Abstract
Aims
Both environmental and genetic factors influence plant growth and foliar chemistry. The purpose of this experiment was to investigate the independent and interactive effects of soil community (and soil community diversity), tree genotype, and simulated browsing damage on the growth, biomass allocation and foliar chemistry of Populus tremuloides.
Methods
We employed a factorial randomized complete block design with four soil treatments of varying diversity, five aspen genotypes, and a simulated ungulate browsing treatment. In the second year of growth, half the trees were subjected to simulated ungulate browsing, and 2 mo later trees were harvested and analyzed for biomass, biomass allocation, and foliar chemistry.
Results
Tree genotype was the strongest driver of foliar chemistry, but simulated browsing was the strongest driver of plant growth. Soil community influenced plant growth but not foliar chemistry, and soil community effects were rarely modified by tree genotype or simulated browsing.
Conclusions
While environment and genotype had relatively equal influences on plant growth, tree genotype had a stronger influence than environmental effects (soil and simulated browsing) on foliar chemistry. We also documented negative plant–soil feedbacks for tree biomass. Our results highlight future opportunities for research on the potential effects of soil community diversity on trees.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bailey JK, Whitham TG (2002) Interactions among fire, aspen, and elk affect insect diversity: reversal of a community response. Ecology 83:1701–1712. https://doi.org/10.2307/3071989
Barker HL, Holeski LM, Lindroth RL (2019) Independent and interactive effects of plant genotype and environment on plant traits and insect herbivore performance: a meta-analysis with Salicaceae. Funct Ecol 33:422–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13249
Barnes BV (1966) Clonal growth habit of American aspens. Ecology 47:439–447. https://doi.org/10.2307/1932983
Batzer EE, Martina JP, Elgersma KJ, Goldberg DE (2017) Clonal plant allocation to daughter ramets is a simple function of parent size across species and nutrient levels. Plant Ecol 218:1299–1311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-017-0769-z
Bennett AE, Bever JD (2007) Mycorrhizal species differentially alter plant growth and response to herbivory. Ecology 88:210–218
Bennett AE, Orrell P, Malacrino A, Pozo MJ (2018) Fungal-mediated above–belowground interactions: the community approach, stability, evolution, mechanisms, and applications. In: Ohgushi T, Wurst S, Johnson SN (eds) Above-belowground ecology. Ecological studies series, vol 234. Springer International Publishing, Berlin, pp 85–116. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91614-9
Bennett AE, Thomsen MA, Strauss SY (2011) Multiple mechanisms enable invasive species to suppress native species. Am J Bot 98:1086–1094
Bennett JA, Maherali H, Reinhart KO, Lekberg Y, Hart MM, Klironomos J (2017) Plant-soil feedbacks and mycorrhizal type influence temperate forest population dynamics. Science 355:181–184. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aai8212
Binkley D (2008) Age distribution of aspen in Rocky Mountain National Park, USA. For Ecol Manag 255:797–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.09.066
Borowicz VA (2001) Do arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi alter plant–pathogen relations? Ecology 82:3057–3068
Diner B, Berteaux D, Fyles J, Lindroth RL (2009) Behavioral archives link the chemistry and clonal structure of trembling aspen to the food choice of north American porcupine. Oecologia 160:687–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-009-1340-y
Donaldson JR, Lindroth RL (2007) Genetics, environment, and their interaction determine efficacy of chemical defense in trembling aspen. Ecology 88:729–739. https://doi.org/10.1890/06-0064
Donaldson JR, Stevens MT, Barnhill HR, Lindroth RL (2006) Age-related shifts in leaf chemistry of clonal aspen (Populus tremuloides). J Chem Ecol 32:1415–1429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-006-9059-2
Edenius L, Ericsson G (2015) Effects of ungulate browsing on recruitment of aspen and rowan: a demographic approach. Scand J Forest Res 30:283–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2014.999823
Felker-Quinn E, Bailey JK, Schweitzer JA (2011) Soil biota drive expression of genetic variation and development of population-specific feedbacks in an invasive plant. Ecology 92:1208–1214
Garrido E, Bennett AE, Fornoni J, Strauss SY (2010) Variation in arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi colonization modifies the expression of tolerance to above-ground defoliation. J Ecol 98:43–49
Gehring C, Bennett A (2009) Mycorrhizal fungal–plant–insect interactions: the importance of a community approach. Environ Entomol 38:93–102
Griffis-Kyle KL, Beier P (2003) Small isolated aspen stands enrich bird communities in southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Biol Conserv 110:375–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0006-3207(02)00237-9
Hagerman AE, Butler LG (1989) Choosing appropriate methods and standards for assaying tannin. J Chem Ecol 15:1795–1810. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01012267
Hemming JDC, Lindroth RL (1999) Effects of light and nutrient availability on aspen: growth, phytochemistry, and insect performance. J Chem Ecol 25:1687–1714. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1020805420160
Hemming JDC, Lindroth RL (2000) Effects of phenolic glycosides and protein on gypsy moth (Lepidoptera : Lymantriidae) and forest tent caterpillar (Lepidoptera : Lasiocampidae) performance and detoxication activities. Environ Entomol 29:1108–1115. https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225x-29.6.1108
Holeski LM, McKenzie SC, Kruger EL, Couture JJ, Rubert-Nason K, Lindroth RL (2016) Phytochemical traits underlie genotypic variation in susceptibility of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) to browsing by a keystone forest ungulate. J Ecol 104:850–863. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12559
Hughes JB, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR (2000) Conservation of insect diversity: a habitat approach. Conserv Biol 14:1788–1797. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99187.x
Hwang S-Y, Lindroth RL (1997) Clonal variation in foliar chemistry of aspen: effects on gypsy moths and forest tent caterpillars. Oecologia 111:99–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050213
Iason GR, Taylor J, Helfer S (2018) Community-based biotic effects as determinants of tree resistance to pests and pathogens. For Ecol Manag 417:301–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.01.037
Kaling M, Schmidt A, Moritz F, Rosenkranz M, Witting M, Kasper K, Janz D, Schmitt-Kopplin P, Schnitzler JP, Polle A (2018) Mycorrhiza-triggered transcriptomic and metabolomic networks impinge on herbivore fitness. Plant Physiol 176:2639–2656. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.17.01810
Kanekar SS, Cale JA, Erbilgin N (2018) Ectomycorrhizal fungal species differentially affect the induced defensive chemistry of lodgepole pine. Oecologia 188:395–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-018-4231-2
Koricheva J, Gange AC, Jones T (2009) Effects of mycorrhizal fungi on insect herbivores: a meta-analysis. Ecology 90:2088–2097
Kuhn TJ, Safford HD, Jones BE, Tate KW (2011) Aspen (Populus tremuloides) stands and their contribution to plant diversity in a semiarid coniferous landscape. Plant Ecol 212:1451–1463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-011-9920-4
Kula AAR, Hartnett DC, Wilson GWT (2005) Effects of mycorrhizal symbiosis on tallgrass prairie plant–herbivore interactions. Ecol Lett 8:61–69
Kulmatiski A, Beard KH, Stevens JR, Cobbold SM (2008) Plant–soil feedbacks: a meta–analytical review. Ecol Lett 11:980–992. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01209.x
Lehr NA, Schrey SD, Bauer R, Hampp R, Tarkka MT (2007) Suppression of plant defence response by a mycorrhiza helper bacterium. New Phytol 174:892–903. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02021.x
Lehr NA, Schrey SD, Hampp R, Tarkka MT (2008) Root inoculation with a forest soil streptomycete leads to locally and systemically increased resistance against phytopathogens in Norway spruce. New Phytol 177:965–976. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02322.x
Lindroth RL, Kinney KK, Platz CL (1993) Responses of deciduous trees to elevated atmospheric CO2: productivity, phytochemistry and insect performance. Ecology 74:763–777. https://doi.org/10.2307/1940804
Lindroth RL, St Clair SB (2013) Adaptations of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) for defense against herbivores. For Ecol Manag 299:14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.11.018
Little EL, Jr (1971) Atlas of United States trees: Vol. 1 conifers and important hardwoods. Miscellaneous publication no.1146 US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Washington D.C., USA
Mangan SA, Herre EA, Bever JD (2010a) Specificity between Neotropical tree seedlings and their fungal mutualists leads to plant–soil feedback. Ecology 91:2594–2603. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-0396.1
Mangan SA, Schnitzer SA, Herre EA, Mack KML, Valencia MC, Sanchez EI, Bever JD (2010b) Negative plant–soil feedback predicts tree–species relative abundance in a tropical forest. Nature 466:752–755. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09273
Manninen A-M, Holopainen T, Holopainen JK (1998) Susceptibility of ectomycorrhizal and nonmycorrhizal scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) seedlings to a generalist insect herbivore, Lygus rugulipennis, at two nitrogen availability levels. New Phytol 140:55–63
Manninen A-M, Holopainen T, Holopainen JK (1999) Performance of grey pine aphid, Schizolachnus pineti, on ectomycorrhizal and non-mycorrhizal scots pine seedlings at different levels of nitrogen availability. Entomologia Exp Et Appl 93:117–120
Martínez-Medina A et al (2016) Recognizing plant defense priming. Trends Plant Sci 21:818–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2016.07.009
McGonigle TP, Miller MH, Evans DG, Fairchild GL, Swan JA (1990) A new method which gives an objective measure of colonization of roots by vesicular–arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol 115:495–501
Mitton JB, Grant MC (1996) Genetic variation and the natural history of quaking aspen. Bioscience 46:25–31. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312652
Mueller-Harvey I et al (In Press) benefits of condensed tannins in forage legumes fed to ruminants: importance of structure, concentration and diet composition. Crop Sci. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2017.06.0369
Pineda A, Dicke M, Pieterse CMJ, Pozo MJ (2013) Beneficial microbes in a changing environment: are they always helping plants to deal with insects? Funct Ecol 27:574–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12050
Pizano C, Mangan SA, Graham JH, Kitajima K (2014) Habitat-specific positive and negative effects of soil biota on seedling growth in a fragmented tropical montane landscape. Oikos 123:846–856. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.01032
Porter LJ, Hrstich LN, Chan BG (1985) The conversion of procyanidins and prodelphinidins to cyanidin and delphinidin. Phytochemistry 25:223–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0031-9422(00)94533-3
Pregitzer CC, Bailey JK, Hart SC, Schweitzer JA (2010) Soils as agents of selection: feedbacks between plants and soils alter seedling survival and performance. Evol Ecol 24:1045–1059. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-010-9363-8
Reich PB, Bakken P, Carlson D, Frelich LE, Friedman SK, Grigal DF (2001) Influence of logging, fire, and forest type on biodiversity and productivity in southern boreal forests. Ecology 82:2731–2748. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[2731:iolfaf]2.0.co;2
Rieske LK, Rhoades CC, Miller SP (2003) Foliar chemistry and gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (L.), herbivory on pure American chestnut, Castanea dentata (Fam : Fagaceae), and a disease-resistant hybrid. Environ Entomol 32:359–365
Rogers PC, McAvoy DJ (2018) Mule deer impede Pando's recovery: implications for aspen resilience from a single-genotype forest. PLoS One 13:e0203619. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203619
Rubert-Nason KF, Holeski LM, Couture JJ, Gusse A, Undersander DJ, Lindroth RL (2013) Rapid phytochemical analysis of birch (Betula) and poplar (Populus) foliage by near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Anal Bioanal Chem 405:1333–1344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-012-6513-6
Rubert-Nason KF, Lindroth RL (2019) Analysis of condensed tannins in Populus spp. using reversed phase UPLC-PDA-(−)esi-MS following thiolytic depolymerisation. Phytochem Anal 30:257–267. https://doi.org/10.1002/pca.2810
Schofield P, Mbugua DM, Pell AN (2001) Analysis of condensed tannins: a review. Can Entomol 91:21–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0377-8401(01)00228-0
Scioneaux AN, Schmidt MA, Moore MA, Lindroth RL, Wooley SC, Hagerman AE (2011) Qualitative variation in proanthocyanidin composition of Populus species and hybrids: genetics is the key. J Chem Ecol 37:57–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-010-9887-y
Sellmer JC, McCown BH, Haissig BE (1989) Shoot culture dynamics of six Populus clones. Tree Physiol 5:219–227. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/5.2.219
Semchenko M et al (2018) Fungal diversity regulates plant-soil feedbacks in temperate grassland. Sci Adv 4:9. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau4578
Shinde S, Naik D, Cumming JR (2018) Carbon allocation and partitioning in Populus tremuloides are modulated by ectomycorrhizal fungi under phosphorus limitation. Tree Physiol 38:52–65. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpx117
Sollins P, Glassman C, Paul EA, Swanston C, Lajtha K, Heil JW, Elliott ET (1999) Soil carbon and nitrogen - pools and fractions. In: Robinson GP, Coleman DC, Bledsoe CS, Sollins P (eds) Standard soil methods for long-term ecological research, vol 2. Oxford University press, New York, NY, USA, pp 89–105
Stevens MT, Kruger EL, Lindroth RL (2008) Variation in tolerance to herbivory is mediated by differences in biomass allocation in aspen. Funct Ecol 22:40–47
Still WC, Kahn M, Mitra A (1978) Rapid chromatographic technique for preparative separations wiht moderate resolution. J Org Chem 43:2923–2925. https://doi.org/10.1021/jo00408a041
Stohlgren TJ et al (1997) Landscape analysis of plant diversity. Landsc Ecol 12:155–170. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1007986502230
Top SM, Preston CM, Dukes JS, Tharayil N (2017) Climate influences the content and chemical composition of foliar tannins in green and senesced tissues of Quercus rubra. Front Plant Sci 8:423. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00423
Turchi GM, Kennedy PL, Urban D, Hein D (1995) Bird species richness in relation to isolation of aspen habitats. Wilson Bull 107:463–474
van der Putten WH et al (2013) Plant–soil feedbacks: the past, the present and future challenges. J Ecol 101:265–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12054
Vogelsang KM, Bever JD (2009) Mycorrhizal densities decline in association with nonnative plants and contribute to plant invasion. Ecology 90:399–407
Wang P, Li H, Pang XY, Wang A, Dong BC, Lei JP, Yu FH, Li MH (2017) Clonal integration increases tolerance of a phalanx clonal plant to defoliation. Sci Total Environ 593:236–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.172
Wehner J, Antunes PM, Powell JR, Mazukatow J, Rillig MC (2010) Plant pathogen protection by arbuscular mycorrhizas: a role for fungal diversity? Pedobiologia 53:197–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedobi.2009.10.002
Wooley SC, Walker S, Vernon J, Lindroth RL (2008) Aspen decline, aspen chemistry, and elk herbivory: are they linked? Rangelands 30:17–21
Xu L, Wu C, Oelmüller R, Zhang WY (2018) Role of phytohormones in Piriformospora indica-induced growth promotion and stress tolerance in plants: more questions than answers. Front Microbiol 9:1646. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01646
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by NSF grant DEB-0841609. The authors would also like to thank Cecelia Welch, Jillian Handley, Daniel Ruhland, Mike Hillstrom, Pamela Fife, Caralee Corcoran, Luisa Meyer, and Lindsay Spurrier for help with data collection, and Philip Smith for comments on the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Hans Lambers.
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bennett, A.E., Rubert-Nason, K.R. & Lindroth, R.L. Response of aspen genotypes to browsing damage is not influenced by soil community diversity. Plant Soil 452, 153–170 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-020-04466-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-020-04466-8