4.6 Article

Hybridization of Neotyphodium endophytes enhances competitive ability of the host grass

Journal

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
Volume 195, Issue 1, Pages 231-236

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04140.x

Keywords

endophyte; hybridization; intraspecific competition; niche; symbiosis

Categories

Funding

  1. NSF [DEB 0917741]
  2. Division Of Environmental Biology
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences [0917741] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Associations with microbial symbionts may lead to niche differentiation of their host. Vertically transmitted Neotyphodium endophytes of grasses often hybridize in nature. Infection by these hybrid symbionts may result in different hostplant phenotypes from those caused as a result of infection by nonhybrid symbionts. Observations of wild Arizona fescue (Festuca arizonica) populations show that hybrid Neotyphodium-infected (H+) grasses dominate in resource-poor environments, whereas nonhybrid endophyte-infected (NH+) grasses dominate in environments with more resources. We studied the hypothesis that hybridization of endophytes increases stress tolerance of the host. To test whether hybridization of Neotyphodium affects performance and competitive abilities of the host depending on resources, we conducted a glasshouse experiment where competition, nutrients and watering were manipulated. H+ plants had greater wet biomass than NH+ and endophyte-free plants, when grown in competition, but only in low-water and low-nutrient treatments. By contrast, NH+ plants did not perform better than H+ or endophyte-free plants regardless of the treatment combination. Our results suggest that hybridization of symbiotic Neotyphodium endophytes may increase competitive potential of the host in stressful environments and that this hybridization may be underlying niche expansion of Arizona fescue in the environments with low resources.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available