Native Lespedeza species harbor greater non-rhizobial bacterial diversity in root nodules compared to the coexisting invader, L. cuneata

Busby, Ryan R.; Rodriguez, Giselle; Gebhart, Dick L.; Yannarell, Anthony C.

doi:10.1007/s11104-015-2763-3

Cited by 19 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The magnitude of benefit depends on the rhizobium specificity of the native legumes. Invading legumes often negatively affect native legumes by shifting rhizobium community richness and/or composition (Weir et al ; Rodríguez‐Echeverría ; Crisóstomo et al ; Boudiaf et al ; Busby et al ; Le Roux et al ), which could preclude restoration with native legumes. However, legumes vary greatly in how dependent they are on specific rhizobia (Barrett et al ; Ehinger et al ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Invasive legume management strategies differentially impact mutualist abundance and benefit to native and invasive hosts

Komatsu

Simms

2019

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Determining the best management practices for plant invasions is a critical, but often elusive goal. Invasive removals frequently involve complex and poorly understood biotic interactions. For example, invasive species can leave potent legacies that influence the success of native species restoration efforts, and positive plant‐microbial feedbacks may promote continued reinvasion by an exotic species following restoration. Removal methods can vary in their effects on plant–soil feedbacks, with consequences for restoration of native species. We determined the effects of invasion by a leguminous shrub (French broom; Genista monspessulana) on the density and community composition of, and benefit conferred by, its microbial mutualists in its invading range. Densities of soil‐dwelling rhizobia were much higher in areas invaded by G. monspessulana relative to uninvaded areas, and this increased density of rhizobia fed back to increase seedling growth of both the invader and native legumes. We further compared how three techniques for removing G. monspessulana affected the densities of rhizobia relative to areas where G. monspessulana was still present. Removal by hand‐pulling reduced soil rhizobial densities, and reduced growth of one native legume, while having no effect on the growth of the invader. Overall, our results show that the consequences of restoration techniques, both above‐ and belowground, could be critical for the successful removal of an invasive legume and restoration of native species.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Invasive legume management strategies differentially impact mutualist abundance and benefit to native and invasive hosts

Komatsu

Simms

2019

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This could reflect the existence of strong host control of the interaction through mechanisms like partner choice (Lira et al ., ) or sanctioning (Kiers et al ., ). However, partner choice is not perfect, as nodules often house ineffective bacteria, with recent evidence suggesting that, in some instances, nodules can be colonized by a range of non‐N‐fixing rhizobia or even nonrhizobial bacteria (Birnbaum et al ., ; Busby et al ., ; Checcucci et al ., ). In general the determinants of both symbiotic effectiveness (i.e.…”

Section: Specificity and Effectiveness Of Legume–rhizobium Interactiomentioning

confidence: 97%

Co‐introduction vs ecological fitting as pathways to the establishment of effective mutualisms during biological invasions

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contents 1354I.1354II.1355III.1357IV.1357V.13591359References1359 Summary Interactions between non‐native plants and their mutualists are often disrupted upon introduction to new environments. Using legume–rhizobium mutualistic interactions as an example, we discuss two pathways that can influence symbiotic associations in such situations: co‐introduction of coevolved rhizobia; and utilization of, and adaptation to, resident rhizobia, hereafter referred to as ‘ecological fitting’. Co‐introduction and ecological fitting have distinct implications for successful legume invasions and their impacts. Under ecological fitting, initial impacts may be less severe and will accrue over longer periods as novel symbiotic associations and/or adaptations may require fine‐tuning over time. Co‐introduction will have more profound impacts that will accrue more rapidly as a result of positive feedbacks between densities of non‐native rhizobia and their coevolved host plants, in turn enhancing competition between native and non‐native rhizobia. Co‐introduction can further impact invasion outcomes by the exchange of genetic material between native and non‐native rhizobia, potentially resulting in decreased fitness of native legumes. A better understanding of the roles of these two pathways in the invasion dynamics of non‐native legumes is much needed, and we highlight some of the exciting research avenues it presents.

show abstract

“…Lespedeza cuneata is an introduced legume from eastern Asia (Peterson et al 2003) and its current range in North America overlaps with numerous native Lespedeza species, including the widespread L. virginica (Busby et al 2016). L. cuneata has a high polyphenol content and is associated with lower nematode densities in soils (Kardol et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flavonoids Differentially Influence Rhizosphere Bacterial Communities from Native and Introduced Lespedeza Roots

Busby¹,

Ringelberg²,

Jung³

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Military training can create disturbances that facilitate invasive plant establishment. Introduced plant species' interactions with soil microbial communities through root exudates often aid plants in colonizing new locales. This study tested the hypothesis that rhizosphere bacterial communities associated with the native legume, Lespedeza virginica, and the non-native legume, Lespedeza cuneata, respond differently to plant-exuded molecules. Bacterial communities collected from coexisting populations of the two species were grown in the presence of four separate flavonoids at four concentrations. Following 96 hours of incubation, DNA was recovered from the enrichment cultures and analyzed using next-generation sequencing. In cultures receiving a flavonoid, L. virginica enrichments were characterized by a greater operational taxonomic unit (OTU) richness and exhibited a dose-response relationship to one of the flavonoids. The L. cuneata enrichments were characterized by a decreased OTU richness. Bacterial genera containing known pathogenic taxa occurred at a significantly greater relative frequency in L. cuneata enrichments than in the L. virginica enrichments. However, calculation of a species diversity index indicated greater OTU diversity in the L. cuneata enrichments across all four flavonoid treatments. These results indicate the rhizosphere microbial communities of co-existing L. cuneata and L. virginica legumes exhibit different responses when exposed to plant communication molecules.

show abstract

Native Lespedeza species harbor greater non-rhizobial bacterial diversity in root nodules compared to the coexisting invader, L. cuneata

Cited by 19 publications

References 47 publications

Invasive legume management strategies differentially impact mutualist abundance and benefit to native and invasive hosts

Invasive legume management strategies differentially impact mutualist abundance and benefit to native and invasive hosts

Co‐introduction vs ecological fitting as pathways to the establishment of effective mutualisms during biological invasions

Flavonoids Differentially Influence Rhizosphere Bacterial Communities from Native and Introduced Lespedeza Roots

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About