Plant mutualisms with rhizosphere microbiota in introduced versus native ranges

Natasha Shelby, Richard DUNCAN, Wim Putten Van Putten, Kevin Mcginn, Carolin Weser, Philip Hulme, Amy Austin

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    7 Citations (Scopus)
    1 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    The performance of introduced plants can be limited by the availability of soil mutualists outside their native range, but how interactions with mutualists differ between ranges is largely unknown. If mutualists are absent, incompatible or parasitic, plants may compensate by investing more in root biomass, adapting to be more selective or by maximizing the benefits associated with the mutualists available. We tested these hypotheses using seven non-agricultural species of Trifolium naturalized in New Zealand (NZ). We grew seeds from two native (Spain, UK) and one introduced (NZ) provenance of each species in glasshouse pots inoculated with rhizosphere microbiota collected from conspecifics in each region. We compared how plant biomass, degree of colonization by rhizobia and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), and the growth benefit associated with each mutualist differed between provenances (native and introduced populations) when grown with soil microbiota from each region. We also tested whether the growth benefit of colonization by mutualists was correlated with the extent to which alien plants were distributed in the introduced range. Rhizobia colonization was generally lower among introduced relative to native provenances. In NZ soils, 9% of all plants lacked rhizobia and 16% hosted parasitic nodules, whereas in native-range soils, there was no evidence of parasitism and all but one plant hosted rhizobia. Growth rates as a factor of rhizobia colonization were always highest when plants were grown in soil from their home range. Colonization by AMF was similar for all provenances in all soils but for four out of seven species grown in NZ soils, the level of AMF colonization was negatively correlated with growth rate. In general, introduced provenances did not compensate for lower growth rates or lower mutualist associations by decreasing shoot–root ratios. Synthesis. Despite differences between introduced and native provenances in their associations with soil mutualists and substantial evidence of parasitism in the introduced range, neither level of colonization by mutualists nor the growth benefit associated with colonization was correlated with the extent of species’ distributions in the introduced range, suggesting mutualist associations are not predictive of invasion success for these species.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1259-1270
    Number of pages12
    JournalJournal of Ecology
    Volume104
    Issue number5
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2016

    Fingerprint

    rhizosphere
    provenance
    colonization
    Rhizobium
    rhizobacterium
    soil
    mycorrhizal fungi
    introduced plants
    fungus
    parasitism
    colonizing ability
    Trifolium
    parasitic plants
    parasitic plant
    microbiome
    biomass
    home range
    biogeography
    Spain
    greenhouses

    Cite this

    Shelby, N., DUNCAN, R., Putten Van Putten, W., Mcginn, K., Weser, C., Hulme, P., & Austin, A. (2016). Plant mutualisms with rhizosphere microbiota in introduced versus native ranges. Journal of Ecology, 104(5), 1259-1270. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12609
    Shelby, Natasha ; DUNCAN, Richard ; Putten Van Putten, Wim ; Mcginn, Kevin ; Weser, Carolin ; Hulme, Philip ; Austin, Amy. / Plant mutualisms with rhizosphere microbiota in introduced versus native ranges. In: Journal of Ecology. 2016 ; Vol. 104, No. 5. pp. 1259-1270.
    @article{c0b0c7d0b21c457db0528d5b6cc69010,
    title = "Plant mutualisms with rhizosphere microbiota in introduced versus native ranges",
    abstract = "The performance of introduced plants can be limited by the availability of soil mutualists outside their native range, but how interactions with mutualists differ between ranges is largely unknown. If mutualists are absent, incompatible or parasitic, plants may compensate by investing more in root biomass, adapting to be more selective or by maximizing the benefits associated with the mutualists available. We tested these hypotheses using seven non-agricultural species of Trifolium naturalized in New Zealand (NZ). We grew seeds from two native (Spain, UK) and one introduced (NZ) provenance of each species in glasshouse pots inoculated with rhizosphere microbiota collected from conspecifics in each region. We compared how plant biomass, degree of colonization by rhizobia and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), and the growth benefit associated with each mutualist differed between provenances (native and introduced populations) when grown with soil microbiota from each region. We also tested whether the growth benefit of colonization by mutualists was correlated with the extent to which alien plants were distributed in the introduced range. Rhizobia colonization was generally lower among introduced relative to native provenances. In NZ soils, 9{\%} of all plants lacked rhizobia and 16{\%} hosted parasitic nodules, whereas in native-range soils, there was no evidence of parasitism and all but one plant hosted rhizobia. Growth rates as a factor of rhizobia colonization were always highest when plants were grown in soil from their home range. Colonization by AMF was similar for all provenances in all soils but for four out of seven species grown in NZ soils, the level of AMF colonization was negatively correlated with growth rate. In general, introduced provenances did not compensate for lower growth rates or lower mutualist associations by decreasing shoot–root ratios. Synthesis. Despite differences between introduced and native provenances in their associations with soil mutualists and substantial evidence of parasitism in the introduced range, neither level of colonization by mutualists nor the growth benefit associated with colonization was correlated with the extent of species’ distributions in the introduced range, suggesting mutualist associations are not predictive of invasion success for these species.",
    author = "Natasha Shelby and Richard DUNCAN and {Putten Van Putten}, Wim and Kevin Mcginn and Carolin Weser and Philip Hulme and Amy Austin",
    year = "2016",
    doi = "10.1111/1365-2745.12609",
    language = "English",
    volume = "104",
    pages = "1259--1270",
    journal = "Journal of Ecology",
    issn = "0022-0477",
    publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
    number = "5",

    }

    Shelby, N, DUNCAN, R, Putten Van Putten, W, Mcginn, K, Weser, C, Hulme, P & Austin, A 2016, 'Plant mutualisms with rhizosphere microbiota in introduced versus native ranges', Journal of Ecology, vol. 104, no. 5, pp. 1259-1270. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12609

    Plant mutualisms with rhizosphere microbiota in introduced versus native ranges. / Shelby, Natasha; DUNCAN, Richard; Putten Van Putten, Wim; Mcginn, Kevin; Weser, Carolin; Hulme, Philip; Austin, Amy.

    In: Journal of Ecology, Vol. 104, No. 5, 2016, p. 1259-1270.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Plant mutualisms with rhizosphere microbiota in introduced versus native ranges

    AU - Shelby, Natasha

    AU - DUNCAN, Richard

    AU - Putten Van Putten, Wim

    AU - Mcginn, Kevin

    AU - Weser, Carolin

    AU - Hulme, Philip

    AU - Austin, Amy

    PY - 2016

    Y1 - 2016

    N2 - The performance of introduced plants can be limited by the availability of soil mutualists outside their native range, but how interactions with mutualists differ between ranges is largely unknown. If mutualists are absent, incompatible or parasitic, plants may compensate by investing more in root biomass, adapting to be more selective or by maximizing the benefits associated with the mutualists available. We tested these hypotheses using seven non-agricultural species of Trifolium naturalized in New Zealand (NZ). We grew seeds from two native (Spain, UK) and one introduced (NZ) provenance of each species in glasshouse pots inoculated with rhizosphere microbiota collected from conspecifics in each region. We compared how plant biomass, degree of colonization by rhizobia and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), and the growth benefit associated with each mutualist differed between provenances (native and introduced populations) when grown with soil microbiota from each region. We also tested whether the growth benefit of colonization by mutualists was correlated with the extent to which alien plants were distributed in the introduced range. Rhizobia colonization was generally lower among introduced relative to native provenances. In NZ soils, 9% of all plants lacked rhizobia and 16% hosted parasitic nodules, whereas in native-range soils, there was no evidence of parasitism and all but one plant hosted rhizobia. Growth rates as a factor of rhizobia colonization were always highest when plants were grown in soil from their home range. Colonization by AMF was similar for all provenances in all soils but for four out of seven species grown in NZ soils, the level of AMF colonization was negatively correlated with growth rate. In general, introduced provenances did not compensate for lower growth rates or lower mutualist associations by decreasing shoot–root ratios. Synthesis. Despite differences between introduced and native provenances in their associations with soil mutualists and substantial evidence of parasitism in the introduced range, neither level of colonization by mutualists nor the growth benefit associated with colonization was correlated with the extent of species’ distributions in the introduced range, suggesting mutualist associations are not predictive of invasion success for these species.

    AB - The performance of introduced plants can be limited by the availability of soil mutualists outside their native range, but how interactions with mutualists differ between ranges is largely unknown. If mutualists are absent, incompatible or parasitic, plants may compensate by investing more in root biomass, adapting to be more selective or by maximizing the benefits associated with the mutualists available. We tested these hypotheses using seven non-agricultural species of Trifolium naturalized in New Zealand (NZ). We grew seeds from two native (Spain, UK) and one introduced (NZ) provenance of each species in glasshouse pots inoculated with rhizosphere microbiota collected from conspecifics in each region. We compared how plant biomass, degree of colonization by rhizobia and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), and the growth benefit associated with each mutualist differed between provenances (native and introduced populations) when grown with soil microbiota from each region. We also tested whether the growth benefit of colonization by mutualists was correlated with the extent to which alien plants were distributed in the introduced range. Rhizobia colonization was generally lower among introduced relative to native provenances. In NZ soils, 9% of all plants lacked rhizobia and 16% hosted parasitic nodules, whereas in native-range soils, there was no evidence of parasitism and all but one plant hosted rhizobia. Growth rates as a factor of rhizobia colonization were always highest when plants were grown in soil from their home range. Colonization by AMF was similar for all provenances in all soils but for four out of seven species grown in NZ soils, the level of AMF colonization was negatively correlated with growth rate. In general, introduced provenances did not compensate for lower growth rates or lower mutualist associations by decreasing shoot–root ratios. Synthesis. Despite differences between introduced and native provenances in their associations with soil mutualists and substantial evidence of parasitism in the introduced range, neither level of colonization by mutualists nor the growth benefit associated with colonization was correlated with the extent of species’ distributions in the introduced range, suggesting mutualist associations are not predictive of invasion success for these species.

    U2 - 10.1111/1365-2745.12609

    DO - 10.1111/1365-2745.12609

    M3 - Article

    VL - 104

    SP - 1259

    EP - 1270

    JO - Journal of Ecology

    JF - Journal of Ecology

    SN - 0022-0477

    IS - 5

    ER -