Plant species differ in their ability to reduce allocation to non-beneficial arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi

被引:128
作者
Grman, Emily [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Michigan State Univ, WK Kellogg Biol Stn, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA
[2] Michigan State Univ, Dept Plant Biol, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF); C-3; grass; C-4; cheaters; mutualism-parasitism continuum; sanctions; HOST SANCTIONS; ATMOSPHERIC CO2; PHOSPHORUS; MUTUALISM; GROWTH; STABILITY; RESPONSES; EXPLOITATION; METAANALYSIS; COOPERATION;
D O I
10.1890/11-1358.1
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Theory suggests that cheaters threaten the persistence of mutualisms, but that sanctions to prevent cheating can stabilize mutualisms. In the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis, reports of parasitism suggest that reductions in plant carbon allocation are not universally effective. I asked whether plant species differences in mycorrhizal responsiveness would affect both their susceptibility to parasitism and their reduction in allocation to non-beneficial arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) in high-phosphorus soils. In a greenhouse experiment, I found that two C-3 grasses, Bromus inermis and Elymus repens, effectively suppressed root colonization and AMF hyphal abundance. Increases in soil phosphorus did not reduce the degree to which AMF increased plant biomass. In contrast, two C-4 grasses, Andropogon gerardii and Schizachyrium scoparium, more weakly reduced root colonization and failed to suppress AMF hyphal abundance. Consequently, they experienced strong declines in their response to AMF, and one species suffered parasitism. Thus, species differ in susceptibility to parasitism and their reduction in allocation to non-beneficial AMF. These differences may affect the distribution and abundance of plants and AMF, as well as the stability of the mutualism.
引用
收藏
页码:711 / 718
页数:8
相关论文
共 37 条
[1]   Preferential allocation to beneficial symbiont with spatial structure maintains mycorrhizal mutualism [J].
Bever, James D. ;
Richardson, Sarah C. ;
Lawrence, Brandy M. ;
Holmes, Jonathan ;
Watson, Maxine .
ECOLOGY LETTERS, 2009, 12 (01) :13-21
[2]   The exploitation of mutualisms [J].
Bronstein, JL .
ECOLOGY LETTERS, 2001, 4 (03) :277-287
[3]  
Crawley M. J., 2007, R BOOK, DOI DOI 10.1002/9780470515075
[4]   Can the failure to punish promote cheating in mutualism? [J].
Edwards, David P. ;
Ansell, Felicity A. ;
Woodcock, Paul ;
Fayle, Tom M. ;
Chey, V. K. ;
Hamer, Keith C. .
OIKOS, 2010, 119 (01) :45-52
[5]   Selection for protection in an ant-plant mutualism: host sanctions, host modularity and the principal-agent game [J].
Edwards, DP ;
Hassall, M ;
Sutherland, WJ ;
Yu, DW .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2006, 273 (1586) :595-602
[6]  
Egger KN, 2004, CAN J BOT, V82, P1110, DOI [10.1139/B04-056, 10.1139/b04-056]
[7]  
Foster BL, 1998, ECOLOGY, V79, P2593, DOI 10.1890/0012-9658(1998)079[2593:SRIASG]2.0.CO
[8]  
2
[9]   Establishment, competition and the distribution of native grasses among Michigan old-fields [J].
Foster, BL .
JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY, 1999, 87 (03) :476-489
[10]   Selective flower abortion maintains moth cooperation in a newly discovered pollination mutualism [J].
Goto, Ryutaro ;
Okamoto, Tomoko ;
Kiers, E. Toby ;
Kawakita, Atsushi ;
Kato, Makoto .
ECOLOGY LETTERS, 2010, 13 (03) :321-329