4.5 Article

Effects of arbuscular mycorrhiza on community composition and seedling recruitment in temperate forest understory

期刊

BASIC AND APPLIED ECOLOGY
卷 13, 期 8, 页码 663-672

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.baae.2012.09.008

关键词

AM fungi; Soil fertility; Soil heterogeneity; Seedling growth; Benomyl; Vegetation

类别

资金

  1. Estonian Science Foundation [7738, 9050, 9157]
  2. European Regional Development Fund (Center of Excellence FIBIR)
  3. [SF0180098s08]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungal communities can influence the species composition of plant communities. This influence may result from effects of AM on seedling recruitment, although the existing evidence is limited to experimental systems. We addressed the impact of AM fungi on the plant community composition and seedling recruitment of two species - Oxalis acetosella and Prunella vulgaris - in a temperate forest understory. We established a field experiment over two years in which soil fertility (using fertilizer to enhance and sucrose to decrease fertility) and the activity of AM fungi (using fungicide) was manipulated in a factorial design. Species richness, diversity and community composition of understory plants were not influenced by soil fertility or AM fungal activity treatments. However, plant community composition was marginally significantly affected by the interaction of these treatments as the effect of AM fungal activity became evident under enhanced soil fertility. Suppression of AM fungal activity combined with decreased soil fertility increased the number of shoots of herbaceous plants. Unchanged activity of AM fungi enhanced the growth of O. acetosella seedlings under decreased soil fertility, but did not influence the growth of P. vulgaris seedlings. We conclude that the role of AM fungi in structuring plant communities depends on soil fertility. AM fungi can have a strong influence on seedling recruitment, especially for those plants that are characteristic of the habitat.

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