Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 385–392 | Cite as

Specificity in host-fungus associations: Do mutualists differ from antagonists?

  • Victoria A. Borowicz
  • Steven A. Juliano

Summary

Physically intimate interactions between organisms are assumed to be highly specific, yet intimate mutualisms exhibiting little specificity are common and important in many communities. We compare host records for ectomycorrhizal fungi (mutualists) to those for biotrophic shoot fungi and necrotrophic root fungi (both antagonists) in order to test two alternative predictions: (1) intimate physical associations (biotrophy) are more specific than less intimate ones (necrotrophy); (2) antagonisms are more specific than mutualisms. Specificity of fungi for hosts supports prediction (1): ectomycorrhizal fungi and shoot biotrophs are more host specific than root necrotrophs. Fungal symbiont ranges of hosts supports prediction (2): woody hosts are associated with a greater number of mutualistic fungi than antagonistic fungi. The numbers of fungi in the three groups infecting hosts are all significantly positively correlated. This result suggests that some hosts are resistant to fungal invasion and others are quite susceptible. Thus, plants may not be able to erect selective barriers to only antagonistic fungi. The marked asymmetry of specificity from the perspectives of hosts vs fungi suggests that evolutionary and ecological processes act differently on partners in symbioses.

Keywords

Specificity mutualists antagonists woody plants symbiosis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, A. J. (1988) Mycorrhizae-Host specificity and recognition.Phytopath. 78, 375–8.Google Scholar
  2. Fitter, A. H. (1985) Functioning of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizas under field condition.New Phytol. 99, 257–65.Google Scholar
  3. Garrett, S. D. (1960)Biology of root-infecting fungi. Cambridge University Press, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  4. Garrett, S. D. (1979) The soil-root interface in relation to disease. InThe soil-root interface (J. L. Harley and R. S. Russell, eds) pp. 301–28. Academic Press, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Gregory, R. D. (1990) Parasites and host geographic range as illustrated by waterfowl.Func. Ecol. 4, 645–54.Google Scholar
  6. Harley, J. L. (1989) The significance of mycorrhiza.Mycol. Res. 92, 129–39.Google Scholar
  7. Harley, J. L. and Smith, S. E. (1983)Mycorrhizal symbiosis. Academic Press, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Holmes, J. C. (1983) Evolutionary relationships between parasitic helminths and their hosts. In:Coevolution (D. J. Futuyma and M. Slatkin, eds) pp. 161–85. Sinauer, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Hudson, H. J. (1986)Fungal Biology. Edward Arnold, London, UK.Google Scholar
  10. Johnson, R. (1975) Genetics of host-parasite interactions. InSpecificity in plant diseases (R. K. S. Wood and A. Graniti, eds) pp. 45–62. Plenum Press, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Jordano, P. (1987) Patterns of mutualistic interaction in pollination and seed dispersal: connectance, dependence asymmetries, and coevolution.Am. Nat. 129, 657–77.Google Scholar
  12. Karban, R., Adamchak, R. and Schnathorst, W. C. (1987) Induced resistance and interspecific competition between spider mites and a vascular wilt fungus.Science 235, 678–80.Google Scholar
  13. Law, R. (1985) Evolution in a mutualistic environment. In:The biology of mutualism: Ecology and Evolution (D. H. Boucher, ed.) pp. 145–70. Oxford University Press, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Law, R. (1988) Some ecological properties of mutualisms involving plants. InPlant population ecology, the 28th symposium of the British Ecological Society (A. J. Davy, M. J. Hutchings and A. R. Watkinson, eds) pp. 315–41. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  15. Lewis, D. H. (1973) Concepts in fungal nutrition and the origin of biotrophy.Biol. Rev. 48, 261–73.Google Scholar
  16. Malloch, D. W., Pirozynski, K. A. and Raven, P. H. (1980) Ecological and evolutionary significance of mycorrhizal symbioses in vascular plants (A Review).Proc. Natl Acad. Sci USA 77, 2113–8.Google Scholar
  17. Marks, G. C. and Foster, R. C. (1973) Structure, morphogenesis and ultrastructure of ectomycorrhizae. In:Ectomycorrhizae: their ecology and physiology (G. C. Marks and T. T. Kozlowski, eds) pp. 1–41. Academic Press, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  18. Mosse, B., Stribley, D. P. and LeTacon, F. (1981) Ecology of mycorrhizae and mycorrhizal fungi. In:Advances in microbiol ecology (M. Alexander, ed.) pp. 137–210. Plenum Press, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  19. Nelson, R. R. (1979) Some thoughts on coevolution of plant pathogenic fungi and their hosts. In:Host-Parasite interfaces (B. B. Nickol, ed.) pp. 17–25. Academic Press, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Price, P. W. (1980)Evolutionary biology of parasites. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
  21. Read, C. P. (1970)Parasitism and symbiology: an introductory text. Ronald Press, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  22. SAS Institute, Inc. (1987)SAS/STAT Guide for personal computers, version 6 edition. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  23. Sequeira, L. (1979) Recognition between plant hosts and parasites. InHost-parasite interfaces (B. B. Nickol ed.) pp. 71–84. Academic Press, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  24. Strong Jr, D. R. and Levin, D. A. (1975) Species richness of the parasitic fungi of British trees.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 72, 2116–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman and Hall Ltd 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victoria A. Borowicz
    • 1
  • Steven A. Juliano
    • 1
  1. 1.Ecology Group, Department of Biological SciencesIllinois State UniversityNormalUSA

Personalised recommendations