Plant‐soil feedbacks as drivers of succession: evidence from remnant and restored tallgrass prairies

Bauer, Jonathan T.; Mack, Keenan M. L.; Bever, James D.

doi:10.1890/es14-00480.1

Cited by 118 publications

(157 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(79 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

136

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2). Our results further support previous studies showing differences in susceptibility and response to soil microbial communities of agricultural and pioneer plant species vs. shade-tolerant forest trees (Johnson et al 2008, Pizano et al 2014, Bauer et al 2015. 3), in support of our second hypothesis.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…3), suggesting that they find species-specific soil microbes in their corresponding habitats (Appendix S1: Table S4). 3D), in support of previous studies showing that early successional species tend to exhibit negative feedbacks, while late successional species experience neutral or positive feedbacks (McCarthy-Neumann and Kobe 2008, Pizano et al 2014, Bauer et al 2015. Shade tolerant species showed no significant growth response to treatments (Fig.…”

Section: Net Effects Of Amf and Filtrate Inocula From Habitats With Dsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…In particular, we explored the interactions of 11 plant species with the AMF and non-AMF components of soil microbial communities across habitats representing a disturbance gradient: pastures, sun-grown coffee plantations, and tropical montane forest fragments. Fast-growing pioneer species specialized in open-habitats allocate more resources to growth than to defense, are more responsive to AMF (Zangaro et al 2003), and more susceptible to non-AMF soil microorganisms (McCarthy-Neumann and Kobe 2008) and disease (Augspurger 1984) than large-seeded late successional species (Bauer et al 2015). Correspondingly, pastures are subjected to the highest rate of disturbance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Host‐specific effects of soil microbial filtrates prevail over those of arbuscular mycorrhizae in a fragmented landscape

Pizano

Mangan

Graham

et al. 2017

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plant-soil interactions have been shown to determine plant community composition in a wide range of environments. However, how plants distinctly interact with beneficial and detrimental organisms across mosaic landscapes containing fragmented habitats is still poorly understood. We experimentally tested feedback responses between plants and soil microbial communities from adjacent habitats across a disturbance gradient within a human-modified tropical montane landscape. In a greenhouse experiment, two components of soil microbial communities were amplified; arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) and a filtrate excluding AMF spores from the soils of pastures (high disturbance), coffee plantations (intermediate disturbance), and forest fragments (low disturbance), using potted seedlings of 11 plant species common in these habitats (pasture grass, coffee, and nine native species). We then examined their effects on growth of these same 11 host species with reciprocal habitat inoculation. Most plant species received a similar benefit from AMF, but differed in their response to the filtrates from the three habitats. Soil filtrate from pastures had a net negative effect on plant growth, while filtrates from coffee plantations and forests had a net positive effect on plant growth. Pasture grass, coffee, and five pioneer tree species performed better with the filtrate from "away" (where these species rarely occur) compared to "home" (where these species typically occur) habitat soils, while four shade-tolerant tree species grew similarly with filtrates from different habitats. These results suggest that pastures accumulate species-specific soil enemies, while coffee plantations and forests accumulate beneficial soil microbes that benefit pioneer native plants and coffee, respectively. Thus, compared to AMF, soil filtrates exerted stronger habitat and host-specific effects on plants, being more important mediators of plant-soil feedbacks across contrasting habitats.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Net Effects Of Amf and Filtrate Inocula From Habitats With Dsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Host‐specific effects of soil microbial filtrates prevail over those of arbuscular mycorrhizae in a fragmented landscape

Pizano

Mangan

Graham

et al. 2017

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is understandable given the number of definitions introduced into the recent literature. While such concepts may help us understand the ecology of conservatism for some species, and while FQA has been used as a proxy measure for some of them (e.g., succession; Bauer et al 2015), they should not be confused with its fundamental meaning. A review of 100 randomly selected FQA publications published between 1988 and 2013 found that 88% incorrectly defined FQA, and 84% incorrectly interpreted what FQA measures (Spyreas, unpublished data).…”

Section: Wrong Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Floristic Quality Assessment: a critique, a defense, and a primer

Spyreas

2019

Ecosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) measures have become extraordinarily influential ecological metrics in North America over the past 20 yr. Government agencies, conservation organizations, land managers, and researchers alike utilize this plant-based measure to evaluate habitat conservation value, ecological integrity, and naturalness. Its relative uniqueness, utility, and ease of use, among vegetation measures, portend the continued popularity of FQA going forward. FQA's use and influence far exceeds its study-where the literature addressing questions and criticisms regarding its methodology and ecological meaning has not kept pace with reliance upon it. Furthermore, the lack of literature review has led to disorder and confusion among its users. This review addresses these issues in three parts. First, it concisely explains the metrics and their methods, and most importantly, it synthesizes the often-misinterpreted conceptual basis behind FQA. The bulk of the review then tackles common questions from researchers and non-technical users alike regarding the measures. It does this with two lists. The first list reviews FQA's most common criticisms and summarizes evidence for and against them. The second list confronts the most common mistakes surrounding FQA, regarding both its application and misunderstanding in the literature. In each instance, straightforward guidelines and answers to uncertainties are emphasized.

show abstract

“…), and likewise some studies do not find the expected relationship between the strength or direction of PSF and patterns of plant species abundance in space (Reinhart ; but see Bauer et al. for evidence that PSF predicts plant species abundances in time, along successional trajectories).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

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

Smith‐Ramesh

Reynolds

2017

J Vegetation Science

138

160

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

Plant‐soil feedbacks as drivers of succession: evidence from remnant and restored tallgrass prairies

Cited by 118 publications

References 43 publications

Host‐specific effects of soil microbial filtrates prevail over those of arbuscular mycorrhizae in a fragmented landscape

Host‐specific effects of soil microbial filtrates prevail over those of arbuscular mycorrhizae in a fragmented landscape

Floristic Quality Assessment: a critique, a defense, and a primer

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About