Plant-soil feedbacks: a comparative study on the relative importance of soil feedbacks in the greenhouse versus the field

Heinze, Johannes; Sitte, M.; Schindhelm, Anne; Wright, Justin P.; Joshi, Jasmin

doi:10.1007/s00442-016-3591-8

Cited by 85 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We repeated the Brinkman et al (2010) simulation with two other published ratios, yown;j À y foreign y foreign (e.g. These ratios, like the Teste et al ratio and other recently published PSF ratios (Heinze et al 2016, Gomez-Aparicio et al 2017, lead to residual correlation because individual plants contribute to multiple data points. to 15% and 40%, respectively, from the nominal rate of 5%).…”

Section: Ensure Analyses Of Ratio Data Meet Statistical Assumptions mentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward more robust plant‐soil feedback research

Rinella

Reinhart

2018

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding if and how plant-soil biota feedbacks (PSFs) shape plant communities has become a major research priority. In this paper, we draw on a recent, high-profile PSF study to illustrate that certain widely used experimental methods cannot reliably determine if PSFs occur. One problem involves gathering soil samples adjacent to multiple conditioning plants, mixing the samples and then growing phytometers in the mixtures to test for PSFs. This mixed soil approach does not establish that the conditioning plant being present caused the soil biota to be present, the first step of a PSF. Also, soil mixing approximates replacing raw data with averages prior to analysis, a move certain to generate falsely precise statistical estimates. False precision also results from sample sizes being artificially inflated when phytometers are misinterpreted as experimental units. Plant biomass ratios become another source of false precision when individual plant values contribute to multiple ratio observations. Any one of these common missteps can cause still living null hypotheses to be pronounced dead, and risks of this increase with numbers of missteps. If soil organisms truly structure plant communities, then null hypotheses indicating otherwise will not survive proper testing. We discuss conceptual, experimental and analytical refinements to facilitate accurate testing.

show abstract

Section: Ensure Analyses Of Ratio Data Meet Statistical Assumptions mentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward more robust plant‐soil feedback research

Rinella

Reinhart

2018

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In many cases, an optimal strategy may be to pair feedback experiments in the greenhouse with experiments conducted in the field ( sensu Heinze et al. ), or with estimates of plant abundance in the field ( sensu Klironomos ; Bauer et al. ).…”

Section: Methodological Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The next frontier of plant–soil feedback research: unraveling context dependence across biotic and abiotic gradients

Smith‐Ramesh

Reynolds

2017

J Vegetation Science

134

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Question Plant–soil feedback (PSF) has emerged as a ubiquitous phenomenon and a potentially important predictor of plant community structure and dynamics. However, the predictive power of PSF in field contexts is mixed, and ecologists do not yet understand its relative importance compared to other factors that structure communities. Further progress requires a more nuanced understanding of how PSF interacts with other biotic and abiotic factors. Environmental factors (e.g. natural enemies, moisture, light, nutrients) are known to affect plant interactions with soil and soil organisms, leading to an expectation of environmental context dependence in plant–soil feedback. Such context dependence could explain when PSF is expected to be an important driver of community dynamics, and under what conditions PSF is likely to be positive (destabilizing) vs negative (stabilizing). Methods We conducted a literature review of studies that examined PSF across biotic and abiotic gradients. Results Although few relevant studies have been conducted in this emerging research area, results to date suggest that plant–soil feedback is sensitive to biotic factors, such as above‐ and below‐ground herbivory, and abiotic factors, such as nutrients and light. Conclusions We develop a conceptual framework to predict variation in the direction and strength of PSF depending on the biotic or abiotic drivers of feedback (e.g. pathogens, nutrients) and the environmental context (e.g. intensity of herbivory, soil fertility). We explore the utility of our predictive framework through discussion of case studies from the literature on context dependence in PSF. We also consider how different experimental approaches might yield different insights about PSF–environment interactions, and suggest key future research directions.

show abstract

“…Soil properties and biota can also affect plant growth and physiology (Meisner et al, 2013;Schweitzer et al, 2014), which may be exacerbated by contrasts between growth in potting mix or in native soil (Rowe et al, 2007;Heinze et al, 2016). The observation that fieldgrown plants have different root systems and greater total water storage than those in greenhouse pots is of particular importance to water relations (Poorter et al, 2012a).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%