| Literature DB >> 33936153 |
Cristian Torres-Díaz1, Moisés A Valladares1, Ian S Acuña-Rodríguez2, Gabriel I Ballesteros3, Andrea Barrera2, Cristian Atala4, Marco A Molina-Montenegro2,5,6.
Abstract
Beneficial plant-associated microorganisms, such as fungal endophytes, are key partners that normally improve plant survival under different environmental stresses. It has been shown that microorganisms from extreme environments, like those associated with the roots of Antarctica plants, can be good partners to increase the performance of crop plants and to restore endangered native plants. Nothofagus alessandrii and N. glauca, are among the most endangered species of Chile, restricted to a narrow and/or limited distributional range associated mainly to the Maulino forest in Chile. Here we evaluated the effect of the inoculation with a fungal consortium of root endophytes isolated from the Antarctic host plant Colobanthus quitensis on the ecophysiological performance [photosynthesis, water use efficiency (WUE), and growth] of both endangered tree species. We also, tested how Antarctic root-fungal endophytes could affect the potential distribution of N. alessandrii through niche modeling. Additionally, we conducted a transplant experiment recording plant survival on 2 years in order to validate the model. Lastly, to evaluate if inoculation with Antarctic endophytes has negative impacts on native soil microorganisms, we compared the biodiversity of fungi and bacterial in the rhizospheric soil of transplanted individuals of N. alessandrii inoculated and non-inoculated with fungal endophytes. We found that inoculation with root-endophytes produced significant increases in N. alessandrii and N. glauca photosynthetic rates, water use efficiencies and cumulative growth. In N. alessandrii, seedling survival was significantly greater on inoculated plants compared with non-inoculated individuals. For this species, a spatial distribution modeling revealed that, inoculation with root-fungal endophytes could potentially increase the current distributional range by almost threefold. Inoculation with root-fungal endophytes, did not reduce native rhizospheric microbiome diversity. Our results suggest that the studied consortium of Antarctic root-fungal endophytes improve the ecophysiological performance as well as the survival of inoculated trees and can be used as a biotechnological tool for the restoration of endangered tree species.Entities:
Keywords: Antarctica; Nothofagus spp.; endangered tree species; functional symbiosis; fungal endophytes; hualo; restoration; ruil
Year: 2021 PMID: 33936153 PMCID: PMC8081837 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2021.663017
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
FIGURE 1Landscape of the Maulino forest during austral autumn. Photographed by Claudio C. Ramírez.
FIGURE 2Photosynthetic responses (A), water use efficiency (B), and relative growth (C) of N. alessandrii and N. glauca seedlings inoculated (E+, calypso boxes) and not-inoculated (E–, gray boxes) with Antarctic root-fungal endophytes at different times. Box-plots indicate means and bars ± SD. Significant differences (Tukey HSD tests; α = 0.05) are highlighted with different letters.
Repeated measures ANOVA’s results showing the effect of endophyte inoculation on the net photosynthetic rate (A max), water use efficiency (WUE) and cumulative growth in seedlings of two endangered Maulino forest trees: Nothofagus alessandrii and Nothofagus glauca.
| Inoculation | 1 | 259.52 | 259.52 | 468.19 | <0.0001 | ||
| Inoculation × Time | 4 | 83.67 | 20.92 | 37.74 | <0.0001 | ||
| Residuals | 70 | 38.8 | 0.55 | ||||
| Inoculation | 1 | 4.601 | 4.601 | 70.971 | <0.0001 | ||
| Inoculation × Time | 4 | 1.194 | 0.298 | 4.604 | 0.0023 | ||
| Residuals | 70 | 4.538 | 0.065 | ||||
| Inoculation | 1 | 15.36 | 15.36 | 40.523 | <0.0001 | ||
| Inoculation × Time | 4 | 9.107 | 2.277 | 6.006 | 0.0003 | ||
| Residuals | 70 | 26.533 | 0.379 | ||||
| Inoculation | 1 | 502.1 | 502.1 | 2742.8 | <0.0001 | ||
| Inoculation × Time | 4 | 208.2 | 52 | 284.3 | <0.0001 | ||
| Residuals | 120 | 22 | 0.2 | ||||
| Inoculation | 1 | 1.144 | 1.144 | 24.99 | <0.0001 | ||
| Inoculation × Time | 4 | 13.814 | 3.453 | 75.44 | <0.0001 | ||
| Residuals | 120 | 5.493 | 0.046 | ||||
| Inoculation | 1 | 28.84 | 28.842 | 283.42 | <0.0001 | ||
| Inoculation × Time | 4 | 18.15 | 4.538 | 44.59 | <0.0001 | ||
| Residuals | 120 | 12.21 | 0.102 |
FIGURE 3Spatial distribution projection for N. alessandrii without (E–) and with (E+) the Antarctic root-fungal endophytes. The E– scenario represents the current distribution of the species based on the localities with N. alessandrii reported by Santelices et al. (2012) and eight WorldClim bioclimatic variables related with precipitation and temperature. The functional effect of the root inoculation scenario E+ on the spatial distribution was modeled by reducing two (BIO12 and BIO19) out of the eight variables related to precipitation in 14.7%.
FIGURE 4Survival of N. alessandrii seedlings with (E+, calypso line) and without (E–, gray line) Antarctic root fungal endophytes, along 2 years after field transplants.
FIGURE 5Relative abundance represented in rhizospheric soil samples associated to Nothofagus alessandrii. E+: with endophytes; Control: forest soil; E–: seedlings without endophytes. (A) Bacterial Phyla. (B) Fungal Phyla and (C) Ectomycorrizae genera.
Summary of the results of community structure indexes comparisons among three experimental conditions (E+ = native soil inoculated with Antarctic endophytes, E– = native soil non-inoculated with Antarctic endophytes and Control = unmanipulated native soil) for Bacteria, Fungi and ECM (ectomycorrizae).
| Bacteria | Shannon (H) | 2 | – | – | – | 3.12 | 0.210 | 7.09 | 6.87 | 6.88 |
| Species richness (S) | 2 | – | – | – | 4.74 | 0.093 | 3963 | 3382 | 3542 | |
| Dominance (D) | 2 | – | – | – | 4.88 | 0.087 | 0.003 | 0.004 | 0.006 | |
| Evenness (E) | 2 | 0.001 | 0.37 | 0.692 | – | – | 0.307 | 0.304 | 0.279 | |
| ACE | 2 | – | – | – | 4.74 | 0.093 | 4030 | 3446 | 3608 | |
| Chao1 | 2 | – | – | – | 4.74 | 0.093 | 4057 | 3471 | 3642 | |
| Fungi | H—Shannon | 2 | 0.114 | 3.61 | 0.059 | – | – | 3.96 | 3.70 | 3.69 |
| S—Species richness | 2 | 8495 | 0.99 | 0.396 | – | – | 520 | 443 | 456 | |
| D—Dominance | 2 | 3.809 | 3.81 | 0.052 | – | – | 0.045 | 0.059 | 0.060 | |
| E—Evenness | 2 | 0.001 | 0.33 | 0.725 | – | – | 0.103 | 0.097 | 0.090 | |
| ACE | 2 | 8509 | 1.09 | 0.396 | – | – | 520 | 443 | 456 | |
| Chao1 | 2 | 8715 | 1.00 | 0.396 | – | – | 520 | 443 | 456 | |
| ECM | H—Shannon | 2 | 0.250 | 4.39 | 0.037 | – | – | 1.87a | 1.46b | 1.82a |
| S—Species richness | 2 | 10.87 | 0.25 | 0.708 | – | – | 29.8 | 27.0 | 27.6 | |
| D—Dominance | 2 | 0.018 | 3.16 | 0.078 | – | – | 0.241 | 0349 | 0.247 | |
| E—Evenness | 2 | – | – | – | 3.84 | 0.146 | 0.224 | 0.169 | 0.255 | |
| ACE | 2 | 10.87 | 0.25 | 0.708 | – | – | 29.8 | 27.0 | 27.6 | |
| Chao1 | 2 | 10.87 | 0.25 | 0.708 | – | – | 29.8 | 27.0 | 27.6 | |