| Literature DB >> 22393502 |
Marcus A Bingham1, Suzanne W Simard.
Abstract
Facilitation of tree establishment by ectomycorrhizal (EM) networks (MNs) may become increasingly important as drought stress increases with climate change in some forested regions ofEntities:
Keywords: CO2; Pseudotsuga menziesiivar.glauca(interior Douglas-fir); climate change; competition; drought; ecophysiology; ectomycorrhizal network; facilitation; plant water relations; stress-gradient hypothesis
Year: 2011 PMID: 22393502 PMCID: PMC3287316 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.24
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Growth chamber with single temperature regime and [CO2] containing mesh treatment (3 levels) and soil moisture regime (3 levels) combinations nested within. Douglas-fir seedlings can be seen growing in the containers.
Figure 2Conceptual representation of the general arrangement for donor and receiver seedlings in each root box (not to scale). In this example, the 35-µm mesh treatment has been applied to the receiver seedling.
Logistic regression testing for the probability of seedling survival in response to, [CO2] (ppm), mesh treatments, soil moisture regime, temperature regime, and PAR (µmol/m2/sec). Temperature was removed from the original model
| Logistic regression: | Likelihood ratio | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effect | Odds ratios | df | Wald χ2 | |
| 800 ppm CO2 | 0.970516 | 1 | 5.7755 | 0.0163 |
| Ambient CO2 | 1.03038 | |||
| Xeric | 0.479438 | 2 | 103.6506 | <0.0001 |
| Mesic | 0.901919 | |||
| Hygric | 1.908867 | |||
| 0.5-µm mesh | 0.6 | 2 | 89.5458 | <0.0001 |
| 35-µm mesh | 0.791281 | |||
| No mesh | 1.891892 | |||
| 800 ppm ×xeric | 0.585091 | 2 | 5.9129 | 0.052 |
| 800 ppm ×mesic | 0.917258 | |||
| 800 ppm ×hygric | 1.447368 | |||
| Ambient ×xeric | 0.48221 | |||
| Ambient ×mesic | 0.921053 | |||
| Ambient ×hygric | 1.747814 | |||
| PAR | 0.983635 | 1 | 7.4978 | 0.0062 |
Figure 3Odds ratio values (logarithmic y-axis scale) for (A) mesh treatment and (B) the interaction of [CO2] and soil moisture in the logistic regression model predicting survival of receiver seedlings. The odds ratio for a category is the odds of survival of a seedling in that particular category relative to seedlings not in that category, after adjusting for covariates.
Analysis of covariance testing for response of the natural logarithm of total biomass of seedlings to [CO2] (ppm), temperature regime, soil moisture regime, and mesh treatment after adjustment for PAR (µmol/m2/s) nested within run
| ANCOVA: AIC = 238.4 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Effect | F-value | |
| [CO2] | 6.9 | 0.0094 |
| Temperature | 10.16 | 0.0017 |
| [CO2] × Temperature | 4.09 | 0.0448 |
| Soil moisture | 22.97 | <.0001 |
| [CO2] × Soil moisture | 0.19 | 0.8286 |
| Temperature × Soil moisture | 0.13 | 0.8762 |
| [CO2] × Temperature × Soil moisture | 0.85 | 0.4279 |
| Mesh | 0.16 | 0.8537 |
| [CO2] × Mesh | 0.69 | 0.5019 |
| Temperature × Mesh | 0.53 | 0.5921 |
| [CO2] × Temperature × Mesh | 0.75 | 0.4736 |
| Soil moisture × Mesh | 2.46 | 0.0475 |
| [CO2] × Soil moisture × Mesh | 0.21 | 0.9353 |
| Temperature × Soil moisture × Mesh | 0.12 | 0.9765 |
| [CO2] × Temperature × Soil moisture × Mesh | 1.13 | 0.3397 |
| Covariates | ||
| PAR (2007–2008) (µmol/m2/s) | −3.61 | 0.0004 |
| PAR (2008–2009) (µmol/m2/s) | −3.71 | 0.0003 |
Note. The coefficient signs are only given for continuous variables.
Figure 4Unadjusted means for total receiver seedling biomass under (A) various combinations of temperature regime and [CO2] and (B) various combinations of soil moisture regime and mesh treatments. Bars with different letters are significantly different atP≤ 0.05. Error bars are 1 SE.
Figure 5Means for δ13C of seedlings among natural abundance controls, labeled donors, receivers, and postlabel controls. Error bars are 1 SE.
Analysis of covariance testing for response of the percent reservoir D2O taken up by receiver seedlings to mesh treatments and [CO2] (ppm), after adjustment for δ18O of donor seedling xylem water, δ18O of receiver seedling xylem water, percent reservoir water taken up by donor seedlings, labeling period, and run
| ANCOVA: AIC = 11.8 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect | Coefficient | F-value | |
| Mesh | N/A | 563.8 | 0.0298 |
| [CO2] | N/A | 74.33 | 0.0735 |
| Mesh × [CO2] | N/A | 140.37 | 0.0596 |
| Covariates | |||
| Donor δ18O (‰) | - | 208.91 | 0.044 |
| Donor % reservoir uptake | - | 76.73 | 0.0724 |
| Receiver δ18O (‰) | + | 1143.67 | 0.0188 |
| Labeling period (days) | + | 149.42 | 0.052 |
Note. The coefficient signs are only given for continuous variables.
Figure 6Unadjusted means for the percent reservoir water taken up by receiver seedlings (calculated from δD) under various combinations of [CO2] and mesh treatments. Bars with different letters are significantly different atP≤ 0.1. Error bars are 1 SE.