| Literature DB >> 30497452 |
Ana Foronda1, Bodil K Ehlers2, Concepción L Alados3, Yolanda Pueyo3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The gypsovag shrub Cistus clusii is locally dominant in semi-arid gypsum plant communities of North-Eastern Spain. This species commonly grows in species-poor patches even though it has nurse potential, suggesting interference on neighbouring species. Other Cistus species exert a chemically mediated interference on plant communities, suggesting that it might be a common phenomenon in this genus. This study aimed investigating whether C. clusii exerts chemically mediated interference on neighbouring species in gypsum plant communities. We tested in a greenhouse whether aqueous extracts from C. clusii leaves (L), roots (R) and a mixture of both (RL) affected germination, seedling survival, and growth of nine native species of gypsum communities, including C. clusii itself. We further assessed in the field richness and abundance of plants under the canopy of C. clusii compared to Gypsophila struthium (shrub with a similar architecture having a nurse role) and in open patches. Finally, we specifically assessed in the field the influence of C. clusii on the presence of the species tested in the greenhouse experiment.Entities:
Keywords: Aqueous extracts; Germination; Interference; Nurse plant; Richness; Survival
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30497452 PMCID: PMC6267893 DOI: 10.1186/s12898-018-0204-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Ecol ISSN: 1472-6785 Impact factor: 2.964
Fig. 1Kaplan-Meier curves representing seed germination rate over time (weeks from the experiment start) under each extract treatment: C (control), L (leaf extracts), R (root extracts) and RL (root and leaf extracts mixture) for each test species separately. Different letters represent statistically significant differences between extract treatments after Tukey’s post hoc tests (P < 0.05)
Fig. 2Kaplan-Meier curves representing seedling survival rate over time (weeks since germination) under each extract treatment: C (control), L (leaf extracts), R (root extracts) and RL (root and leaf extracts mixture) for each test species separately. Different letters represent statistically significant differences between extract treatments after Tukey’s post hoc tests (P < 0.05)
Fig. 3Mean richness and abundance of annuals, perennial seedlings and perennial adults among microsites: in open patches, under the canopy of C. clusii and under the canopy of G. struthium. Microsite effect was significant in GLMs in all cases (P < 0.001). Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between microsites after Tukey’s post hoc tests (P < 0.05)
Summary of the pairwise comparisons of the G-test, indicating significant differences (P < 0.05) between observed frequencies (f) and expected frequencies (fe) of the nine test species at each microsite
| f (fe)Op | f (fe)Cc | G |
| f (fe)Op | f (fe)Gs | G |
| f (fe)Cc | f (fe)Gs | G |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seedlings | ||||||||||||
| | 8 (11) | 6 (3) | 2.51 | 0.057 | 8 (14) | 14 (8) | 5.83 |
| 6 (7) | 14 (13) | 0.11 | 0.372 |
| | 2 (21) | 26 (7) | 61.71 |
| 2 (29) | 45 (18) | 72.14 |
| 26 (24) | 45 (47) | 0.33 | 0.284 |
| | 6 (10) | 7 (3) | 74.98 |
| 6 (25) | 35 (16) | 202.94 |
| 7 (14) | 35 (28) | 147.02 |
|
| | 43 (76) | 56 (23) | 49.27 |
| 43 (90) | 103 (56) | 62.88 |
| 56 (53) | 103 (106) | 0.23 | 0.314 |
| | 18 (24) | 14 (8) | 6.25 |
| 18 (27) | 25 (16) | 7.02 |
| 14 (13) | 25 (26) | 0.11 | 0.371 |
| | 6 (7) | 3 (2) | 0.43 | 0.255 | 6 (33) | 48 (21) | 60.63 |
| 3 (17) | 48 (34) | 22.79 |
|
| | 21 (34) | 23 (10) | 16.79 |
| 21 (32) | 30 (19) | 8.90 |
| 23 (18) | 30 (35) | 2.28 | 0.065 |
| | 5 (6) | 3 (2) | 0.77 | 0.190 | 5 (6) | 5 (4) | 0.58 | 0.223 | 3 (3) | 5 (5) | 0.06 | 0.404 |
|
| 21 (50) | 44 (15) | 56.52 |
| 21 (46) | 54 (29) | 35.34 |
| 44 (33) | 54 (65) | 5.56 |
|
| Adults | ||||||||||||
| | 0 (−) | 0 (−) | – | – | 0 (–) | 0 (–) | – | – | 0 (–) | 0 (–) | – | – |
| | 5 (8) | 5 (2) | 3.26 |
| 5 (7) | 6 (4) | 1.21 | 0.135 | 5 (4) | 6 (7) | 0.69 | 0.204 |
| | 3 (6) | 5 (2) | 5.46 |
| 3 (15) | 21 (9) | 25.28 |
| 5 (9) | 21 (17) | 2.58 | 0.054 |
| | 12 (12) | 4 (4) | 0.02 | 0.449 | 12 (38) | 49 (23) | 45.50 |
| 4 (18) | 49 (35) | 20.25 |
|
| | 3 (3) | 1 (1) | 0.00 | 0.474 | 3 (2) | 1 (2) | 0.31 | 0.289 | 1 (1) | 1 (1) | 0.23 | 0.314 |
| | 2 (2) | 0 (0) | 1.08 | 0.150 | 2 (6) | 8 (4) | 7.34 |
| 0 (3) | 8 (5) | 6.50 |
|
| | 0 (−) | 0 (−) | – | – | 0 (2) | 3 (1) | 5.78 |
| 0 (1) | 3 (2) | 2.44 | 0.059 |
| | 0 (−) | 0 (−) | – | – | 0 (6) | 10 (4) | 19.28 |
| 0 (3) | 10 (7) | 8.13 |
|
| | 7 (6) | 1 (2) | 0.63 | 0.214 | 7 (11) | 11 (7) | 3.87 |
| 1 (4) | 11 (8) | 4.25 |
|
Op open patches, Cc under the canopy of C. clusii, Gs under the canopy of G. struthium
Comparison of the potential effects exerted by C. clusii under experimental and field conditions
| Experimental conditions | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Negative effect | No effect | Positive effect | |
| Field conditions | |||
| Negative effect | Chemical interference: | Other sources of interference (i.e., competition for resources), and phytochemicals accumulation and/or transformation in soils: | Other sources of interference (i.e., competition for resources), and phytochemicals accumulation and/or transformation in soils: |
| No effect | Neutral interaction outcome (facilitation + chemical interference): | – | |
| Positive effect | Limited seed dispersal: | – | – |