Advertisement

Plant Ecology

, Volume 216, Issue 7, pp 951–962 | Cite as

Lack of sex-specific differences in mycorrhizal associations and response to herbivory in the gynodioecious herb, Polemonium foliosissimum

  • Jonathan B. GonzálezEmail author
  • Gretel L. Clarke
  • Alison K. Brody
Article

Abstract

For decades, evolutionary plant biologists have been interested in how females reap a fitness advantage and are thus maintained in gynodioecious plants. Recent attention has focused on the role of multi-species interactions in the maintenance of females, wherein the role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) is virtually unknown. AMF form symbiotic associations with plants, often resulting in enhanced nutrient acquisition and tolerance to biotic and abiotic stress. Depending on the degree to which females and hermaphrodites rely on their AMF partners, AMF could differentially affect plant tolerance to stress. We conducted a field experiment to examine (1) if females and hermaphrodites of the gynodioecious herb, Polemonium foliosissimum, differentially associate with AMF, and (2) if there was a difference in AMF colonization between the sexes after imposing stress by simulating herbivore damage. First, we compared mycorrhizal colonization between the sexes under ambient (i.e., undamaged) field conditions. Then, for a second set of plants, we simulated herbivory by clipping plants and compared mycorrhizal colonization, leaf phosphorus concentration [P], and fruit and seed production between clipped and control plants. Mycorrhizal colonization did not differ between sexes under ambient field conditions or under the stress imposed by clipping. Clipping did, however, influence both percent root length and vesicle colonization in a plant-size-dependent manner. Overall, colonization and vesicle number increased with plant size for clipped plants, but decreased with size for non-clipped plants. Leaf [P] did not differ between the sexes nor was influenced by clipping, and leaf [P] was not associated with mycorrhizal colonization. Furthermore, neither fruit set nor seed production was associated with mycorrhizal colonization. Our findings suggest that the sexes of P. foliosissimum do not differentially associate with nor differentially garner benefit from mycorrhizal fungi. However, a complete accounting of the costs and benefits of AMF for gynodioecious species must encompass the full life-history of the plant.

Keywords

Arbuscular mycorrhizae Gynodioecy Polemonium Simulated herbivory Plant-size-dependent Multi-species interactions 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to the staff and scientists at RMBL and members of the Brody and Gotelli Labs. We thank Joe Morton and Renee Petipas for helpful comments during the design of the study. We thank Jeanne Harris and Jim Vigoreaux, and two anonymous reviewers for constructive criticism of earlier versions of this manuscript, and Alan Howard and Ruth Mickey for help with the statistical analysis. JBG was supported by a National Science Foundation REU grant to RMBL (DBI 0753774), a University of Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences FUSE grant and an Honors College grant.

References

  1. Alexander T, Meier R, Toth R, Weber HC (1988) Dynamics of arbuscule development and degeneration in mycorrhizas of Triticum aestivum L. and Avena sativa L. with references to Zea mays L. New Phytol 110:363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander T, Toth R, Meier R, Weber HC (1989) Dynamics of arbuscule development and degeneration in onion, bean, and tomato with reference to vesicular–arbuscular mycorrhizae in grasses. Can J Bot 67:2505–2513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anway JC (1968) The systematic botany and taxonomy of Polemonium foliosissimum A. Gray (Polemoneaceae). Am Midl Nat 79:458–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashman T-L (2000) Pollinator selectivity and its implications for the evolution of dioecy and sexual dimorphism. Ecology 81:2577–2591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashman T-L (2006) The evolution of separate sexes: a focus on the ecological context. In: Harder LD, Barrett SCH (eds) The ecology and evolution of flowers. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 419–465Google Scholar
  6. Ashman T-L, Diefenderfer C (2001) Sex ratio represents a unique context for selection on attractive traits: consequences for the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Am Nat 157:334–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ashman T-L, Penet L (2007) Direct and indirect effects of a sex-biased antagonist on male and female fertility: consequences for reproductive trait evolution in a gender-dimorphic plant. Am Nat 169:595–608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Asikainen E, Mutikainen P (2005) Pollen and resources limitation in a gynodioecious species. Am J Bot 92:487–494PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barr, B Gothic Weather, Long-term Weather Data (1974–2015) Rocky Mountain Biology Laboratory. http://www.gothicwx.org/long-term-snow.html. Accessed 15 Mar 2015
  10. Barto EK, Rillig MC (2010) Does herbivory really suppress mycorrhiza? A meta-analysis. J Ecol 98:745–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bennett AE, Bever JD (2007) Mycorrhizal species differentially alter plant growth and response to herbivory. Ecology 88:210–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Biermann B, Linderman RG (1983) Use of vesicular–arbuscular mycorrhizal roots, intraradical vesicles, and extraradical vesicles as inoculum. New Phytol 95:97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Borowicz VA (2013) The impact of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on plant growth following herbivory: a search for patter. Acta Oecol 52:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Botham R, Collin CL, Ashman T-L (2009) Plant-mycorrhizal fungus interactions affect the expression of inbreeding depression in wild strawberry. Int J Plant Sci 2:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brody AK (1997) Effects of pollinators, herbivores, and seed predators on flowering phenology. Ecology 78:1624–1631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brundrett MC (2009) Mycorrhizal associations and other means of nutrition of vascular plants: understanding the global diversity of host plants by resolving conflicting information and developing reliable means of diagnosis. Plant Soil 320:37–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brundrett MC, Kendrick B (1990) The roots of mycorrhizas of herbaceous woodland plants. I. Quantitative aspects of morphology. New Phytol 114:457–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brundrett MC, Piché Y, Peterson RL (1985) A developmental study of the early stages in vesicular–arbuscular mycorrhiza formation. Can J Bot 63:184–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Casper BB, Forseth IN, Wait DA (2006) A stage-based study of drought response in Cryptantha flava (Boraginaceae): gas exchange, water use efficiency, and whole plant performance. Am J Bot 93:977–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1978) A model for the evolution of dioecy and gynodioecy. Am Nat 112:975–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Clarke G, Brody AK (2015) Gender inequity in pre-dispersal seed predation contributes to female seed set advantage in a gynodioecious species. Ecology 16(6):1186–1195Google Scholar
  22. Collin CL, Ashman T-L (2010) Root fungi in wild strawberry: root colonization depends on host inbreeding. Evol Ecol Res 12:477–490Google Scholar
  23. Collin CL, Pennings PS, Rueffler C, Widmer A, Shykoff JA (2002) Natural enemies and sex: how seed predation and pathogens contribute to sex-differential reproductive success in a gynodioecious plant. Oecolgia 131:94–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Core Team R (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  25. Cornelissen JHC, Lavorel S, Garnier E, Dias S, Buchmann N, Gurvich DE, Reich PB, ter Steege H, Morgan HD, van der Heijden MGA, Pausas JG, Poorter H (2003) A handbook of protocols for standardized and easy measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Aust J Bot 51:335–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cox G, Tinker PB (1976) Translocation and transfer of nutrients in vesicular–arbuscular mycorrhizas. I. The arbuscule and phosphorus transfer: a quantitative ultrastructural study. New Phytol 77:371–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. de Mendiburu (2014) Agricolae: Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. R package version 1.2-1Google Scholar
  28. Donovan LA, Ehleringer JR (1992) Contrasting water-use patterns among size and life-history classes of a semi-arid shrub. Funct Ecol 6:482–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dufay M, Billard E (2012) How much better are females? The occurrence of female advantage, its proximal causes and its variation within and among gynodioecious species. Ann Bot 109:505–519PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Eppley SM, Mercer CA, Haaning C, Graves CB (2009) Sex-specific variation in the interaction between Distichlis spicata (Poaceae) and mycorrhizal fungi. Am J Bot 96:1967–1973PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fitter AH, Graves JD, Watkins NK, Robinson D (1998) Carbon transfer between plants and its control in networks of arbuscular mycorrhizas. Funct Ecol 12:406–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gange AC, Smith AK (2005) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi influence visitation rates of pollinating insects. Ecol Entomol 30:600–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gehring CA, Whitham TG (1994) Interactions between aboveground herbivores and the mycorrhizal mutualists of plants. Trends Ecol Evol 7:251–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gehring CA, Whitham TG (2002) Mycorrhizae-herbivore interactions: population and community consequences. In: van der Heijden MGA, Sanders IR (eds) Mycorrhizal Ecology. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 295–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. González JB (2014) Investigations into host-specific interactions and local adaptation in the mycorrhizal symbiosis. MSc Thesis, University of VermontGoogle Scholar
  36. Heinemeyer A, Fitter AH (2004) Impact of temperature on the arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) symbiosis: growth responses of the host plant and its AM fungal partner. J Exp Bot 55:525–534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jakobsen I, Rosendahl L (1990) Carbon flow into soil and external hyphae from roots of mycorrhizal cucumber plants. New Phytol 115:77–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Johnson NC, Graham JH, Smith FA (1997) Functioning of mycorrhizal associations along the mutualism–parasitism continuum. New Phytol 135:575–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jones MD, Smith SE (2004) Exploring functional definitions of mycorrhizas: are mycorrhizas always mutualisms? Can J Bot 82:1089–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Klironomos JN, McCune J, Moutoglis P (2004) Species of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi affect mycorrhizal responses to simulated herbivory. Appl Soil Ecol 26:133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Knight TM, Steets JA, Vamosi JC, Mazer SJ, Burd M, Campbell DR, Dudash MR, Johnston MO, Mitchell RJ, Ashman T-L (2005) Pollen limitation of plant reproduction: pattern and process. Ann Rev Ecol Evol S 36:467–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Koide RT (1991) Tansley review no. 29. Nutrient supply, nutrient demand and plant response to mycorrhizal infection. New Phytol 117:365–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kula A, Hartnett D, Wilson G (2005) Effects of mycorrhizal symbiosis on tallgrass prairie plant-herbivore interactions. Ecol Lett 8:61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lewis D (1941) Male sterility in natural populations of hermaphrodite plants. The equilibrium between females and hermaphrodites to be expected with different types of inheritance. New Phytol 40:56–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Liu A, Wang B, Hamel C (2004) Arbuscular mycorrhiza colonization and development at suboptimal root zone temperatures. Mycorrhiza 14:93–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lu X, Koide RT (1994) The effects of mycorrhizal infection on components of plant growth and reproduction. New Phytol 128:211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Marshall M, Ganders FR (2001) Sex-biased seed predation and the maintenance of females in a gynodioecious plant. Am J Bot 88:1437–1443PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Maschinski J, Whitham TG (1989) The continuum of plant responses to herbivory: the influence of plant association, nutrient availability, and timing. Am Nat 143:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McCall AC, Barr CM (2012) Why do florivores prefer hermaphrodites over females in Nemophila menziesii (Boraginaceae)? Oecologia 170:147–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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 115:495–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Miller RM, Miller SP, Jastrow JD, Rivetta CB (2002) Mycorrhizal mediated feedbacks influence net carbon gain and nutrient uptake in Andropogon gerardii. New Phytol 155:149–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Neumann E, George E (2010) Nutrient uptake: the arbuscular mycorrhiza fungal symbiosis as a plant nutrient acquisition strategy. In: Koltai H, Kapulnik Y (eds) Arbuscular mycorrhizas: physiology and function. Springer, New York, pp 137–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Newsham KK, Fitter AH, Watkinson AR (1995) Arbuscular mycorrhiza protect an annual grass from root pathogenic fungi in the field. J Ecol 83:991–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Parniske M (2008) Arbuscular mycorrhiza: the mother of plant root endosymbioses. Nat Rev Microbiol 6:763–775PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Richards AJ (1997) Plant breeding systems, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall Inc, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schenck NC, Graham SO, Green NE (1975) Temperature and light effect on contamination and spore germination of vesicular–arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Mycologia 67:1189–1192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shykoff JA, Kolokotronis S-O, Collin CL, López-Villavicencio M (2003) Effects of male sterility on reproductive traits in gynodioecious plants: a meta-analysis. Oecolgia 135:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Smith SE, Read D (2008) Mycorrhizal symbiosis, 3rd edn. Academic Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  59. Spigler RB, Ashman T-L (2012) Gynodioecy to dioecy: are we there yet? Ann Bot 109:531–543PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tommerup IC (1983) Temperature relations of spore germination and hyphal growth of vesicular–arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in soil. T Brit Mycol Soc 81:381–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. van der Heijden MGA, Horton TR (2009) Socialism in soil? The importance of mycorrhizal fungal networks for facilitation in natural ecosystems. J Ecol 97:1139–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Varga S (2010) Review. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizas on reproductive traits in sexually dimorphic plants. Span J Agric Res 8(S1):S11–S24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Varga S, Kytöviita M-M (2008) Sex-specific responses to mycorrhiza in a dioecious species. Am J Bot 95:1225–1232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Varga S, Kytöviita M-M (2010a) Gender dimorphism and mycorrhizal symbiosis affect floral visitors and reproductive output in Geranium sylvaticum. Funct Ecol 24:750–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Varga S, Kytöviita M-M (2010b) Mycorrhizal benefit differs among the sexes in a gynodioecious species. Ecology 91:2583–2593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Varga S, Kytöviita M-M, Siikamäki P (2009) Sexual differences in response to simulated herbivory in the gynodioecious herb Geranium sylvaticum. Plant Ecol 202:325–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Varga S, Vega-Frutis R, Kytöviita M-M (2013) Transgenerational effects of plant sex and arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis. New Phytol 199:812–821PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vega-Frutis R, Guevara R (2009) Different arbuscular mycorrhizal interactions in male and female plants of wild Carica papaya L. Plant Soil 322:165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vega-Frutis R, Guevara R (2013) Greater mycorrhizal colonization of unisexual morphs than of hermaphroditic morphs of Jacaratia mexicana during flowering and fruiting in central Mexico. Symbiosis 59:173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vega-Frutis R, Munguía-Rosas MA, Varga S, Kytöviita M-M (2013) Sex-specific patterns of antagonistic and mutualistic biotic interactions in dioecious and gynodioecious plants. Perspect Plant Ecol 15:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vierheilig H, Coughlan AP, Wyss U, Piché Y (1998) Ink and vinegar, a simple staining technique for arbuscular-mycorrhizal fungi. Appl Environ Microb 64:5004–5007Google Scholar
  72. Warton DI, Hui FKC (2011) The arcsine is asinine: the analysis of proportions in ecology. Ecology 92:3–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zhang YW, Yang CF, Zhao JM, Guo YH (2009) Selective nectar robbing in a gynodioecious plant (Glechoma longituba) enhances female advantage. J Evolut Biol 22:527–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zimmerman M (1980a) Reproduction in Polemonium: competition for pollinators. Ecology 61:497–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zimmerman M (1980b) Reproduction in Polemonium: pre-dispersal seed predation. Ecology 61:502–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan B. González
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Gretel L. Clarke
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alison K. Brody
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA
  2. 2.Rocky Mountain Biological LaboratoryCrested ButteUSA
  3. 3.Herbert H. Whetzel School of Integrative Plant Science, Section of Plant Pathology and Plant-Microbe BiologyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations