4.1 Article

Anthropogenic and soil environmental drivers of arbuscular mycorrhizal community composition differ between grassland ecosystems

Journal

BOTANY
Volume 97, Issue 1, Pages 85-99

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/cjb-2018-0072

Keywords

arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; geological substrate; land use disturbance; restoration; grasslands; plant community ecology

Categories

Funding

  1. Missouri Department of Conservation
  2. National Science Foundation [1045322]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Interactions between arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) and plants are sensitive to a myriad of underlying factors, including soil chemistry and land-use disturbances. Here we address how two grassland ecosystems (Ozark glades vs. tallgrass prairies) in south-central USA have been impacted by legacy effects from land-use disturbances (e.g., fire suppression in glades and tillage, fertilizer, row cropping, and grazing in prairies) and geological substrate (acidic versus calcareous bedrock). We surveyed AMF on the roots of two native generalist host species [Ruellia humilis Nutt. and Schizachyrium scoparium (Michx.) Nash] as well as plants randomly selected from the plant community. Glades on calcareous bedrock had a higher pH than those on acidic bedrock, and AMF communities on all three root sample types varied between acidic and calcareous bedrock locations. In prairies, both bedrock types had a similar soil pH, and AMF communities on all three root sample types varied across remnant and disturbed prairies. Shifts in AMF composition across land-use history included shifts in dominant AMF genera, and some unique rare AMF taxa were restricted to only calcareous glades or remnant prairies. Our findings suggest that reseeding prairie plant communities on cultivated lands does not restore AMF communities. Restoration projects need to address the soil environment and community.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available