4.7 Article

Mycorrhizal symbiosis induces plant carbon reallocation differently in C3 and C4 Panicum grasses

Journal

PLANT AND SOIL
Volume 425, Issue 1-2, Pages 441-456

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11104-018-3606-9

Keywords

C-13 labelling; Carbon (C) allocation; Mycorrhizal symbiosis; Panicum sp.; Photosynthetic metabolism type; Phosphorus (P)

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic [LK11224]
  2. Czech Science Foundation [14-19191S]
  3. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic [RVO 61388971]
  4. Fellowship J. E. Purkyne

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims Although arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis is common in many plants with either C-3 or C-4 photosynthesis, it remains poorly understood whether photosynthesis type has any significant impact on carbon (C) fluxes in mycorrhizal plants. Thus, we compared mycorrhizal and non-mycorrhizal (NM) plants belonging to Panicum bisulcatum (C-3) to its congeneric P. maximum (C-4). Methods Plants were or were not exposed to arbuscular mycorrhiza (AM) fungal inoculation and/or phosphorus (P) fertilization. Plants' C budgets were assembled based on (CO2)-C-13 pulse-chase labelling and sequential harvesting. Results Mycorrhizal plants allocated on average 3.9% more recently fixed C belowground than did their NM counterparts. At low P, mycorrhizal C-3-Panicum plants allocated less C to aboveground respiration as compared to their respective NM controls. In contrast, mycorrhizal C-4-Panicum increased the rates of photosynthesis and allocated more C to aboveground respiration than the respective NM controls. At high P, the differences were less prominent. Conclusions We demonstrated consistent differences in aboveground C allocation due to AM symbiosis formation in congeneric C-3 and C-4 grasses. Both grasses benefited from AM symbiosis in terms of improved P uptake (at least at low P). These results advocate a holistic (whole-plant) perspective in studying C fluxes in mycorrhizal plants.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available