Literature DB >> 32686833

Soil microbes alter seedling performance and biotic interactions under plant competition and contrasting light conditions.

Nianxun Xi1, Juliette M G Bloor2, Chengjin Chu1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Growing evidence suggests that the net effect of soil microbes on plants depends on both abiotic and biotic conditions, but the context-dependency of soil feedback effects remains poorly understood. Here we test for interactions between the presence of conspecific soil microbes, plant competition and light availability on tree seedling performance.
METHODS: Seedlings of two congeneric tropical tree species, Bauhinia brachycarpa and Bauhinia variegata, were grown in either sterilized soil or soil conditioned by conspecific soil microorganisms in a two-phase greenhouse feedback experiment. We examined the interactive effects of soil treatment (live, sterilized), light availability (low, high) and plant competition (no competition, intraspecific and interspecific competition) on tree seedling biomass. We also investigated the linkages between the outcomes of soil feedback effects and soil microbial community structure. KEY
RESULTS: The outcomes of soil feedback effects on seedling biomass varied depending on both competition treatment and light availability. Under low light conditions, soil feedback effects were neutral irrespective of competition treatment and plant species. Soil feedback effects were negative in high light for seedlings with interspecific competition, but positive for seedlings growing alone or with intraspecific competition. Soil feedback effects for seedlings were driven by variation in the Gram-positive:Gram-negative bacteria ratio. Light and conspecific soil microbes had interactive effects on the competitive environment experienced by tree species; in low light the presence of conspecific soil microbes decreased plant competition intensity, whereas in high light both the intensity and the importance of competition increased for seedlings in the presence of soil microbes, irrespective of plant species.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings underline the importance of light and plant competition for the outcomes of soil feedback effects on young tree seedlings, and suggest that reduced light availability may reduce the influence of conspecific soil microbes on plant-plant interactions.
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Light intensity; conspecific soil microbes; plant competition; plant–soil feedbacks; seedling biomass

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32686833      PMCID: PMC7596364          DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcaa134

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Bot        ISSN: 0305-7364            Impact factor:   4.357


  34 in total

1.  Positive interactions in communities.

Authors:  M D Bertness; R Callaway
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2003-11-07       Impact factor: 17.712

2.  Toward more robust plant-soil feedback research: reply.

Authors:  Matthew J Rinella; Kurt O Reinhart
Journal:  Ecology       Date:  2019-07-24       Impact factor: 5.499

3.  SGH: stress or strain gradient hypothesis? Insights from an elevation gradient on the roof of the world.

Authors:  Pierre Liancourt; Yoann Le Bagousse-Pinguet; Christian Rixen; Jiri Dolezal
Journal:  Ann Bot       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 4.357

4.  Legacy effects of drought on plant-soil feedbacks and plant-plant interactions.

Authors:  Aurore Kaisermann; Franciska T de Vries; Robert I Griffiths; Richard D Bardgett
Journal:  New Phytol       Date:  2017-06-16       Impact factor: 10.151

5.  Life history traits influence the strength of distance- and density-dependence at different life stages of two Amazonian palms.

Authors:  Juanita Choo; Cecilia Carasco; Patricia Alvarez-Loayza; Beryl B Simpson; Evan P Economo
Journal:  Ann Bot       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 4.357

Review 6.  Mechanisms of plant-soil feedback: interactions among biotic and abiotic drivers.

Authors:  Jonathan A Bennett; John Klironomos
Journal:  New Phytol       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 10.151

7.  Tree range expansion may be enhanced by escape from negative plant-soil feedbacks.

Authors:  Sarah McCarthy-Neumann; Inés Ibáñez
Journal:  Ecology       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 5.499

8.  Intraspecific genetic diversity modulates plant-soil feedback and nutrient cycling.

Authors:  Marina Semchenko; Sirgi Saar; Anu Lepik
Journal:  New Phytol       Date:  2017-06-13       Impact factor: 10.151

9.  Isolation and Identification of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria from Cucumber Rhizosphere and Their Effect on Plant Growth Promotion and Disease Suppression.

Authors:  Shaikhul Islam; Abdul M Akanda; Ananya Prova; Md T Islam; Md M Hossain
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2016-02-02       Impact factor: 5.640

10.  Stronger warming effects on microbial abundances in colder regions.

Authors:  Ji Chen; Yiqi Luo; Jianyang Xia; Lifen Jiang; Xuhui Zhou; Meng Lu; Junyi Liang; Zheng Shi; Shelby Shelton; Junji Cao
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-12-10       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  3 in total

1.  The role of plant-soil feedback in long-term species coexistence cannot be predicted from its effects on plant performance.

Authors:  Tomáš Dostálek; Jana Knappová; Zuzana Münzbergová
Journal:  Ann Bot       Date:  2022-09-26       Impact factor: 5.040

2.  Drought soil legacy alters drivers of plant diversity-productivity relationships in oldfield systems.

Authors:  Nianxun Xi; Dongxia Chen; Michael Bahn; Hangyu Wu; Chengjin Chu; Marc W Cadotte; Juliette M G Bloor
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 14.136

3.  Association analyses of host genetics, root-colonizing microbes, and plant phenotypes under different nitrogen conditions in maize.

Authors:  Michael A Meier; Gen Xu; Martha G Lopez-Guerrero; Guangyong Li; Christine Smith; Brandi Sigmon; Joshua R Herr; James R Alfano; Yufeng Ge; James C Schnable; Jinliang Yang
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2022-07-27       Impact factor: 8.713

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.