Synergistic Effects of Soil Microbes on Solidago canadensis Depend on Water and Nutrient Availability

Abstract

Soil microbes may greatly affect plant growth. While plants are commonly associated with diverse communities of soil microbes, complementary roles of different microbial communities that may stimulate synergistic effects on plant growth are not adequately tested. Also, such synergistic effects may vary with environmental conditions such as soil nutrient and water availability. We conducted a greenhouse experiment with a widespread clonal plant Solidago canadensis. The experiment was a factorial design with four levels of soil microbial inoculation (fresh soil inocula from grasslands in northern and southern China that were expected to differ in soil microbial composition, a mixture of the two fresh soil inocula, and a sterilized mixed inoculum control), two levels of nutrient availability (low vs. high), and two levels of water supply (low vs. high, i.e., 1376 vs. 352 mm per year). Irrespective of water supply and nutrient availability, total, aboveground, and belowground mass of S. canadensis were generally higher when the plant grew in soil inoculated with a mixture of soil microbes from the south and north of China (in the mixed inoculum treatment) than when it grew in soil inoculated with soil microbes from only the north or the south or the sterilized control. Such effects of soil microbes on total and aboveground mass were stronger under high than under low nutrient availability and also under high than under low water supply. Our results suggest that interactions of different soil microbial communities can result in a synergistic effect on plant growth and such a synergistic effect depends on environmental conditions. The findings shed light on the importance of plant–microbe interactions during the spreading of some plant species in face of increased atmospheric nutrient deposition coupled with altered rainfall pattern due to global change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. 1.

    Bever JD, Mangan SA, Alexander HM (2015) Maintenance of plant species diversity by pathogens. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 46:305–325

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Fry EL, Johnson GN, Hall AL, Pritchard WJ, Bullock JM, Bardgett RD (2018) Drought neutralises plant-soil feedback of two mesic grassland forbs. Oecologia 186:1113–1125

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Kaisermann A, de Vries FT, Griffiths RI, Bardgett RD (2017) Legacy effects of drought on plant-soil feedbacks and plant-plant interactions. New Phytol 215:1413–1424

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Kannenberg SA, Phillips RP (2017) Soil microbial communities buffer physiological responses to drought stress in three hardwood species. Oecologia 183:631–641

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Xi NX, Chu CJ, Bloor JMG (2018) Plant drought resistance is mediated by soil microbial community structure and soil-plant feedbacks in a savanna tree species. Environ Exp Bot 155:695–701

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Adair EC, Parton WJ, Del Grosso SJ, Silver WL, Harmon ME, Hall SA, Burke IC, Hart SC (2008) Simple three-pool model accurately describes patterns of long-term litter decomposition in diverse climates. Glob Chang Biol 14:2636–2660

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Delgado-Baquerizo M, Reich PB, Trivedi C, Eldridge DJ, Abades S, Alfaro FD, Bastida F, Berhe AA, Cutler NA, Gallardo A, García-Velázquez L, Hart SC, Hayes PE, He J-Z, Hseu Z-Y, Hu H-W, Kirchmair M, Neuhauser S, Pérez CA, Reed SC, Santos F, Sullivan BW, Trivedi P, Wang J-T, Weber-Grullon L, Williams MA, Singh BK (2020) Multiple elements of soil biodiversity drive ecosystem functions across biomes. Nature Ecology & Evolution 4:210–220

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Soong JL, Fuchslueger L, Marañon-Jimenez S, Torn MS, Janssens IA, Penuelas J, Richter A (2020) Microbial carbon limitation: the need for integrating microorganisms into our understanding of ecosystem carbon cycling. Glob Chang Biol 00:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Shi M, Fisher JB, Brzostek ER, Phillips RP (2016) Carbon cost of plant nitrogen acquisition: global carbon cycle impact from an improved plant nitrogen cycle in the Community Land Model. Glob Chang Biol 22:1299–1314

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    van der Putten WH, Macel M, Visser ME (2010) Predicting species distribution and abundance responses to climate change: why it is essential to include biotic interactions across trophic levels. Philosophical Transaction of The Royal Society B 365:2025–2034

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Engelkes T, Morriën E, Verhoeven KJF, Bezemer TM, Biere A, Harvey JA, McIntyre LM, Tamis WLM, van der Putten WH (2008) Successful range-expanding plants experience less above-ground and below-ground enemy impact. Nature 456:946–948

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Manrubia M, van der Putten WH, Weser C, Veen C (2020) Rhizosphere and litter feedbacks to range-expanding plant species and related natives. J Ecol 108:353–365

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Ramirez KS, Snoek LB, Koorem K, Geisen S, Bloem LJ, ten Hooven F, Kostenko O, Krigas N, Manrubia M, Caković D, van Raaij D, Tsiafouli MA, Vreš B, Čelik T, Weser C, Wilschut RA, van der Putten WH (2019) Range-expansion effects on the belowground plant microbiome. Nature Ecology & Evolution 3:604–611

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Herman DJ, Firestone MK, Nuccio E, Hodge A (2012) Interactions between an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus and a soil microbial community mediating litter decomposition. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 80:236–247

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Barnard RL, Osborne CA, Firestone MK (2015) Changing precipitation pattern alters soil microbial community response to wet-up under a Mediterranean-type climate. The ISME journal 9:946–957

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Fierer N (2017) Embracing the unknown: disentangling the complexities of the soil microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol 15:579–590

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Lehmann A, Zheng W, Rillig MC (2017) Soil biota contributions to soil aggregation. Nature Ecology & Evolution 1:1828–1835

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Porter SS, Bantay R, Friel CA, Garoutte A, Gdanetz K, Ibarreta K, Moore BM, Shetty P, Siler E, Friesen ML (2020) Beneficial microbes ameliorate abiotic and biotic sources of stress on plants. Funct Ecol 00:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Larimer AL, Bever JD, Clay K (2010) The interactive effects of plant microbial symbionts: a review and meta-analysis. Symbiosis 51:139–148

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Mack K, Rudgers J (2008) Balancing multiple mutualists: asymmetric interactions among plants, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, and fungal endophytes. Oikos 117:310–320

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Stanton Maureen L (2003) Interacting guilds: moving beyond the pairwise perspective on mutualisms. Am Nat 162:S10–S23

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Schimel JP (2018) Life in dry soils: effects of drought on soil microbial communities and processes. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 49:409–432

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Manzoni S, Schimel JP, Porporato A (2012) Responses of soil microbial communities to water stress: results from a meta-analysis. Ecology 93:930–938

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Rousk J, Smith A, Jones D (2013) Investigating the longterm legacy of drought and warming on the soil microbial community across five European shrubland ecosystems. Glob Chang Biol 19:3872–3884

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Huang G, Li Y, Su YG (2015) Divergent responses of soil microbial communities to water and nitrogen addition in a temperate desert. Geoderma 251-252:55–64

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Hestrin R, Hammer EC, Mueller CW, Lehmann J (2019) Synergies between mycorrhizal fungi and soil microbial communities increase plant nitrogen acquisition. Communications Biology 2:233

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Desbrosses Guilhem J, Stougaard J (2011) Root nodulation: a paradigm for how plant-microbe symbiosis influences host developmental pathways. Cell Host Microbe 10:348–358

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Taylor BN, Menge DNL (2018) Light regulates tropical symbiotic nitrogen fixation more strongly than soil nitrogen. Nature Plants 4:655–661

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Marasco R, Rolli E, Ettoumi B, Vigani G, Mapelli F, Borin S, Abou-Hadid AF, El-Behairy UA, Sorlini C, Cherif A, Zocchi G, Daffonchio D (2012) A drought resistance-promoting microbiome is selected by root system under desert farming. PLoS One 7:e48479

  30. 30.

    Ochoa-Hueso R, Collins SL, Delgado-Baquerizo M, Hamonts K, Pockman WT, Sinsabaugh RL, Smith MD, Knapp AK, Power SA (2018) Drought consistently alters the composition of soil fungal and bacterial communities in grasslands from two continents. Glob Chang Biol 24:2818–2827

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Yan G, Xing Y, Xu L, Wang J, Dong X, Shan W, Guo L, Wang Q (2017) Effects of different nitrogen additions on soil microbial communities in different seasons in a boreal forest. Ecosphere 8:e01879

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Treseder KK (2008) Nitrogen additions and microbial biomass: a meta-analysis of ecosystem studies. Ecol Lett 11:1111–1120

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Harrison KA, Bardgett RD (2010) Influence of plant species and soil conditions on plant-soil feedback in mixed grassland communities. J Ecol 98:384–395

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Petermann J, Fergus A, Turnbull L, Schmid B (2008) Janzen-Connell effects are widespread and strong enough to maintain diversity in grasslands. Ecology 89:2399–2406

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Johnson NC, Rowland DL, Corkidi L, Egerton-Warburton LM, Allen EB (2003) Nitrogen enrichment alters mycorrhizal allocation at five mesic to semiarid grasslands. Ecology 84:1895–1908

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Treseder KK (2004) A meta-analysis of mycorrhizal responses to nitrogen, phosphorus, and atmospheric CO2 in field studies. New Phytol 164:347–355

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    in't Zandt D, van den Brink A, de Kroon H, Visser EJW (2019) Plant-soil feedback is shut down when nutrients come to town. Plant Soil 439: 541–551

  38. 38.

    van der Putten WH, Bardgett RD, Bever JD, Bezemer TM, Casper BB, Fukami T, Kardol P, Klironomos JN, Kulmatiski A, Schweitzer JA, Suding KN, Van de Voorde TFJ, Wardle DA (2013) Plant-soil feedbacks: the past, the present and future challenges. J Ecol 101:265–276

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Abhilasha D, Quintana N, Vivanco J, Joshi J (2008) Do allelopathic compounds in invasive Solidago canadensis s.l. restrain the native European flora? J Ecol 96:993–1001

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Zhang CB, Wang J, Qian BY, Li WH (2009) Effects of the invader Solidago canadensis on soil properties. Appl Soil Ecol 43:163–169

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Li J, Du L, Guan W, Yu F-H, van Kleunen M (2016) Latitudinal and longitudinal clines of phenotypic plasticity in the invasive herb Solidago canadensis in China. Oecologia 182:755–764

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Li B, Hsu PS, Chen JK (2001) Perspectives on general trends of plant invasions with special reference to alien weed flora of Shanghai. Chinese Biodiversity Science 9:446–457

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Adomako MO, Ning L, Tang M, Du D-L, van Kleunen M, Yu F-H (2019) Diversity- and density-mediated allelopathic effects of resident plant communities on invasion by an exotic plant. Plant Soil 440:581–592

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Chen T, Liu WL, Zhang CB, Wang J (2012) Effects of Solidago canadensis invasion on dynamics of native plant communities and their mechanisms. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology 36:253–261

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Xu Z, Peng H, Feng Z, Abdulsalih N (2014) Predicting current and future invasion of Solidago canadensis: a study from China. Pol J Ecol 62:263–271

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Whitaker BK, Bauer JT, Bever JD, Clay K (2017) Negative plant-phyllosphere feedbacks in native Asteraceae hosts—a novel extension of the plant-soil feedback framework. Ecol Lett 20:1064–1073

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Bauer J, Kleczewski N, Bever J, Clay KRH (2012) Nitrogen-fixing bacteria, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, and the productivity and structure of prairie grassland communities. Oecologia 170:1089–1098

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Troelstra SR, Wagenaar R, Smant W, Peters BAM (2001) Interpretation of bioassays in the study of interactions between soil organisms and plants: involvement of nutrient factors. New Phytol 150:697–706

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Core Team R (2019) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    RStudio Team (2015) Integrated development environment for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA

  51. 51.

    Jia Y, Gray VM, Straker CJ (2004) The influence of Rhizobium and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on nitrogen and phosphorus accumulation by Vicia faba. Ann Bot 94:251–258

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    van der Heijden MGA, Sd B, Luckerhoff L, van Logtestijn RSP, Schlaeppi K (2016) A widespread plant-fungal-bacterial symbiosis promotes plant biodiversity, plant nutrition and seedling recruitment. The ISME Journal 10:389–399

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Lekberg Y, Bever JD, Bunn RA, Callaway RM, Hart MM, Kivlin SN, Klironomos J, Larkin BG, Maron JL, Reinhart KO, Remke M, van der Putten WH (2018) Relative importance of competition and plant–soil feedback, their synergy, context dependency and implications for coexistence. Ecol Lett 21:1268–1281

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Rasmussen PU, Bennett AE, Tack AJM (2020) The impact of elevated temperature and drought on the ecology and evolution of plant-soil microbe interactions. J Ecol 108:337–352

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Moreira H, Pereira SIA, Vega A, Castro PML, Marques APGC (2020) Synergistic effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and plant growth-promoting bacteria benefit maize growth under increasing soil salinity. J Environ Manag 257:109982

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Ladygina N, Henry F, Kant MR, Koller R, Reidinger S, Rodriguez A, Saj S, Sonnemann I, Witt C, Wurst S (2010) Additive and interactive effects of functionally dissimilar soil organisms on a grassland plant community. Soil Biol Biochem 42:2266–2275

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Callaway RM, Rout ME (2010) Soil biota and plant invasions: biogeographical effects on plant–microbe interactions. In: Richardson, DM (ed.) Fifty years of invasion ecology, pp. 131-142

  58. 58.

    Richardson DM, Allsopp N, D ‘Antonio CM, Milton SJ, M. R (2000) Plant invasions—the role of mutualisms. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 75: 65–93

  59. 59.

    Wei S, Dai Y, Liu B, Zhu A, Duan Q, Wu L, Zhang Y, Ji D, Ye A, Yuan H, Zhang Q, Chen D, Chen M, Chu J, Dou Y, Guo J, Li H, Li J, Liang L, Liang X, Liu H, Liu S, Miao C, Zhang Y (2013) A China data set of soil properties for land surface modeling. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 5:212–224

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Callaway RM, Bedmar EJ, Reinhart KO, Silvan CG, Klironomos J (2011) Effects of soil biota from different ranges on Robinia invasion: acquiring mutualists and escaping pathogens. Ecology 92:1027–1035

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Klironomos JN (2002) Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities. Nature 417:67–70

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Bever JD (2002) Negative feedback within a mutualism: host specific growth of mycorrhizal fungi reduces plant benefit. Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences 269:2595–2601

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Ehrenfeld JG, Ravit B, Elgersma K (2005) Feedback in the plant-soil system. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:75–115

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    van der Putten WH, Van Dijk C, Peters BAM (1993) Plant-specific soil-borne diseases contribute to succession in foredune vegetation. Nature 362:53–56

  65. 65.

    Rúa MA, Antoninka A, Antunes PM, Chaudhary VB, Gehring C, Lamit LJ, Piculell BJ, Bever JD, Zabinski C, Meadow JF, Lajeunesse MJ, Milligan BG, Karst J, Hoeksema JD (2016) Home-field advantage? Evidence of local adaptation among plants, soil, and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi through meta-analysis. BMC Evol Biol 16:122

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Ma L, Huang W, Guo C, Wang R, Xiao C (2012) Soil microbial properties and plant growth responses to carbon and water addition in a temperate steppe: the importance of nutrient availability. PLoS One 7:e35165

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Hoeksema JD, Chaudhary VB, Gehring CA, Johnson NC, Karst J, Koide RT, Pringle A, Zabinski C, Bever JD, Moore JC, Wilson GWT, Klironomos JN, Umbanhowar J (2010) A meta-analysis of context-dependency in plant response to inoculation with mycorrhizal fungi. Ecol Lett 13:394–407

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Lu X, He M, Ding J, Siemann E (2018) Latitudinal variation in soil biota: testing the biotic interaction hypothesis with an invasive plant and a native congener. The ISME Journal 12:2811–2822

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Reinhart KO, Callaway RM (2006) Soil biota and invasive plants. New Phytol 170:445–457

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Herman RP, Provencio KR, Torrez RJ, Seager GM (1993) Effect of water and nitrogen additions on free-living nitrogen fixer populations in desert grass root zones. Appl Environ Microbiol 59:3021–3026

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Schimel JP, Balser T, Wallenstein M (2007) Microbial stress-response physiology and its implications for ecosystem function. Ecology 88:1386–1394

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Johnson NC (2010) Resource stoichiometry elucidates the structure and function of arbuscular mycorrhizas across scales. New Phytol 185:631–647

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Ho J, Chambers LG (2019) Altered soil microbial community composition and function in two shrub-encroached marshes with different physicochemical gradients. Soil Biol Biochem 130:122–131

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Ayub M.O. Odour (Technical University of Kenya, Kenya) and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on an early version of the manuscript. We also thank Miss Angella Nabasirye (Taizhou University) for her assistance with the experiment.

Funding

This study was supported by the NSFC (31761123001, 31870610) and the Ten Thousand Talent Program of Zhejiang Province (2018R52016) and the Joint Fund of Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation (LTZ20C030001).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Michael Opoku Adomako (MOA) conceived the idea for the experiment; MOA performed the experiment and collected the data; MOA, Fei-Hai Yu (FHY), and Wei Xue (WX) performed data analyses; MOA drafted the manuscript with input from FHY, Min Tang (MT) and WX; and FHY contributed substantially towards the revision of the manuscript with input from Dao-Lin Du.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Dao-Lin Du or Fei-Hai Yu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Adomako, M.O., Xue, W., Tang, M. et al. Synergistic Effects of Soil Microbes on Solidago canadensis Depend on Water and Nutrient Availability. Microb Ecol (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-020-01537-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Drought
  • Environmental context
  • Plant–microbe interactions
  • Soil microbial communities
  • Synergistic interactions