Invading pines get help

What makes for a successful invasion?  Is it better to invade with a small, fast moving force or a large, but less mobile force?  Should the invaders be capable of operating independently, or should they have partners (or make partnerships easily) with the existing population? Should resources be allocated to defending the individuals that make up the invasion force, or instead be allocated to recruiting large numbers of less-well-defended invaders?  While military strategists are confounded by these questions, pine trees have solved them. The solution is:

Z-score = 23.39 – 0.63(SM)1/2 -3.88(JP)1/2 -1.09(SC)

This equation was derived about 25 years ago by Marcel Rejmánek and David Richardson who wanted to know what plant attributes were associated with whether pine trees invaded new areas successfully.  They contrasted 12 species that had made successful invasions with 12 species who were primarily noninvasive, and derived the z-score as a quantitative measure of what attributes the invasive species shared.  A higher z-score was correlated with higher invasiveness.  Qualitatively, this equation tells us that invasiveness is correlated with small seed mass (SM), a short juvenile period (JP) and a short interval of time between large seed crops (SC). 

Pine seeds vary in size and number across species. Credit: Jaime Moyano.

Shift to the present time (or at least the recent past). Jaime Moyano and his colleagues were puzzling over whether it was better for these invaders to be capable of operating independently, or whether they should depend on partners.  Ecologists had assumed that independence was a good idea for invaders, and had framed an “ideal weed hypothesis” that plant species that depend on mutualisms are less prone to invade.  Common mutualisms for plants include association with pollinators, seed dispersers and fungi (mycorrhizae).

Pinus contorta (lodgepole pine) invades a forest near Christchurch, New Zealand. Credit: Martin Nuñez.

Moyano and his colleagues tested a prediction of the ideal weed hypothesis by going through the literature to see whether pine species seedlings with higher invasiveness are less dependent on mutualisms with ectomycorrhizal fungi (EMF).  EMF are an association between plant roots and fungi in which the fungal hyphae form a sheath around the root’s exterior and suck up nutrients which they may share with the plant. To test this prediction, the researchers compiled a database of 1206 data points in 34 species based on studies where researchers evaluated how pine seedlings grew with and without EMF inoculation. For each study, they calculated an effect size of EMF as equal to the ln(EMFP/EMFA), where EMFP is seedling biomass with EMF present , and EMFA is seedling biomass with EMF absent.  So a higher effect size indicates that EMF improves seedling growth.

All the pieces were together – all that was left was to do the analysis.  The prediction of the ideal weed hypothesis was that the most invasive species – the species with the highest Z-score – would be expected to have the lowest EMF effect size (be less dependent on mutualism).  The researchers discovered…exactly the opposite.  In general, invasive pines depended heavily on EMF mutualisms to aid seedling growth, while non-invasive pines were less likely to benefit from the services of EMF (top graph below).

EMF effect size in relation to invasiveness (Z score) (top graph). EMF effect size in relation to seed mass (bottom graph).

In addition, the researchers discovered that species with smaller seeds benefitted more from EMF (bottom graph above).  Initially, they were puzzled by these findings that conflicted with conventional expectations.  But then it started making sense…

Parental investment theory tells us that parents have a limited amount of resources that they can allocate to their offspring.  Given this limitation, some plant species make a small number of large seeds that are endowed with large stores of nutrients that the baby can use while germinating and a thick seed coat to protect it.  The downside of this approach is that the large seed might not disperse very far from its parent and may get shaded out by it.  Other plant species make large numbers of very small seeds that are very poorly supplied with nutrients.  The upside of this approach is that the seeds can be blown to new locations that might be ripe for germination (pine seeds are equipped with wings that facilitate traveling in the breeze when released).  The downside of this approach is that germinating seeds might run out of nutrients before they establish themselves.  This selects for a strong dependence on quickly establishing mutualisms to facilitate nutrient intake from the environment. All pines trees ultimately establish EMF, but the smaller-seeded most invasive plants benefit more from EMF early in development, and thus can travel long distances and still get enough nutrients to invade new habitats.

Lodgepole pines invade a forest in Patagonia. This species produces numerous tiny seeds and is highly invasive. Credit: Martin Nuñez.

The question then becomes, how generalizable are these results to other species and other types of mutualisms? The pattern of large seeds showing decreasing response to EMF has been found in some plant families but not others. There are not a lot of data on the relationship between plant invasiveness and their dependence on other types of mutualisms such as pollinators and animal seed dispersers. Moyano and his colleagues caution us that many factors are involved in biological invasions, which makes it very difficult to anticipate which species will be successful invaders.  

note: the paper that describes this research is from the journal Ecology. The reference is Moyano, J., M. A. Rodriguez-Cabal, and M. A. Nunez. 2020. Highly invasive tree species are more dependent on mutualisms. Ecology 101(5):e02997. 10.1002/ecy.2997. Thanks to the Ecological Society of America for allowing me to use figures from the paper. Copyright © 2020 by the Ecological Society of America. All rights reserved.

Meta-analysis measures multiple mycorrhizal benefits to plants

Plants and fungi sometimes live together in peace and harmony. Arbuscular mycorrhizal associations are associations between plant roots and fungi, in which the fungal hyphae (usually branched tubular structures) grow between root cells, penetrating some cells with a network of branches or arbuscules.  Oftentimes these are mutualistic associations with both the plants and the fungi benefiting from living together. Though plants with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) tend to grow better than plants without AMF, it not always clear what causes them to do so.

20170707_151040.jpg

Kura clover, Trifolium ambiguum, grown with AMF (left) and without AMF (right). Credit: Liz Koziol.

Ecologists have traditionally viewed arbuscular mycorrhizal associations as a straightforward nutrient-carbon exchange. Fungal hyphae, with their vast surface area, pick up nutrients (such as nitrogen and phosphorus compounds) from the soil, which they deliver to the root cells in exchange for plant-produced carbon molecules.

But recently researchers have identified numerous other potential ways that the fungi help the plants, including the following: (1) promoting water uptake and transport, (2) helping to spread allelochemicals – toxic chemicals that some plants release to rid themselves of nearby competitors, (3) inducing chemical defenses against herbivores, (4) enhancing disease resistance, and (5) promoting soil aggregation or clumping, which stabilizes the soil near the roots, reduces erosion and promotes stable water flow.

Ecology Fig1

Camille Delavaux and her colleagues wondered whether these other plant benefits might actually be more important than we originally thought. Delavaux was planning to write a review paper for a 1 credit independent study, but she found so many papers on this topic that she decided to collaborate with fellow students Lauren Smith-Ramesh and Sara Kuebbing on a full-scale meta-analysis.

A meta-analysis is a systematic analysis of data collected by many other researchers. Delavaux and her colleagues used the Web of Science database to find 4410 studies on how AMF supplied plants with nutrients and 1239 studies on how AMF provided other plant benefits. That’s a lot of studies! But for the meta-analysis, the authors only used a small fraction of these studies because they set certain restrictions. For example, to be used in the meta-analysis the authors required each study to show some measure of variation for the data (such as standard deviation or standard error). In addition, the authors required each study to compare plants grown under two conditions: with AMF and without AMF.  In many studies the researchers collected soil, which they sterilized in a hot oven, and then set up a test group, which they inoculated with AMF spores or a plug of soil or root fragments that contained AMF. In addition, these studies also had a control group of plants that received only sterilized soil with no AMF added.

multisporec

A collection of eight different species of AMF spores. Credit: Liz Koziol.

Delavaux and her colleagues compared how plants performed with and without an AMF. Because each study was different, one might only have been looking at the effects of AMF on nitrogen uptake performance, while a second study might consider how AMF influenced soil aggregation. Effect size (Hedges d+) compares mean performance of the AMF plant to mean performance of non-AMF plants for a particular variable (such as nitrogen uptake or soil aggregation). A positive effect size means that the AMF plant did better. Of course we need to know how much better is biologically meaningful, so for each variable the researchers calculated the 95% confidence intervals of the mean effect size. If the 95% confidence intervals were positive, then Delavaux and her colleagues could be 95% confident that there was a biologically important effect of AMF on plants for that particular measure of performance.

As expected, the researchers found a positive effect of AMF on plant nitrogen uptake. The mean effect size was 0.674 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.451- 0.912. We can interpret this to mean that we are 95% confident that the true mean effect size on nitrogen uptake is between 0.451 and 0.912. But the greatest effect of AMF on plants was on soil aggregation (mean effect size = 1.645, 95% confidence interval = 1.032 – 2.248). AMF also had significant positive effects on phosphorus uptake, water flow and disease resistance.

EcologyFig2

Mean effect size (Hedges’ d+) of AMF on different factors considered in the meta-analysis.  The horizontal error bars are the 95% confidence intervals. n = number of observations.  If the error bars do not cross zero, inoculation with AMF had a significant positive effect relative to plants without AMF.

This meta-analysis shows that AMF help plants in many different ways. Researchers knew about the AMF impact on nitrogen and phosphorus uptake, but may be surprised to learn of equally strong effects on water flow, disease resistance and soil aggregation. Consequently, AMF may be very useful for forest management, agriculture, conservation and habitat restoration. As examples, conservation biologists and forest managers may need to consider adding AMF to soils that have suffered severe burns from fires, which may kill the existing soil fungi. Or agriculturalists intent on growing a particular crop may want to inoculate the soil with a specific group of AMF spores that enhance soil aggregation and water uptake, so their crop may thrive in a habitat that might otherwise not be suitable.

More than 3/4 of land plants form associations with AMF. Consequently, any attempts to restore habitats or to maintain high levels of species diversity in existing ecosystems require understanding what types of AMF inhabit the soils, and how these AMF influence ecosystem functioning.

note: the paper that describes this research is from the journal Ecology. The reference is Delavaux, C. S., Smith-Ramesh, L. M. and Kuebbing, S. E. (2017), Beyond nutrients: a meta-analysis of the diverse effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on plants and soils. Ecology, 98: 2111–2119. doi:10.1002/ecy.1892. Thanks to the Ecological Society of America for allowing me to use figures from the paper. Copyright © 2017 by the Ecological Society of America. All rights reserved.