The curse of the black box

Cortois, Roeland; Deyn, Gerlinde B. De

doi:10.1007/s11104-011-0963-z

Cited by 36 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 31 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Testing plant responses in these soils, as we did, might be more indicative for the actual benefits of the plant‐AMF symbiosis, because all plants were exposed to their natural AMF assemblages while also interacting with other soil biota (Graham, Eissenstat & Drouillard ; Hoeksema et al . ; Cortois & De Deyn ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plant–soil feedbacks: role of plant functional group and plant traits

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary1. Plant-soil feedback (PSF), plant trait and functional group concepts advanced our understanding of plant community dynamics, but how they are interlinked is poorly known. 2. To test how plant functional groups (FGs: graminoids, small herbs, tall herbs, legumes) and plant traits relate to PSF, we grew 48 grassland species in sterilized soil, sterilized soil with own species soil inoculum and sterilized soil with soil inoculum from all species, and quantified relative growth rate (RGR), specific leaf area (SLA), specific root length (SRL) and per cent arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi colonization (%AMF). 3. Plant growth response to the plant species' own soil biota relative to sterilized soil (PSFsterilized) reflects net effects of all (generalist + specialized) soil biota. Growth response to the plant species' own soil biota relative to soil biota of all plant species (PSFaway) reveals effects of more specialized soil organisms. 4. PSFsterilized showed that graminoids and small herbs have a negative and tall herbs a positive response to their own soil biota, whereas legumes responded neutrally. However, PSFaway showed that on average, all plant FGs benefitted from growing with other species' soil biota, suggesting that pathogens are more specialized than plant growth-promoting soil biota. Feedback to plant growth from all soil biota (PSFsterilized) was stronger than from more specialized soil biota (PSFaway) and could be predicted by SRL and especially by %AMF colonization. Species with high SRL and low %AMF colonization when grown in away soil experienced most negative soil feedback. 5. Synthesis. Plant species from all plant FGs grow better in soil from other species because of less net negative effects of soil biota (in graminoids), or because of more net positive soil biota effects (in tall herbs). Explorative plant species (high SRL, low %AMF colonization) suffer most from negative feedback of all soil biota, whereas more resource conservative species (low SRL, high %AMF colonization) benefit from soil feedback of all soil biota. These findings help to understand replacement of explorative species during succession. Moreover, we suggest a potentially larger role for species with positive feedback than for species with negative feedback to contribute to maintain plant community productivity of diverse communities over time.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plant–soil feedbacks: role of plant functional group and plant traits

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…New research projects have been launched to bridge this gap through a simplified plant functional-group method . For other, more complex ecological groups (soil biota and viruses), research results have at least allowed construction of conceptual models of agroecosystems or definition of proxies of traits (Barrios 2007;Cortois and Deyn 2012;Friesen 2010) that are essential for learning about the groups, but not sufficiently adapted to put knowledge into practice. For cropping systems based on a variety of mixtures, intercrops, cover crops, and complex rotations, we lack simple operational models and, to our knowledge, the ecological-group approach has not yet produced the successful results it promised.…”

Section: Limits Of Existing Tools For Supporting Biodiversity-based Amentioning

confidence: 99%

How to implement biodiversity-based agriculture to enhance ecosystem services: a review

Duru

Thérond

Martin

et al. 2015

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

443

283

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intensive agriculture has led to several drawbacks such as biodiversity loss, climate change, erosion, and pollution of air and water. A potential solution is to implement management practices that increase the level of provision of ecosystem services such as soil fertility and biological regulation. There is a lot of literature on the principles of agroecology. However, there is a gap of knowledge between agroecological principles and practical applications. Therefore, we review here agroecological and management sciences to identify two facts that explain the lack of practical applications: (1) the occurrence of high uncertainties about relations between agricultural practices, ecological processes, and ecosystem services, and (2) the site-specific character of agroecological practices required to deliver expected ecosystem services. We also show that an adaptive-management approach, focusing on planning and monitoring, can serve as a framework for developing and implementing learning tools tailored for biodiversity-based agriculture. Among the current learning tools developed by researchers, we identify two main types of emergent support tools likely to help design diversified farming systems and landscapes: (1) knowledge bases containing scientific supports and experiential knowledge and (2) model-based games. These tools have to be coupled with well-tailored field or management indicators that allow monitoring effects of practices on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Finally, we propose a research agenda that requires bringing together contributions from agricultural, ecological, management, and knowledge management sciences, and asserts that researchers have to take the position of "integration and implementation sciences."

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, the complexity of the interactions can be reduced by identifying and focussing on keystone antagonists and mutualists and their impacts on plant fitness (Agrawal , van Dam and Heil , Poelman and Kessler ). This requires an integrative approach which combines mechanistic studies with a holistic perspective in ecologically relevant settings (van Dam and Heil , Cortois and De Deyn ). In this context it is important to realise that belowground mutualists perform multiple functions which can change during plant ontogeny, whereas antagonists can provide indirect benefits, so that evaluating costs and benefits of the association under different environmental conditions requires long‐term investigations in a community context.…”

Section: Above–belowground Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…: 7), and via soil mutualists and antagonists (Cortois et al ) (Fig. : 5), yet in natural systems it is hard to separate these effects as they interact (Cortois and De Deyn ). A next major step forward will therefore be to understand how plant traits of nutrient cycling and those of defence against antagonists and of associations with mutualists belowground (Ke et al ) and aboveground are interrelated.…”

Section: Above–belowground Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plant life history and above–belowground interactions: missing links

Deyn

2017

Oikos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The importance of above–belowground interactions for plant growth and community dynamics became clear in the last decades, whereas the numerous studies on plant life history improved our knowledge on eco‐evolutionary dynamics. However, surprisingly few studies have linked both research fields despite their potential to increase our mechanistic understanding of how above belowground interactions are governed. Here I briefly review studies on above–belowground interactions and plant life history and identify important research gaps. To advance our understanding of ecological strategies and eco‐evolutionary dynamics of plants and their associated organisms it is warranted to elucidate the interconnectivity and tradeoffs of plant life history traits of growth, defence, reproduction, nutrient cycling and the functional composition of above‐ and belowground heterotrophic communities. Using the concept of tradeoffs in growth, reproduction and defence we can postulate that plants in rich soil grow, reproduce and die fast whilst avoiding above‐ and belowground antagonists, whereas plants in poor soil grow slow, live and reproduce longer and invest in above‐ and belowground mutualists and defences. However, alternative scenarios are possible and depend on the selection pressure by above‐ and belowground mutualists and antagonists during plant ontogeny and via after‐life effects. To elucidate missing links between life history traits and above–belowground interactions, complementary modelling and empirical studies are needed that reveal the coupling between below‐ and aboveground plant traits of growth, defence and reproduction, their heritability and their cost/benefit relation. These cost/benefit analyses of defence should span from individuals to future generations, taking feedback effects via altered biotic communities and resource competition into account. The role of soil fertility in steering plant life history traits requires explicit testing of trans‐generational trait shifts in growth, defence, reproduction, cost/benefit of associations with mutualists and antagonists and soil feedbacks across plant genotypes/species with distinct life history traits, grown across soil fertility gradients.

show abstract

The curse of the black box

Cited by 36 publications

References 31 publications

Plant–soil feedbacks: role of plant functional group and plant traits

Plant–soil feedbacks: role of plant functional group and plant traits

How to implement biodiversity-based agriculture to enhance ecosystem services: a review

Plant life history and above–belowground interactions: missing links

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About