| Literature DB >> 33796124 |
Lise Thouvenot1,2, Olga Ferlian1,2, Rémy Beugnon1,2, Tom Künne1,2, Alfred Lochner1,2, Madhav P Thakur1,2,3, Manfred Türke1,2, Nico Eisenhauer1,2.
Abstract
As ecosystem engineers, invasive class="Species">earthworms are one of the main drivers of plant community changes inEntities:
Keywords: biological invasion; biotic interactions; exotic earthworms; iDiv Ecotron; plant functional traits; plant–soil interactions
Year: 2021 PMID: 33796124 PMCID: PMC8007962 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2021.627573
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
FIGURE 1Effect of earthworms on herbaceous community cover (A), aboveground (B), and belowground (C) biomass (mean ± sd). The p-values of the earthworm treatment are based on linear models. Number of observations per treatment: 6.
FIGURE 2Effect of earthworm presence on species-specific cover (A) and biomass (B). Estimated marginal means and confidence intervals are shown in black (after being back-transformed), while data points are included in the background in gray. The conditional R2 as well as the p-values for each factor are based on linear mixed effect models. Number of observations per species and treatment: 6.
Summary of the models on the effects of earthworms on the different plant functional traits (χ2, p-value, and conditional or marginal R2 in the case of the number of ramets).
| Tree biomass | Species identity (S) | Earthworm (E) | Interaction S × E | ||||||
| χ2 | χ2 | χ2 | χ2 | ||||||
| Height | 0.54 | 0.46 | 0.69 | ||||||
| Shoot:root ratio | 0.07 | 0.79 | 0.001 | 0.97 | 1.86 | 0.60 | 0.39 | ||
| Specific leaf area | 2.44 | 0.12 | 0.00 | 0.98 | 0.69 | ||||
| Leaf dry matter content | 2.31 | 0.13 | 0.37 | 0.54 | 6.25 | 0.10 | 0.85 | ||
| Number of ramets | 0.03 | 0.86 | 1.62 | 0.20 | 0.90 | 0.83 | 0.89 | ||
| Proportion of flowering individuals | 0.04 | 0.84 | 0.25 | 0.61 | 3.11 | 0.38 | 0.65 | ||
| Leaf carbon content | 0.16 | 0.69 | 0.14 | 0.71 | 2.96 | 0.40 | 0.40 | ||
| Leaf nitrogen content | 3.51 | 0.06 | 0.33 | 0.57 | 4.07 | 0.25 | 0.64 | ||
| Leaf C:N ratio | 3.12 | 0.08 | 0.44 | 0.51 | 4.74 | 0.19 | 0.66 | ||
| Leaf δ15N signature | 0.83 | 0.36 | 0.32 | ||||||
| Root length | 1.36 | 0.24 | 1.19 | 0.28 | 0.65 | ||||
| Root diameter | 0.47 | 0.49 | 0.12 | 0.72 | 0.44 | 0.93 | 0.43 | ||
| Root dry matter content | 0.77 | 0.38 | 2.99 | 0.39 | 0.50 | ||||
| Root tissue density | 0.21 | 0.65 | 5.40 | 0.14 | 0.46 | ||||
| Specific root length | 3.34 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.92 | 0.16 | 0.98 | 0.47 | ||
FIGURE 3Effect of earthworm presence on plant height (A), shoot:root ratio (B), specific leaf area (C), and leaf dry matter content (D). Estimated marginal means and confidence intervals are shown in black (after being back-transformed), while data points were included in the background in gray. The conditional R2 as well as the p-values for each factor are based on linear mixed effect models. When the interaction between earthworm treatment and species identity were significant, post hoc test results are also presented: different letters show significant differences among species within each earthworm treatment. Number of observations per species and treatment: 60 for height; 30 for SLA and LDMC, and 12 for the shoot:root ratio.
FIGURE 4Effect of earthworm presence on reproductive traits: number of ramets (A) and proportion of flowering individuals (B). Estimated marginal means and confidence intervals are shown in black (after being back-transformed), while data points were included in the background in gray. The conditional R2 or marginal R2 in the case of the number of ramets as well as the p-values for each factor are based on linear mixed effect models. Number of observations per species and treatment: 6, except for the proportion of flowering individuals of B. ciliatus in the control treatment, where there are five observations.
FIGURE 5Effect of earthworm presence on leaf carbon (A) and nitrogen (B) content as well as their C/N ratio (C) and δ15N signature (D). Estimated marginal means and confidence intervals are shown in black (after being back-transformed), while data points were included in the background in gray. The conditional R2 as well as the p-values for each factor are based on linear mixed effect models. When the interaction between earthworm treatment and species identity were significant, post hoc test results are also presented: different letters show significant differences among species within each earthworm treatment. Number of observations per species and treatment: 18, except for S. leave in the control treatment, where there are 17 observations.
FIGURE 6Effect of earthworm presence on root length (A), root diameter (B), root dry matter content (C), root tissue density (D), and specific root length (E). Estimated marginal means and confidence intervals are shown in black (after being back-transformed), while data points were included in the background in gray. The conditional R2 as well as the p-values for each factor are based on linear mixed effect models. When the interaction between earthworm treatment and species identity were significant, post hoc test results are also presented: different letters show significant differences among species within each earthworm treatment. Number of observations per species and treatment: 12.