Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 186, Issue 3, pp 677–689 | Cite as

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and associated microbial communities from dry grassland do not improve plant growth on abandoned field soil

  • Hana Pánková
  • Clémentine LepinayEmail author
  • Jana Rydlová
  • Alena Voříšková
  • Martina Janoušková
  • Tomáš Dostálek
  • Zuzana Münzbergová
Population ecology – original research

Abstract

After abandonment of agricultural fields, some grassland plant species colonize these sites with a frequency equivalent to dry grasslands (generalists) while others are missing or underrepresented in abandoned fields (specialists). We aimed to understand the inability of specialists to spread on abandoned fields by exploring whether performance of generalists and specialists depended on soil abiotic and/or biotic legacy. We performed a greenhouse experiment with 12 species, six specialists and six generalists. The plants were grown in sterile soil from dry grassland or abandoned field inoculated with microbial communities from one or the other site. Plant growth, abundance of mycorrhizal structures and plant response to inoculation were evaluated. We focused on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), one of the most important parts of soil communities affecting plant performance. The abandoned field soil negatively affected plant growth, but positively affected plant response to inoculation. The AMF community from both sites differed in infectivity and taxa frequencies. The lower AMF taxa frequency in the dry grassland soil suggested a lack of functional complementarity. Despite the fact that dry grassland AMF produced more arbuscules, the dry grassland inoculum did not improve phosphorus nutrition of specialists contrary to the abandoned field inoculum. Inoculum origin did not affect phosphorus nutrition of generalists. The lower effectiveness of the dry grassland microbial community toward plant performance excludes its inoculation in the abandoned field soil as a solution to allow settlement of specialists. Still, the distinct response of specialists and generalists to inoculation suggested that they differ in AMF responsiveness.

Keywords

Soil legacy Fungal structures Mycorrhizal response Native AMF Soil biota 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the participants of PopEcol discussion group for their comments on previous versions of the manuscript. We also thank the Handling Editor and the two Reviewers for their useful comments contributing to improve this manuscript. The study was supported by the Czech Science Foundation (Grant 15-11635S) and partly by institutional project RVO 67985939.

Author contribution statement

HP, JR, ZM conceived and designed the experiments. HP, AV performed the experiments. CL, HP, TD, ZM analysed the data. MJ analysed and wrote the molecular part about AMF communities. CL, TD, ZM wrote the manuscript; all authors provided advice and comments on the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

442_2017_4054_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (679 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 680 kb)

References

  1. Alguacil MM, Torrecillas E, García-Orenes F, Roldán A (2014) Changes in the composition and diversity of AMF communities mediated by management practices in a mediterranean soil are related with increase in soil biological activity. Soil Biol Biochem 76:34–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beakes GW, Glockling SL, Sekimoto S (2012) The evolutionary phylogeny of the oomycete “fungi”. Protoplasma 249:3–19.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00709-011-0269-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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 85:561–573.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2960528 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Bidondo LF, Colombo R, Bompadre J, Benavides M, Scorza V, Silvani V, Pérgola M, Godeas A (2016) Cultivable bacteria associated with infective propagules of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Implications for mycorrhizal activity. Appl Soil Ecol 105:86–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2016.04.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brundrett MC (2002) Coevolution of roots and mycorrhizas of land plants. New Phytol 154:275–304.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2002.00397.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chagnon PL, 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
  8. Collins CD, Foster BL (2009) Community-level consequences of mycorrhizae depend on phosphorus availability. Ecology 90:2567–2576.  https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1560.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Davison J, Öpik M, Daniell TJ, Moora M, Zobel M (2011) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities in plant roots are not random assemblages. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 78:103–115.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2011.01103.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Derelle D, Courty PE, Dajoz I, Declerck S, van Aarle IM, Carmignac D, Genet P (2015) Plant identity and density can influence arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi colonization, plant growth, and reproduction investment in coculture. Botany 93:405–412.  https://doi.org/10.1139/cjb-2014-0180 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dostálek T, Pánková H, Münzbergová Z, Rydlová J (2013) The effect of AMF suppression on plant species composition in a nutrient-poor dry grassland. PLoS One 8:e80535.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080535 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Doubková P, Kohout P, Sudová R (2013) Soil nutritional status, not inoculum identity, primarily determines the effect of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on the growth of Knautia arvensis plants. Mycorrhiza 23:561–572.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00572-013-0494-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Duchicela J, Sullivan TS, Bontti E, Bever JD (2013) Soil aggregate stability increase is strongly related to fungal community succession along an abandoned agricultural field chronosequence in the Bolivian Altiplano. J Appl Ecol 50:1266–1273.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12130 Google Scholar
  14. Emam T (2016) Local soil, but not commercial AMF inoculum, increases native and non-native grass growth at a mine restoration site. Restor Ecol 24:35–44.  https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12287 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feddermann N, Finlay R, Boller T, Elfstrand M (2010) Functional diversity in arbuscular mycorrhiza–the role of gene expression, phosphorous nutrition and symbiotic efficiency. Fungal Ecol 3:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funeco.2009.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fitter AH (2005) Darkness visible: reflections on underground ecology. J Ecol 93:231–243.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-0477.2005.00990.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fitzjohn RG, Dickie IA (2007) TRAMPR: an R package for analysis and matching of terminal-restriction fragment length polymorphism (TRFLP) profiles. Mol Ecol Resour 7:583–587.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01744.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fry EL, Pilgrim ES, Tallowin JR, Smith RS, Mortimer SR, Beaumont DA, Simkin J, Harris SJ, Shiel RS, Quirk H, Harrison KA, Lawson CS, Hobbs PJ, Bardgett RD (2017) Plant, soil and microbial controls on grassland diversity restoration: a long-term, multi-site mesocosm experiment. J Appl Ecol 54:1320–1330.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12869 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gandon S, Capowiez Y, Dubois Y, Michalakis Y, Olivieri I (1996) Local adaptation and gene-for-gene coevolution in a metapopulation model. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 263:1003–1009.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1996.0148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Graham JH, Abbott LK (2000) Wheat responses to aggressive and non-aggressive arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Plant Soil 220:207–218.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004709209009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gryndler M, Larsen J, Hršelová H, Řezáčová V, Gryndlerová H, Kubát J (2006) Organic and mineral fertilization, respectively, increase and decrease the development of external mycelium of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in a long-term field experiment. Mycorrhiza 16:159–166.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00572-005-0027-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Güsewell S, Koerselman W, Verhoeven JT (2003) Biomass N: P ratios as indicators of nutrient limitation for plant populations in wetlands. Ecol Appl 13:372–384. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2003)013[0372:BNRAIO]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
  23. Hart MM, Reader RJ (2002) Host plant benefit from association with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: variation due to differences in size of mycelium. Biol Fert Soils 36:357–366.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-002-0539-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Helgason T, Daniell TJ, Husband R, Fitter AH, Young JPW (1998) Ploughing up the wood-wide web? Nature 394:431.  https://doi.org/10.1038/28764 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hemrová L, Münzbergová Z (2015) The effects of plant traits on species’ responses to present and historical patch configurations and patch age. Oikos 124:437–445.  https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.01130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hetrick BAD, Wilson WT, Cox TS (1993) Mycorrhizal dependence of modern wheat cultivars and ancestors: a synthesis. Can J Bot 71:512–518.  https://doi.org/10.1139/b93-056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hodge A, Storer K (2015) Arbuscular mycorrhiza and nitrogen: implications for individual plants through to ecosystems. Plant Soil 386:1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-014-2162-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jakobsen I, Abbott LK, Robson AD (1992) External hyphae of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi associated with Trifolium subterraneum L. New Phytol 120:371–380.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1992.tb01077.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jansa J, Smith FA, Smith SE (2008) Are there benefits of simultaneous root colonization by different arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi? New Phytol 177:779–789.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02294.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Jansa J, Erb A, Oberholzer HR, Šmilauer P, Egli S (2014) Soil and geography are more important determinants of indigenous arbuscular mycorrhizal communities than management practices in Swiss agricultural soils. Mol Ecol 23:2118–2135.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12706 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Johansson JF, Paul LR, Finlay RD (2004) Microbial interactions in the mycorrhizosphere and their significance for sustainable agriculture. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 48:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.femsec.2003.11.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnson NC, Rowland DL, Corkidi L, Egerton-Warburton LM, Allen EB (2003) Nitrogen enrichment alters mycorrhizal allocation at five mesic to semiarid grasslands. Ecology 84:1895–1908. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2003)084[1895:NEAMAA]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
  33. Johnson NC, Wilson GW, Bowker MA, Wilson JA, Miller RM (2010) Resource limitation is a driver of local adaptation in mycorrhizal symbioses. P Natl Acad Sci 107:2093–2098.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0906710107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kabir Z, O’Halloran IP, Fyles JW, Hamel C (1998) Dynamics of the mycorrhizal symbiosis of corn (Zea mays L.): effects of host physiology, tillage practice and fertilization on spatial distribution of extra-radical mycorrhizal hyphae in the field. Agric Ecosyst Environ 68:151–163.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(97)00155-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kivlin SN, Hawkes CV, Treseder KK (2011) Global diversity and distribution of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Soil Biol Biochem 43:2294–2303.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.07.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klironomos JN (2002) Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities. Nature 417:67–70.  https://doi.org/10.1038/417067a CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Knappová J, Münzbergová Z (2015) Low seed pressure and competition from resident vegetation restricts dry grassland specialists to edges of abandoned fields. Agr Ecosyst Environ 200:200–207.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Knappová J, Hemrová L, Münzbergová Z (2012) Colonization of central European abandoned fields by dry grassland species depends on the species richness of the source habitats: a new approach for measuring habitat isolation. Landscape Ecol 27:97–108.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9680-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Knappová J, Pánková H, Münzbergová Z (2016) Roles of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and soil abiotic conditions in the establishment of a dry grassland community. PLoS One 11:e0158925.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158925 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Koch AM, Antunes PM, Maherali H, Hart MM, Klironomos JN (2017) Evolutionary asymmetry in the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis: conservatism in fungal morphology does not predict host plant growth. New Phytol 214:1330–1337.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14465 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Koide RT (2000) Functional complementarity in the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis. New Phytol 147:233–235.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2000.00710.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Koske RE, Gemma JN (1989) A modified procedure for staining roots to detect VA-mycorrhizas. Mycol Res 92:486–505.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0953-7562(89)80195-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kuzyakov Y, Blagodatskaya E, Blagodatsky S et al (2009) Comments on the paper by Kemmitt (2008)‘Mineralization of native soil organic matter is not regulated by the size, activity or composition of the soil microbial biomass—a new perspective’[Soil Biology and Biochemistry 40:61–73]: the biology of the regulatory gate. Soil Biol Biochem 41:435–439.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.07.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. LeBauer DS, Treseder KK (2008) Nitrogen limitation of net primary productivity in terrestrial ecosystems is globally distributed. Ecology 89:371–379.  https://doi.org/10.1890/06-2057.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Lekberg Y, Waller LP (2016) What drives differences in arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities among plant species? Fungal Ecol 24:135–138.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funeco.2016.05.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lekberg Y, Gibbons SM, Rosendahl S, Ramsey PW (2013) Severe plant invasions can increase mycorrhizal fungal abundance and diversity. ISME J 7:1424–1433.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2013.41 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Mangan SA, Schnitzer SA, Herre EA, Mack KM, Valencia MC, Sanchez EI, Bever JD (2010) Negative plant-soil feedback predicts tree-species relative abundance in a tropical forest. Nature 466:752–755.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09273 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. McLauchlan K (2006) The nature and longevity of agricultural impacts on soil carbon and nutrients: a review. Ecosystems 9:1364–1382.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-005-0135-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mordecai EA (2011) Pathogen impacts on plant communities: unifying theory, concepts, and empirical work. Ecol Monogr 81:429–441.  https://doi.org/10.1890/10-2241.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Morriën E, Hannula SE, Snoek LB, Helmsing NR, Zweers H, De Hollander M, Luján Soto R, Bouffaud ML, Buée M, Dimmers W et al (2017) Soil networks become more connected and take up more carbon as nature restoration progresses. Nat Commun 8:14349.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14349 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Münzbergová Z (2004) Effect of spatial scale on factors limiting species distributions in dry grassland fragments. J Ecol 92:854–867.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-0477.2004.00919.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Münzbergová Z, Herben T (2005) Seed, dispersal, microsite, habitat and recruitment limitation: identification of terms and concepts in studies of limitations. Oecologia 145:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-005-0052-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Oehl F, Sieverding E, Ineichen K, Mäder P, Boller T, Wiemken A (2003) Impact of land use intensity on the species diversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in agroecosystems of Central Europe. Appl Environ Microb 69:2816–2824.  https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.69.5.2816-2824.2003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Olsen SR, Sommers LE (1982) Phosphorus. In: Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR (eds) Methods of soil analysis, part 2, Chemical and microbiological properties. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 403–430Google Scholar
  56. Olsson PA, Baath E, Jakobsen I (1997) Phosphorus effects on the mycelium and storage structures of an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus as studied in the soil and roots by analysis of Fatty Acid signatures. Appl Environ Microb 63:3531–3538Google Scholar
  57. Öpik M, Metsis M, Daniell TJ, Zobel M, Moora M (2009) Large-scale parallel 454 sequencing reveals host ecological group specificity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in a boreonemoral forest. New Phytol 184:424–437.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02920.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Paluch EC, Thomsen MA, Volk TJ (2013) Effects of resident soil fungi and land use history outweigh those of commercial mycorrhizal inocula: testing a restoration strategy in unsterilized soil. Restor Ecol 21:380–389.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2012.00894.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pánková H, Münzbergová Z, Rydlová J, Vosátka M (2008) Differences in AM fungal root colonization between populations of perennial Aster species have genetic reasons. Oecologia 157:211–220.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-008-1064-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Pánková H, Münzbergová Z, Rydlová J, Vosátka M (2011) The response of Aster amellus (Asteraceae) to mycorrhiza depends on the origins of both the soil and the fungi. Am J Bot 98:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900350 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pánková H, Münzbergová Z, Rydlová J, Vosátka M (2014) Co-adaptation of plants and communities of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi to their soil conditions. Folia Geobot 49:521–540.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12224-013-9183-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pivato B, Offre P, Marchelli S, Barbonaglia B, Mougel C, Lemanceau P, Berta G (2009) Bacterial effects on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and mycorrhiza development as influenced by the bacteria, fungi, and host plant. Mycorrhiza 19:81.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00572-008-0205-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Redhead JW, Sheail J, Bullock JM, Ferreruela A, Walker KJ, Pywell RF (2014) The natural regeneration of calcareous grassland at a landscape scale: 150 years of plant community re-assembly on Salisbury Plain, UK. Appl Veg Sci 17:408–418.  https://doi.org/10.1111/avsc.12076 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Revillini D, Gehring CA, Johnson NC (2016) The role of locally adapted mycorrhizas and rhizobacteria in plant–soil feedback systems. Funct Ecol 30:1086–1098.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12668 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rudgers JA, Orr S (2009) Non-native grass alters growth of native tree species via leaf and soil microbes. J Ecol 97:247–255.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2008.01478.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Smith SE, Smith FA (2011) Roles of arbuscular mycorrhizas in plant nutrition and growth: new paradigms from cellular to ecosystem scales. Annu Rev Plant Biol 62:227–250.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-042110-103846 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Spohn M, Novák TJ, Incze J, Giani L (2016) Dynamics of soil carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus in calcareous soils after land-use abandonment–A chronosequence study. Plant Soil 401:185–196.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-015-2513-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sýkorová Z, Wiemken A, Redecker D (2007) Cooccurring Gentiana verna and Gentiana acaulis and their neighboring plants in two swiss upper montane meadows harbor distinct arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities. Appl Environ Microb 73:5426–5434.  https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00987-07 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. ter Braak CJF, Šmilauer P (2012) Canoco reference manual and user’s guide: software for ordination (version 50). Microcomputer power, Ithaca, p 496Google Scholar
  70. Tremlová K, Münzbergová Z (2007) Importance of species traits for species distribution in fragmented landscapes. Ecology 88:965–977.  https://doi.org/10.1890/06-0924 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Trouvelot A, Kough JL, Gianinazzi-Pearson V (1986) Mesure du taux de mycorhization VA d’un système radiculaire. Recherche de méthodes d’estimation ayant une signification fonctionnelle. In: Gianinazzi-Pearson V, Gianinazzi S (eds) Physiological and Genetical Aspects of Mycorrhizae. INRA Presse, Paris, pp 217–221Google Scholar
  72. Tsiafouli MA, Thébault E, Sgardelis SP, De Ruiter PC, van der Putten WH, Birkhofer K, Hemerik L, de Vries FT, Bardgett RD, Brady MV et al (2015) Intensive agriculture reduces soil biodiversity across Europe. Glob Change Biol 21:973–985.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12752 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. van der Heijden MGA, Horton TR (2009) Socialism in soil? The importance of mycorrhizal fungal networks for facilitation in natural ecosystems. J Ecol 97:1139–1150.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01570.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. van der Heijden MGA, Scheublin TR (2007) Functional traits in mycorrhizal ecology: their use for predicting the impact of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities on plant growth and ecosystem functioning. New Phytol 174:244–250.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02041.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. van der Heijden MGA, Klironomos JN, Ursic M, Moutoglis P (1998) Mycorrhizal fungal diversity determines plant biodiversity, ecosystem variability and productivity. Nature 396:69–72.  https://doi.org/10.1038/23932 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. van der Heyde M, Ohsowski B, Abbott LK, Hart M (2017) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus responses to disturbance are context-dependent. Mycorrhiza.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00572-016-0759-3 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. van der Putten WH, Bardgett RD, Bever JD, Bezemer TM, Casper BB, Fukami T, Kardol P, Klironomos JN, Kulmatiski A, Schweitzer JA, Suding KN, Van de Voorde TFJ, Wardle DA (2013) Plant–soil feedbacks: the past, the present and future challenges. J Ecol 101:265–276.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Verbruggen E, Heijden MG, Rillig MC, Kiers ET (2013) Mycorrhizal fungal establishment in agricultural soils: factors determining inoculation success. New Phytol 197:1104–1109.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04348.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Vogelsang KM, Reynolds HL, Bever JD (2006) Mycorrhizal fungal identity and richness determine the diversity and productivity of a tallgrass prairie system. New Phytol 172:554–562.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01854.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Voříšková A, Janoušková M, Slavíková R, Pánková H, Daniel O, Vazačová K, Rydlová J, Vosátka M, Münzbergová Z (2016) Effect of past agricultural use on the infectivity and composition of a community of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Agr Ecosyst Environ 221:28–39.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.01.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wang B, Qiu YL (2006) Phylogenetic distribution and evolution of mycorrhizas in land plants. Mycorrhiza 16:299–363.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00572-005-0033-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 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
  83. Wubs EJ, van der Putten WH, Bosch M, Bezemer TM (2016) Soil inoculation steers restoration of terrestrial ecosystems. Nat Plants 2:16107.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2016.107 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of BotanyThe Czech Academy of SciencesPrůhoniceCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Experimental Plant Biology, Faculty of ScienceCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic
  3. 3.Department of Botany, Faculty of ScienceCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations