Hiding in a crowd—does diversity facilitate persistence of a low-quality fungal partner in the mycorrhizal symbiosis?

Hart, Miranda M.; Forsythe, Jennifer; Oshowski, Brian; Bücking, Heike; Jansa, Jan; Kiers, E. Toby

doi:10.1007/s13199-012-0197-8

Cited by 73 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…papyrifera and B. pilosa seedlings that received an AM fungal treatment showed positive feedback in terms of biomass and nitrogen and phosphorous acquisition (Figure 1(a), 1(b), 1(c)), which was consistent with the results reported in many related studies showing that AM fungi change the growth and nutrient uptake of their host plants (Gustafson & Casper 2006;Hart et al 2013;Jansa et al 2008;Kiers et al 2011;Thonar et al 2011). Differences in the influence of an AM fungal association on the performance of plant traits for biomass and nitrogen and phosphorus acquisition depending on the plant species and the AM fungal composition have previously been explained as a method of avoiding competition between individuals (Jansa et al 2008;Kiers et al 2011).…”

Section: Effects Of Fungi Fungal Composition and Species On Plant Grsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Previous studies have shown that inoculating plants with multiple AM fungi was beneficial for the nutritional uptake of the host plant (Gustafson & Casper 2006;Thonar et al 2011), which was consistent with our results for the B. papyrifera seedlings that received the MI treatment (Figure 1(b), 1(c)). However, Edathil et al (1996) and Hart et al (2013) argued that inoculating plants with a single AM fungus can derive the biggest benefit. This idea is partly supported by our findings for B. pilosa seedlings, which did not derive greater benefits in terms of biomass or nutrient acquisition when inoculated with a mixed inoculum of several AM fungi compared with those inoculated with a single AM fungus (Figure 1).…”

Section: Effects Of Fungi Fungal Composition and Species On Plant Grmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Composition Affects the Growth and Nutrient Acquisition of Two Plants from a Karst Area

He¹,

Jiang²,

Wang³

et al. 2017

JSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Effects Of Fungi Fungal Composition and Species On Plant Grsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Effects Of Fungi Fungal Composition and Species On Plant Grmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Composition Affects the Growth and Nutrient Acquisition of Two Plants from a Karst Area

He¹,

Jiang²,

Wang³

et al. 2017

JSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Considering how a host interacts with different species throughout ontogeny (Palmer et al 2010), or how spatial heterogeneity alters the outcome of competition (Yu et al 2001), can help explain how diverse guilds persist. High species diversity might actually facilitate species coexistence, if mechanisms of choosing the highest-quality partner species are less effective in highly diverse communities (Hart et al 2012). Stable associations between high-rewards hosts and high-quality mutualists versus low-rewards hosts and low-defense mutualists, in one antacacia community suggest that competitive asymmetry might maintain stable coexistence of alternative strategies (Heil et al 2009).…”

Section: Box 2: the Community Ecology Of Partner Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining Mutualism Variation: A New Evolutionary Paradox?

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paradox of mutualism is typically framed as the persistence of interspecific cooperation, despite the potential advantages of cheating. Thus, mutualism research has tended to focus on stabilizing mechanisms that prevent the invasion of low-quality partners.These mechanisms alone cannot explain the persistence of variation for partner quality observed in nature, leaving a large gap in our understanding of how mutualisms evolve. Studying partner quality variation is necessary for applying genetically explicit models to predict evolution in natural populations, a necessary step for understanding the origins of mutualisms as well as their ongoing dynamics. An evolutionary genetic approach, which is focused on naturally occurring mutualist variation, can potentially synthesize the currently disconnected fields of mutualism evolution and coevolutionary genetics. We outline explanations for the maintenance of genetic variation for mutualism and suggest approaches necessary to address them. K E Y W O R D S :Coevolution, cooperation, partner choice, partner fidelity feedback, public goods, quantitative genetics, screening.The evolutionary paradox of interspecific mutualisms, as typically posed, refers to the apparent disagreement between theoretical predictions that (all else being equal) selection should favor cheaters, and empirical observations of generally positive interactions and long-term cooperation between species. Theoretical and empirical studies alike, motivated by this seeming paradox, have made much progress toward understanding the selective mechanisms that favor interspecific mutualism and thus explaining the long-term persistence of mutualisms despite the potential fitness advantages of cheating (Bshary and Grutter 2002;Kiers et al. 2003;Sachs et al. 2004;Heath and Tiffin 2009;Leigh 2010;Archetti et al. 2011b;Jander et al. 2012). Here we argue, however, that we are missing a fundamental aspect of mutualism evolution that would allow faster progress toward understanding the more general question of how mutualisms evolve, in the larger context of species interactions, as opposed to simply what selects for cooperative mutualist partners. We suggest that a critical question in mutualism evolution is what maintains genetic variation for partner quality in mutualisms?Answering this question will require researchers to apply evolutionary genetic methods to the study of genetic variation in mutualisms. Viewing mutualistic interactions through the lens of the maintenance of genetic variation, a classic framework shared by all of evolutionary biology, can (1) bridge the divide between the largely disconnected fields of coevolutionary genetics and mutualism evolution; and (2) provide a more predictive understanding of how mutualisms evolve. Given the importance of these interactions to natural and managed systems, including human health, a predictive understanding of mutualism evolution is an important goal. We first define what we mean by "genetic variation in mutualism," then describe why we believe that it i...

show abstract

“…The extent of root colonization by fungal endophytes depends on the carbon allocation by the host plant as well as the host, fungal and soil factors (Medina-Roldán et al 2008;Smith & Read 2008). Recent research on the control of plant-fungal mutualism indicates that the symbionts offering the best benefits in terms of nutrients or carbon are rewarded, and the control is bidirectional (Kiers et al 2011;Hart et al 2013). Therefore, differential allocation of carbon to these fungal types by host plants may reason for the inverse relation between these fungal variables in the present study.…”

Section: Relationship Between Am and Dse Fungimentioning

confidence: 68%

Root fungal associations in some non-orchidaceous vascular lithophytes

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plant roots in natural ecosystems are colonized by a diverse group of fungi among which the most common and widespread are arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) and dark septate endophyte (DSE) fungi. Th ough AM and DSE fungal associations are well reported for terricolous plant species, they are rather poorly known for lithophytic plant species. In this study, we examined AM and DSE fungal association in 72 non-orchidaceous vascular plant species growing as lithophytes in Siruvani Hills, Western Ghats of Tamilnadu, India. Sixty-nine plant species had AM and 58 species had DSE fungal associations. To our knowledge, we report AM fungal association in 42 and DSE fungal association in 53 plant species for the fi rst time. Th ere were signifi cant diff erences in total root length colonization and root length colonized by diff erent AM and DSE fungal structures among plant species. In contrast, the diff erences in AM and DSE fungal colonization among plants in various life-forms and lifecycles were not signifi cant. AM morphology reported for the fi rst time in 56 plant species was dominated by intermediate type AM morphology. A signifi cant negative relationship existed between total root length colonized by AM and DSE fungi. Th ese results clearly suggest that AM and DSE fungal associations are widespread in lithophytes.

show abstract

Hiding in a crowd—does diversity facilitate persistence of a low-quality fungal partner in the mycorrhizal symbiosis?

Cited by 73 publications

References 50 publications

Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Composition Affects the Growth and Nutrient Acquisition of Two Plants from a Karst Area

Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Composition Affects the Growth and Nutrient Acquisition of Two Plants from a Karst Area

Explaining Mutualism Variation: A New Evolutionary Paradox?

Root fungal associations in some non-orchidaceous vascular lithophytes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About