4.6 Article

Effects of natural hybrid and non-hybrid Epichloe endophytes on the response of Hordelymus europaeus to drought stress

Journal

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
Volume 201, Issue 1, Pages 242-253

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/nph.12496

Keywords

drought adaptation; hybrid endophyte; inoculation; mutualism; niche expansion; woodland grass

Categories

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [31003A-117729]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Interspecific hybrid endophytes of the genus Epichloe (Ascomycota, Clavicipitaceae) are prevalent in wild grass populations, possibly because of their larger gene variation, resulting in increased fitness benefits for host plants; however, the reasons are not yet known. We tested hypotheses regarding niche expansion mediated by hybrid endophytes, population-dependent interactions and local co-adaptation in the woodland grass Hordelymus europaeus, which naturally hosts both hybrid and non-hybrid endophyte taxa. Seedlings derived from seeds of four grass populations made endophyte free were re-inoculated with hybrid or non-hybrid endophyte strains, or left endophyte free. Plants were grown in the glasshouse with or without drought treatment. Endophyte infection increased plant biomass and tiller production by 10-15% in both treatments. Endophyte types had similar effects on growth, but opposite effects on reproduction: non-hybrid endophytes increased seed production, whereas hybrid endophytes reduced or prevented it completely. The results are consistent with the observation that non-hybrid endophytes in H.europaeus prevail at dry sites, but cannot explain the prevalence of hybrid endophytes. Thus, our results do not support the hypothesis of niche expansion of hybrid-infected plants. Moreover, plants inoculated with native relative to foreign endophytes yielded higher infections, but both showed similar growth and survival, suggesting weak co-adaptation.

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