, Volume 189, Issue 4, pp 993–1003 | Cite as

Biotic filtering of endophytic fungal communities in Bromus tectorum

  • Kevin D. RicksEmail author
  • Roger T. Koide
Plant-microbe-animal interactions – original research


The assembly of horizontally transmitted endophytic fungi within plant tissues may be affected by “biotic filtering”. In other words, only particular endophytic fungal taxa from the available inoculum pool may be able to colonize a given plant species. We tested that hypothesis in Bromus tectorum, an important invasive species in the arid, western United States. We collected seed from Bromus tectorum and sources of inoculum for endophytic fungi including soil and various kinds of plant litter at a field site in central Utah. We characterized, using Illumina sequencing, the endophytic fungal communities in the various inoculum sources, inoculated Bromus tectorum seedlings under gnotobiotic conditions with the various sources, and then characterized the communities of endophytic fungi that assembled in their roots and leaves. Different inoculum sources containing significantly different endophytic fungal communities produced complex communities of endophytic fungi in leaves and roots of Bromus tectorum. In leaves, the communities assembling from the various inoculum sources were not significantly different from each other and, in roots, they were only slightly different from each other, mainly due to variation in a single fungal OTU, Coprinopsis brunneofibrillosa. Consequently, there was significantly more variation in the structure of the communities of endophytic fungi among the inoculum sources than in the resultant endophytic fungal communities in the leaves and roots of Bromus tectorum. These results are consistent with biotic filtering playing a significant role in endophytic fungal community assembly.


Community assembly Horizontal transmission Inoculum Plant–microbe interactions Symbiosis 



Funding was provided by Brigham Young University, The Charles Redd Center for Western Studies, The Roger and Victoria Sant Endowment for a Sustainable Environment, and the Sustainable Bioenergy Research Program of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (# 2011-67009-20072).

Author contribution statement

KDR and RTK conceived the study and collected the data. KDR analyzed the data. KDR and RTK wrote the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. We thank three anonymous reviewers for comments leading to substantial improvements in the manuscript.

Supplementary material

442_2019_4388_MOESM1_ESM.docx (331 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 331 kb)
442_2019_4388_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (391 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 390 kb)


  1. Abarenkov K, Nilsson RH, Larsson KH et al (2010) The UNITE database for molecular identification of fungi-recent updates and future perspectives. New Phytol 186:281–285. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Afkhami ME, Rudgers JA (2008) Symbiosis lost: imperfect vertical transmission of fungal endophytes in grasses. Am Nat 172:405–416. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol 26:32–46. Google Scholar
  4. Aneja MK, Sharma S, Fleischmann F et al (2006) Microbial colonization of beech and spruce litter—influence of decomposition site and plant litter species on the diversity of microbial community. Microb Ecol 52:127–135. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnold AE (2007) Understanding the diversity of foliar endophytic fungi: progress, challenges, and frontiers. Fungal Biol Rev 21:51–66. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arnold AE, Lutzoni F (2013) Diversity and host range of foliar fungal endophytes: are tropical leaves biodiversity hotspots? Ecology 88:541–549. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arnold AE, Maynard Z, Gilbert GS et al (2000) Are tropical fungal endophytes hyperdiverse? Ecol Lett 3:267–274. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arnold AE, Mejía LC, Kyllo D et al (2003) Fungal endophytes limit pathogen damage in a tropical tree. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:15649–15654. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Arnold AE, Henk DA, Eells RL et al (2007) Diversity and phylogenetic affinities of foliar fungal endophytes in loblolly pine inferred by culturing and environmental PCR. Mycologia 99:185–206. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Arnold AE, Miadlikowska J, Higgins KL et al (2009) A phylogenetic estimation of trophic transition networks for ascomycetous fungi: are Lichens cradles of symbiotrophic fungal diversification? Syst Biol 58:283–297. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Balch JK, Bradley BA, D’Antonio CM, Gómez-Dans J (2013) Introduced annual grass increases regional fire activity across the arid western USA (1980–2009). Glob Chang Biol 19:173–183. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Benajmini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B 57:289–300Google Scholar
  13. Bishop DL, Levine HG, Kropp BR, Anderson AJ (1997) Seedborne fungal contamination: consequences in space-grown wheat. Phytopathology 87:1125–1133. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bissett A, Brown MV (2018) Alpha-diversity is strongly influenced by the composition of other samples when using multiplexed sequencing approaches. Soil Biol Biochem 127:79–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bulgarelli D, Rott M, Schlaeppi K et al (2012) Revealing structure and assembly cues for Arabidopsis root-inhabiting bacterial microbiota. Nature 488:91–95. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cai L, Ye L, Tong AHY et al (2013) Biased diversity metrics revealed by bacterial 16S pyrotags derived from different primer sets. PLoS One.
  17. Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ et al (2016) DADA2: high-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat Methods 13:581–583. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Canfield R (1941) Application of the line interception method in sampling range vegetation. J For 39:388–394Google Scholar
  19. Christian N, Whitaker BK, Clay K (2015) Microbiomes: unifying animal and plant systems through the lens of community ecology theory. Front Microbiol 6:869. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cline JF, Uresk DW, Rickard WH (1977) Comparison of soil water used by a sagebrush-bunchgrass and a cheatgrass community. J Range Manag 30:199–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Collingridge DS (2013) A primer on quantitized data analysis and permutation testing. J Mix Methods Res 7:81–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. D’Antonio CM, Vitousek PM (1992) Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 23:63–87. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Delaye L, García-Guzmán G, Heil M (2013) Endophytes versus biotrophic and necrotrophic pathogens-are fungal lifestyles evolutionarily stable traits? Fungal Divers 60:125–135. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Edgar RC (2010) Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 26:2460–2461. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Edgar RC (2016) UNCROSS: Filtering of high-frequency cross-talk in 16S amplicon reads. bioRxiv Edgar, R. C. (2016). UNCROSS: Filtering of high-fr.
  26. Fonseca-García C, Coleman-Derr D, Garrido E et al (2016) The Cacti Microbiome: interplay between habitat-filtering and host-specificity. Front Microbiol 7:150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fukami T (2015) Historical contingency in community assembly: integrating niches, species pools, and priority effects. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 46:1–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Glynou K, Ali T, Kia SH et al (2017) Genotypic diversity in root-endophytic fungi reflects efficient dispersal and environmental adaptation. Mol Ecol 26:4618–4630. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hale VL, Tan CL, Knight R, Amato KR (2015) Effect of preservation method on spider monkey (Ateles geoffroyi) fecal microbiota over 8 weeks. J Microbiol Methods 113:16–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Herre EA, Mejía LC, Kyllo DA et al (2007) Ecological implications of anti-pathogen effects of tropical fungal endophytes and mycorrhizae. Ecology 88:550–558. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hodgson S, de Cates C, Hodgson J et al (2014) Vertical transmission of fungal endophytes is widespread in forbs. Ecol Evol 4:1199–1208. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jost L (2006) Entropy and diversity. Oikos 113:363–375. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaneko R, Kakishima M (2001) Mycosphaerella buna sp. nov. with a Pseudocercospora anamorph isolated from the leaves of Japanese beech. Mycoscience 42:59–66. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Keddy PA (1992) Assembly and response rules: two goals for predictive community ecology. J Veg Sci 3:157–164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Khan AL, Hamayun M, Kim YH et al (2011) Ameliorative symbiosis of endophyte (Penicillium funiculosum LHL06) under salt stress elevated plant growth of Glycine max L. Plant Physiol Biochem 49:852–861. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klironomos JN (2002) Feedback with soil biota contributes to plants rarity. Nature 417:67–69. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Koide RT, Ricks KD, Davis ER (2017) Climate and dispersal influence the structure of leaf fungal endophyte communities of Quercus gambelii in the eastern Great Basin, USA. Fungal Ecol 30:19–28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Márquez LM, Redman RS, Rodriguez RJ, Roossinck MJ (2007) A virus in a fungus in a plant: three-way symbiosis required for thermal tolerance. Science (80-) 315:513–515.
  39. Melgoza G, Nowak RS, Tausch RJ (1990) Soil water exploitation after fire: competition between Bromus tectorum (Cheatgrass) and two native species. Oecologia 83:7–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nguyen NH, Smith D, Peay KG, Kennedy PG (2014) Parsing ecological signal from noise in next generation amplicon sequencing. New Phytol 205:1389–1393. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oksanen JF, Blanchet G, Friendly M et al (2018) vegan: Community Ecology PackageGoogle Scholar
  42. Poff NL (1997) Landscape filters and species traits: towards mechanistic understanding and prediction in stream ecology. Source J North Am Benthol Soc 16:391–409. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Prescott CE, Grayston SJ (2013) Tree species influence on microbial communities in litter and soil: current knowledge and research needs. For Ecol Manage 309:19–27. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Promputtha I, Lumyong S, Dhanasekaran V et al (2007) A phylogenetic evaluation of whether endophytes become saprotrophs at host senescence. Microb Ecol 53:579–590. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Queloz V, Sieber TN, Holdenrieder O et al (2010) No biogeographical pattern for a root-associated fungal species complex. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 20:160–169. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. R Development Core Team R (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computingGoogle Scholar
  47. Rafferty DL, Young JA (2002) Cheatgrass competition and establishment of desert needlegrass seedlings. J Range Manag 55:70–72. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Redman RS (2002) Thermotolerance generated by plant/fungal symbiosis. Science (80-) 298:1581–1581.
  49. Reeder J, Knight R (2009) The ‘rare biosphere’: a reality check. Nat Methods 6:636. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rodriguez RJ, Redman RS (2008) More than 400 million years of evolution and some plants still can’t make it on their own: plant stress tolerance via fungal symbiosis. J Exp Bot 59:1109–1114. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rodriguez RJ, White JF, Arnold AE, Redman RS (2009) Fungal endophytes: diversity and functional roles. New Phytol 182:314–330. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Saikkonen K, Faeth SH, Helander M, Sullivan TJ (1998) Fungal endophytes: a continuum of interactions with host plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:319–343. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schardl CL, Leuchtmann A, Spiering MJ (2004) Symbioses of grasses with seedborne fungal endophytes. Annu Rev Plant Biol 55:315–340. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schloss PD, Gevers D, Westcott SL (2011) Reducing the effects of PCR amplification and sequencing artifacts on 16S rRNA-based studies. PLoS One 6:e27310. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shearin ZRC, Filipek M, Desai R et al (2018) Fungal endophytes from seeds of invasive, non-native Phragmites australis and their potential role in germination and seedling growth. Plant Soil 422:183–194. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Solis MJL, Yurkov A, dela Cruz TE, Uterseher M (2015) Leaf-inhabiting endophytic yeasts are abundant but unevenly distributed in three Ficus species from botanical garden greenhouses in Germany. Mycol Prog 14:1019. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Song SJ, Amir A, Metcalf JL et al (2016) Preservation methods differ in fecal microbiome stability, affecting suitability for field studies. MSystems 1:e00021-16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Szink I, Davis EL, Ricks KD, Koide RT (2016) New evidence for broad trophic status of leaf endophytic fungi of Quercus gambelii. Fungal Ecol 22:2–9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Taylor D, Walters W, Lennon N et al (2016) Accurate estimation of fungal diversity and abundance through improved lineage-specific primers optimized for Illumina amplicon sequencing. Appl Environ Microbiol 82:7217–7226. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tellenbach C, Grünig CR, Sieber TN (2011) Negative effects on survival and performance of Norway spruce seedlings colonized by dark septate root endophytes are primarily isolate-dependent. Environ Microbiol 13:2508–2517. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vellend M (2016) The theory of ecological communities. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  62. Vincent JB, Weiblen GD, May G (2016) Host associations and beta diversity of fungal endophyte communities in New Guinea rainforest trees. Mol Ecol 25:825–841. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wang Q, Garrity GM, Tiedje JM, Cole JR (2007) Naïve Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:5261–5267. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA
  2. 2.Program in Ecology, Evolution and Conservation BiologyUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations