Plant-soil feedback

This student page has not been curated.

Introduction

Plant–soil feedback: experimental approaches, statistical analyses and ecological interpretations. Journal of Ecology Volume 98, Issue 5, pages 1063-1073, 13 JUL 2010 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01695.x.

Definition

Changes to soil properties that are caused by plants, which in turn influence the performance of plants are termed as ‘plant–soil feedbacks’ (Putten et al., 2013). Through changes in the demography of the plant population and/or the physiological activity of the individual plants, the plant’s effect on the soil condition increases (positive feedback) or decreases (negative feedback) (Ehrenfeld et al., 2005). Microbial activity and community composition is considered as one of the major drive factor of plant-soil feedback effects (Bever et al., 2013; Klironomos, 2002)

Basic approaches

The basic approach of plant–soil feedback experiment is that plant first influence the composition of the soil community, which is the soil conditioning phase. Then, the effects of conditioning are evaluated by assessing soil effects on subsequent plant growth (Figure 1) (Perkins and Nowak, 2013; Pernilla Brinkman et al., 2010). In the early years, most of the experiments started the plant soil feedback experiment from field-sampled soil (Vanderputten et al., 1993). This approach strengthens the influence of plant on soil under natural conditions. However, the weakness of this approach is that soils in natural condition can be affect by a lot of factors and the composition of the soil community and abiotic properties may be changed (Pernilla Brinkman et al., 2010).

A following developed approach was that plant species were grown in living soils to develop a soil community, which is the conditioning phase. Then the growth response on changed biotic conditions was tested which is the test phase. The advantage of this two-phase approach is that the effects from possible side effects of natural conditions are avoided and the abiotic conditions are controlled. However, the disadvantage of this approach is that there will be difference between the soil condition in greenhouse and that in the field (Pernilla Brinkman et al., 2010). This weakness may make it difficult to explain what was happened in the natural conditions.

History and importance

Humans have been aware of and managed plant–soil feedbacks in agriculture and horticulture for more than 1000 years. In agricultural settings, plant–soil feedbacks often involves in soil nutrient depletion or the build-up soil-borne pathogens (Putten et al., 2013). For example, the productivity of some crops declined and the rhizosphere community changed in the monocropping system (Bopaiah and shetty, 1991). Rotational cropping systems and intercropping system would help to reduce monocropping obstacles and to increase productivity (Bopaiah and shetty, 1991; van der Putten et al., 2013) Interest in plant–soil feed-backs has increased markedly in the past 20 years (Figure 2). Many exciting results are released. Plant–soil feedbacks is becoming an important concept for explaining vegetation dynamics, the invasiveness of introduced exotic species in new habitats and how terrestrial ecosystems respond to global land use and climate change (van der Putten et al., 2013).

Factors that influence the results of plant-soil feedback

Factors that influence the results of plant-soil feedback have been thoroughly reviewed by Ehrenfeld (Ehrenfeld et al., 2005).

Physical factors

Water: plant roots’ ability of taking up water alters the distribution and amount of water in the soil, which affects the physical traits of soil as well as the growth and reproduction of plants their selves (Ehrenfeld et al., 2005). Soil aggregation: Roots affect aggregation through plant carbon (C)-based microbial growth, the production of plant and microbial mucilages, the presence of phenolic compounds in root exudates, and the overall input of SOM. Feedback between plants and the physical properties of soils arise from the promotion of aggregates by roots and root-associated microorganisms (Ehrenfeld et al., 2005). Soil temperature affects root growth, water availability, and microbial activity, thus affecting both nutrient cycling and soil respiration (Ehrenfeld et al., 2005).

Chemical factors

pH: The generation of carbonic acid from plant roots and imbalance uptake of positive and negative ions are important acid sources of soil. pH involved in plant-soil feedback because plant-induced acidification may promote conditions which only acidophiles can live (Ehrenfeld et al., 2005). Oxygen: some plants release oxygen from their roots and change redox conditions in soil which are presumed to be part of the feedback cycle (Ehrenfeld et al., 2005). Carbon and nitrogen cycle: different decomposition and mineralization rates, N cycling and C cycling are considered to be important factors that influence the results of plant soil feedback experiments (Ehrenfeld et al., 2005).

Key microorganisms

Some soil community components have been studied to understand their contribution to the plant-feedback effects.

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) are known for their diverse beneficial effects on plants, especially for nutrient uptake, plant defense and plant resistance to abiotic stresses (Smith, 2008). Usually the plant initiates a positive feedback that results in better nutrition, thus increasing fitness for both the plant and the microorganism (Ehrenfeld et al., 2005). For example, AMF result in a positive effect of plant growth for both invasive and rare plant species and AMF from home soils which isolated from the same plant species have a more positive effect on plant growth than the different plant species (Klironomos, 2002). However, different plant species are proved to have different growth responses to different AMF species and their interactions can be ranging from mutualism to antagonism (Klironomos, 2003). Thus, AMF may also generating negative plant growth responses. For example, Glomus etunicatum and Glomus microcarpum were found to have negative effect on the growth of their specific plant partners (Castelli and Casper, 2003).

Soil pathogen

Soil pathogens, especially the fungal diseases, were proved to be the major driving factor of plant-soil feedback. Rare plants showed a significantly negative growth response to soil which was conditioned by the same plant species. In contrast, invasive species showed no growth depression (Klironomos, 2002). This result can explain the success of invasive species occupying a new area. What’ more, different accumulation rates of a pathogenic oomycete, Pythium, accounted for the negative feedbacks on plant growth through changes in the soil community (Mills and Bever, 1998).

Root herbivore

Root herbivores (insects, micro-arthropods and nematodes): the development of negative plant-soil feedback could be generated by root herbivores (Van Der Putten, 2003). For example, the colonization of endoparasitic nematode species Heterodera arenaria was proved contributing to the negative plant soil feedback in the root zone of the clonal dune grass, Ammophila arenaria (Van Der Stoel et al., 2002).

Current research

Three sample runs of spatially explicit stochastic simulations of the feedback between two plant species and their local soil communities. In all figures, the plants occupy a linear array of 638 cells (with wrap around ends) represented by the horizontal axis. The vertical axis represents successive generations; the initial array is presented as the bottom row and the arrays in sequential generations are stacked immediately above them. The two plant types are represented by dark and light shades, respectively. (a) Negative feedback with local dispersal. (b) Negative feedback with the 'black' species locally dispersed, but the 'white' species globally dispersed. (c) Positive feedback, with both species dispersed locally.(Bever et al., 1997)

Plant–soil feedbacks is becoming an important concept for explaining vegetation dynamics, the invasiveness of introduced exotic species in new habitats and how terrestrial ecosystems respond to global land use and climate change.

Primary and secondary succession

Early successional stages are often associated with positive plant–soil feedbacks, for example, due to symbiotic nitrogen fixation and plant associations with mycorrhizal fungi. Then the initial benefit of symbioses may become a disadvantage when early successional plant species develop negative soil feedback such as the pathogen accumulation. This reduces their competitive ability against later successional plant species which are tolerant of the pathogens accumulated by earlier successional species. Moreover, plant community composition in early stages of secondary succession can also change rapidly due to negative plant–soil feedbacks. For example, in a series of old fields that differed in time since abandonment, early successional (weedy) plant species demonstrated negative feedback effects, whereas later successional species had positive plant–soil feedbacks effects (Kardol et al., 2006; Putten et al., 2013).

Biological invasion

The success of many invasive species can be explained by plant-soil feedback method. One of the main reasons why exotic species can become so invasive in their new range is that they become released from specialist natural enemies that control abundance in the native range. In a study in a Canadian old field, introduced exotic plant species had neutral to positive plant–soil feedbacks comparable to dominant native plant species which had negative feedbacks (Klironomos, 2002). This finding was taken to suggest that exotic plant species could become invasive by not being exposed to negative plant–soil feedbacks (Putten et al., 2013).

Plant abundance and rarity

Plant-soil feedback can be used to explain the relative abundance and rarity of plant species. Recent work has shown that reduced success of conspecific seedlings near adults (conspecific negative density dependence) in the tropics can be attributed to local scale plant–soil feedbacks (Mangan et al., 2010). Failed establishment of black cherry (Prunus serotina) seedlings under conspecific adults was due to pathogenic soil microbes (Pythiumsp.). Subsequent work has suggested that the decline in performance and abundance of seedlings near conspecific adult trees is common in both tropical and temperate forests (Putten et al., 2013).

Climate change

Both temperature increases and altered precipitation patterns are likely to influence plant–soil feedbacks, with potentially far-reaching consequences for ecosystem functioning. Climate change is likely to impact the soil organisms directly because warming of the soil can stimulate microbial activity, the breakdown of organic matter and hence the loss of carbon from soil. The numerous routes by which climate change can impact plant–soil interactions and ecosystem functioning can operate at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. At the individual plant level, and over intra- and inter-annual timescales, changes in temperature, water availability and rising atmo-spheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration, all impact plant photosynthesis and the transfer of photosynthetic carbon to soil, with cascading effects on soil organisms and ecosystem functioning.

References

Bever, J. D., Westover, K. M., and Antonovics, J. (1997). Incorporating the soil community into plant population dynamics: the utility of the feedback approach. Journal of Ecology 85, 561-573.

Ehrenfeld, J. G., Ravit, B., and Elgersma, K. (2005). Feedback in the plant-soil system. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30, 75-115.

Kardol, P., Martijn Bezemer, T., and Van Der Putten, W. H. (2006). Temporal variation in plant–soil feedback controls succession. Ecology Letters 9, 1080-1088.

Klironomos, J. N. (2002). Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities. Nature 417, 67-70.

Mangan, S. A., Schnitzer, S. A., Herre, E. A., Mack, K. M. L., Valencia, M. C., Sanchez, E. I., and Bever, J. D. (2010). Negative plant-soil feedback predicts tree-species relative abundance in a tropical forest. Nature 466, 752-755.

Pernilla Brinkman, E., Van der Putten, W. H., Bakker, E.-J., and Verhoeven, K. J. F. (2010). Plant–soil feedback: experimental approaches, statistical analyses and ecological interpretations. Journal of Ecology 98, 1063-1073.

Putten, W. H. v. d., Bardgett, R. D., Bever, J. D., Bezemer, T. M., Casper, B. B., Fukami, T., Kardol, P., Klironomos, J. N., Kulmatiski, A., Schweitzer, J. A., Suding, K. N., Voorde, T. F. J. v. d., and Wardle, D. A. (2013). Plant-soil feedbacks: the past, the present and future challenges. Journal of Ecology (Oxford) 101, 265-276.

Edited by <Meng LI>, a student of Angela Kent at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.