Plant Ecology

, Volume 219, Issue 1, pp 17–29 | Cite as

Nitrogen limitation impairs plant control over the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis in response to phosphorus and shading in two European sand dune species

  • Martina Friede
  • Stephan Unger
  • Lukas Heuer
  • Robin Stammes
  • Wolfram Beyschlag
Article

Abstract

The symbiosis of plants with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) may become parasitic if the cost:benefit ratio (carbon:phosphorus ratio) increases. In case of mycorrhizal parasitism, a plant may prevent growth depression through the reduction of root colonization as a form of control over the symbiosis. In this greenhouse study, we attempted to manipulate the cost:benefit ratio of the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis by shading and/or phosphorus (P) fertilization in the differentially mycotrophic plant species Hieracium pilosella and Corynephorus canescens. By repeated sampling of soil cores, we assessed the temporal progress of plant investment towards mycorrhizal structures as a measure of plant control over the AMF. Unexpectedly, we found no obvious treatment effects on mycorrhizal growth dependency (MGD), most likely caused by constant N-limitation in AM plants being enhanced by P-fertilization and shade probably not exacerbating plant C-budget for AMF. This highlights the importance of N:P:C stoichiometry for the outcome of the symbiosis. Nevertheless, we found possible control mechanisms in shaded H. pilosella, with considerably higher resource investments into root than into hyphal growth, while root colonization was only marginally suppressed. This control only manifested after 4 weeks of growth under potentially detrimental conditions, emphasizing the importance of time in plant control over the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis. In contrast, the less mycotrophic C. canescens did not exhibit obvious changes in mycorrhizal investments in reaction to shading and P-fertilization, possibly because the low mycotrophy and AMF colonization already imposes a functioning control mechanism in this species. Our study suggests that highly mycotrophic plants may have a stronger need to keep AMF in check than less mycotrophic plants, which may have implications for the role of mycotrophy in the outcome of symbiotic interactions in natural situations.

Keywords

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi mutualism Parasitism Mycotrophy Hieracium pilosella Corynephorus canescens 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Elke Furlkröger, Christine Schlüter, and Barbara Teichner for support with plant cultivation, harvest, and laboratory work and an anonymous Reviewer for valuable suggestions on the manuscript.

Supplementary material

11258_2017_774_MOESM1_ESM.tiff (18.4 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (TIFF 18843 kb)

References

  1. Bever JD, Richardson SC, Lawrence BM, Holmes J, Watson M (2009) Preferential allocation to beneficial symbiont with spatial structure maintains mycorrhizal mutualism. Ecol Lett 12:13–21.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01254.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bronstein JL (2001) The exploitation of mutualisms. Ecol Lett 4:277–287.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00218.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chagnon P-L, Bradley RL, Maherali H, Klironomos JN (2013) A trait-based framework to understand life history of mycorrhizal fungi. Trends Plant Sci 18:484–491.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2013.05.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Chagnon P-L, Bradley RL, Klironomos JN (2015) Trait-based partner selection drives mycorrhizal network assembly. Oikos 124:1609–1616.  https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.01987 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dekkers TBM, van der Werff PA (2001) Mutualistic functioning of indigenous arbuscular mycorrhizae in spring barley and winter wheat after cessation of long-term phosphate fertilization. Mycorrhiza 10:195–201.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s005720000078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fellbaum CR, Mensah JA, Cloos AJ, Strahan GE, Pfeffer PE, Kiers ET et al (2014) Fungal nutrient allocation in common mycorrhizal networks is regulated by the carbon source strength of individual host plants. New Phytol 203:646–656.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12827 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Friede M, Unger S, Hellmann C, Beyschlag W (2016) Conditions promoting mycorrhizal parasitism are of minor importance for competitive interactions in two differentially mycotrophic species. Front Plant Sci 7:1465.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01465 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Golubski AJ, Klausmeier CA (2010) Control in mutualisms: combined implications of partner choice and bargaining roles. J Theor Biol 267:535–545.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.09.023 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Grace EJ, Cotsaftis O, Tester M, Smith FA, Smith SE (2009) Arbuscular mycorrhizal inhibition of growth in barley cannot be attributed to extent of colonization, fungal phosphorus uptake or effects on expression of plant phosphate transporter genes. New Phytol 181:938–949.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02720.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Grman E (2012) Plant species differ in their ability to reduce allocation to non-beneficial arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Ecology 93:711–718.  https://doi.org/10.1890/11-1358.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hammer EC, Pallon J, Wallander H, Olsson PA (2011) Tit for tat? A mycorrhizal fungus accumulates phosphorus under low plant carbon availability. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 76:236–244.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2011.01043.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Heinemeyer A, Ridgway KP, Edwards EJ, Benham DG, Young JPW, Fitter AH (2003) Impact of soil warming and shading on colonization and community structure of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in roots of a native grassland community. Glob Change Biol 10:52–64.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2003.00713.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hempel S, Götzenberger L, Kühn I, Michalski SG, Rillig MC, Zobel M et al (2013) Mycorrhizas in the Central European flora: relationships with plant life history traits and ecology. Ecology 94:1389–1399.  https://doi.org/10.1890/12-1700.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoagland DR, Arnon I (1950) The water culture method for growing plants without soil. California Agriculture Experiment Station, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  15. Höpfner I, Friede M, Unger S, Beyschlag W (2014) Potential advantages of highly mycotrophic foraging for the establishment of early successional pioneer plants on sand. Funct Plant Biol 42:95–104.  https://doi.org/10.1071/fp14097 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jakobsen I, Abbott LK, Robson AD (1992) External hyphae of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi associated with Trifolium subterraneum L. 1. Spread of hyphae and phosphorus inflow into roots. New Phytol 120:371–380.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1992.tb01077.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Janos DP (2007) Plant responsiveness to mycorrhizas differs from dependence upon mycorrhizas. Mycorrhiza 17:75–91.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00572-006-0094-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Ji B, Bever JD (2016) Plant preferential allocation and fungal reward decline with soil phosphorus: implications for mycorrhizal mutualism. Ecosphere 7:e01256.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson NC (2010) Resource stoichiometry elucidates the structure and function of arbuscular mycorrhizas across scales. New Phytol 185:631–647CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson NC, Graham JH (2013) The continuum concept remains a useful framework for studying mycorrhizal functioning. Plant Soil 363:411–419.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-8051406-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson NC, Graham JH, Smith FA (1997) Functioning of mycorrhizal associations along the mutualism-parasitism continuum. New Phytol 135:575–585.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.1997.00729.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones MD, Smith SE (2004) Exploring functional definitions of mycorrhizas: are mycorrhizas always mutualisms? Can J Bot 82:1089–1109.  https://doi.org/10.1139/b04-110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kiers ET, van der Heijden MGA (2006) Mutualistic stability in the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis: exploring hypotheses of evolutionary cooperation. Ecology 87:1627–1636CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kiers ET, Duhamel M, Beesetty Y, Mensah JA, Franken O, Verbruggen E et al (2011) Reciprocal rewards stabilize cooperation in the mycorrhizal symbiosis. Science 333:880–882.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1208473 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Klironomos JN (2003) Variation in plant response to native and exotic arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Ecology 84:2292–2301.  https://doi.org/10.1890/02-0413 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Knegt B, Jansa J, Franken O, Engelmoer DJP, Werner GDA, Bücking H et al (2014) Host plant quality mediates competition between arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Fungal Ecol 20:233–240.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funeco.2014.09.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koerselman W, Meuleman AF (1996) The vegetation N:P ratio: a new tool to detect the nature of nutrient limitation. J Appl Ecol 33:1441–1450.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2404783 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koide RT, Li MG (1989) Appropriate controls for vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza research. New Phytol 111:35–44.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1989.tb04215.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Konvalinková T, Jansa J (2016) Lights off for arbuscular mycorrhiza: on its symbiotic functioning under light deprivation. Front Plant Sci 7:782.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00782 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Konvalinková T, Püschel D, Janoušková M, Gryndler M, Jansa J (2015) Duration and intensity of shade differentially affects mycorrhizal growth- and phosphorus uptake responses of Medicago truncatula. Front Plant Sci 6:65.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00065 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Lekberg Y, Koide RT (2014) Integrating physiological, community, and evolutionary perspectives on the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis. Botany 92:241–251.  https://doi.org/10.1139/cjb-8332013-0182 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mariotte P, Meugnier C, Johnson D, Thébault A, Spiegelberger T, Buttler A (2013) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi reduce the differences in competitiveness between dominant and subordinate plant species. Mycorrhiza 23:267–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Mariotte P, Canarini A, Dijkstra FA (2017) Stoichiometric N: P flexibility and mycorrhizal symbiosis favour plant resistance against drought. J Ecol 105:958–967.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12731 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McGonigle T, 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 115:495–501.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1990.tb00476.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller RM, Reinhardt DR, Jastrow JD (1995) External hyphal production of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in pasture and tallgrass prairie communities. Oecologia 103:17–23.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00328420 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Olsson PA, Rahm J, Aliasgharzad N (2010) Carbon dynamics in mycorrhizal symbioses is linked to carbon costs and phosphorus benefits. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 72:123–131.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2010.00833.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pearson JN, Abbott LK, Jasper DA (1993) Mediation of competition between two colonizing VA mycorrhizal fungi by the host plant. New Phytol 123:93–98.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1993.tb04534.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Phillips JM, Hayman DS (1970) Improved procedures for clearing roots and staining parasitic and vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi for rapid assessment of infection. T Brit Mycol Soc 55:158–161.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0007-1536(70)80110-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shi G, Liu Y, Johnson NC, Olsson PA, Mao L, Cheng G et al (2014) Interactive influence of light intensity and soil fertility on root-associated arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Plant Soil 378:173–188.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-014-2022-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sikes BA, Cottenie K, Klironomos JN (2009) Plant and fungal identity determines pathogen protection of plant roots by arbuscular mycorrhizas. J Ecol 97:1274–1280.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01557.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith SE, Read DJ (2008) Mycorrhizal symbiosis, 3rd edn. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith FA, Smith SE (2011) What is the significance of the arbuscular mycorrhizal colonisation of many economically important crop plants? Plant Soil 348:63–79.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-011-0865-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith SE, Smith FA (2012) Fresh perspectives on the roles of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in plant nutrition and growth. Mycologia 104:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.3852/11-229 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith FA, Smith SE (2013) How useful is the mutualism-parasitism continuum of arbuscular mycorrhizal functioning? Plant Soil 363:7–18.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1583-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith FA, Grace EJ, Smith SE (2009) More than a carbon economy: nutrient trade and ecological sustainability in facultative arbuscular mycorrhizal symbioses. New Phytol 182:347–358.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02753.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith SE, Jakobsen I, Grønlund M, Smith FA (2011) Roles of arbuscular mycorrhizas in plant phosphorus (P) nutrition: interactions between pathways of P uptake in arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) roots have important implications for understanding and manipulating P acquisition. Plant Physiol 156:1050–1057.  https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.111.174581 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Treseder KK, Allen MF (2002) Direct nitrogen and phosphorus limitation of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: a model and field test. New Phytol 155:507–515.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2002.00470.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Unger S, Friede M, Hundacker J, Volkmar K, Beyschlag W (2016) Allocation trade-off between root and mycorrhizal surface defines nitrogen and phosphorus relations in 13 grassland species. Plant Soil 407:279–292.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-016-2994-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Unger S, Friede M, Volkmar K, Hundacker J, Beyschlag W (2017) Relationship between mycorrhizal responsiveness and root traits in European sand dune species. Rhizosphere 3:160–169.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhisph.2017.04.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Verbruggen E, El Mouden C, Jansa J, Akkermans G, Bücking H, West SA et al (2012) Spatial structure and interspecific cooperation: theory and an empirical test using the mycorrhizal mutualism. Am Nat 179:133–146.  https://doi.org/10.1086/665032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vierheilig H (2004) Regulatory mechanisms during the plant-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus interaction. Can J Bot 82:1166–1176.  https://doi.org/10.1139/b04-015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Walder F, van der Heijden MGA (2015) Regulation of resource exchange in the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis. Nat Plants 1:15159.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2015.159 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Watanabe FS, Olsen SR (1965) Test of an ascorbic acid method for determining phosphorus in water and NaHCO3 extracts from soils. Soil Sci Soc Am Pro 29:677–678.  https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1965.03615995002900060025x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Werner GDA, Kiers ET (2015) Partner selection in the mycorrhizal mutualism. New Phytol 205:1437–1442.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13113 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Zheng C, Ji B, Zhang J, Zhang F, Bever JD (2015) Shading decreases plant carbon preferential allocation towards the most beneficial mycorrhizal mutualist. New Phytol 205:361–368.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13025 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Experimental and Systems EcologyUniversity of BielefeldBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations