| Literature DB >> 31038750 |
Sofia I F Gomes1,2, Peter M van Bodegom1, Vincent S F T Merckx2,3, NadejdaA Soudzilovskaia1.
Abstract
Hundreds of nonphotosynthetic mycoheterotrophic plant species cheat the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis. Their patchy local occurrence suggests constraints by biotic and abiotic factors, among which the role of soil chemistry and nutrient status has not been investigated. Here, we examine the edaphic drivers predicting the local-scale distribution of mycoheterotrophic plants in two lowland rainforests in South America. We compared soil chemistry and nutrient status in plots where mycoheterotrophic plants were present with those without these plants. Soil pH, soil nitrate, and the interaction between soil potassium and nitrate concentrations were the best predictors for the occurrence of mycoheterotrophic plants in these tropical rainforests. Mycoheterotrophic plant occurrences decreased with a rise in each of these predictors. This indicates that these plants are associated with low-fertility patches. Such low-fertility conditions coincide with conditions that potentially favour a weak mutualism between plants and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi according to the trade balance model. Our study points out which soil properties favour the cheating of arbuscular mycorrhizal networks in tropical forests. The patchy occurrence of mycoheterotrophic plants suggests that local soil heterogeneity causes the stability of arbuscular mycorrhizal networks to vary at a very small scale.Entities:
Keywords: arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; cheating; mycoheterotrophy; nitrate; potassium; soil
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31038750 PMCID: PMC6771734 DOI: 10.1111/nph.15876
Source DB: PubMed Journal: New Phytol ISSN: 0028-646X Impact factor: 10.151
Figure 1Principal component (PC) analysis of the soil properties in the positive plots (triangles) and negative plots (circles) present in (a) the Amazon and (b) the coast. Length of the arrows represents the relative importance of individual properties in explaining the overall pattern.
Figure 2Box and whisker plots representing the variation of soil properties between the negative and positive plots in the Amazon (yellow) and the coast (blue). Positive values indicate higher availability of a soil property in the negative plots, while negative values indicate a higher availability in the positive plots.
Outcomes of the Generalised Linear Mixed Effect modelling aimed to explain the occurrence of mycoheterotrophic plants
| Model | Terms | Coefficient | SE |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Intercept | 1.038 | 0.710 | 1.463 | 0.144 |
| NO3 | −3.432 | 1.347 | −2.548 | 0.011 | |
| pH | −1.405 | 0.820 | −1.713 | 0.087 | |
| NO3 : K | −11.165 | 4.264 | −2.618 | 0.009 | |
| 2 | Intercept | −0.474 | 0.614 | −0.772 | 0.440 |
| Soil moisture content | 5.052 | 2.377 | 2.126 | 0.034 | |
| pH | −2.157 | 1.137 | −1.897 | 0.058 | |
| pH : OM | 4.538 | 2.226 | 2.038 | 0.042 |
Model 1 is the best model; 2 is the best alternative model (ΔBIC = 5.9).
Figure 3Relationships between (a) the actual concentration of NO 3 vs K when in positive plots, showing the nature of interaction between the two nutrients. When K is the lowest, NO 3 varies, and when NO 3 is available in the lowest concentrations, K varies; and (b) the number of mycoheterotrophic plants observed in the positive 4 × 4 m plots and the concentration of NO 3. The solid line represents the observed trend with the 95% confidence interval (grey area).
Outcomes of the Generalised Linear Mixed Effect modelling aimed to explain the density of mycoheterotrophic plants
| Model | Terms | Coefficient | SE |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Intercept | −0.538 | 1.240 | −0.434 | 0.665 |
| Soil moisture content | 2.440 | 0.974 | 2.505 | 0.012 | |
| pH | −1.377 | 0.417 | −3.306 | 0.001 | |
| NO3 : K | −2.634 | 1.131 | −2.330 | 0.020 | |
| 2 | Intercept | 0.674 | 0.69 | 0.996 | 0.334 |
| Soil moisture content | 3.023 | 0.746 | 4.050 | 5.12e−05 | |
| pH | −1.976 | 0.391 | −5.056 | 4.29e−07 | |
| pH : OM | 1.108 | 0.360 | 3.080 | 0.002 |
Models 1 and 2 are not significantly different (ΔBIC = 2.2).