Advertisement

Plant Ecology

, Volume 212, Issue 10, pp 1675–1685 | Cite as

Mycorrhizal suppression alters plant productivity and forb establishment in a grass-dominated prairie restoration

  • Kathryn N. S. McCainEmail author
  • Gail W. T. Wilson
  • J. M. Blair
Article

Abstract

A fundamental goal of restoration is the re-establishment of plant diversity representative of native vegetation. However, many prairie restorations or Conservation Reserve Program sites have been seeded with warm-season grasses, leading to grass-dominated, low-diversity restorations not representative of native grasslands. These dominant grasses are strongly mycotrophic, while many subordinate forb species appear to be less dependent on mycorrhizal symbiosis. Therefore, manipulating arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) may be useful in promoting establishment and growth of forb species in grass-dominated prairie restorations. To assess the potential role of mycorrhizae in affecting the productivity and community composition of restored tallgrass prairie, we conducted a 4-year field experiment on an 8-year-old grassland restoration at the Konza Prairie in northeastern Kansas, USA. At the initiation of our study, seeds of 12 forb species varying in degree of mycorrhizal dependence were added to established grass-dominated plots. Replicate plots were treated bi-weekly with a soil drench of fungicide (Topsin-M®) over four growing seasons and compared to non-treated control plots to assess the role of AMF in affecting plant species composition, productivity, leaf tissue quality, and diversity in restored tallgrass prairie. Topsin applications successfully reduced mycorrhizal colonization of grass roots to approximately 60–80% relative to roots in control plots. Four years of mycorrhizal suppression reduced productivity of the dominant grasses and increased plant species richness and diversity. These results highlight the importance of mycorrhizae as mediators of plant productivity and community dynamics in restored tallgrass prairie and indicate that temporarily suppressing AMF decreases productivity of the dominant C4 grasses and allows for establishment of seeded forb species.

Keywords

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi Fungicide Forbs Grassland restoration Warm-season grass 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was partially funded by the National Science Foundation Long-term Ecological Research Program (Grant IBN-9632851) and by Jack Pizzo from Pizzo and Associates Ltd., Leland, IL.

References

  1. Allen EB, Allen MF (1984) Competition between plants of different successional stages: mycorrhizae as regulators. Can J Bot 62:2625–2629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen EB, Allen MF (1990) The mediation of competition by mycorrhizae in successional and patchy environments. In: Grace JB, Tilman D (eds) Perspectives on plant succession. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp 289–367Google Scholar
  3. Allison VJ, Rajaniemi TK, Goldberg DE, Zak DR (2007) Quantifying direct and indirect effects of fungicide on an old-field plant community: an experimental null-community approach. Plant Ecol 190:53–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baer SG, Blair JM (2008) Grassland establishment under varying resource availability: a test of positive and negative feedback. Ecology 89:1859–1871PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baer SG, Blair JM, Collins SL, Knapp AK (2004) Plant community responses to resource availability and heterogeneity during restoration. Oecologia 139:617–629PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bever JD, Schultz PA (2003) Prairie mycorrhizal fungi inoculants may increase native plant diversity on restored sites (Illinois). Ecol Rest 21:311–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Briggs JM, Knapp AK (1995) Interannual variability in primary production in tallgrass prairie: climate, soil moisture, topographic position and fire as determinants of aboveground biomass. Am J Bot 82:1024–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burke DJ, Hamerlynck EP, Hahn D (2002) Effect of arbuscular mycorrhizae on soil microbial populations and associated performance of the salt marsh grass Spartina patens. Plant Soil 239:141–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Connell JH (1992) Apparent versus “real” competition in plants. In: Grace JB, Tilman D (eds) Perspectives on plant competition. Academic Press, New York, pp 9–26Google Scholar
  10. Corbett EA, Anderson RC, Rodgers CS (1996) Prairie revegetation of a strip mine in Illinois: fifteen years after reestablishment. Restor Ecol 4:346–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibson DJ (2009) Grasses and grassland ecology. Oxford University Press Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Grime JP, Mackey JML, Hillier SH, Read DJ (1987) Floristic diversity in model system using experimental microcosms. Nature 328:420–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hartnett DC, Wilson GWT (1999) Mycorrhizae influence plant community structure and diversity in tallgrass prairie. Ecology 80:1187–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hartnett DC, Wilson GWT (2002) The role of mycorrhizas in plant community structure and dynamics: lessons from grasslands. Plant Soil 244:319–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hautier Y, Niklau PA, Hector A (2009) Competition for light causes plant biodiversity loss after eutrophication. Science 324:636–638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson NC (2010) Resource stoichiometry elucidates the structure and function of arbuscular mycorrhizas across scales. New Phytol 185:631–647PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kindscher K, Tieszen LL (1998) Floristic and soil organic matter changes after five and thirty-five years of native tallgrass prairie restoration. Restor Ecol 6:181–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klironomos JN (2002) Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities. Nature 417:67–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koske RE, Gemma JN (1989) A modified procedure for staining roots to detect mycorrhizas. Mycol Res 92:486–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCain KNS, Baer SG, Blair JM, Wilson GWT (2010) Dominant grasses suppress local diversity in restored tallgrass prairie. Restor Ecol 18:40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McGonigle TP, Miller MH, Evans DG, Fairchild GL, Swan JA (1990) A new method which gives an objective measure of colonization of roots by vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol 115:495–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Middleton EL, Bever JD, Schultz PA (2010) The effect of restoration methods on the quality of the restoration and resistance to invasion by exotics. Restor Ecol 18:181–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miller RM (1987) Mycorrhizae and succession. In: Jordan WR, Gilpin ME, Aber JD (eds) Restoration ecology: a synthetic approach to ecological research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 205–219Google Scholar
  24. Miller RM, Jastrow JD (1992) The application of VA mycorrhizae to ecosystem restoration and reclamation. In: Allen MF (ed) Mycorrhizal functioning: an integrative plant-fungal process. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp 438–467Google Scholar
  25. Miller RM, Jastrow JD (2000) Mycorrhizal fungi influence soil structure. In: Kapulnik Y, Douds DD Jr (eds) Arbuscular mycorrhizas: physiology and function. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 3–18Google Scholar
  26. Noyd RK, Pfleger FL, Norland MR (1996) Field responses to added organic matter, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, and fertilizer reclamation of taconite iron ore tailing. Plant Soil 179:89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Richter BS, Stutz JC (2002) Mycorrhizal inoculation of big satacon: implications for grassland restoration in abandoned agricultural fields. Restor Ecol 10:607–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Smith SE, Read DJ (2008) Mycorrhizal symbiosis, 3rd edn. Academic Press, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith MR, Charvat I, Jacobson RL (1998) Arbuscular mycorrhizae promote establishment of prairie species in a tallgrass prairie restoration. Can J Bot 76:1947–1954Google Scholar
  30. Smith MD, Hartnett DC, Wilson GWT (1999) Interacting influence of mycorrhizal symbiosis and competition on plant diversity in tallgrass prairie. Oecologia 121:574–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sterner RW, Elser JJ (2002) Ecological stoichiometry: the biology of elements from molecules to the biosphere. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  32. van der Heijden MGA, Wiemken A, Sanders IR (2003) Different arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi alter coexistence and resource distribution between co-occurring plant. New Phytol 157:569–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. West HM, Fitter AH, Watkinson AR (1993) Response of Vulpia ciliate spp. ambigua to removal of mycorrhizal infection and to phosphate application under natural conditions. J Ecol 81:351–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. White JA, Tallaksen J, Charvat I (2008) The effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal inoculation at a roadside prairie restoration site. Mycologia 100:6–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wilson GWT, Hartnett DC (1997) Effects of mycorrhizae on plant growth and dynamics in experimental tallgrass prairie microcosms. Am J Bot 84:478–482PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wilson GWT, Hartnett DC (1998) Interspecific variation in plant responses to mycorrhizal colonization in tallgrass prairie. Am J Bot 85:1732–1738PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wilson GWT, Williamson MM (2008) Topsin-M: the new benomyl for mycorrhizal-suppression experiments. Mycologia 100:548–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wilson GWT, Rice CW, Rillig MC, Springer A, Hartnett DC (2009) Soil aggregation and carbon sequestration are tightly correlated with the abundance of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: results from long-term field experiments. Ecol Lett 12:452–461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhu Y-G, Miller RM (2003) Carbon cycling by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in soil–plant systems. Trends Plant Sci 8:407–409PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathryn N. S. McCain
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gail W. T. Wilson
    • 2
  • J. M. Blair
    • 3
  1. 1.U.S. Army Corps of EngineersSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Natural Resource Ecology and ManagementOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA
  3. 3.Division of BiologyKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA

Personalised recommendations