Is plant genetic control of ectomycorrhizal fungal communities an untapped source of stable soil carbon in managed forests?
- 420 Downloads
Ectomycorrhizal (ECM) fungi provide one of the main pathways for carbon (C) to move from trees into soils, where these fungi make significant contributions to microbial biomass and soil respiration.
ECM fungal species vary significantly in traits that likely influence C sequestration, such that forest C sequestration potential may be driven in part by the existing community composition of ECM fungi. Moreover, accumulating experimental data show that tree genotypes differ in their compatibility with particular ECM fungal species, i.e. mycorrhizal traits of forest trees are heritable. Those traits are genetically correlated with other traits for which tree breeders commonly select, suggesting that selection for traits of interest, such as disease resistance or growth rate, could lead to indirect selection for or against particular mycorrhizal traits of trees in forest plantations.
Altogether, these observations suggest that selection of particular tree genotypes could alter the community composition of symbiotic ECM fungi in managed forests, with cascading effects on soil functioning and soil C sequestration.
KeywordsCarbon sequestration Ectomycorrhizal fungi Pinus Extracellular enzymes
- Allen MF (1991) The ecology of mycorrhizae. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 184Google Scholar
- Bardgett RD, Wardle DA (2010) Aboveground-belowground linkages: biotic interactions, ecosystem processes, and global change. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Dixon RK, Garrett HE, Stelzer HE (1987) Growth and ectomycorrhizal development of loblolly pine progenies inoculated with 3 isolates of Pisolithus tinctorius. Silvae Genetica 36:240–245Google Scholar
- Drake JE, Gallet-Budynek A, Hofmockel KS, Bernhardt ES, Billings SA, Jackson RB, Johnsen KS, Lichter J, McCarthy HR, McCormack ML, Moore DJP, Oren R, Palmroth S, Phillips RP, Pippen JS, Pritchard SG, Treseder KK, Schlesinger WH, DeLucia EH, Finzi AC (2011) Increases in the flux of carbon belowground stimulate nitrogen uptake and sustain the long-term enhancement of forest productivity under elevated CO(2). Ecol Lett 14:349–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Johnsen KH, Wear D, Oren R, Teskey RO, Sanchez F, Will R, Butnor J, Markewitz D, Richter D, Rials T, Allen HL, Seiler J, Ellsworth D, Maier C, Katul G, Dougherty PM (2001) Carbon sequestration and southern pine forests. J For 99:14–21Google Scholar
- Joyce L, Aber J, McNulty S, Dale V, Hansen A, Irland L, Neilson R, Skog K (2001) Potential consequences of climate variability and change for the forests of the United States. In Climate Change Impacts on the United States. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 489–523Google Scholar
- Labbe J, Jorge V, Kohler A, Vion P, Marcais B, Bastien C, Tuskan GA, Martin F, Le Tacon F (2011) Identification of quantitative trait loci affecting ectomycorrhizal symbiosis in an interspecific F(1) poplar cross and differential expression of genes in ectomycorrhizas of the two parents: Populus deltoides and Populus trichocarpa. Tree Genetics & Genomes 7:617–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Leake JR, Donnelly DP, Boddy L (2002) Interactions between ectomycorrhizal and saprotrophic fungi. In: Van der Heijden MGA, Sanders IR (eds) Mycorrhizal Ecology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 345–372Google Scholar
- Malajczuk N (1987) Ecology and management of ectomycorrhizal fungi in regenerating forest ecosystems in Australia. In: Sylvia DM, Hung LL, Graham JH (eds) Mycorrhizae in the Next Decade: Practical Applications and Research Priorities. University of Florida, Gainesville, pp 118–120Google Scholar
- Prestemon JP, Abt RC (2002) The Southern timber market to 2040. J For 100:16–22Google Scholar
- Smith SE, Read DJ (2008) Mycorrhizal symbiosis. Academic, Amsterdam, 787Google Scholar
- Tedersoo L, Nilsson RH, Abarenkov K, Jairus T, Sadam A, Saar I, Bahram M, Bechem E, Chuyong G, Koljag U (2010) 454 Pyrosequencing and Sanger sequencing of tropical mycorrhizal fungi provide similar results but reveal substantial methodological biases. New Phytologist 188:291-301Google Scholar
- van der Putten WH, Bardgett RD, de Ruiter PC, Hol WHG, Meyer KM, Bezemer TM, Bradford MA, Christensen S, Eppinga MB, Fukami T, Hemerik L, Molofsky J, Schadler M, Scherber C, Strauss SY, Vos M, Wardle DA (2009) Empirical and theoretical challenges in aboveground-belowground ecology. Oecologia 161:1–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Whitham TG, Bailey JK, Schweitzer JA, Shuster SM, Bangert RK, Leroy CJ, Lonsdorf EV, Allan GJ, DiFazio SP, Potts BM, Fischer DG, Gehring CA, Lindroth RL, Marks JC, Hart SC, Wimp GM, Wooley SC (2006) A framework for community and ecosystem genetics: from genes to ecosystems. Nat Rev Genet 7:510–523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar