4.6 Article

Preferential allocation, physio-evolutionary feedbacks, and the stability and environmental patterns of mutualism between plants and their root symbionts

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 205, 期 4, 页码 1503-1514

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nph.13239

关键词

carbon allocation; cheater; mutualism; mycorrhizas; physio-evolutionary feedbacks; preferential allocation; symbiosis; theory

资金

  1. NSF [DEB-0049080, DEB-0919434, DEB-1050237]
  2. Guggenheim Fellowship
  3. Division Of Environmental Biology
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences [1050237] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The common occurrence of mutualistic interactions between plants and root symbionts is problematic. As the delivery of benefit to hosts involves costs to symbionts, symbionts that provide reduced benefit to their host are expected to increase in frequency. Plants have been shown to allocate preferentially to the most efficient symbiont and this preferential allocation may stabilize the mutualism. I construct a general model of the interactive feedbacks of host preferential allocation and the dynamics of root symbiont populations to evaluate the stability of nutritional mutualisms. Preferential allocation can promote the evolution of mutualism even when the cost to the symbiont is very large. Moreover, the physiological plasticity of preferential allocation likely leads to coexistence of beneficial and nonbeneficial symbionts. For arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, which facilitate plant uptake of phosphorus (P), the model predicts greater P transfer from these fungi per unit carbon invested with decreasing concentrations of soil P and with increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2, patterns that have been observed in laboratory and field studies. This framework connects physiological plasticity in plant allocation to population processes that determine mutualism stability and, as such, represents a significant step in understanding the stability and environmental patterns in mutualism.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据