4.5 Article

Competitive context alters plant-soil feedback in an experimental woodland community

期刊

OECOLOGIA
卷 169, 期 1, 页码 235-243

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-011-2195-6

关键词

Microstegium vimineum; Eastern deciduous forest; Soil microbial community; Invasion ecology; Competition

类别

资金

  1. Nature Conservancy
  2. Indiana University
  3. USDA Forest Service Hoosier National Forest
  4. Indiana Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent findings on feedback between plants and soil microbial communities have improved our understanding of mechanisms underlying the success and consequences of invasions. However, additional studies to test for feedback in the presence and absence of interspecific competition, which may alter the strength or direction of feedbacks, are needed. We tested for soil microbial feedback in communities of the invasive grass Microstegium vimineum and commonly co-occurring native plant species. To incorporate competitive context, we used a factorial design with three plant treatments (M. vimineum alone, M. vimineum with the native plant community, and the native community without M. vimineum) and two soil inoculum treatments (experimentally invaded and uninvaded soil). When competing with M. vimineum, native communities were 27% more productive in invaded than uninvaded soil. In contrast, soil type did not significantly affect M. vimineum biomass or fecundity. At the community level, these results indicate a net negative soil microbial feedback when native plants and M. vimineum are grown in competitive mixture, but not when they are grown separately. Since positive, not negative, feedback is associated with dominance and invasion, our findings do not support plant-soil feedback as a driver of invasion in this species. Our results do show that the importance of soil feedback can change with competitive context. Such context-dependency implies that soil feedback may change when competitive interactions between natives and invading species shift as invasions progress.

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

4.5
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