Symbiosis

, Volume 51, Issue 2, pp 139–148 | Cite as

The interactive effects of plant microbial symbionts: a review and meta-analysis

Article

Abstract

In nature, plants often associate with multiple symbionts concurrently, yet the effects of tripartite symbioses are not well understood. We expected synergistic growth responses from plants associating with functionally distinct symbionts. In contrast, symbionts providing similar benefits to a host may reduce host plant growth. We reviewed studies investigating the effect of multiple interactions on host plant performance. Additionally, we conducted a meta-analysis on the studies that performed controlled manipulations of the presence of two microbial symbionts. Using response ratios, we investigated the effects on plants of pairs of symbionts (mycorrhizal fungi, fungal endophytes, and nitrogen-fixers). The results did not support the view that arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi and rhizobia should interact synergistically. In contrast, we found the joint effects of fungal endophytes and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi to be greater than expected given their independent effects. This increase in plant performance only held for antagonistic endophytes, whose negative effects were alleviated when in association with AM fungi, while the impact of beneficial endophytes was not altered by infection with AM fungi. Generalizations from the meta-analysis were limited by the substantial variation within types of interactions and the data available, highlighting the need for more research on a range of plant systems.

Keywords

Plant microbial symbiosis Plant community dynamics Species interactions Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi Fungal endophytes Nitrogen-fixers Ecological meta-analyses 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Jason Hoeksema, the Bever and Clay lab groups, and two anonymous reviewers for insightful comments on this manuscript. We are grateful to the Indiana University Stat/Math Center for statistical help. We acknowledge the Indiana Academy of Sciences for funding support of this work.

Supplementary material

13199_2010_83_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (110 kb)
Supporting Information 1Articles reviewed (PDF 109 kb)
13199_2010_83_MOESM2_ESM.doc (46 kb)
Supporting Information 2Hedge’s d independent, overall, and interactive effect sizes (DOC 46 kb)
13199_2010_83_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (45 kb)
Supporting Information 3Overall response ratios (PDF 45 kb)

References

  1. Ahlholm JU, Helander M, Lehtimaki S, Wali P, Saikkonen K (2002) Vertically transmitted fungal endophytes: different responses of host-parasite systems to environmental conditions. Oikos 99:173–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ames RN, Bethlenfalvay GJ (1987) Localized increase in nodulue activity but no competitive interaction of cowpea rhizobia due to pre-establishment of vesicular arbuscular mycorrhiza. New Phytol 106:207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barea JM, Werner D, Azcon-Guilar C, Azcon R (2005) Interactions of arbuscular mycorrhiza and nitrogen-fixing symbiosis in sustainable agriculture. Nitrogen Fixation Agric Forest Ecol Environ Nitrogen Fixation Orig Applications Research Progress 4:199–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barker GM (1987) Mycorrhizal infection influences Acremonium-induced resistance to Argentine stem weevil in grasses. Proc NZ Weed Pest Control Conf 40:199–203Google Scholar
  5. Bennett AE, Alers-Garcia J, Bever JD (2006) Three-way interactions among mutualistic mycorrhizal fungi, plants, and plant enemies: hypotheses and synthesis. Am Nat 167:141–152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bethlenfalvay GJ, Pacovsky RS, Bayne HG, Stafford AE (1982) Interactions between nitrogen-fixation, mycorrhizal colonization, and host plant growth in the Phaseolus-Rhizobium-Glomus symbiosis. Plant Physiol 70:446–450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bever JD, Westover KM, Antonovics J (1997) Incorporating the soil community into plant population dynamics: the utility of the feedback approach. J Ecol 85:561–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bronstein JL (1994) Conditional outcomes in mutualistic interactions. Trends Ecol Evol 9:214–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chanway CP, Holl FB, Turkington R (1989) Effect of Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar trifolii genotype on specificity between Trifolium repens and Lolium perenne. J Ecol 77:1150–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheplick GP (2007) Costs of fungal endophyte infection in Lolium perenne genotypes from Eurasia and North Africa under extreme resource limitation. Environ Exp Bot 60:202–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clay K (1988) Fungal endophytes of grasses — a defensive mutualism between plants and fungi. Ecology 69:10–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ekblad A, Wallander H, Carlsson R, HussDanell K (1995) Fungal biomass in roots and extramatrical mycelium in relation to macronutrients and plant biomass of ectomycorrhizal Pinus sylvestris and Alnus incana. New Phytol 131:443–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferrari AE, Wall LG (2008) Coinoculation of black locust with Rhizobium and Glomus on a desurfaced soil. Soil Sci 173:195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fragabeddiar A, Letacon F (1990) Interactions between a VA mycorrhizal fungus and Frankia associated with Alder (Alnus glutinosa (L) Gaetn). Symbiosis 9:247–258Google Scholar
  15. Govindarajulu M, Pfeffer PE, Jin HR, Abubaker J, Douds DD, Allen JW et al (2005) Nitrogen transfer in the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis. Nature 435:819–823CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gurevitch J, Curtis PS, Jones MH (2001) Meta-analysis in ecology. Adv Ecol Res 32(32):199–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harris D, Pacovsky RS, Paul EA (1985) Carbon economy of soybean-Rhizobium-Glomus associations. New Phytol 101:427–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hedges LV, Olkin I (1985) Statistical methods for meta-analysis.Academic Press, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  19. Hedges LV, Gurevitch J, Curtis PS (1999) The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80:1150–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ianson DC, Linderman RG (1993) Variation in the response of nodulating pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) to different isolates of mycorrhizal fungi. Symbiosis 15:105–119Google Scholar
  21. Jha DK, Sharma GD, Mishra RR (1993) Mineral nutrition in the tripartite interaction between Frankia, Glomus and Alnus at different soil phosphorus regimes. New Phytol 123:307–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jia Y, Gray VM, Straker CJ (2004) The influence of Rhizobium and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on nitrogen and phosphorus accumulation by Vicia faba. Ann Bot 94:251–258CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson NC (1993) Can fertilization of soil select less mutualistic mycorrhizae? Ecol Appl 3:749–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson NC (2010) Resource stoichiometry elucidates the structure and function of arbuscular mycorrhizas across scales. New Phytol 185:631–647CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson NC, Graham JH, Smith FA (1997) Functioning of mycorrhizal associations along the mutualism-parasitism continuum. New Phytol 135:575–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Klironomos JN (2003) Variation in plant response to native and exotic arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Ecology 84:2292–2301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mack KML, Rudgers JA (2008) Balancing multiple mutualists: asymmetric interactions among plants, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, and fungal endophytes. Oikos 117:310–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miller TE, Travis J (1996) The evolutionary role of indirect effects in communities. Ecology 77:1329–1335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morris WF, Hufbauer RA, Agrawal AA, Bever JD, Borowicz VA, Gilbert GS et al (2007) Direct and interactive effects of enemies and mutualists on plant performance: a meta-analysis. Ecology 88:1021–1029CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Muller J (2003) Artificial infection by endophytes affects growth and mycorrhizal colonisation of Lolium perenne. Funct Plant Biol 30:419–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Niranjan R, Mohan V, Rao VM (2007) Effect of indole acetic acid on the synergistic interactions of Bradyrhizobium and Glomus fasciculatum on growth, nodulation, and nitrogen fixation of Dalbergia sissoo roxb. Arid Land Res Manag 21:329–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Novas MV, Cabral D, Godeas AM (2005) Interaction between grass endophytes and mycorrhizas in Bromus setifolius from Patagonia, Argentina. Symbiosis 40:23–30Google Scholar
  33. Omacini M, Eggers T, Bonkowski M, Gange AC, Jones TH (2006) Leaf endophytes affect mycorrhizal status and growth of co-infected and neighbouring plants. Funct Ecol 20:226–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Orfanoudakis MZ, Hooker JE, Wheeler CT (2004) Early interactions between arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and Frankia during colonisation and root nodulation of Alnus glutinosa. Symbiosis 36:69–82Google Scholar
  35. Pacovsky RS, Fuller G, Stafford AE, Paul EA (1986) Nutrient and growth interactions in soybeans colonized with Glomus fasciculatum and Rhizobium japonicum. Plant Soil 92:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pan FJ, Cheng WE (1988) Effect of dual inoculation on growth and nutrient uptake in Leucaena leucocephala. Bull Taiwan Forest Res Inst New Ser 3:209–224Google Scholar
  37. Reynolds HL, Vogelsang KM, Hartley AE, Bever JD, Schultz PA (2006) Variable responses of old-field perennials to arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and phosphorus source. Oecologia 147:348–358CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Rodriguez RJ, White JF, Arnold AE, Redman RS (2009) Fungal endophytes: diversity and functional roles. New Phytol 182:314–330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Schardl CL, Leuchtmann A, Spiering MJ (2004) Symbioses of grasses with seedborne fungal endophytes. Annu Rev Plant Biol 55:315–340CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Schultz PA, Miller RM, Jastrow JD, Rivetta CV, Bever JD (2001) Evidence of a mycorrhizal mechanism for the adaptation of Andropogon gerardii (Poaceae) to high- and low-nutrient prairies. Am J Bot 88:1650–1656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stanton ML (2003) Interacting guilds: moving beyond the pairwise perspective on mutualisms. Am Nat 162:S10–S23CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Thompson JN, Fernandez CC (2006) Temporal dynamics of antagonism and mutualism in a geographically variable plant-insect interaction. Ecology 87:103–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Tintjer T, Leuchtmann A, Clay K (2008) Variation in horizontal and vertical transmission of the endophyte Epichloe elymi infecting the grass Elymus hystrix. New Phytol 179:236–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Turkington R, Harper JL (1979) Growth, distribution and neighbor relationships of Trifolium repends in a permanet pasture. 4. Fine-scale biotic differentiation. J Ecol 67:245–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van der Heijden MGA, Klironomos JN, Ursic M, Moutoglis P, Streitwolf-Engel R, Boller T et al (1998) Mycorrhizal fungal diversity determines plant biodiversity, ecosystem variability and productivity. Nature 396:69–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Vicari M, Hatcher PE, Ayres PG (2002) Combined effect of foliar and mycorrhizal endophytes on an insect herbivore. Ecology 83:2452–2464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vogelsang KM, Reynolds HL, Bever JD (2006) Mycorrhizal fungal identity and richness determine the diversity and productivity of a tallgrass prairie system. New Phytol 172:554–562CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Vonderwell JD, Enebak SA (2000) Differential effects of rhizobacterial strain and dose on the ectomycorrhizal colonization of loblolly pine seedlings. For Sci 46:437–441Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations