Abstract
Plant–soil feedbacks (PSFs) are plant-mediated changes to soil properties that ultimately influence plant performance, and can, thus, determine plant diversity, succession, and invasion. We hypothesized that PSFs influence invasion processes and that PSF mechanisms are largely driven by changes in soil properties produced by specific plant species. To test these hypotheses, we studied the effects of different soils collected from under common plant species on the growth of the invasive plant Phytolacca americana. We found that PSFs may interfere with invasion resistance because P. americana seedlings showed reduced growth (lower biomass) in soils collected from underneath some native species compared with soils collected from underneath P. americana and two non-native plants. We then selected eight co-occurring native and non-native plant species, and examined PSF dynamics and mechanisms in a pairwise conditioned soil greenhouse experiment. Plant species-specific conditioning effects regarding soil nutrients and enzyme activities were observed. Phytolacca americana had a high ability to use soil N, which may be related to its high invasion ability. Soil P was significantly lower in Quercus acutissima-conditioned soil, indicating that low P availability in Q. acutissima forests may enhance resistance to plant invasion. However, surprisingly, some native plants did not produce PSF effects that decreased the relative performance of invasive plants, nor did the invasive plants produce PSF effects that increased their own performance. We speculate that these PSF findings from greenhouse experiments cannot be extrapolated to field conditions because the litter and allelochemicals of some plants may be important for invasion resistance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alkorta I, Aizpurua A, Riga P, Albizu I, Amézaga I, Garbisu C (2003) Soil enzyme activities as biological indicators of soil health. Rev Environ Health 18:65–73
Bailey JK, Schweitzer JA (2016) The rise of plant-soil feedback in ecology and evolution. Funct Ecol 30:1030–1031. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12691
Bao SD (2000) Analysis of Soil Agrochemistry. China Agriculture Press
Bennett JA, Klironomos J (2019) Mechanisms of plant-soil feedback: interactions among biotic and abiotic drivers. New Phytol 222:91–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15603
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
Brewer JS, Cralle SE (2003) Phosphorus addition reduces invasion of longleaf pine savanna (Southeastern USA) by a non-indigenous grass (Imperata cylindnca). Plant Ecol 167:237–245
Callaway RM, Cipollini D, Barto K, Thelen GC, Hallett SG, Prati D, Stinson K, Klironomos J (2008) Novel weapons: invasive plant suppresses fungal mutualists in America but not in its native Europe. Ecology 89:1043–1055. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-0370.1
Chen PD, Hou YP, Zhuge YH, Wei W, Huang QQ (2019) The effects of soils from different forest types on the growth of the invasive plant Phytolacca americana. Forests 10:492. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10060492
Chiuffo MC, Macdougall AS, Hierro JL (2015) Native and non-native ruderals experience similar plant-soil feedbacks and neighbor effects in a system where they coexist. Oecologia 179:843–852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-015-3399-y
Chomel M, Guittonny-Larchevêque M, Fernandez C, Gallet C, DesRochers A, Paré D, Jackson BG, Baldy V (2016) Plant secondary metabolites: a key driver of litter decomposition and soil nutrient cycling. J Ecol 104:1527–1541. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12644
Cui YX, Fang LC, Guo XB, Han F, Ju WL, Ye LP, Wang X, Tan WF, Zhang XC (2019) Natural grassland as the optimal pattern of vegetation restoration in arid and semi-arid regions: evidence from nutrient limitation of soil microbes. Sci Total Environ 648:388–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.173
Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J Ecol 88:528–534. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.2000.00473.x
Dong LJ, Yang JX, Yu HW, He WM (2017) Dissecting Solidago canadensis-soil feedback in its real invasion. Ecol Evol 7:2307–2315. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2743
Dostálek T, Münzbergová Z, Kladivová A, Macel M (2016) Plant–soil feedback in native vs. invasive populations of a range expanding plant. Plant Soil 399:209–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-015-2688-x
Ehrenfeld JG (2010) Ecosystem consequences of biological invasions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol S 41:59–80. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144650
Elgersma KJ, Ehrenfeld JG, Yu S, Vor T (2011) Legacy effects overwhelm the short-term effects of exotic plant invasion and restoration on soil microbial community structure, enzyme activities, and nitrogen cycling. Oecologia 167:733–745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-011-2022-0
Fridley JD, Stachowicz JJ, Naeem S, Sax DF, Seabloom EW, Smith MD, Stohlgren TJ, Tilman D, Von Holle B (2007) The invasion paradox: reconciling pattern and process in species invasions. Ecology 88:3–17
Fu JP, Li CR, Xu JW, Cheng WL, Song RF, Liu Y (2012) Prevention and control of invaded plant Phytolacca americana in sandy coastal shelter forests. Chin J Appl Environ Biol 23:991–997
Fujii K, Shibata M, Kitajima K, Ichie T, Kitayama K, Turner BL (2018) Plant-soil interactions maintain biodiversity and functions of tropical forest ecosystems. Ecol Res 33:149–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-017-1511-y
Guan SY (1986) Soil enzyme and its research methods. Agricultural press, Beijing
Heinze J, Sitte M, Schindhelm A, Wright J, Joshi J (2016) Plant-soil feedbacks: a comparative study on the relative importance of soil feedbacks in the greenhouse versus the field. Oecologia 181:559–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-016-3591-8
Hou YP, Peng SL, Chen BM, Ni GY (2011) Inhibition of an invasive plant (Mikania micrantha H.B.K.) by soils of three different forests in lower subtropical China. Biol Invasions 13:381–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-010-9830-8
Hou YP, Liu L, Wang X, Yan XY, Men H, Li WJ, Xu WM (2013) Allelopathic effects of aqueous extract of exotic plant Rhus typhina L. on soil micro-ecosystem. Acta Ecol Sin 33:4041–4049
Hulvey KB, Teller BJ (2018) Site conditions determine a key native plant’s contribution to invasion resistance in grasslands. Ecology 99:1257–1264. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2227
Kardol P, Veen GF, Teste FP, Perring MP (2015) Peeking into the black box: a trait-based approach to predicting plant-soil feedback. New Phytol 206:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13283
Ke PJ, Miki T, Ding TS (2015) The soil microbial community predicts the importance of plant traits in plant-soil feedback. New Phytol 206:329–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13215
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
Kourtev PS, Ehrenfeld JG, Haggblom M (2002) Exotic plant species alter the microbial community structure and function in the soil. Ecology 83:3152–3166
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
Levine JM, Adler PB, Yelenik SG (2004) A meta-analysis of biotic resistance to exotic plant invasions. Ecol Lett 7:975–989. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00657.x
Levine JM, Pachepsky E, Kendall BE, Yelenik SG, Lambers JH (2006) Plant-soil feedbacks and invasive spread. Ecol Lett 9:1005–1014. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00949.x
Liao C, Peng R, Luo Y, Zhou X, Wu X, Fang C, Chen J, Li B (2008) Altered ecosystem carbon and nitrogen cycles by plant invasion: a meta-analysis. New Phytol 177:706–714. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02290.x
Liu JG, Liao HX, Chen BM, Peng SL (2017) Do the phenolic acids in forest soil resist the exotic plant invasion? Allelopathy J 41:167–175
Middleton EL, Bever JD, Schultz PA (2010) The effect of restoration methods on the quality of the restoration and resistance to invasion by exotics. Restor Ecol 18:181–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00501.x
Morris KA, Stark JM, Bugbee B, Norton JM (2016) The invasive annual cheatgrass releases more nitrogen than crested wheatgrass through root exudation and senescence. Oecologia 181:971–983. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-015-3544-7
Pearson DE, Ortega YK, Villarreal D, Lekberg Y, Cock MC, Eren Ö, Hierro JL (2018) The fluctuating resource hypothesis explains invasibility, but not exotic advantage following disturbance. Ecology 99:1296–1305. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2235
Perkins LB, Nowak RS (2013) Native and non-native grasses generate common types of plant–soil feedbacks by altering soil nutrients and microbial communities. Oikos 122:199–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.20592.x
Pfennigwerth AA, van Nuland ME, Bailey JK, Schweitzer JA (2018) Plant-soil feedbacks mediate shrub expansion in declining forests, but only in the right light. J Ecol 106:179–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12833
Png GK, Lambers H, Kardol P, Turner BL, Wardle DA, Laliberté E (2018) Biotic and abiotic plant-soil feedback depends on nitrogen-acquisition strategy and shifts during long-term ecosystem development. J Ecol 107:142–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13048
Quan MH, Liang J (2017) The influences of four types of soil on the growth, physiological and biochemical characteristics of Lycoris aurea (L’ Her). Herb Sci Rep 7:43284. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep43284
Ricciardi A, Blackburn TM, Carlton JT, Dick JTA, Hulme PE, Iacarella JC, Jeschke JM, Liebhold AM, Lockwood JL, MacIsaac HJ, Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Ruiz GM, Simberloff D, Sutherland WJ, Wardle DA, Aldridge DC (2017) Invasion science: a horizon scan of emerging challenges and opportunities. Trends Ecol Evol 32:464–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.03.007
Rinella MJ, Reinhart KO (2018) Toward more robust plant-soil feedback research. Ecology 99:550–556. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2146
Rinella MJ, Reinhart KO (2019) Toward more robust plant–soil feedback research: reply. Ecology 100:e02810. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2810
Smith-Ramesh LM, Reynolds HL (2017) The next frontier of plant-soil feedback research: unraveling context dependence across biotic and abiotic gradients. J Veg Sci 28:484–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12519
Stinson KA, Campbell SA, Powell JR, Wolfe BE, Callaway RM, Thelen GC, Hallett SG, Prati D, Klironomos JN (2006) Invasive plant suppresses the growth of native tree seedlings by disrupting belowground mutualisms. PLoS Biol 4:e140. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040140
Suding KN, LeJeune KD, Seastedt TR (2004) Competitive impacts and responses of an invasive weed: dependencies on nitrogen and phosphorus availability. Oecologia 141:526–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1678-0
Suding KN, Harpole WS, Fukami T, Kulmatiski A, MacDougall AS, Stein C, van der Putten WH (2013) Consequences of plant-soil feedbacks in invasion. J Ecol 101:298–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12057
Teste FP, Kardol P, Turner BL, Wardle DA, Zemunik G, Renton M, Laliberté E (2019) Toward more robust plant–soil feedback research: comment. Ecology 100:e02590. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2590
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
van der Putten WH, Bradford MA, Brinkman PE, van de Voorde TFJ, Veen GF, Bailey JK (2016) Where, when and how plant–soil feedback matters in a changing world. Funct Ecol 30:1109–1121. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12657
van Nuland ME, Wooliver RC, Pfennigwerth AA, Read QD, Ware IM, Mueller L, Fordyce JA, Schweitzer JA, Bailey JK (2016) Plant-soil feedbacks: connecting ecosystem ecology and evolution. Funct Ecol 30:1032–1042. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12690
Vitousek PM, Howarth RW (1991) Nitrogen limitation on land and in the sea: how can it occur? Biogeochemistry 13:87–115
Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM (1997) Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494–499. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5325.494
Wang G, Jiang G, Yu S, Li Y, Liu H (2008) Invasion possibility and potential effects of Rhus typhina on Beijing municipality. J Integr Plant Biol 50:522–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2008.00660.x
Wang GM, Yang JC, Jiang CD, Jiang GM, Yu JB, Shao HB, Han GX, Gao YJ (2013) Challenge of weed risk assessment (WRA) for ecological restoration in China: the case of Rhus typhina L. and the new officially released weed risk assessment system. Plant Biosyst 147:1166–1174. https://doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2013.852632
Weber E, Sun SG, Li B (2008) Invasive alien plants in China: diversity and ecological insights. Biol Invasions 10:1411–1429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-008-9216-3
Wei W, Zhou M, Xian XY, Zheng CX, Hou YP (2017) Effects of aqueous root leachates from dominant tree species on seed germination and seedling growth of exotic plant Rhus typhina L. in Shandong Peninsula. Allelopathy J 40:71–80
Wolf JJ, Beattyand SW, Seastedt TR (2004) Soil characteristics of Rocky Mountain National Park grasslands invaded by Melilotus officinalis and M. alba. J Biogeogr 31:415–424
Yu HH, Wang LG, Liu CH, Fan SF (2018) Coverage of native plants is key factor influencing the invasibility of freshwater ecosystems by exotic plants in China. Front Plant Sci 9:250. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00250
Zhang P, Li B, Wu JH, Hu SJ (2019) Invasive plants differentially affect soil biota through litter and rhizosphere pathways: a meta-analysis. Ecol Lett 22:200–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13181
Acknowledgements
We thank XY Xian, CX Zheng, and J Zhang for the laboratory support. We sincerely appreciate the suggestions from the two anonymous reviewers and Dr. Sarah Emery. This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31770581; 31300465), the Shandong Province Higher Educational Science and Technology Program (J17KA128), the Taishan Scholars Youth Expert Program (tsqn201812097), and the Shandong Provincial Agricultural Elite Varieties Project (2016LZGC038).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
YPH and QQH conceived and designed the study. WW and PZ performed the experiments and collected the data. WW, PZ, and YPH wrote the manuscript. WW, PDC, YPH, and XFB designed and performed the data analyses. QQH and GYN reviewed and improved the manuscript. All authors participated in the data interpretation and revised the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Communicated by Katherine Gross.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wei, W., Zhu, P., Chen, P. et al. Mixed evidence for plant–soil feedbacks in forest invasions. Oecologia 193, 665–676 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-020-04703-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-020-04703-y