Advertisement

Calculating the uncertainty associated with log response ratios in plant–soil feedback studies

  • Sarah E. BatesEmail author
  • Elizabeth M. Wandrag
  • Richard P. Duncan
Article

Abstract

The strength and direction of plant–soil feedbacks are commonly estimated using log response ratios. Ratios have the benefit of being readily comparable across taxa and studies, but calculating the uncertainty associated with a ratio is not always straightforward. Many studies do not report estimates of uncertainty for feedback ratios despite this being central to interpreting the findings. We describe three ways to calculate the uncertainty associated with the mean log response ratio in plant–soil feedback studies (an analytical formula, bootstrapping, and model fitting), and show how these approaches produce comparable estimates for 95% confidence intervals around the mean. While the choice of method will depend on the experimental design of the study, we suggest that model fitting may be the most reliable and flexible approach. Presenting feedback ratios and their associated uncertainty in a consistent manner will allow clearer assessment of the findings of individual studies and facilitate cross-study comparisons, such as meta-analysis.

Keywords

Plant–soil feedback Log response ratio Uncertainty Bootstrapping Modelling uncertainty 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by Australian Research Council Grant DP150101839 to Richard Duncan and funding from the University of Canberra to Richard Duncan.

Supplementary material

11258_2019_981_MOESM1_ESM.docx (22 kb)
Supplementary file1 (DOCX 22 kb)
11258_2019_981_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (22 kb)
Supplementary file2 (XLSX 21 kb)
11258_2019_981_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx (10 kb)
Supplementary file3 (XLSX 10 kb) Appendix 3. Eragrotis curvula growth data: used to compare three methods of calculating a feedback estimate and uncertainty associated.
11258_2019_981_MOESM4_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Supplementary file4 (DOCX 16 kb)

References

  1. Aguilera AG, Morey S, Gammon M, Jiang M, Ramos S, Kesseli R (2017) Effect of plant-soil feedbacks on the growth and competition of Lactuca species. Plant Ecol 218(3):359–372.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-016-0697-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauer JT, Blumenthal N, Miller AJ, Ferguson JK, Reynolds HL (2017) Effects of between-site variation in soil microbial communities and plant-soil feedbacks on the productivity and composition of plant communities. J Appl Ecol 54:1028–1039.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12937 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bever JD, Westover KM, Antonovics J (1997) Incorporating the soil community into plant population dynamics : the utility of the feedback approach. J Ecol 85(5):561–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bezemer TM, Jing J, Bakx-Schotman JMT, Bijleveld E-J (2018) Plant competition alters the temporal dynamics of plant-soil feedbacks. J Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12999 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brinkman EP, van der Putten WH, Bakker EJ, Verhoeven KJF (2010) Plant-soil feedback: experimental approaches, statistical analyses and biological interpretations. J Ecol 98:1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brinkman EP, Raaijmakers CE, de Boer W, van der Putten WH (2017) Changing soil legacies to direct restoration of plant communities. AoB Plants Narnia.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plx038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buonaccorsi JP, Liebhold AM (1988) Statistical methods for estimating ratios and products in ecological studies. Environ Entomol Narnia 17(3):572–580.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/17.3.572 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burns JH, Brandt AJ, Murphy JE, Kaczowka AM, Burke DJ (2017) Spatial heterogeneity of plant-soil feedbacks increases per capita reproductive biomass of species at an establishment disadvantage. Oecologia 183(4):1077–1086.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-017-3828-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dudenhöffer J-H, Ebeling A, Klein A-M, Wagg C (2017) Beyond biomass: soil feedbacks are transient over plant life-stages and alter fitness. J Ecol  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12870 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R. (1986) Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence intervals, and other measures of statistical accuracy, statistical science. https://about.jstor.org/terms. Accessed 18 April 2019.
  11. Fitzpatrick CR, Gehant L, Kotanen PM, Johnson MTJ (2017) Phylogenetic relatedness, phenotypic similarity, and plant-soil feedbacks. J Ecol 105:786–800.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12709 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gomez-Aparicio, L., Dom Inguez-Begines, J., Kardol, P., M Avila, J. E., A, B. I. and Garc Ia, L. V (2017) Plant-soil feedbacks in declining forests: implications for species coexistence. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ecy.1864. Accessed 18 April 2019.
  13. van Grunsven RHA, van der Putten WH, Bezemer MT, Tamis WLM, Berendse F, Veenendaal EM (2007) Reduced plant-soil feedback of plant species expanding their range as compared to natives. J Ecol 95(5):1050–1057.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01282.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gundale MJ, Kardol P, Nilsson MC, Nilsson U, Lucas RW, Wardle DA (2014) Interactions with soil biota shift from negative to positive when a tree species is moved outside its native range. New Phytol 202(2):415–421.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12699 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hesterberg, T. (2014) Bootstrap with Examples, Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat06780
  16. Hoffmann WA, Poorter H (2002) Avoiding bias in calculations of relative growth rate. Ann Bot Narnia 90(1):37–42.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcf140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaisermann A, De Vries FT, Griffiths RI, Bardgett RD (2017) Legacy effects of drought on plant-soil feedbacks and plant-plant interactions. New Phytol 215:1413–1424.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14661 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kardol P, Martijn Bezemer T, van der Putten WH (2006) Temporal variation in plant-soil feedback controls succession. Ecol Lett 9(9):1080–1088.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00953.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Klironomos JN (2002) Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities. Nature 417(6884):67–70.  https://doi.org/10.1038/417067a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kulmatiski A, Kardol P (2008) Getting plant—soil feedbacks out of the greenhouse: experimental and conceptual approaches. Prog Bot.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55819-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lajeunesse MJ (2015) Bias and correction for the log response ratio in ecological meta-analysis. Ecology. 96(8):2056–2063.  https://doi.org/10.1890/14-2402.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Limpert E, Stahel WA, Abbt M (2001) Log-normal distributions across the sciences: keys and clues. BioScience Narnia 51(5):341–352.  https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0341:lndats]2.0.co;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mangan SA, Schnitzer SA, Herre EA, MacK KML, Valencia MC, Sanchez EI, Bever JD (2010) Negative plant-soil feedback predicts tree-species relative abundance in a tropical forest. Nature 466(7307):752–755.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09273 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Maron JL, Smith AL, Ortega YK, Pearson DE, Callaway RM (2016) Negative plant-soil feedbacks increase with plant abundance, and are unchanged by competition. Ecology 97(8):2055–2063.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.1431 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. McGinn KJ, van der Putten WH, Hulme PE, Shelby N, Weser C, Duncan RP (2017) The influence of residence time and geographic extent on the strength of plant-soil feedbacks for naturalised Trifolium. J Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12864 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Perkins LB, Nowak RS (2013) Native and non-native grasses generate common types of plant-soil feedbacks by altering soil nutrients and microbial communities. Oikos 122(2):199–208.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.20592.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Semchenko M, Saar S, Lepik A (2017) Intraspecific genetic diversity modulates plant-soil feedback and nutrient cycling. New Phytol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14653 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Shelby N, Hulme PE, van der Putten WH, McGinn KJ, Weser C, Duncan RP (2016) No difference in the competitive ability of introduced and native Trifolium provenances when grown with soil biota from their introduced and native ranges. AoB Plants.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plw016 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J. (1995) Biometry: the princples and practice of statistic in biological research (3rd) New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  30. Suding KN, Stanley Harpole W, Fukami T, Kulmatiski A, Macdougall AS, Stein C, van der Putten WH (2013) Consequences of plant-soil feedbacks in invasion. J Ecol 101(2):298–308.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Teste FP, Kardol P, Turner BL, Wardle DA, Zemunik G, Renton M, Laliberté E (2017) Plant-soil feedback and the maintenance of diversity in Mediterranean-climate shrublands. Science 355(6321):173–176.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aai8291 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Ushio M, Aiba S, Takeuchi Y, Iida Y, Matsuoka S, Repin R, Kitayama K (2017) Plant-soil feedbacks and the dominance of conifers in a tropical montane forest in Borneo. Ecol Monogr 87(1):105–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van der Putten WH, Dijk CV, Peters BAM (1993) Plant-specific soil-borne diseases contribute to succession in foredune vegetation. Nature 362:53–56.  https://doi.org/10.1038/362053a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah E. Bates
    • 1
    Email author
  • Elizabeth M. Wandrag
    • 1
    • 2
  • Richard P. Duncan
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Applied EcologyUniversity of CanberraBruceAustralia
  2. 2.School of Environmental and Rural ScienceUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia

Personalised recommendations