Chinese Science Bulletin

, Volume 58, Issue 7, pp 758–765

Soil fungi of three native tree species inhibit biomass production and shift biomass allocation of invasive Mikania micrantha Kunth

  • Lei Gao
  • QiJie Zan
  • MingGuang Li
  • Qiang Guo
  • Liang Hu
  • Lu Jiang
  • Sheng Zhou
  • HaiJun Liu
Open Access
Article Ecology

Abstract

Soil microbes contribute to native plant species successful resistance against invasive plant. Three native tree species, Heteropanax fragrans (HF), Cinnamomum burmanii (CB), and Macaranga tanarius (MT) were effective in controlling the notorious invasive vine Mikania micrantha (MM). Biomass production and allocation patterns (shoot/root biomass ratio (shoot/root)) are important indicators of MM climbing coverage and competitive light-capturing capacity. An investigation was conducted to test the role of soil microbes associated with the three native tree species to inhibit MM biomass production and shift MM shoot/root. Rhizosphere soils originating from preculture HF, CB, MT, and MM plots were collected separately for use as inocula. The inocula were mixed with sterilized river sand at a 1:9 (w/w) ratio to grow MM. The fungicide carbendazim (methyl benzimidazol-2-ylcarbamate) was applied to half the treatments to kill pathogenic soil fungi. Two nutrient levels were established based on the natural soil nutrient concentration from a field stand invaded by MM. MM were grown from seeds in a glasshouse, harvested 15 weeks after sowing, and separated into shoot and root portions. Results showed that under interaction of soil origin and nutrient levels, MM biomass production was unchanged, but biomass allocation patterns were significantly different. MM biomass production grown in the three native tree soils under two nutrient levels was similar or higher than MM biomass production in MM conspecific soil, indicating the absence of species-specific pathogens that inhibited MM biomass production in native tree soils. However, in both conspecific and tree soils, MM biomass production was significantly reduced in the presence of pathogenic soil fungi, i.e. MM experienced significant fungal inhibition, demonstrating the pathogenic soil fungi promoted native tree resistence to MM. MM exhibited decreased shoot biomass allocation when cultivated in native tree soil relative to MM conspecific soil under field stand nutrient level conditions. Reduced resource allocation to shoot biomass could result in diminished capacity to climb, cover, and subsequent smother to native trees, and reduced surface area exposed to available light. Following fungicide application, significant biomass allocation differences disappeared, suggesting the native tree soil fungi were responsible for decreasing MM shoot biomass. The overall results indicated tree soil fungi serve an integral role in controlling invasive MM through fungal inhibition on MM biomass production, and shifts in MM biomass allocation patterns.

Keywords

biological control biotic resistance Cinnamomum burmanii Heteropanax fragrans invasion ecology Macaranga tanarius Mikania micrantha nutrient levels pathogenic fungi 

Supplementary material

11434_2012_5394_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (492 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 491 KB.

References

  1. 1.
    Holm L G, Plucknett D L, Pancho J V, et al. The Worlds Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, 1977. 320–327Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lowe S, Browne M, Boudjelas S, et al. 100 of the world’s worst invasive alien species. A selection from the global invasive species database. IUCN/SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG), Auckland, New Zealand, 2001. 52–56Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Li M G, Zhang W Y, Liao W B, et al. The history and status of the study on Mikania micrantha (in Chinese). Chin Ecol Sci, 2000, 19: 41–45Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhou X Y, Zan Q J, Wang Y J, et al. The transmission and damaging effect of Mikania micrantha in Guangdong Province of China (in Chinese). Ecol Sci, 2003, 22: 332–336Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang L Y, Ye W H, Cao H L, et al. Mikania micrantha H.B.K. in China — An overview. Weed Res, 2004, 44: 42–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huang Z L, Cao H L, Liang X D, et al. The growth and damaging effect of Mikania micrantha in different habitats (in Chinese). J Trop Subtrop Bot, 2000, 8: 131–138Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhong X Q, Huang Z, Si H, et al. Analysis of ecological-economic loss caused by weed Mikania micrantha on Neilingding Island, Shenzhen, China (in Chinese). J Trop Subtrop Bot, 2004, 12: 167–170Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhou X Y, Wang B S, Li M G, et al. Correlation analysis on the damage of Mikania micrantha to plant communities in Neilingdind Island of Guandong Province, China (in Chinese). Chin J Appl Ecol, 2005, 16: 350–354Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zan Q J, Li M G. Practical Techniques for Controlling Mikania micrantha (in Chinese). Beijing: Science Press, 2010. 142–157Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang B S, Wang Y J, Liao W B, et al. The Invasion Ecology and Management of Alien Weed Mikania micrantha H.B.K. (in Chinese). Beijing: Science Press, 2004. 152–177Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dostal P, Paleckova M. Does relatedness of natives used for soil precultureing influence plant-soil feedback of exotics? Biol Invasions, 2011, 13: 331–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Callaway R M, Thelen G C, Barth S, et al. Soil fungi alter interactions between the invader Centaurea maculosa and North American natives. Ecology, 2004, 85: 1062–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bossdorf O, Prati D, Auge H, et al. Reduced competitive ability in an invasive plant. Ecol Lett, 2004, 7: 346–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jakobs G, Weber E, Edwards P J. Introduced plants of the invasive Solidago gigantea (Asteraceae) are larger and grow denser than conspecifics in the native range. Divers Distrib, 2004, 10: 11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Meyer G, Hull-Sanders H. Altered patterns of growth, physiology and reproduction in invasive genotypes of Solidago gigantea (Asteraceae). Biol Invasions, 2008, 10: 303–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shen H, Ye W H, Hong L, et al. Influence of the obligate parasite Cuscuta campestris on growth and biomass allocation of its host Mikania micrantha. J Exp Bot, 2005, 56: 1277–1284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morrison J A, Mauck K. Experimental field comparison of native and non-native maple seedlings: Natural enemies, ecophysiology, growth and survival. J Ecol, 2007, 95: 1036–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Feng Y L, Wang J F, Sang W G. Biomass allocation, morphology and photosynthesis of invasive and noninvasive exotic species grown at four irradiance levels. Oecologica, 2007, 31: 40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    D’Hertefeldt T, Van der Putten W H. Physiological integration of the clonal plant Carex arenaria and its response to soil-borne pathogens. Oikos, 1998, 81: 229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bourne M, Nicotra A, Colloff M, et al. Effect of soil biota on growth and allocation by Eucalyptus microcarpa. Plant Soil, 2008, 305: 145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Deng X. Morphological and physiological plasticity responding to different light environments of the invasive plant Mikania micrantha H.B.K. (in Chinese). Ecol Environ Sci, 2010, 19: 1170–1175Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhang W Y, Wang B S, Li M G, et al. The branching pattern and biomass of Mikania micrantha shoot modules in Acacia confuse community and Miscanthus sinensis community (in Chinese). Acta Phytoecol Sin, 2002, 26: 346–350Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Li W H, Zhang C B, Jiang H B, et al. Changes in soil microbial community associated with invasion of the exotic weed Mikania micrantha H.B.K. Plant Soil, 2006, 281: 309–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wu Z, Raven P H, Garden M B. Flora of China. Beijing: Science Press, 1994. 158Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Callaway R M, Thelen G C, Rodriguez A, et al. Soil biota and exotic plant invasion. Nature, 2004, 427: 731–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bentley K S, Kirkland D, Murphy M, et al. Evaluation of thresholds for benomyl- and carbendazim-induced aneuploidy in cultured human lymphocytes using fluorescence in situ hybridization. Mutat Res-Gen Tox En, 2000, 464: 41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Burrows L A, Edwards C A. The use of integrated soil microcosms to assess the impact of carbendazim on soil ecosystems. Ecotoxicology, 2004, 13: 143–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yang Q, Zhao X Y. Method of transforming resistance gene to carbendazim into Trichoderma sp. Chin Sci Bull, 1999, 44: 65–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Klironomos J N. Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities. Nature, 2002, 417: 67–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Maron J L, Marler M, Klironomos J N, et al. Soil fungal pathogens and the relationship between plant diversity and productivity. Ecol Lett, 2011, 14: 36–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Levine J M, Adler P B, Yelenik S G. A meta-analysis of biotic resistance to exotic plant invasions. Ecol Lett, 2004, 7: 975–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thomsen M A, D’Antonio C M. Mechanisms of resistance to invasion in a California grassland: The roles of competitor identity, resource availability, and environmental gradients. Oikos, 2007, 116: 17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wolfe B E, Klironomos J N. Breaking new ground: Soil communities and exotic plant invasion. Bioscience, 2005, 55: 477–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Souza L, Bunn W A, Weltzin J F, et al. Similar biotic factors affect early establishment and abundance of an invasive plant species across spatial scales. Biol Invasions, 2011, 13: 255–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hou Y P, Peng S L, Chen B M, et al. Inhibition of an invasive plant (Mikania micrantha H.B.K.) by soils of three different forests in lower subtropical China. Biol Invasions, 2011, 13: 381–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Burke M J W, Grime J P. An experimental study of plant community invasibility. Ecology, 1996, 77: 776–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gross K L, Mittelbach G G, Reynolds H L. Grassland invasibility and diversity: responses to nutrients, seed input, and disturbance. Ecology, 2005, 86: 476–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Huenneke L F, Hamburg S P, Koide R, et al. Effects of soil resources on plant invasion and community structure in Californian serpentine grassland. Ecology, 1990, 71: 478–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Allison S D, Vitousek P M. Rapid nutrient cycling in leaf litter from invasive plants in Hawaii. Oecologia, 2004, 141: 612–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Te Beest M, Stevens N, Olff H, et al. Plant-soil feedback induces shifts in biomass allocation in the invasive plant Chromolaena odorata. J Ecol, 2009, 97: 1281–1290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hong L, Shen H, Ye W H, et al. Self-incompatibility in Mikania micrantha in South China. Weed Res, 2007, 47: 280–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Closset-Kopp D, Saguez R, Decocq G. Differential growth patterns and fitness may explain contrasted performances of the invasive Prunus serotina in its exotic range. Biol Invasions, 2011, 13: 1341–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fan W, Meng R, Chen Q S. Effects of nitrogen additions on ground/ underground biomass allocation of Stipa krylovii Community (in Chinese). Anim Husbandry Feed Sci, 2010, 2: 74–75Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Qi Y, Huang Y M, Wang Y, et al. Biomass and its allocation of four grassland species under different nitrogen levels (in Chinese). Acta Ecol Sin, 2011, 18: 5121–5129Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lei Gao
    • 1
    • 2
  • QiJie Zan
    • 3
    • 4
  • MingGuang Li
    • 1
    • 2
  • Qiang Guo
    • 5
  • Liang Hu
    • 6
  • Lu Jiang
    • 5
  • Sheng Zhou
    • 1
    • 2
  • HaiJun Liu
    • 5
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of BiocontrolSun Yat-sen UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Guangdong Key Laboratory of Plant ResourcesGuangzhouChina
  3. 3.Shenzhen Wild Animal Rescue CenterShenzhenChina
  4. 4.School of Life SciencesShenzhen UniversityShenzhenChina
  5. 5.Shenzhen Wildlife Protecting AdministrationShenzhenChina
  6. 6.School of Geographical Science and PlanningSun Yat-sen UniversityGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations