Download Effects of phytopathogens on plant community dynamics: a review

1
2
Effects of phytopathogens on plant community dynamics: a review
3
The State Key Laboratory of Grassland Agro-ecosystems, College of Pastoral Agricultural Science and Technology,
4
Lanzhou University Lanzhou 730020, China
5
Corresponding author email: [email protected]
6
Abstract:
7
CHEN Tao, NAN Zhibiao*
The impacts of phytopathogens on agricultural systems, disease controls and economic losses
8
caused by the pathogens are internationally important research subjects. Recently, increasing
9
evidence has shown that phytopathogens play a critical role in mediating competitions among
10
their host plant species. According to Chesson’s coexistence framework, niche differences (i.e.,
11
species differences in resource use, host-specific pathogen loads, and other ecosystem processes)
12
are more associated with intra-specific limitation than with inter-specific limitation. However,
13
fitness differences (i.e., variations in competition abilities among plant species) can determine the
14
dominance of plant species. An increase in niche differences tends to promote the coexistence of
15
plant species, whereas an increase in fitness differences tends to exclude competing species. In
16
this review, two types of pathogen mechanisms that could affect plant communities are discussed
17
based on the coexistence framework. Type I is the density-dependent pathogen mechanism, in
18
which disease occurrence in a community is related to the density of host species. In this
19
mechanism, disease transmission increases niche differences as a host species becomes common,
20
and/or reduces niche differences as a host species becomes rare. Type II is the density-independent
21
pathogen mechanism, in which disease transmission does not depend on host plant density. This
22
mechanism mainly focuses on fitness differences. When competitively dominant host plants are
23
more susceptible to pathogens, pathogens can reduce fitness differences among species and
24
thereby improve plant diversity. Alternatively, if the competing species are more resistant than
25
other species to pathogens, fitness differences are prone to be increased.
26
The Janzen-Connell effect (JC effect) and plant-soil feedback theory are characterized by Type
27
I phytopathogen mechanism and are discussed here in details. The JC hypothesis has been mostly
28
applied to forest ecosystems, whereas the plant-soil feedback theory has been applied more widely
29
in several ecosystems. The JC hypothesis assumes that seeds/seedlings around the mother plant
30
are most susceptible to host-specific pathogens. Since seed/seedling mortality caused by
31
pathogens is related to plant density, the JC effect is an example of negative density dependence.
1
32
The plant-soil feedback theory illustrates the interactions between plants and soil. Plants can alter
33
soil properties through the input of organic matter and chemicals, and provide habitats and
34
nutrients for soil organisms, which in turn can affect plant performance. This feedback can be
35
either negative or positive, depending on whether it leads to a net reduction or an enhancement of
36
plant growth when comparing the plant species cultured in soil conditioned by the plant to that in
37
mixed soil.
38
This review summarizes phytopathogen effects on plant diversity, plant invasion, community
39
succession, and addresses some future research challenges. Several research goals are highlighted;
40
for instance, studies of pathogens with multiple hosts and host plants with multiple pathogens are
41
necessary for a better understanding of the role of phytopathogens in plant community dynamics.
42
Research on the interactions of plant pathogen with soil legacy (priority) could provide new
43
insights into the influences of phytopathogen on plant communities during climate change. In
44
addition, a combination of theoretical modeling and field studies would be an effective way to
45
examine the function of phytopathogens in plant community dynamics.
46
47
48
Key words: Plant pathogens；Plant communities; Plant diversity; Coexistence; Jazen-connell hypothesis; Plant-soil
feedbacks
49
50
In agricultural ecosystems, plant pathogens not only negatively affect seedling survival and
51
growth, but also reduce crop production and quality, which results in a great economic loss[1-2].
52
Until now most of the work on plant pathogens has been focused on how to control and lower
53
disease occurrences, while the function of pathogens in natural ecosystems has not been
54
thoroughly investigated.
55
Plant pathogens can transmit horizontally via vectors such as soil, water and insects, as well as
56
vertically via mother plants[3]. Some pathogens are specific for certain plant species, while others
57
that are non-specific have a broad range of hosts. Hence, plant pathogens may play different roles
58
among species within a community[4-5]. In this paper, we summarized the available mechanisms by
59
which plant pathogens affect species composition and community dynamics, reviewed recent
60
research developments in this area, and discussed the possible directions for future research.
2
61
62
1 General roles of plant pathogens in plant communities
The interactions between plants and pathogens can promote or exclude species coexistence.
63
Plant pathogens can influence community stabilities when their impact on plant growth relies on
64
host relative abundance[6]. For example, host-specific pathogens increase as their preferred host
65
becomes abundant in a community, thus limit further growth of the host, which is beneficial to the
66
stabilization of the community[7-8]. When the impact of pathogens on communities does not
67
depend on host abundance, it often alters fitness differences among plant species and indirectly
68
affect species coexistence[6]. For instance, some pathogens that have a broad range of hosts can
69
transmit among a variety of plant species. When the infection of these pathogens on rare species
70
exceeds that on dominant species, it will lead to the further growth of highly competitive species,
71
and cause the increase of fitness differences that might destabilize the whole community[9].
72
2 Mechanisms of plant pathogen effects on plant communities
73
In a community, plant species have niche differences that promote coexistence and fitness
74
differences, which exclude coexistence. Niche differences should overrule fitness differences, if
75
plant species coexist persistently in an ecosystem. This is referred to as Chesson’s coexistence
76
framework [10] (Figure 1). Here we synthesized the major theories on how pathogens influence
77
plant communities based on this framework. The theories include density-dependent mechanism
78
that affects niche differences of plant species, and density-independent mechanism that affects
79
fitness differences (Table 1).
80
81
82
83
(Chesson 2000). The figure is adapted and substantially modified by Mordecai (2011). The x-axis measures the strength of stabilization or
84
2.1 The Janzen-Connell Hypothesis
85
Figure1 The theoretical framework describing how interactions of plants with pathogens influence plant community dynamics
destabilization, and the y-axis measures the fitness differences between species.
Janzen (1970) and Connell (1971) hypothesized that specific enemies can maintain rainforest
3
86
diversity by controlling the density of dominant species. That is, specific enemies such as
87
predators or pathogens can effectively infect hosts and limit their further growth as host
88
abundance increases in the community. In tropical ecosystems, seed dispersal from seed rains
89
leads to a high seed density near the mother plant, which makes the seeds more susceptible to
90
specific enemies and causes high seed and/or seedling mortality. This phenomenon is called the
91
Janzen-Connell effect (JC effect ). The JC effect is also known as negative density dependence
92
(NDD), as the effect is associated with density of a population and the population was negatively
93
mediated by the enemies[11-12].
94
To prove the JC effect, ecologists have paid much attention studying the role of pathogens in
95
influencing species diversity. They hypothesized that pathogen accumulation near mother plants
96
can reduce the survival and growth of conspecific seedlings owing to a high seed density, and
97
consequently provide space for plant species with the same resource requirements[13-14]. For
98
example, Augspurger[15] (1983) monitored the seed germination and seedling survival of a
99
wind-dispersed tree Platypodium elegans on Barro Colorado Island, Panama for one year, and
100
found that both the incidence and the rate of seedling damping-off caused by fungal pathgoens
101
were negatively correlated with the distance from the parental tree. Bell et al. [8] (2006) in the
102
Chiquibul Forest Reserve near the Las Cuevas Research Station also examined the relationship
103
between the seedling survival rate of trpoical forest plant Sebastiana longicuspis and the plant
104
population density. Their finding was that seedling survival was three times higher at low density
105
in the non-fungicide-treated plots, whereas it was unaffected by density in the fungicide-treated
106
plots, suggesting that the application of fungicides may kill soil pathogens and increase seedling
107
survival.
108
Though the JC effect was proposed for tropical forest systems, it has also been applied to other
109
ecosystems such as grassland[16] and ocean systems[17]. For instance, Petermann et al. [16] (2008)
110
conducted a controlled greenhouse experiment with 24 species planted in soil from field
111
monocultures, which revealed the JC effect on plant dynamics in the European temperate
112
grasslands. The results showed that the reduction of biomass in monoculture was due to the
113
build-up of soil pathogens, which indicated that the JC effect might play a critical role in driving
114
plant diversity in temperate ecosystems.
115
2.2 Plant-soil feedbacks
4
116
Plants can alter soil properties through the input of organic matter and chemicals, which in
117
turn affect plant performance. This process is referred to as plant-soil feedbacks (PSFs)[18-20].
118
There is increasing evidence that soil pathogens have an important function in the process of PSFs
119
either by directly infecting plants or indirectly by altering soil properties[21-23]. For example, Mills
120
and Bever (1998)[24] found that Pythium fungi isolated from the roots of Danthonia spicata and
121
Panicum sphaerocarpon was more pathogenic to the two hosts than to the other two species,
122
Anthoxanthum odoratum and Plantago lanceolata, suggesting that the accumulation of
123
species-specific soil pathogens could account for the previous observation of negative feedbacks
124
on plant growth.
125
Plant-soil feedbacks can be positive by improving plant growth, or negative by restraining
126
growth [18] (Figure 2). Most studies on positive PSFs focused on soil mutualists such as AM fungi
127
and N-fixing bacteria that can promote the plant uptake of soil nutrients [25]. The function of soil
128
pathogens during the process of positive PSFs was rarely studied. However, Batten et al.
129
(2006)[26]found that soil conditioned by Aegilops triuncialis exhibited negative effects on the
130
native plant Lasthenia californica by delaying the flowering date and decreasing the aboveground
131
biomass. The results indicate that invasion-induced changes in soil microbial communities may
132
contribute to a positive feedback that increased the chance of successful invasion by Aegilops
133
triuncialis.
134
By contrast, the role of pathogens in negative feedbacks to plants has been extensively studied.
135
A negative feedback is that the increase of plant abundance leads to the build-up of specific
136
pathogens, which in turn limits the further expansion of this plant in the community, and therefore
137
provides space for other inferior species and maintains species diversity [27]. For example,
138
Reinhart (2012)[28]investigated the direction of PSFs in different types of grasslands in Northern
139
Great Plains Steppe ecoregion of North America. He found that negative PSFs were present from
140
rare to dominant species and predominated across the three types of grasslands, suggesting that
141
negative PSFs have a great potential to drive species coexistence in grasslands.
5
142
143
144
Figure 2 Illustration of the interaction mechanisms between soil pathogens and plants. The arrows and circles indicate the direction of
145
Bever, 2003).
146
2.3 Other mechanisms on plant pathogens promoting system stability
147
beneficial and detrimental effects, respectively. The thickness of the lines indicates the relative strength of these effects (Modified from
In addition to JC effects and negative PSFs, other pathogen-mediated mechanisms can also
148
explain species coexistence. These mechanisms include density-dependent cost of infection
149
(DDCF)[29] and disease response to host diversity[30]. One good example of DDCF is the
150
promotion of vegetative growth by increasing the cost of sexual reproduction[31]. For instance, a
151
castrating endophyte infection benefits the growth of Agrostis at low density, but problems arise at
152
high density due to the reduced seed production[32]. The theory of disease response to host
153
diversity is widely used in agriculture[6]. An example of this theory is that increasing crop species
154
can reduce the occurrence of diseases.
155
2.4 Mechanisms on plant pathogens destabilizing systems
156
Apart from promoting species coexistence, pathogens can also exclude species in communities,
157
resulting in the destabilization of ecosystems[33-34]. This principle contains two important
158
mechanisms: positive PSFs that has been discussed above, and pathogen spillover that we will
159
address as follows.
160
In the pathogen spillover mechanism, some plant species that are highly resistant to specific
161
pathogens can be regarded as pathogen reservoirs. When the abundance of hosts in a community
162
increases, pathogen reservoirs accumulate and the performance of less competitive species is
163
impaired, resulting in the dominance of host plants in the community[9]. For example, Cobb et al.
164
(2010)[35] studied the function of Phytophthora ramorum, a shared exotic pathogen, in the
165
competition of canopy trees in California coastal redwood forests. The results showed that the
166
inoculation of P. ramorum on California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica) had a great impact
167
on the mortality of a competing species, tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus). Beckstead et al.
6
168
(2010)[36] also found that an invasive annual weed cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) acted as a
169
reservoir for Pyrenophora semeniperda, a multiple-host fungal seed pathogen, and had appreciable
170
influences on the co-occurring native grasses.
171
2.5 Effects of plant pathogens on fitness differences
172
Pathogens can also influence the composition and dynamics of communities by altering fitness
173
differences regardless of host abundance. Pathogens may decrease fitness differences via infecting
174
highly competitive species, or increase fitness differences through infecting inferior species[6].
175
Mechanisms relating to lower fitness differences consist of equalizing trade-offs[37-38], enemy
176
release of invading plants[39], and agriculture and biocontrol[40], while mechanisms associated with
177
increased fitness differences include pathogen-driven succession[41] and highly virulent
178
epidemics[42] (Table 1). To date, most of the work on fitness differences emphasizes how to
179
promote species coexistence by reducing the competitive abilities of dominant species, and how to
180
benefit invaders by lowering the performance of native species. For example, Borer et al. (2007)
181
[43]
182
California’s native species and contributed to the invasion of European annual grasses. However,
183
the evidence of above mechanisms affecting community dynamics is still lacking.
found that the prevalence of Barely yellow dwarf viruses reduced the dominance of
184
Table 1 Mechanisms by which pathogens affect plant community dynamics
Mechanisms
Plant community
A) Density-dependent pathogens
a) Stabilization:disease transmission increases as a species becomes common
Janzen-Connell hypothesis
Negative plant-soil feedbacks
Density-dependent attack
Density-dependent cost of infection
Disease response to host diversity
b) Destabilization: disease transmission increases as a species becomes rare
Pathogen spillover
Positive plant-soil feedbacks
B) Density-independent pathogens
a) Reduced fitness differences：competitively dominant species experience the greatest cost during
pathogen infections
Equalizing trade-offs
Enemy release of invading plants
Agriculture and biocontrol
b) Fitness hierarchy reversal/increased fitness differences：susceptible hosts
face extreme fitness costs
Pathogen-driven succession
Highly virulent epidemics
7
grasslands[16]；forests[7,13, 44-45]；
grasslands [47-50]；fields[24,51]；forests
[52,53]；
grasslands[54]；
forests[55]
fields[32, 56,57]
grasslands[58,59]；
fields[60-62]
grasslands[9]；
forests [33,63]
grasslands [26,34]
grasslands [37,38, 64]；
forests[65,66]； fields [67]
forests [39]
fields [40, 68]
deserts [69-71]； forests；
fields [72]
forests [42]
185
Note：Modified from Mordecai (2011).
186
3 Impacts of plant pathogens on species diversity, biological invasion, and community
187
succession
188
Both JC effects and PSFs aim to explain the role of pathogens in plant communities, and thus
189
the two mechanisms share some similar features. The JC effect is related to host density, while a
190
negative PSF is associated with host abundance. In a typical example, Pack and Clay (2003)[46]
191
in the temperate forests of North America found that seedlings close to their parents were more
192
susceptible to Pythium fungi. The possible explanations are that the intensity of Pythium fungi was
193
higher near the parent trees due to a high seed density (a JC effect), or that the build-up of Pythium
194
close to the parents reduced the survival of seedlings to maintain species diversity in the
195
community (a negative PSF). Besides the similarities, JC effects and PSFs differ in specific
196
research areas. The JC effect puts emphasis on how pathogens affect species diversity and
197
productivity in forests, while PSFs involve pathogen effects on community dynamics[46],
198
succession[73], and invasion[74] and could be applied to a wider range of ecosystems (forests,
199
grasslands and agricultural ecosystems, etc.).
200
3.1 Janzen-Connell hypothesis studies
201
The JC effect was firstly proposed for tropical forest ecosystems, and therefore most of the
202
work has been done with tropical trees[75]. This is possibly because sufficient rainfall and suitable
203
temperature proliferate soil pathogens, which in turn bring about a greater impact on tropical
204
forests[76]. However, the study of Hille Ris Lambers et al. (2002)[7] in temperate deciduous forests
205
of North Carolina argues that JC effects are more prevalent at tropical latitudes. They reported that
206
the proportion of species affected by soil pathogens in temperate forests is equivalent to that in
207
tropical forests.
208
Although the effects of pathogens on plants seem not to be limited in forests, the application of
209
JC effects to other ecosystems are rare, except few research conducted in grasslands[16]. A possible
210
reason is that other ecosystems such as grasslands may not be as significant as forest ecosystems
211
in maintaining the global climate, which led researchers to conduct more investigations on forests
212
than on grasslands. Another more important reason might be that the belowground roots of various
213
species intersect with each other in grasslands, making it difficult to determine the effects of soil
214
pathogens on a particular species at the population level. Therefore, future work on JC effects in
8
215
grasslands should be conducted at the community level.
216
3.2 Interactions between pathogens and plant diversity
217
Ecologists have done a lot of work to determine the role of fungal pathogens and insect
218
herbivores in structuring plant diversity[13-14]. For example, Bagchi et al. (2014)[45] performed a
219
field experiment in Chiquibul Forest Reserve, Belize to test whether the JC effect has a
220
community-wide role in maintaining tropical forest diversity. Experimental plots were treated with
221
fungicides and insecticides, respectively, and seedling emergence and survival in these plots were
222
observed. The results showed that seedling establishment was negatively density dependent (NDD)
223
and species diversity was maintained at a high level in the untreated plots, whereas the effects of
224
NDD was barely observed in the fungicide-treated plots and seedling species diversity dropped
225
greatly. By contrast, the insecticide application did not alter species diversity, though it greatly
226
increased seedling recruitment and caused a marked shift in species composition. This is the first
227
field study explicitly demonstrating that fungal pathogens are more important than insects in
228
determining niche differences and species diversity[77].
229
Pathogens affect species diversity, which in turn affects the intensity of pathogens. The loss of
230
plant diversity can either increase or decrease the occurrence of disease on a theoretical basis, but
231
most studies showed that it increased disease transmission[78]. For example, Schnitzer et al. (2011)
232
[58]
233
and a series of field experiments, and found that plant disease decreased with increased diversity
234
and the productivity was increased by 500%. A similar study was done by Maron et al. (2011)[59]
235
in western Montana grasslands, where the effects of soil pathogens on plant productivity was
236
assessed by fungicide application. The results showed that the aboveground biomass was
237
positively correlated to plant diversity in the untreated plots, whereas this relationship did not exist
238
in the fungicide-treated plots. Fungicide application increased the plant production by 141% in the
239
low-diversity plot and only by 33% in the high-diversity plot, indicating that soil pathogen
240
intensity was inversely proportional to plant diversity.
241
3.3 Explanations for biological invasions
242
studied the effects of soil pathogens on plant productivity by combining an analytical model
There are several explanations for the success of plant invasions. One explanation is that the
243
new community is lacking in specific pathogens for invaders, which suffer from a negative
244
feedback by soil pathogens in their original community[79]. For example, Klironomos (2002)[74]
9
245
performed an experiment investigating the role of soil microbes in PSFs with five native and five
246
invasive plant species. He found that when grown in monoculture, the native species suffered
247
more seriously from specific fungal pathogens than the invasive species. Further studies revealed
248
that it was caused by the lack of specific fungal pathogens when invasive plants entered the new
249
habitat, rather than by a positive PSF resulted from AMF[80].
250
The second explanation for invasion success is that even though exotic plant species
251
introduced to a new habitat may experience a negative PSF originated from soil pathogens, the
252
degree of feedback is far less than that to the native species[81]. For instance, Mangla et al. (2008)
253
[82]
254
weed, Chromolaena odorata, resulted in a dramatic rise of generalist soil borne fungi, Fusarium
255
semitectum, and created a negative feedback for native plant species. However, a study by Nijjer et
256
al. (2007)[83] in Big Thicket National Preserve (BTNP) in east Texas, USA, found that a stronger
257
negative PSF exhibited on the invasive plant species Sapium sebiferum than on native species,
258
indicating that soil pathogens may act as an inhibitor to limit the further expansion of invasive
259
species when they occur in high abundance.
reported that in the Western Ghats of India, the arrival of an extensively destructive tropical
260
The failure of exotic plants introduced to a new habitat is probably due to the change of PSFs
261
during the invasion process[84]. For example, Diez et al. (2010)[85] found that the direction of PSF
262
for 12 exotic plants was negatively correlated with the invasion time.
263
3.4 Community succession driven by PSFs
264
By far, the role of PSFs in community succession has been extensively studied
265
worldwide[41,86].The direction of PSFs varies at different successional stages[87]. In the early
266
successional stage, positive PSFs dominate across the community[88]. Since the original soil is
267
short of nutrients, soil mutualists such as AM fungi and N-fixing bacteria may promote the uptake
268
of soil nutrients by plants, thereby a positive PSF is displayed[89]. With the increase of plant
269
abundance, specific soil pathogens start to cause negative PSFs by reducing the competitive ability
270
of the early species and promoting the growth of the late species[90]. A typical example of this
271
negative PSF is the succession of a foredune grass Ammophila arenaria, which performed very
272
well in mobile dunes as it could escape from soil pathogens. However, the grass degenerated in
273
stable dunes, probably because the exposure of the roots to soil pathogens created negative PSFs.
274
In addition, primary successional species in abandoned fields are more susceptible to soil
10
275
276
pathogens than secondary successional species[73].
The early succession contributes to the establishment of soil biota that can boost the
277
development of a community and lead to a secondary succession[91]. Kardol et al. (2013)[87] held
278
the opinion that the early stage of secondary succession is associated with negative PSFs, which
279
accelerates the turnover of plant species, whereas the late stage of secondary succession is
280
associated with positive PSFs, which is beneficial to community stability. With the development
281
of succession, both plant species and soil biota change constantly, making the effects of PSFs on
282
community dynamics in later stages unclear. Hou (2008 )[92] investigated the survival of seed
283
and/or seedlings by applying fungicides in plots with different grazing intensities in western China.
284
The results indicate that livestock grazing had an impact on soil pathogens. However, further
285
research is needed to address the combined effects of grazing and soil pathogens in community.
286
4 Future challenges
287
The research in plant pathogens affecting community composition and dynamics is an
288
important branch of species coexistence study. Nevertheless, most of the work was based on a
289
specific plant species with a specialized pathogen. How pathogens with multiple hosts and host
290
plants with multiple pathogens interact with each other still remain unclear. For example, the JC
291
effects were extensively studied on the survival of conspecific plant seedlings exposed to a high
292
density of soil specific pathogens, but the influences of pathogens on neighboring species were not
293
well studied[26].
294
The study of PSFs is usually performed by comparing the growth of a plant species in soil
295
conditioned by its own (home) and that in soil conditioned by a mixture of other plants (foreign).
296
Plants can change soil properties as well as the composition of soil microorganisms. The
297
differences in soil chemical compositions may also result in a difference in plant growth; therefore,
298
the effects of soil pathogens could be overestimated in some cases[20]. In addition, the variance of
299
experimental designs and data analysis can either amplify or diminish the effect of pathogens on
300
plant growth[93]. Furthermore, soil legacies generated by field plants could be long-standing, even
301
though the soil has been sterilized[94]. As for the first problem, we can separate the effects caused
302
by soil chemicals through measuring the chemical contents of the soil. The second and the third
303
problems cannot be solved at present; hence new approaches or novel technologies are required
304
for future research.
11
305
306
4.1 Explanation for soil legacies and priority effects
The influences of a plant species on soil can exist for a period of time, even though the species
307
has disappeared completely from the community. This is referred to as soil legacies[95].
308
Correspondingly, the first arrival species in a community can suppress the growth of the late
309
arrival species, which is coined as priority effects[96]. Both soil legacies and priority effects have
310
great impacts on species diversity and productivity[97]. Grman and Suding (2010) [98] believed that
311
priority effects are associated with plant competition, as the first-coming species occupy space and
312
utilize resources and suppress the growth of the second-coming plants. Van de Voorde et al.
313
(2011)[99] found that the growth of the early successional Jacobaea vulgaris was inhibited by its
314
own-conditioned soil, and also by half of the co-occurring plants, suggesting that the performance
315
of early successional plants can be decreased directly by the legacy effects of conspecifics, as well
316
as indirectly by that of co-occuring plants. These studies imply that soil legacies and priority
317
effects could exert great influences on the composition and succession of communities; however,
318
the mechanisms of the two effects remain unclear. They may be caused by the combined effects of
319
soil abiotic and biotic properties, soil microorganism activities, and plant competitions. We believe
320
that soil pathogens play a key role in soil legacies and priority effects, but the hypothesis needs to
321
be tested in future studies.
322
4.2 Plant pathogens responding to climate change
323
Climate change can directly or indirectly influence the activities of soil microorganisms[100].
324
For example, the rise of temperature can directly activate most soil pathogens, and promote the
325
decomposition of organic matter, which in turn can indirectly stimulate the activities of soil
326
pathogens[101]. Recent studies showed that soil microorganisms have significant function in an
327
ecosystem in response to climate change. For instance, De Vries et al. (2012) [102] found that the
328
extensively-managed grassland soil with fungal-based food web was more adaptable to drought
329
than the intensively-managed wheat soil with bacterial-based food web. At present, studies
330
probing the behaviors of soil pathogens in response to climate change are still lacking.
331
4.3 Plant pathogen effects on species evolution
332
In agricultural ecosystems, the susceptibility of crop species to a specific pathogen increases
333
with the evolution of the pathogen, which leads to the advent of a new variety resistant to the
334
disease. This cycle suggests that plant pathogens could drive the evolution of plant species.
12
335
Nevertheless, how pathogens drive species evolution in natural ecosystems is largely unknown.
336
Lau and Lennon (2011)[103] found that plants developed worse (smaller plants, reduced chlorophyll
337
content, fewer flowers, less fecund) in simplified microbial communities than in more complex
338
communities, suggesting that the structure of soil microbial communities may influence natural
339
selection patterns on plant traits. However, direct evidence verifying the role of soil pathogens in
340
these selections is scarce. Since the function of plant pathogens in affecting species diversity has
341
been widely tested[104-105], we presume that plant pathogens can alter plant traits by modifying
342
fitness differences and force plant species to evolve in a beneficial direction[90].
343
4.4 Application of theoretical models
344
Although conducting field experiments is the ideal way to test ecological hypotheses, these
345
experiments are usually difficult to manipulate in the field. For example, it seems impossible to
346
design field experiments for long term or for endangered species. In these cases, the problems
347
could be solved effectively by theoretical modeling [106]. For example, Petermann et al. (2008)[16]
348
investigated the effects of plant pathogens on European grassland communities using a
349
combination of field experiments and parameterized models, and found that negative PSFs played
350
a key role in maintaining plant traits. In addition, Borer et al. (2007)[43] , who used a model with
351
field-estimated parameters, found that the dominance of California’s perennial grasslands was
352
decreased by the infection of barley and cereal yellow dwarf viruses, which was result of the
353
invasion of exotic annual grasses. So far, the application of modeling is confined to the population
354
level. Therefore, it would be more useful to the pathogen function study in ecology, if modeling is
355
extended to a community or an ecosystem level[6].
356
4.5 Further studies on multiple-hosts and multiple-pathogens
357
Theoretical models inferred that community stabilization occurs when disease transmission
358
within species exceeds that across species, and the converse causes community destabilization,
359
where highly competitive species exclude the inferior species[107-109]. A similar inference is that
360
two plant species sharing the same pathogen exclude each other, although they can coexist with
361
the pathogen when stand alone[107]. Since these inferences are waiting to be verified, additional
362
studies on pathogens with multiple hosts, and host plants with multiple pathogens are necessary
363
for a better understanding of the role of phytopathogens in plant community dynamics.
364
13
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
Acknowledgements
We greatly appreciate associate professor Wang Jing, Wan Changgui and Mike Christensen for editing
English language of this paper.
This research was financially supported by the National Basic Research Program of China
(2014CB138702).
References
[1] Matson P A, Parton W J, Power A G, Swift M J. Agricultural intensification and ecosystem
properties. Science, 1997, 277(5325): 504-509.
[2] Brown J K, Hovmøller M S. Aerial dispersal of pathogens on the global and continental scales and
its impact on plant disease. Science, 2002, 297(5581): 537-541.
[3] Lipsitch M, Siller S, Nowak M A. The evolution of virulence in pathogens with vertical and
horizontal transmission. Evolution, 1996, 50(5): 1729-1741.
[4] He J X, Baldini R L, Déziel E, Saucier M, Zhang Q H, Liberati N T, Lee D, Urbach J, Goodman H
M, Rahme L G. The broad host range pathogen Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain PA14 carries two
pathogenicity islands harboring plant and animal virulence genes. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2004, 101(8): 2530-2535.
[5] Le Gac M, Hood M E, Fournier E, Giraud T. Phylogenetic evidence of host-specific cryptic species
in the anther smut fungus. Evolution, 2007, 61(1): 15-26.
[6] Mordecai E A. Pathogen impacts on plant communities: unifying theory, concepts, and empirical
work. Ecological monographs, 2011, 81(3): 429-441.
[7] Lambers J H R, Clark J S, Beckage B. Density-dependent mortality and the latitudinal gradient in
species diversity. Nature, 2002, 417(6890): 732-735.
[8] Bell T, Freckleton R P, Lewis O T. Plant pathogens drive density-dependent seedling mortality in a
tropical tree. Ecology Letters, 2006, 9(5): 569-574.
[9] Power A G, Mitchell C E. Pathogen spillover in disease epidemics. American Naturalist, 2004,
164(S5): S79-S89.
[10] Chesson P. Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics, 2000, 31(1): 343-366.
[11] Janzen D H. Herbivores and the number of tree species in tropical forests. American Naturalist,
1970, 104(940): 501-528.
[12] Connell J H. On the role of natural enemies in preventing competitive exclusion in some marine
animals and in rain forest trees. Dynamics of Populations, 1971, 298: 312-312.
[13] Liu X B, Liang M X, Etienne R S, Wang Y F, Staehelin C, Yu S X. Experimental evidence for a
phylogenetic Janzen-Connell effect in a subtropical forest. Ecology Letters, 2012, 15(2): 111-118.
[14] Bagchi R, Swinfield T, Gallery R E, Lewis O T, Gripenberg S, Narayan L, Freckleton R P. Testing
the Janzen-Connell mechanism: pathogens cause overcompensating density dependence in a
tropical tree. Ecology Letters, 2010, 13(10): 1262-1269.
[15] Augspurger C K. Seed dispersal of the tropical tree, Platypodium elegans, and the escape of its
seedlings from fungal pathogens. The Journal of Ecology, 1983, 71(3): 759-771.
[16] Petermann J S, Fergus A J F, Turnbull L A, Schmid B. Janzen-Connell effects are widespread and
strong enough to maintain diversity in grasslands. Ecology, 2008, 89(9): 2399-2406.
[17] Marhaver K L, Vermeij M J A, Rohwer F, Sandin S A. Janzen-Connell effects in a
broadcast-spawning Caribbean coral: distance-dependent survival of larvae and settlers. Ecology,
14
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
2013, 94(1): 146-160.
[18] Bever J D. Feeback between plants and their soil communities in an old field community. Ecology,
1994, 75(7): 1965-1977.
[19] Kulmatiski A, Beard K H, Stevens J R, Cobbold S M. Plant-soil feedbacks: a meta-analytical
review. Ecology Letters, 2008, 11(9): 980-992.
[20] Ehrenfeld J G, Ravit B, Elgersma K. Feedback in the plant-soil system. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources, 2005, 30: 75-115.
[21] Leclerc M, Doré T, Gilligan C A, Lucas P, Filipe J A N. Host growth can cause invasive spread of
crops by soilborne pathogens. PLoS One, 2013, 8(5): e63003.
[22] Gómez-Aparicio L, Ibánez B, Serrano M S, De Vita P, Avila J M, Pérez-Ramos I M, García L V,
Esperanza Sánchez M, Maranón T. Spatial patterns of soil pathogens in declining Mediterranean
forests: implications for tree species regeneration. New Phytologist, 2012, 194(4): 1014-1024.
[23] Van der Putten W H. Plant defense belowground and spatiotemporal processes in natural
vegetation. Ecology, 2003, 84(9): 2269-2280.
[24] Mills K E, Bever J D. Maintenance of diversity within plant communities: soil pathogens as agents
of negative feedback. Ecology, 1998, 79(5): 1595-1601.
[25] Ji B M, Bentivenga S P, Casper B B. Evidence for ecological matching of whole AM fungal
communities to the local plant-soil environment. Ecology, 2010, 91(10): 3037-3046.
[26] Batten K M, Scow K M, Espeland E K. Soil microbial community associated with an invasive
grass differentially impacts native plant performance. Microbial Ecology, 2008, 55(2): 220-228.
[27] Bever J D. Soil community feedback and the coexistence of competitors: conceptual frameworks
and empirical tests. New Phytologist, 2003, 157(3): 465-473.
[28] Reinhart K O. The organization of plant communities: negative plant-soil feedbacks and semiarid
grasslands. Ecology, 2012, 93(11): 2377-2385.
[29] Paul N D, Ayres P G. Effects of rust infection of Senecio vulgaris on competition with lettuce.
Weed Research, 1987, 27(6): 431-441.
[30] Keesing F, Holt R D, Ostfeld R S. Effects of species diversity on disease risk. Ecology Letters,
2006, 9(4): 485-498.
[31] Roy B A. The effects of pathogen-induced pseudoflowers and buttercups on each other's insect
visitation. Ecology, 1994, 75: 352-358.
[32] Bradshaw A D. Population differentiation in agrostis tenuis sibth. New Phytologist, 1959, 58(3):
310-315.
[33] Davidson J M, Werres S, Garbelotto M, Hansen E M. Sudden oak death and associated diseases
caused by Phytophthora ramorum. Plant Health Progress, 2003, doi:
10.1094/PHP-2003-0707-01-DG.
[34] Olff H, Hoorens B, de Goede R G M, van der Putten W H, Gleichman J M. Small-scale shifting
mosaics of two dominant grassland species: the possible role of soil-borne pathogens. Oecologia,
2000, 125(1): 45-54.
[35] Cobb R C, Meentemeyer R K, Rizzo D M. Apparent competition in canopy trees determined by
pathogen transmission rather than susceptibility. Ecology, 2010, 91(2): 327-333.
[36] Beckstead J, Meyer S E, Connolly B M, Huck M B, Street L E.
. Journal of Ecology, 2010,
98(1): 168-177.
[37] Allan E, van Ruijven J, Crawley M J. Foliar fungal pathogens and grassland biodiversity. Ecology,
2010, 91(9): 2572-2582.
15
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
[38] Malmstrom C M, McCullough A J, Johnson H A, Newton L A, Borer E T. Invasive annual grasses
indirectly increase virus incidence in California native perennial bunchgrasses. Oecologia, 2005,
145(1): 153-164.
[39] DeWalt S J, Denslow J S, Ickes K. Natural-enemy release facilitates habitat expansion of the
invasive tropical shrub Clidemia hirta. Ecology, 2004, 85(2): 471-483.
[40] Chen J, Bird G W, Renner K A. Influence of heterodera glycines on interspecific and intraspecific
competition associated with glycine-max and chenopodium album. Journal of Nematology, 1995,
27(1): 63-69.
[41] Van der Putten W H, Van Dijk C, Peters B A M. Plant-specific soil-borne diseases contribute to
succession in foredune vegetation. Nature, 1993, 362(6415): 53-56.
[42] Weste G. Changes in the vegetation of sclerophyll shrubby woodland associated with invasion by
phytophthora cinnamomi. Australian Journal of Botany, 1981, 29(3): 261-276.
[43] Borer E T, Hosseini P R, Seabloom E W, Dobson A P. Pathogen-induced reversal of native
dominance in a grassland community. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 2007, 104(13): 5473-5478.
[44] Augspurger C K, Kelly C K. Pathogen mortality of tropical tree seedlings: experimental studies of
the effects of dispersal distance, seedling density, and light conditions. Oecologia, 1984, 61(2):
211-217.
[45] Bagchi R, Gallery R E, Gripenberg S, Gurr S J, Narayan L, Addis C E, Freckleton R P, Lewis O T.
Pathogens and insect herbivores drive rainforest plant diversity and composition. Nature, 2014,
506(7486): 85-88.
[46] Packer A, Clay K. Soil pathogens and spatial patterns of seedling mortality in a temperate tree.
Nature, 2000, 404(6775): 278-281.
[47] Veen G F, de Vries S, Bakker E S, van der Putten W H, Olff H. Grazing-induced changes in
plant-soil feedback alter plant biomass allocation. Oikos, 2014, 123(7): 800-806.
[48] Martijn Bezemer T, van der Putten W H, Martens H, van de Voorde T F, Mulder P P J, Kostenko
O. Above-and below-ground herbivory effects on below-ground plant-fungus interactions and
plant-soil feedback responses. Journal of Ecology, 2013, 101(2): 325-333.
[49] Jeger M J, Salama N K G, Shaw M W, van den Berg F, van den Bosch F. Effects of plant
pathogens on population dynamics and community composition in grassland ecosystems: two
case studies. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 2013, 138(3): 513-527.
[50] Hawkes C V, Kivlin S N, Du J, Eviner V T. The temporal development and additivity of plant-soil
feedback in perennial grasses. Plant and Soil, 2013, 369(1-2): 141-150.
[51] Pendergast T H, Burke D J, Carson W P. Belowground biotic complexity drives aboveground
dynamics: a test of the soil community feedback model. New Phytologist, 2013, 197(4):
1300-1310.
[52] Mangan S A, Schnitzer S A, Herre E A, Mack K M L, Valencia M C, Sanchez E I, Bever J D.
Negative plant-soil feedback predicts tree-species relative abundance in a tropical forest. Nature,
2010, 466(7307): 752-755.
[53] McCarthy-Neumann S, Ibáñez I. Plant-soil feedback links negative distance dependence and light
gradient partitioning during seedling establishment. Ecology, 2013, 94(4): 780-786.
[54] Bowers R G, Begon M. A host-host-pathogen model with free-living infective stages, applicable to
microbial pest control. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1991, 148(3): 305-329.
[55] Gibson A K, Mena-Ali J I, Hood M E. Loss of pathogens in threatened plant species. Oikos, 2010,
16
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
119(12): 1919-1928.
[56] Roy B A. Patterns of rust infection as a function of host genetic diversity and host density in
natural populations of the apomictic crucifer, Arabis holboellii. Evolution, 1993, 47: 111-124.
[57] Lively C M, Johnson S G, Delph L F, Clay K. Thinning reduces the effect of rust infection on
jewelweed (Impatiens capensis). Ecology, 1995, 76(6): 1859-1862.
[58] Schnitzer S A, Klironomos J N, HilleRisLambers J, Kinkel L L, Reich P B, Xiao K, Rillig M C,
Sikes B A, Callaway R M, Mangan S A, van Nes E H, Scheffer M. Soil microbes drive the
classic plant diversity-productivity pattern. Ecology, 2011, 92(2): 296-303.
[59] Maron J L, Marler M, Klironomos J N, Cleveland C C. Soil fungal pathogens and the relationship
between plant diversity and productivity. Ecology Letters, 2011, 14(1): 36-41.
[60] Peters R D, Sturz A V, Carter M R, Sanderson J B. Developing disease-suppressive soils through
crop rotation and tillage management practices. Soil and Tillage Research, 2003, 72(2): 181-192.
[61] Zhu Y Y, Chen H R, Fan J H, Wang Y Y, Li Y, Chen J B, Fan J X, Yang S S, Hu L P, Leung H,
Mew T W, Teng P S, Wang Z H, Mundt C C. Genetic diversity and disease control in rice.
Nature, 2000, 406(6797): 718-722.
[62] Jeger M J. Theory and plant epidemiology. Plant Pathology, 2000, 49(6): 651-658.
[63] Meentemeyer R, Rizzo D, Mark W, Lotz E. Mapping the risk of establishment and spread of
sudden oak death in California. Forest Ecology and Management, 2004, 200(1): 195-214.
[64] Peters J C, Shaw M W. Effect of artificial exclusion and augmentation of fungal plant pathogens
on a regenerating grassland. New Phytologist, 1996, 134(2): 295-307.
[65] Jarosz A M, Davelos A L. Effects of disease in wild plant populations and the evolution of
pathogen aggressiveness. New Phytologist, 1995, 129(3): 371-387.
[66] Holah J C, Wilson M V, Hansen E M. Effects of a native forest pathogen, phellinusweirii, on
Douglas-fir forest composition in western Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research-Revue
Canadienne De Recherche Forestiere, 1993, 23(12): 2473-2480.
[67] Orrock J L, Damschen E I. Fungi-mediated mortality of seeds of two old-field plant species.
Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society, 2005, 132(4): 613-617.
[68] Ditommaso A, Watson A K. Impact of a fungal pathogen, Colletotrichum coccodes on growth and
competitive ability of abutilon theophrasti. New Phytologist, 1995, 131(1): 51-60.
[69] De rooij-van der goes P C E M. The role of plant-parasitic nematodes and soil-borne fungi in the
decline of ammophila arenaria (L.) link. New Phytologist, 1995, 129(4): 661-669.
[70] Van der Putten W H, Van Dijk C, Peters B A M. Plant-specific soil-borne diseases contribute to
succession in foredune vegetation. Nature, 1993, 362(6415): 53-56.
[71] Van der Putten W H, Peters B A M. How soil-borne pathogens may affect plant competition.
Ecology, 1997, 78(6): 1785-1795.
[72] Kardol P, Cornips N J, van Kempen M M L, Bakx-Schotman J M T, van der Putten W H.
Microbe-mediated plant-soil feedback causes historical contingency effects in plant community
assembly. Ecological Monographs, 2007, 77(2): 147-162.
[73] Kardol P, Martijn Bezemer T, van der Putten W H. Temporal variation in plant–soil feedback
controls succession. Ecology Letters, 2006, 9(9): 1080-1088.
[74] Klironomos J N. Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in
communities. Nature, 2002, 417(6884): 67-70.
[75] Augspurger C K. Seedling survival of tropical tree species: interactions of dispersal distance,
light-gaps, and pathogens. Ecology, 1984, 65(6): 1705-1712.
17
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
[76] Givnish T J. On the causes of gradients in tropical tree diversity. Journal of Ecology, 1999, 87(2):
193-210.
[77] Muller-Landau H C. Ecology: Plant diversity rooted in pathogens. Nature, 2014, 506(7486):
44-45.
[78] Keesing F, Belden L K, Daszak P, Dobson A, Harvell C D, Holt R D, Hudson P, Jolles A, Jones K
E, Mitchell C E, Myers S S, Bogich T, Ostfeld R S. Impacts of biodiversity on the emergence and
transmission of infectious diseases. Nature, 2010, 468(7324): 647-652.
[79] Callaway R M, Thelen G C, Rodriguez A, Holben W E. Soil biota and exotic plant invasion.
Nature, 2004, 427(6976): 731-733.
[80] Reinhart K O, Packer A, van der Putten W H, Clay K. Plant-soil biota interactions and spatial
distribution of black cherry in its native and invasive ranges. Ecology Letters, 2003, 6(12):
1046-1050.
[81] Eppinga M B, Rietkerk M, Dekker S C, De Ruiter P C, van der Putten W H. Accumulation of local
pathogens: a new hypothesis to explain exotic plant invasions. Oikos, 2006, 114(1): 168-176.
[82] Mangla S, Callaway I M, Callaway R M. Exotic invasive plant accumulates native soil pathogens
which inhibit native plants. Journal of Ecology, 2008, 96(1): 58-67.
[83] Nijjer S, Rogers W E, Siemann E. Negative plant–soil feedbacks may limit persistence of an
invasive tree due to rapid accumulation of soil pathogens. Proceedings of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, 2007, 274(1625): 2621-2627.
[84] Hawkes C V. Are invaders moving targets? The generality and persistence of advantages in size,
reproduction, and enemy release in invasive plant species with time since introduction. American
Naturalist, 2007, 170(6): 832-843.
[85] Diez J M, Dickie I, Edwards G, Hulme P E, Sullivan J J, Duncan R P. Negative soil feedbacks
accumulate over time for non-native plant species. Ecology Letters, 2010, 13(7): 803-809.
[86] Kardol P, Bezemer T M, van der Putten W H. Temporal variation in plant-soil feedback controls
succession. Ecology Letters, 2006, 9(9): 1080-1088.
[87] Kardol P, De Deyn G B, Laliberte E, Mariotte P, Hawkes C V. Biotic plant–soil feedbacks across
temporal scales. Journal of Ecology, 2013, 101(2): 309-315.
[88] Brooker R W, Maestre F T, Callaway R M, Lortie C L, Cavieres L A, Kunstler G, Liancourt P,
Tielbörger K, Travis J M J, Anthelme F, Armas C, Coll L, Corcket E, Delzon S, Forey E,
Kikvidze Z, Olofsson J, Pugnaire F, Quiroz C, Saccone P, Schiffers K, Seifan M, Touzard B,
Michalet R. Facilitation in plant communities: the past, the present, and the future. Journal of
Ecology, 2008, 96(1): 18-34.
[89] Chapin F S, Walker L R, Fastie C L, Sharman L C. Mechanisms of primary succession following
deglaciation at Glacier Bay, Alaska. Ecological Monographs, 1994, 64(2): 149-175.
[90] Van der Putten W H, Bardgett R D, Bever J D, Bezemer T M, Casper B B, Fukami T, Kardol P,
Klironomos J N, Kulmatiski A, Schweitzer J A, Suding K N, van de Voorde T F J, Wardle D A.
Plant-soil feedbacks: the past, the present and future challenges. Journal of Ecology, 2013,
101(2): 265-276.
[91] Carbajo V, den Braber B, van der Putten W H, De Deyn G B. Enhancement of late successional
plants on ex-arable land by soil inoculations. PLoS One, 2011, 6(7): e21943.
[92] Hou Jin Wei. Effects of fungicide seed treatment on soil seed banks under various conditions[D].
Lanzhou:Lanzhou univerisity, 2009.
[93] Pernilla Brinkman E, van der Putten W H, Bakker E J, Verhoeven K J F. Plant-soil feedback:
18
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
experimental approaches, statistical analyses and ecological interpretations. Journal of Ecology,
2010, 98(5): 1063-1073.
[94] Kulmatiski A, Beard K H. Long-term plant growth legacies overwhelm short-term plant growth
effects on soil microbial community structure. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2011, 43(4):
823-830.
[95] Bartelt-Ryser J, Joshi J, Schmid B, Brandl H, Balser T. Soil feedbacks of plant diversity on soil
microbial communities and subsequent plant growth. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution
and Systematics, 2005, 7(1): 27-49.
[96] Körner C, Stöcklin J, Reuther-Thiébaud L, Pelaez-Riedl S. Small differences in arrival time
influence composition and productivity of plant communities. New Phytologist, 2008, 177(3):
698-705.
[97] Kulmatiski A, Heavilin J, Beard K H. Testing predictions of a three-species plant-soil feedback
model. Journal of Ecology, 2011, 99(2): 542-550.
[98] Grman E, Suding K N. Within-year soil legacies contribute to strong priority effects of exotics on
native California grassland communities. Restoration Ecology, 2010, 18(5): 664-670.
[99] Van de Voorde T F J, van der Putten W H, Martijn Bezemer T. Intra-and interspecific plant-soil
interactions, soil legacies and priority effects during old-field succession. Journal of Ecology,
2011, 99(4): 945-953.
[100] Dorrepaal E, Toet S, van Logtestijn R S P, Swart E, van de Weg M J, Callaghan T V, Aerts R.
Carbon respiration from subsurface peat accelerated by climate warming in the subarctic.
Nature, 2009, 460(7255): 616-619.
[101] Schimel J, Balser T C, Wallenstein M. Microbial stress-response physiology and its implications
for ecosystem function. Ecology, 2007, 88(6): 1386-1394.
[102] De Vries, F. Liiri, M.Bjørnlund, L. Bowker, M. Christensen, S. Set€al€a, H. & Bardgett R. Land
use alters the resistance and resilience of soil food webs to drought. Nature Climate Change,
2012, 2, 276-280.
[103] Lau J A, Lennon J T. Evolutionary ecology of plant–microbe interactions: soil microbial structure
alters selection on plant traits. New Phytologist, 2011, 192(1): 215-224.
[104] Benítez M S, Hersh M H, Vilgalys R, Clark J S. Pathogen regulation of plant diversity via
effective specialization. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2013, 28(12): 705-711.
[105] Van Der Heijden M G A, Bardgett R D, Van Straalen N M. The unseen majority: soil microbes as
drivers of plant diversity and productivity in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology Letters, 2007,
11(3): 296-310.
[106] Nathan R, Casagrandi R. A simple mechanistic model of seed dispersal, predation and plant
establishment: Janzen-Connell and beyond. Journal of Ecology, 2004, 92(5): 733-746.
[107] Holt R D, Pickering J. Infectious disease and species coexistence: a model of Lotka-Volterra
form. American Naturalist, 1985, 126: 196-211.
[108] Begon M, Bowers R G. Host-host-pathogen models and microbial pest control: the effect of host
self regulation. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1994, 169(3): 275-287.
[109] Dobson A. Population dynamics of pathogens with multiple host species. American Naturalist,
2004, 164(S5): S64-S78.
19