| Literature DB >> 23145035 |
Laurel A Kluber1, Sarah R Carrino-Kyker, Kaitlin P Coyle, Jared L DeForest, Charlotte R Hewins, Alanna N Shaw, Kurt A Smemo, David J Burke.
Abstract
Many temperate forests of the Northeastern United States and Europe have received significant anthropogenic acid and nitrogen (N) deposition over the last century. Although temperate hardwood forests are generally thought to be N-limited, anthropogenic deposition increases the possibility of phosphorus (P) limiting productivity in these forest ecosystems. Moreover, inorganic P availability is largely controlled by soil pH and biogeochemical theory suggests that forests with acidic soils (i.e., <pH 5) are particularly vulnerable to P limitation. Results from previous studies in these systems are mixed with evidence both for and against P limitation. We hypothesized that shifts in mycorrhizal colonization and community structure help temperate forest ecosystems overcome an underlying P limitation by accessing mineral and organic P sources that are otherwise unavailable for direct plant uptake. We examined arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) and ectomycorrhizal (EcM) communities and soil microbial activity in an ecosystem-level experiment where soil pH and P availability were manipulated in mixed deciduous forests across eastern Ohio, USA. One year after treatment initiation, AM root biomass was positively correlated with the most available P pool, resin P, while AM colonization was negatively correlated. In total, 15,876 EcM root tips were identified and assigned to 26 genera and 219 operational taxonomic units (97% similarity). Ectomycorrhizal richness and root tip abundance were negatively correlated with the moderately available P pools, while the relative percent of tips colonized by Ascomycetes was positively correlated with soil pH. Canonical correspondence analysis revealed regional, but not treatment, differences in AM communities, while EcM communities had both treatment and regional differences. Our findings highlight the complex interactions between mycorrhizae and the soil environment and further underscore the fact that mycorrhizal communities do not merely reflect the host plant community.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23145035 PMCID: PMC3493595 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048946
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
The effect of region and treatments on soil pH and phosphorus with mean values and standard errors.
| Variable |
| Glaciated | Unglaciated | ||||||||
| Region | Trt | Region x Trt | Control | Elevated pH | ElevatedP | Elevated pH+P | Control | Elevated pH | ElevatedP | Elevated pH+P | |
| Soil pH | 0.34 | <0.01 | 0.07 | 4.43 (0.04) | 5.89** (0.03) | 4.51 (0.03) | 5.89** (0.03) | 4.88 (0.05) | 6.03** (0.07) | 5.03 (0.07) | 5.85**(0.07) |
| Resin P(mg P kg−1) | 0.64 | <0.01 | 0.01 | 0.86 (0.04) | 0.28** (0.02) | 2.39** (0.16) | 1.25 (0.07) | 0.66 (0.03) | 0.39 (0.03) | 3.38** (0.10) | 1.40** (0.14) |
| Bicarb P(mg P kg−1) | 0.02 | 0.72 | 0.48 | 22.44 (0.85) | 20.07 (1.35) | 17.38 (0.34) | 21.99 (1.57) | 12.13 (0.38) | 9.70 (0.31) | 13.87 (0.53) | 12.79 (0.27) |
| Hydroxide P(mg P kg−1) | 0.02 | 0.49 | 0.66 | 48.64 (2.30) | 43.95 (1.59) | 51.41 (2.91) | 48.96 (1.83) | 20.19 (0.59) | 23.42 (0.71) | 26.79 (1.09) | 22.61 (0.62) |
P-values for the effect of region and treatments from the LME model with forest blocks as the random effect (n = 9). Asterisks denote a significant difference, in comparison to controls, at P<0.05 (**) and P<0.10 (*).
Figure 1CCA ordinations showing the effect of location, treatment, pH, and P availability on the on AM (A) and EcM (B) communities.
Region is denoted by shape: glaciated (triangles) and unglaciated (inverted triangles) and treatment is denoted with color: control (white), elevated pH (grey), elevated P (dotted grey), and elevated pH+P (black). Centroids and error bars represent the mean and standard errors of axes scores within a given treatment. Monte Carlo P-values for eigenvalues for the AM and EcM ordinations were 0.03 and <0.01, respectively. Joint-plot overlays were unable to detect any significant correlations between tree species and either the AM or EcM community composition.
Successfully identified ectomycorrhizal taxa expressed as a percentage of the number of tips per treatment; total numbers of tips per treatment and per taxa are also presented.
| Treatment | Overall | |||||
| Taxa | Control | Elevated pH | Elevated P | Elevated pH+P | Total no. tips | Total percent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.20 | 4.23 | 174 | 1.10 |
|
| 0.0 | 0.45 | 0.0 | 0.08 | 19 | 0.12 |
|
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.30 | 12 | 0.08 |
|
| 0.81 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 39 | 0.25 |
|
| 1.58 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 76 | 0.48 |
|
| 1.96 | 3.39 | 0.17 | 0.30 | 232 | 1.46 |
|
| 0.0 | 3.67 | 0.67 | 3.37 | 287 | 1.81 |
| Other & unknown | 1.33 | 8.30 | 3.27 | 6.39 | 727 | 4.58 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.29 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.39 | 69 | 0.43 |
|
| 0.12 | 0.0 | 0.17 | 0.56 | 34 | 0.21 |
|
| 1.08 | 0.48 | 7.04 | 9.55 | 698 | 4.40 |
|
| 17.91 | 3.24 | 4.89 | 7.32 | 1440 | 9.07 |
|
| 0.0 | 0.73 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 26 | 0.16 |
|
| 0.48 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 23 | 0.14 |
|
| 0.40 | 2.29 | 4.56 | 1.90 | 338 | 2.13 |
|
| 0.21 | 3.10 | 1.23 | 0.0 | 164 | 1.03 |
|
| 16.78 | 10.98 | 3.24 | 3.07 | 1433 | 9.03 |
|
| 0.85 | 0.25 | 9.31 | 0.0 | 383 | 2.41 |
|
| 22.90 | 21.56 | 26.44 | 17.38 | 3497 | 22.03 |
|
| 0.40 | 0.0 | 0.25 | 0.0 | 28 | 0.18 |
|
| 4.01 | 6.12 | 5.76 | 11.94 | 1087 | 6.85 |
|
| 0.0 | 0.11 | 0.0 | 0.10 | 8 | 0.05 |
|
| 17.39 | 12.42 | 14.95 | 14.67 | 2390 | 15.05 |
|
| 0.0 | 0.51 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 18 | 0.11 |
|
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 7.05 | 278 | 1.75 |
| Other & unknown | 11.50 | 22.40 | 17.86 | 10.39 | 2396 | 15.09 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The effect of region and treatments on tree roots and mycorrhizae with means and standard errors reported for each treatment.
| Variable |
| Glaciated | Unglaciated | ||||||||
| Region | Trt | Region x Trt | Control | Elevated pH | Elevated P | Elevated pH+P | Control | Elevated pH | Elevated P | Elevated pH+P | |
| Woody roots(mg cm−3) | 0.89 | 0.52 | 0.89 | 3.80 (0.14) | 3.39(0.16) | 3.14(0.15) | 3.44(0.21) | 3.26(0.17) | 3.42(0.15) | 3.00(0.10) | 3.94(0.20) |
| AM root biomass(mg dry root cm−3) | 0.82 | 0.12 | 0.95 | 0.18 (0.01) | 0.28 (0.03) | 0.40(0.04) | 0.23(0.02) | 0.18(0.02) | 0.26(0.03) | 0.34(0.02) | 0.24(0.02) |
| AM colonization(gene copies mg−1 dry root) | 0.77 | 0.06 | 0.66 | 1.77E5(1.98E4) | 1.32E5(1.82E4) | 8.03E4**(9.75E3) | 7.32E4*(6.56E3) | 1.54E5(2.47E4) | 8.19E4(5.13E3) | 4.73E4*(3.47E3) | 9.10E5(7.78E3) |
| Total AM biomass (genecopies cm−3) | 0.89 | 0.84 | 0.41 | 2.57E5 (2.45E4) | 1.53E5(1.38E4) | 1.97E5 (3.29E4) | 1.49E5 (1.89E4) | 1.50E5 (1.64E4) | 1.29E5 (7.25E3) | 1.63E5 (1.39E4) | 1.74E5 (1.14E4) |
| EcM abundance(root tips cm−3) | 0.02 | 0.50 | 0.98 | 0.22(0.03) | 0.12(0.02) | 0.12(0.01) | 0.12(0.01) | 0.63(0.04) | 0.5(0.04) | 0.51(0.06) | 0.57(0.04) |
| EcM richness(OTUs plot−1) | 0.10 | 0.88 | 0.74 | 3.11(0.24) | 3.22(0.32) | 3.00(0.26) | 3.33(0.10) | 5.78(0.15) | 6.56(0.31) | 5.22(0.21) | 5.56(0.27) |
P-values for the effect of region and treatments from the LME model with forest blocks as the random effect (n = 9). Asterisks denote a significant difference, in comparison to controls, at P<0.05 (**) and P<0.10 (*).
Total AM biomass calculated by multiplying AM root biomass by AM colonization.
Figure 2Rarefaction curves showing the expected number of species (97% OTUs) as a function of the number of EcM root tips from each treatment.
Although the control appears to have lower diversity than the treatments, this visual difference is not statistically significant (95% confidence intervals not shown to improve figure clarity).
Root and mycorrhizal response to soil pH and P pools, shown as Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Coefficients.
| pH | Resin P | Bicarb P | Hydroxide P | |
| Woody roots | 0.06 | −0.23** | 0.03 | −0.04 |
| AM root biomass | 0.13 | 0.31** | −0.01 | 0.12 |
| AM colonization | −0.03 | −0.21* | 0.05 | 0.02 |
| AM TRF_142 | −0.27** | 0.12 | 0.04 | −0.11 |
| AM TRF_528 | 0.15 | −0.13 | 0.14 | 0.26** |
| EcM abundance | −0.01 | −0.11 | −0.34** | −0.59** |
| EcM richness | 0.08 | −0.16 | −0.31** | −0.53** |
| % Ascomycota EcM | 0.23** | −0.12 | −0.03 | 0.05 |
| % Basidiomycota EcM | −0.18 | 0.18 | −0.08 | −0.27** |
Asterisks denote significance at P<0.05 (**) and P<0.10 (*).
Units as defined in Tables 1 and 3.
Relative abundance of AM TRF peaks.
Relative percent of Ascomycota and Basidiomycota EcM tips per plot.