| Literature DB >> 26462113 |
Anaïs Gibert1, Danièle Magda2, Laurent Hazard2.
Abstract
Two main mechanisms are thought to affect the prevalence of endophyte-grass symbiosis in host populations: the mode of endophyte transmission, and the fitness differential between symbiotic and non-symbiotic plants. These mechanisms have mostly been studied in synthetic grass populations. If we are to improve our understanding of the ecological and evolutionary dynamics of such symbioses, we now need to determine the combinations of mechanisms actually operating in the wild, in populations shaped by evolutionary history. We used a demographic population modeling approach to identify the mechanisms operating in a natural stand of an intermediate population (i.e. 50% of plants symbiotic) of the native grass Festuca eskia. We recorded demographic data in the wild over a period of three years, with manipulation of the soil resources for half the population. We developed two stage-structured matrix population models. The first model concerned either symbiotic or non-symbiotic plants. The second model included both symbiotic and non-symbiotic plants and took endophyte transmission rates into account. According to our models, symbiotic had a significantly higher population growth rate than non-symbiotic plants, and endophyte prevalence was about 58%. Endophyte transmission rates were about 0.67 or 0.87, depending on the growth stage considered. In the presence of nutrient supplementation, population growth rates were still significantly higher for symbiotic than for non-symbiotic plants, but endophyte prevalence fell to 0%. At vertical transmission rates below 0.10-0.20, no symbiosis was observed. Our models showed that a positive benefit of the endophyte and vertical transmission rates of about 0.6 could lead to the coexistence of symbiotic and non-symbiotic F. eskia plants. The positive effect of the symbiont on host is not systematically associated with high transmission rates of the symbiont over short time scales, in particular following an environmental change.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26462113 PMCID: PMC4603686 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139919
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Diagram of the life cycle model for Festuca eskia populations including symbiotic and non-symbiotic plants.
The model can be broken down into three submodels, according to the endophytic status of the plants present in the population: AS, ANS and B. Globally, the model includes four symbiotic stages (Seedling S, Juvenile 1 S, Juvenile 2 S, Adult S), four non-symbiotic stages (Seedling NS, Juvenile 1 NS, Juvenile 2 NS and Adult NS), two probabilities for transitions between S and NS stages (Vertical transmissions: TS from seedling S to Juvenile 1 NS; TA from adult S to seed NS,), two fecundity arcs (F+ and F-), two survival probabilities (SA + and SA -) and eight growth transitions (GJ1 +, GJ1 -, GJ2 +, GJ2 -, GA1 +,GA1 -,GA2 +, GA2 -).
Parameterization of elements in projection matrice.
| Definition | Equation | |
|---|---|---|
| Matrix element | ||
| GJ1 +/- | Probability of a seedling surviving and reaching the juvenile stage | s1 |
| GA1 +/- | Probability of a year-one juvenile surviving and reaching the adult stage | e1.s2 |
| GJ2 +/- | Probability for a year-one juvenile surviving to the second year as a juvenile | (1-e1).s2 |
| GA2 +/- | Probability for a year-two juvenile surviving and reaching the adult stage | s2 |
| SA +/- | Probability of an adult surviving | 0.95 |
| F+/- | Mean number of seeds produced by a plant that germinate to generate seedlings | (f1.P).e0 |
| TA | Vertical transmission from adult to seed: probability of a seed produced by a symbiotic mother plant remaining infected | Σ(No. of symbiotic seed /No. of seed per symbiotic mother plant) / Σ mother plant |
| TS | Vertical transmission from seedling to juvenile: probability of an infected seedling remaining infected | Σ(No. of symbiotic juvenile /No. of symbiotic seedling) / Σ mother plant |
| Parameter | ||
| s1 | Probability of a seedling surviving | Σ(No. of seedlings alive /No. of seedlings emerged) / Σ mother plant |
| e1 | Probability of a juvenile reaching 30 tillers | Σ(No. of juvenile1 of at least 30 tillers / No. of juvenile 1 sampled) / Σ mother plant |
| s2 | Probability of a juvenile surviving | Σ(No. Juvenile alive /No. of juvenile followed) / Σ mother plant |
| f1 | No. of seeds produced per flowering plant | Σ(No. of total seeds per plant) /(No. of flowering plant) |
| P | Probability of a plant flowering | Σ(No. of flowering plants) /(No. of total plants) |
| e0 | Probability of seedling emergence from the seed | Σ(No. of emerged seedlings /No. of seeds sown) / Σ mother plant |
Fig 2Size distribution of Festuca eskia plants at the Guzet site (France), as a function of the presence (red line) or absence (green line) of the fungal endophyte Epichloe festucae.
CI±95% is in turquoise.
Mean and results of deviance analysis for the parameters of the models of Festuca eskia population dynamics.
The values shown are means ±SEM.
| Means |
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edaphic resource level | Control | F+ treatment | Endophytic status | Resource level | Interaction | ||
| Endophytic status | NS | S | NS | S | |||
| Parameter | |||||||
| s1 | 0.79 ±0.036 | 0.85 ±0.028 | 0.95 ±0.012 | 0.97 ±0.009 |
|
| 0.882 |
| s2 | 0.63 ±0.095 | 0.69 ±0.078 | 0.91 ±0.042 | 0.99 ±0.007 | 0.155 |
| 0.169 |
| e1 | 0.05 ±0.019 | 0.08 ±0.009 | 0.11 ±0.011 | 0.09 ±0.018 | 0.473 | 0.051 | 0.205 |
| P | 0.59 ±0.058 | 0.66 ±0.054 | 0.72 ±0.091 | 0.80 ±0.082 | 0.521 | 0.319 | 0.975 |
| f1 | 123 ±38 | 125 ±40 | 77 ±52 | 184 ±70 | 0.336 | 0.831 | 0.299 |
| e0 | 0.31 ±0.047 | 0.48 ±0.020 | 0.45 ±0.040 | 0.42 ±0.023 |
| 0.291 |
|
| TA | — | 0.63 ±0.030 | — | 0.52 ±0.021 | — | 0.331 | — |
a See Table 1 for parameter definitions; P-values<0.05 are shown in bold.
S: symbiotic; NS: non-symbiotic.
Summary of endophyte effect, transmission rates and prevalence values in F.eskia under two resource levels.
Growth rates were obtained from the model A, the overall endophyte transmission were measured in the field, the endophyte prevalence were returned by the model B and the threshold in transmission below which the symbiont frequency in the population was zero were obtained by simulations. TA transmission rate from adult to seed, TS transmission rate from seedling to juvenile.
| Population growth rates (λ) | Overall Endophyte transmission | Endophyte prevalence (%) | Thershold below which the symbiont frequency in the population was zero | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NS plants | S plants | TA | TS | |||
| Control condition | 1.97 ±0.21 | 2.34 ±0.26 | 0.75 ±0.01 | 58% | 0.1 | 0.2 |
| F+treatment | 2.45 ±0.17 | 3.17 ±0.23 | 0.67 ±0.01 | 0% | 0.6 | 0.9 |
Transition, elasticity matrices, reproductive values and stable distribution across stages of Festuca eskia as a function of endophyte status and edaphic resource level.
The transition matrices for each set of conditions contain the life-cycle stage and the probabilities. The values shown are means ± SEM. F+treatment: addition of fertilizer. Λ: asymptotic population growth rate calculated by Monte Carlo simulation.
| Transition matrix | Elasticity matrix | Reproductive value | Stable distribution | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seedling | Juvenile1 | Juvenile2 | Adult | Seedling | Juvenile1 | Juvenile2 | Adult | |||
| Non-Symbiotic, control condition (λ = 1.97 ±0.21) | ||||||||||
| Seedling | _ | _ | _ | (73 ±27) x (0.31 ±0.216) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.21 | 3 | 62 |
| Juvenile1 | 0.79 ±0.166 | _ | _ | _ | 0.21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 25 |
| Juvenile2 | _ | 0.60 ±0.026 | _ | _ | 0 | 0.18 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 8 |
| Adult | _ | 0.032 ±0.049 | 0.63 ±0.437 | 0.95 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.18 | 0.19 | 68 | 5 |
| Symbiotic, control condition (λ = 2.34 ±0.26) | ||||||||||
| Seedling | _ | _ | _ | (83 ±26) x (0.48 ±0.089) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.23 | 3 | 66 |
| Juvenile1 | 0.85 ±0.16 | _ | _ | _ | 0.23 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 24 |
| Juvenile2 | _ | 0.58 ±0.039 | _ | _ | 0 | 0.17 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 6 |
| Adult | _ | 0.055 ±0.045 | 0.69 ±0.355 | 0.95 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.17 | 0.15 | 70 | 4 |
| Non-Symbiotic, F+treatment (λ = 2.45 ±0.17) | ||||||||||
| Seedling | _ | _ | _ | (55 ±17) x (0.45 ±0.145) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.23 | 4 | 62 |
| Juvenile1 | 0.95 ±0.144 | _ | _ | _ | 0.23 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 24 |
| Juvenile2 | _ | 0.81 ±0.045 | _ | _ | 0 | 0.17 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 8 |
| Adult | _ | 0.09 ±0.044 | 0.90 ±0.166 | 0.95 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.18 | 0.14 | 63 | 6 |
| Symbiotic, F+treatment (λ = 3.17 ±0.23) | ||||||||||
| Seedling | _ | _ | _ | (149 ±28) x (0.42 ±0.1) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.24 | 3 | 69 |
| Juvenile1 | 0.97 ±0.031 | _ | _ | _ | 0.24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 21 |
| Juvenile2 | _ | 0.90 ±0.079 | _ | _ | 0 | 0.18 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 6 |
| Adult | _ | 0.087 ±0.077 | 0.99 ±0.033 | 0.95 | 0 | 0.06 | 0.18 | 0.1 | 68 | 4 |
Fig 3Contributions of matrix elements to the variability of λ for Festuca eskia populations, as a function of endophytic status and edaphic resource level.
Fig 4Endophyte prevalence (%) in host populations, as a function of edaphic resource level and variations in (a) vertical transmission rate from symbiotic adult to non-symbiotic seed (TA) with TS = 1, and (b) vertical transmission rate from symbiotic seedling to non-symbiotic juvenile 1 (TS) with TA = 1. Natural: black symbols; F-treatment: green symbols.
See Fig 1B for life cycle and Table 2 for the values of the parameters used in the model.