4.5 Article

Excluding arbuscular mycorrhiza lowers variability in soil respiration but slows down recovery from perturbations

期刊

ECOSPHERE
卷 11, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ecs2.3308

关键词

arbuscular mycorrhiza; experimental perturbations; Glomeromycotina; resilience; resistance; respiration; temporal stability; transition thresholds

类别

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschunsgemeinschaft project Metacorrhiza [VE 736/2-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The role of mutualisms in mediating temporal stability in an ecosystem has been debated extensively. Here, we focus on how a ubiquitous mutualism, arbuscular mycorrhiza, influences temporal stability of a key ecosystem process, ecosystem respiration. We discriminated between two forms of temporal stability, temporal variability and resilience, and hypothesized that excluding arbuscular mycorrhiza would be detrimental for both of them. We analyzed a set of 10 parallel manipulation experiments to assess how excluding arbuscular mycorrhiza modulates temporal stability compared to other common experimental factors. We quantified the temporal variability of ecosystem respiration and the resilience to experimental perturbations (i.e., pulses, stresses, and a disturbance) following manipulations of mycorrhizal state. We observed lower temporal variability in the absence of arbuscular mycorrhiza in discord to our main hypothesis. Manipulating arbuscular mycorrhiza had a stronger impact on temporal variability than the pulse (application of urea), the stress (addition of salt), and a disturbance (experimental defoliation) but weaker than excluding primary producers or comparing across different plant species. Resilience to experimental perturbations declined in non-mycorrhizal microcosms. We present an empirical study on how mutualisms impact temporal stability. Arbuscular mycorrhiza differentially alters temporal variability and resilience, highlighting that generalizing across different forms of temporal stability could be misleading.

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