| Literature DB >> 26894756 |
Ewa Gucwa-Przepióra1, Damian Chmura2, Kamila Sokołowska3.
Abstract
Interactions between invasive plants and root endophytes may contribute to the exploration of plant invasion causes. Twenty plant species of alien origin differing in invasiveness were studied in terms of status and typical structures of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and dark septate endophytes (DSE) in urban habitats in Silesia Upland (southern Poland). We observed that 75 % of investigated plant species were mycorrhizal. The arbuscular mycorrhiza (AM) of most plant species was of the Arum morphology. The nearly 100 % mycorrhizal frequency, high intensity of AM colonization within root cortex and the presence of arbuscules in all mycorrhizal plant species indicate that the investigated species are able to establish AM associations in the secondary range and urban habitats. DSE were present in all mycorrhizal and non-mycorrhizal species. The frequency of DSE was significantly lower in non-mycorrhizal group of plants, however, sclerotia of DSE were found mainly in the roots of non-mycorrhizal plant species. The group of species native to North America including three Solidago congeners have the highest values of all AM mycorrhization and DSE indices. Moreover, we observed that most mycorrhizal invasive species belonged to the family Asteraceae. In turn, representatives of Poaceae had the lowest values of AM mycorrhization. Nevertheless, quite high values of DSE frequency were also encountered in roots of Poaceae species. The high invasiveness of the representatives of the Asteraceae family from North America support theory that both taxonomic pattern, and the fact of root endophytes colonization contribute to invasion success. While, the taxa of Reynoutria also represent successful invaders but they are of Asiatic origin, non-mycorrhizal and weakly colonized by DSE fungi.Entities:
Keywords: Biological invasion; Goldenrod; Knotweed; Neophytes; Plant-microbial interactions; Root endophytes; Species invasiveness
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26894756 PMCID: PMC4909803 DOI: 10.1007/s10265-016-0802-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Plant Res ISSN: 0918-9440 Impact factor: 2.629
The list of species with their invasion characteristics on the country and the regional scale
| Family | Plant species | Invasion status | Geographical—historical status | Range | Population size | Tendency in spread | Invasiveness |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Silesian Upland) | |||||||
|
|
| Transformer | Neophyte | 3 | 4 | 4 | 15 |
|
| Transformer | Neophyte | 4 | 3 | 2 | 10 | |
|
| Weed | Neophyte | 3 | 3 | 2 | 13 | |
|
| Not-harmful | Neophyte | 5 | 3 | 2 | 10 | |
|
| Weed | Neophyte | 3 | 5 | 4 | 17 | |
|
| Weed | Neophyte | 4 | 1 | 1 | 11 | |
|
| Transformer | Neophyte | 4 | 4 | 3 | 12 | |
|
| Transformer | Neophyte | 4 | 3 | 2 | 10 | |
|
| Non-invasive | Neophyte | 5 | 3 | 2 | 10 | |
|
| Weed | Archaeophyte | 4 | 5 | 3 | 16 | |
|
|
| Non-invasive | Neophyte | 4 | 5 | 2 | 15 |
|
| Non-invasive | Neophyte | 4 | 5 | 3 | 17 | |
|
|
| Transformer, post-invasive | Neophyte | 4 | 5 | 3 | 18 |
|
| Transformer | Neophyte | 3 | 5 | 4 | 16 | |
|
|
| Transformer, post-invasive | Neophyte | 5 | 2 | 0 | 6 |
|
|
| Weed | Archaeophyte | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
|
| Not-harmful | Neophyte | 4 | 3 | 2 | 8 | |
|
|
| Transformer, post-invasive | Neophyte | 3 | 5 | 4 | 21 |
|
| Transformer, post-invasive | Neophyte | 4 | 5 | 4 | 21 | |
|
| Transformer, | Neophyte | 3 | 5 | 2 | 19 |
Alien plant species AM status and type; AM and DSE structures of investigated species
| AM literature statusa | AM | AM structuresb | DSE | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H&H | W&Q | S | EGP | Type | A | V | C | Hyphae sclerotia | |
|
| + | + | + | + | Arum | + | + | − | + − |
|
| nd | + | + | + | Paris | + | + | + | + − |
|
| nd | + | + | + | Arum | + | + | − | + + |
|
| + | + | + | + | Intermediate | + | + | + | + + |
|
| + | + | + | + | Arum | + | + | − | + − |
|
| + | + | + | + | Arum | + | + | − | + − |
|
| nd | + | + | + | Arum | + | + | − | + − |
|
| nd | + | + | + | Arum | + | + | − | + − |
|
| nd | + | nd | + | Arum | + | + | − | + − |
|
| + | + | nd | + | Arum | + | + | − | + + |
|
| − | nd | nd | − | NM | − | − | − | + + |
|
| − | ± | nd | − | NM | − | − | − | + − |
|
| + | ± | + | + | Arum | + | − | − | + − |
|
| + | ± | + | + | Arum | + | − | − | + − |
|
| nd | nd | + | + | Arum | + | + | − | + − |
|
| + | + | nd | + | Arum | + | − | − | + − |
|
| nd | nd | nd | + | Arum | + | + | − | + − |
|
| nd | nd | − | − | NM | − | − | − | + + |
|
| − | nd | − | − | NM | − | − | − | + + |
|
| − | nd | − | − | NM | − | − | − | + + |
a Plus AM present, minus lack of AM, nd no data, H&H Harley and Harley 1987, W&Q Wang and Qiu 2006, S Štajerová et al. 2009, EGP own studies
b A arbuscules, V vesicles, C coils, plus present, minus absent
AM and DSE colonization parameters of studied alien plant species
| F % | M % | m % | A % | a % | FDSE % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 100.0 ± 0.0 | 48.5 ± 4.1 | 48.5 ± 4.1 | 26.0 ± 4.1 | 53.6 ± 6.4 | 50.00 ± 2.72 |
|
| 86.3 ± 14.2 | 2.91 ± 1.6 | 3.0 ± 1.5 | 0.8 ± 1.1 | 21.0 ± 20.7 | 77.08 ± 2.63 |
|
| 100.0 ± 0.0 | 15.3 ± 3.8 | 15.3 ± 3.8 | 11.4 ± 1.3 | 77.5 ± 12.7 | 40.00 ± 2.72 |
|
| 100.0 ± 0.0 | 42.5 ± 2.7 | 42.5 ± 2.7 | 21.3 ± 1.4 | 50.0 ± 0.9 | 26.66 ± 7.20 |
|
| 100.0 ± 0.0 | 12.5 ± 3.6 | 12.5 ± 3.6 | 4.2 ± 1.3 | 33.5 ± 0.6 | 16.25 ± 7.25 |
|
| 100.0 ± 0.0 | 6.5 ± 2.6 | 6.5 ± 2.6 | 0.8 ± 0.7 | 13.2 ± 10.7 | 16.66 ± 2.72 |
|
| 100.0 ± 0.0 | 53.4 ± 7.7 | 53.4 ± 7.7 | 47.9 ± 11.4 | 88.6 ± 9.3 | 19.58 ± 2.85 |
|
| 100.0 ± 0.0 | 29.7 ± 5.0 | 29.7 ± 5.0 | 12.6 ± 1.4 | 43.0 ± 5.7 | 17.07 ± 4.78 |
|
| 100.0 ± 0.0 | 43.6 ± 3.7 | 43.6 ± 3.7 | 25.3 ± 2.8 | 58.6 ± 8.8 | 44.16 ± 3.19 |
|
| 100.0 ± 0.0 | 31.7 ± 11.4 | 31.7 ± 11.4 | 16.0 ± 7.6 | 48.4 ± 6.7 | 16.50 ± 0.33 |
|
| 100.0 ± 0.0 | 24.3 ± 13.3 | 24.3 ± 13.3 | 10.1 ± 8.1 | 33.7 ± 16.9 | 14.25 ± 3.28 |
|
| 100.0 ± 0.0 | 62.2 ± 4.6 | 62.2 ± 4.6 | 28.8 ± 1.8 | 46.4 ± 0.8 | 16.29 ± 5.85 |
|
| 100.0 ± 0.0 | 51.5 ± 7.4 | 51.5 ± 7.4 | 24.9 ± 7.4 | 47.2 ± 8.5 | 12.08 ± 1.59 |
|
| 100.0 ± 0.0 | 44.5 ± 20.5 | 44.5 ± 20.5 | 21.2 ± 11.4 | 45.2 ± 6.8 | 19.15 ± 3.19 |
|
| 100.0 ± 0.0 | 19.3 ± 10.2 | 19.3 ± 10.2 | 11.0 ± 8.3 | 53.0 ± 11.5 | 12.91 ± 2.87 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 26.67 ± 7.20 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16.67 ± 2.72 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19.15 ± 3.19 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12.87 ± 2.87 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10.0 ± 0.0 |
Values are mean ± SD
F % mycorrhizal frequency, M % relative mycorrhizal root length, m % intensity of colonization within individual mycorrhizal root, A % arbuscule richness in the whole root system, a % arbuscule richness in root fragments where the arbuscules were present, FDSE % DSE frequency
Fig. 1Cluster analysis of species on the basis of mean values of AM and DSE colonization indexes. a Non-mycorrhizal species. b Aster novi-belgii group. c Galinsoga ciliata group
Comparison of DSE frequency (FDSE %), the different letters (a, b, c) near values demonstrate significant differences after Kruskal–Wallis test (p < 0.001) followed by Conover test, among all groups of species and comparison of chosen AM colonization indices between two mycorrhizal groups (Wilcoxon sum rank test)
| Non-mycorrhizal species |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| F % | – | NS 100.0 ± 0.0 | 96.6 ± 9.0 |
| m, M % | – | 45.2 ± 15.1** | 16.2 ± 13.0 |
| A % | – | 25.9 ± 11.4** | 7.0 ± 7.3 |
| a % | – | 58.4 ± 16.8*** | 33.4 ± 18.4 |
| FDSE % | 17.1 ± 6.8c | 35.7 ± 13.3a | 31.1 ± 27.2b |
F %–mycorrhizal frequency, M % relative mycorrhizal root length, m % intensity of colonization within individual mycorrhizal root, A % arbuscule richness in the whole root system, a % arbuscule richness in root fragments where the arbuscules were present, FDSE % DSE frequency, NS not statistically significant
** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
Fig. 2Comparison of frequency of sclerotia (S) and hyphae (H) of DSE among distinguished groups of plants. a Non-mycorrhizal species. b Aster novi-belgii group. c Galinsoga ciliata group
The results of Monte Carlo test of Redundancy Analyses (RDA) based on AM and DSE colonization, functional analysis and selected explanatory variable and the community-level weighted means of trait values (CWM) among three groups of plants
| Explanatory variable | CWM | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-mycorrhizal species | Aster novi-belgii group | Galinsoga ciliata group | ||
| Plant traits | C/CSR competitive/intermediatestrategy** |
|
|
|
| CR competive ruderal** | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| R ruderal NS | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| R/CR ruderal/competitive ruderal*** | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| SR stress ruderal*** |
|
|
| |
| Height of plant* |
|
|
| |
| Long term persistent seed bank NS | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Short term persistent seed bank*** | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Transient seed bank*** | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| No seed bank*** |
|
|
| |
| Habitat associations | F moisture** | 6.2 | 5.25 | 5.43 |
| R soil reaction NS | 6.8 | 3.25 | 5.14 | |
| N trophy*** |
|
|
| |
| History of invasion in Poland | Range** |
|
|
|
| Population size | 3.8 | 4 | 3.43 | |
| Habitats invaded** |
|
|
| |
| Tendency in spread | 2.8 | 2.87 | 2 | |
| Residence time** |
|
|
| |
| Total invasiveness* |
|
|
| |
| Functional analysis | Functional richness | 12.39 | 6.19 | 7.02 |
| Functional evenness | 0.81 | 0.92 | 0.92 | |
| Functional divergence | 0.86 | 0.92 | 0.89 | |
| Functional dispersion | 3.94 | 4.16 | 4.09 | |
| Rao’s quadratic entropy | 16 | 17.5 | 17.14 | |
The values which differ significantly are bolded
NS non-significant
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001