. Major axis regression: control (solid line, y = 0.785 × −0.787, R2 = 0.89), G. intraradices (dashed line, y = 0.942 × −0.789, R2 = 0.82), G. mosseae (dotted line, y = 0.913 × −1.097, R2 = 0.93)