Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
652 Forum Letters References Abrams P. 1983. The theory of limiting similarity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 14: 359–376. Daehler CC. 2003. Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants: implications for conservation and restoration. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 34: 183–211. Daleo P, Alberti J, Iribarne O. 2009. Biological invasions and the neutral theory. Diversity and Distributions 15: 547–553. Davis M, Grime J, Thompson K. 2000. Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. Journal of Ecology 88: 528–534. Diaz S, Hodgson JG, Thompson K, Cabido M, Cornelissen JHC, Jalili A, Montserrat-Marti G, Grime JP, Zarrinkamar F, Asri Y et al. 2004. The plant traits that drive ecosystems: evidence from three continents. Journal of Vegetation Science 15: 295–304. Elton CS. 1958. The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. London, UK: Methuen & Co Ltd. Emery SM. 2007. Limiting similarity between invaders and dominant species in herbaceous plant communities? Journal of Ecology 95: 1027–1035. Fargione J, Brown C, Tilman D. 2003. Community assembly and invasion: an experimental test of neutral versus niche processes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 100: 8916–8920. Funk JL, Vitousek PM. 2007. Resource-use efficiency and plant invasion in low-resource systems. Nature 446: 1079–1081. Grime JP. 2006. Trait convergence and trait divergence in herbaceous plant communities: mechanisms and consequences. Journal of Vegetation Science 17: 255–260. Hooper DU, Dukes JS. 2010. Functional composition controls invasion success in a California serpentine grassland. Journal of Ecology 98: 764–777. Lavorel S, Garnier E. 2002. Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail. Functional Ecology 16: 545–556. New Phytologist Leishman MR, Haslehurst T, Ares A, Baruch Z. 2007. Leaf trait relationships of native and invasive plants: community- and global-scale comparisons. New Phytologist 176: 635–643. Levine J, Vila M, D’Antonio C, Dukes J, Grigulis K, Lavorel S. 2003. Mechanisms underlying the impacts of exotic plant invasions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 270: 775–781. Maron J, Marler M. 2007. Native plant diversity resists invasion at both low and high resource levels. Ecology 88: 2651–2661. Ordonez A, Wright IJ, Olff H. 2010. Functional differences between native and alien species: a global-scale comparison. Functional Ecology 24: 1353–1361. Richards CL, Bossdorf O, Muth NZ, Gurevitch J, Pigliucci M. 2006. Jack of all trades, master of some? On the role of phenotypic plasticity in plant invasions. Ecology Letters 9: 981–993. Scharfy D, Funk A, Olde Venterink H, Güsewell S. 2011. Invasive forbs differ functionally from native graminoids, but are similar to native forbs. New Phytologist 189: 818–828. Suding KN, Lavorel S, Chapin FS, Cornelissen JHC, Dı́az S, Garnier E, Goldberg D, Hooper DU, Jackson ST, Navas M-L. 2008. Scaling environmental change through the community-level: a trait-based response-and-effect framework for plants. Global Change Biology 14: 1125–1140. Van Kleunen M, Weber E, Fischer M. 2010. A meta-analysis of trait differences between invasive and non-invasive plant species. Ecology Letters 13: 235–245. Weiher E, Keddy P, eds. 1999. Ecological assembly rules: perspectives, advances, retreats. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. Weißhuhn K, Prati D. 2009. Activated carbon may have undesired side effects for testing allelopathy in invasive plants. Basic and Applied Ecology 10: 500–507. Key words: community assembly, convergence, divergence, ecosystem impact, functional traits, habitat filtering, invasion. Letters Effect of segregation and genetic exchange on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in colonization of roots Introduction Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) are abundant soil organisms and form symbioses with roots of the majority of terrestrial plants (Smith & Read, 2008). The symbiosis with AMF can promote plant productivity and diversity, and tolerance to pathogens and to herbivores (Newsham et al., 1995; van der Heijden et al., 1998; Bennett et al., 2006; New Phytologist (2011) 189: 652–657 www.newphytologist.com Bennett & Bever, 2007). The hyphae produced by spores are coenocytic, harbouring many nuclei in a common cytoplasm. Moreover, genetic differences among co-occurring nuclei have been observed and this explains the high intraindividual genetic diversity found in AMF (Pringle et al., 2000; Clapp et al., 2001; Kuhn et al., 2001; Rodriguez et al., 2004; Hijri & Sanders, 2005). Two processes related to the within-individual genetic variation in AMF have been recently demonstrated in the species Glomus intraradices and can affect the nucleotype content of an AMF in a very short time span (Croll et al., 2009; Angelard et al., 2010). First, genetic exchange between two genetically different AMF lines can lead to new spores having a mixture of parental nucleotypes (Croll et al., 2009). Second, one mother spore can produce new spores with different nucleotype contents as a result of the segregation of nucleotypes at spore formation (Angelard et al., 2010). 2010 The Authors New Phytologist 2010 New Phytologist Trust New Phytologist It has recently been shown that progeny obtained through genetic exchange and segregation (called crossed AMF and segregated AMF, respectively) can differentially alter plant growth and plant gene transcription compared with their parents or other progeny (Angelard et al., 2010). The plant genes studied were previously shown to be specifically expressed in the symbiosis at both early and late stages of fungal development (Gutjahr et al., 2008). Additionally, the alterations in plant growth caused by different AMF lines were not fixed in that they differed among different plant species (Angelard et al., 2010). So far, the effects of genetic exchange on fungi have been conducted using an in vitro system, and crossed lines can have different phenotypes compared with their parents or other progeny (Croll et al., 2009). Croll et al. (2009) only measured extraradical hyphae and spores produced outside the roots in in vitro cultured fungal lines. However, nothing is currently known about the effect of segregation on the fungal phenotypes, or about how genetic exchange and segregation affect the colonization and development of the fungus inside plant roots. G. intraradices form three structures inside plant Letters Forum roots, namely hyphae, arbuscules (where the plant and the fungus exchange nutrients) and vesicles (propagules and storage organs) (Smith & Read, 2008). In the present study, we determined the effect of genetic exchange and segregation in G. intraradices on the development and growth of the fungus in plant roots. Our analysis was based on the glasshouse experiments described by Angelard et al. (2010), where the author investigated the effects of these two mechanisms on plant growth and plant gene transcription. Angelard et al. (2010) inoculated two plant species, Plantago lanceolata and Oryza sativa, with AMF lines of G. intraradices in two independent experiments. In the genetic-exchange experiment, plants were inoculated with parental and crossed lines. The segregated lines were obtained by cultivating separately single spores from crossed lines, and both the crossed and segregated lines were used in the segregation experiment of Angelard et al. (2010). Ten replicates were made in individual pots for each treatment (a combination of one AMF line with one plant species) in individual pots. Here, we determined the fungal growth of all of these AMF lines by measuring the proportion Fig. 1 Fungal colonization in the genetic exchange experiment. Mean hyphal, arbuscular and vesicular colonization of Oryza sativa and Plantago lanceolata by parental lines (closed columns) and crossed lines (open columns). Arrows indicate the phenotypic (white arrows) and genetic (black arrows) similarity between crossed and parental lines (only shown when fungal colonization was different among arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) lines). For example, vesicular colonization in P. lanceolata by crossed lines S1, S3 and S5 was most similar to colonization by parental line C2. Conversely, those crossed lines were genetically more similar to parental line C3 than to parental line C2 (as determined by amplified fragment length polymorphism analysis (AFLP); Angelard et al., 2010). Error bars represent the SD, and different letters above bars indicate a significant difference (P < 0.05) according to the Tukey–Kramer Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test. 2010 The Authors New Phytologist 2010 New Phytologist Trust New Phytologist (2011) 189: 652–657 www.newphytologist.com 653 654 Forum Letters of hyphae, arbuscules and vesicles formed inside plant roots using the method of McGonigle et al. (1990). The methods are fully described in the Supporting Information Notes S1. Based on previous results, we hypothesized that crossed and segregated AMF lines would have different fungal traits inside plant roots compared with their parents, even at an early stage of colonization. Moreover, we hypothesized that the phenotypic changes among AMF lines would differ depending on the plant species. Genetic exchange and segregation alter fungal growth traits Our results show that both genetic exchange and segregation can result in fungi that colonize plants differently compared with their parents or other offspring (Figs 1, 2). For example, the hyphal colonization of the crossed line Sc2 on P. lanceolata was significantly different compared with the hyphal colonization of both parents (Fig. 1). Also, the crossed line, Sb, exhibited vesicular colonization on P. lanceolata that was significantly different from that in either of the parents (Fig. 1). Several segregated lines also had different phenotypes compared with other segregated lines and compared with their respective crossed lines (see, New Phytologist for example, the colonization of the segregated line S4c inside roots of P. lanceolata, Fig. 2). Therefore, the main conclusion of our study was that the two processes by which AMF can genetically change, namely genetic exchange and segregation, affect how the fungus develops inside the host. Host effects on the growth of crossed and segregated lines In addition to the effect of the AMF line reported here, we found a host species effect on the growth of AMF (Tables 1 and 2). Moreover, this host effect was not the same for the different growth traits measured. Indeed, for both genetic exchange and segregation experiments, significant results show that AMF made overall more arbuscules and hyphae inside roots of O. sativa than inside roots of P. lanceolata, while we found the opposite for vesicles. Additionally, the changes in the different fungal growth traits among AMF lines were affected by the plant species, but these responses were not the same in each AMF line (shown by a significant AMF line by plant species interaction; Tables 1, 2 and Figs 1, 2). For example, in the segregation experiment, arbuscular colonization of the segregated line S4b was higher inside roots of O. sativa than inside roots of P. lanceolata, Fig. 2 Fungal colonization in the segregation experiment. Mean hyphal, arbuscular and vesicular colonization of Oryza sativa and Plantago lanceolata by crossed lines (closed columns) and segregated lines (open columns). Error bars represent the SD, and different letters above bars indicate a significant difference (P < 0.05) according to the Tukey–Kramer Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test. New Phytologist (2011) 189: 652–657 www.newphytologist.com 2010 The Authors New Phytologist 2010 New Phytologist Trust New Phytologist Letters whereas the difference in arbuscular colonization between the two hosts was not as large for the crossed line S4 (Fig. 2). Intriguingly, in the genetic-exchange experiment, these AMF line by plant species interactions can result in crossed lines growing similarly to one parent in one host, but growing similarly to the other parent in the other host. This is represented in Fig. 1 by the different direction of the white arrows showing the phenotypic similarity between parental and crossed lines. For example, most crossed lines between C3 and D1 made similar amounts of arbuscular colonization as the parental line D1 in O. sativa, but arbuscular colonization in P. lanceolata was similar to that in the other parent C3 (Fig. 1). This emphasizes that the crossed lines indeed grew in symbiosis in a different way to the parents. Overall, these results stress the importance of the genetics of the fungus on the potential interactions that can occur in symbiosis with different host species. Forum Relationship between fungal colonization and genotype From the studies of Croll et al. (2009) and Angelard et al. (2010), we know that all the crossed AMF lines used here were genetically more related to the parental line C3 (represented by the black arrows in Fig. 1). However, depending on both the trait measured and the host species, the crossed lines did not necessarily grow like the parental line C3 (shown by the different direction of the white and black arrows). The relationship between the genetic relatedness and the phenotypes of the segregated lines compared with their parent are more complex and difficult to analyse. Indeed, the variations in phenotypes among segregated lines originating from the same parent were mostly larger and occurred more frequently than variation among crossed lines. A potential explanation could be that genetic exchange Table 1 Results of the two-way crossed mixed-model ANOVA for the different traits measured (arbuscular, vesicular and hyphal colonization) in the genetic exchange experiment Trait Pairing between parental lines C2 · C3 Hyphal colonization Arbuscular colonization Vesicular colonization Pairing between parental lines C3 · D1 Hyphal colonization Arbuscular colonization Vesicular colonization AMF line Plant species AMF · Plant interaction F4,85 = 2.92* F4,85 = 0.67ns F4,85 = 5.52*** F1,4 = 3.54ns F1,4 = 15.46* F1,4 = 12.14* F4,85 = 1.21ns F4,85 = 1.33ns F4,85 = 5.11*** F4,82 = 15.12*** F4,82 = 8.70*** F4,82 = 16.19*** F1,4 = 0.45ns F1,4 = 6.63ns F1,4 = 4.71ns F4,82 = 5.09*** F4,82 = 3.08* F4,82 = 13.00*** AMF, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Significance levels: ***, P < 0.001; *, P < 0.05; ns, P > 0.05. Results of the Shapiro-Wilks tests for normal distribution of the data are shown in Supporting Information Table S1. Table 2 Results of the two-way crossed mixed-model ANOVA for the different traits measured (arbuscular, vesicular and hyphal colonization) in the segregation experiment Trait Crossed line Sc2 and segregated lines Hyphal colonization Arbuscular colonization Vesicular colonization Crossed line S3 and segregated lines Hyphal colonization Arbuscular colonization Vesicular colonization Crossed line S4 and segregated lines Hyphal colonization Arbuscular colonization Vesicular colonization AMF line Plant species AMF · Plant interaction F6,120 = 6.02*** F6,120 = 5.86*** F6,120 = 2.62* F1,6 = 0.14ns F1,6 = 9.76* F1,6 = 7.04* F6,120 = 1.72ns F6,120 = 0.81ns F6,120 = 1.63ns F6,121 = 7.38*** F6,121 = 10.03*** F6,121 = 2.89* F1,6 = 6.83* F1,6 = 13.55* F1,6 = 11.08* F6,121 = 2.81* F6,121 = 5.82*** F6,121 = 1.07ns F3,67 = 18.13*** F3,67 = 15.72*** F3,67 = 6.32*** F1,6 = 9.87ns F1,6 = 16.51* F1,6 = 1.21ns F3,67 = 6.94*** F3,67 = 8.15*** F3,67 = 9.16*** AMF, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Significance levels: ***, P < 0.001; *, P < 0.05; ns, P > 0.05. Results of the Shapiro-Wilks tests for normal distribution of the data are shown in Supporting Information Table S1. 2010 The Authors New Phytologist 2010 New Phytologist Trust New Phytologist (2011) 189: 652–657 www.newphytologist.com 655 656 Forum New Phytologist Letters is a less random phenomenon than segregation because of the constraints that can emerge from mixing genetically different nuclei. Consequently, the panel of new progeny obtained with different symbiotic characteristics would be larger through segregation than through genetic exchange. Correlation between fungal colonization and plant growth Combined with the results of Angelard et al. (2010) on the dry weight of the plants, we found significant, positive correlations between rice dry weight and arbuscular colonization, for both the genetic exchange and the segregation experiments (Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.46, P < 0.001 and r = 0.17, P = 0.027, respectively). However, we found significant negative correlations between the dry weight of P. lanceolata and arbuscular colonization, for both the genetic exchange and the segregation experiments (r = )0.22, P = 0.047 and r = )0.42, P < 0.001, respectively). The correlations were similar with the other fungal colonization traits (data not shown). These results stress again the importance of the interaction between host species and AMF. However, the measures of the fungal colonization and the plant dry weight were made only once, at the end of the experiment. A time course of fungal colonization would be more accurate in order to make conclusions about the potential effect of fungal colonization on plant growth (or vice versa) as, indeed, such interactions could change through time. Angelard et al. (2010) conducted two independent experiments (genetic exchange and segregation experiments). Several controlled (the amount of soil and the amount of watering) and uncontrolled (such as temperature and humidity) parameters were not the same between the two experiments. This can explain the quantitative differences in colonization between the experiments found here. However, the parameters were standardized within each experiment with considerable replication, and statistical analyses have been performed, allowing us to compare the treatments within each experiment and to state accurately which treatments had a significant effect. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that similar patterns (concerning fungal growth and the correlation between plant and fungal growth) have been found for both experiments. Conclusion A previous study has shown that genetic exchange in AMF can lead to progeny having different phenotypes (spore and hyphal density) in in vitro culture systems compared with their parents and compared with each other (Croll et al., 2009). Here, we investigated the effect of both genetic exchange and segregation in AMF on the development and growth of the fungus in roots of non-transformed plants in glasshouse conditions. Our results show that the two New Phytologist (2011) 189: 652–657 www.newphytologist.com processes can alter the pattern of development of fungus in the roots. Moreover, the fungal development was also affected by different plant species. We previously knew that genetic exchange and segregation can lead to progeny that differentially alter plant growth (Angelard et al., 2010). Combined with those results, our findings suggest that specific interactions could occur between different plant species and different AMF genotypes, and that the specificities could appear in the initial weeks of the establishment of the symbiosis. Genetic exchange and segregation could be two mechanisms, owing to the particular genetic structure of AMF, that can create new progeny with different symbiotic effects in a very short time span and that can adapt rapidly to different environmental conditions, such as different plant species. Acknowledgements This work was supported by grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant numbers 31000AO-105790 ⁄ 1 and 31003A-127371). Caroline Angelard and Ian R. Sanders* Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, Biophore, Lausanne, Switzerland (*Author for correspondence: tel +41(0)21 692 42 61; email [email protected]) References Angelard C, Colard A, Niculita-Hirzel H, Croll D, Sanders IR. 2010. Segregation in a mycorrhizal fungus alters rice growth and symbiosisspecific gene transcription. Current Biology 20: 1216–1221. Bennett AE, Alers-Garcia J, Bever JD. 2006. Three-way interactions among mutualistic mycorrhizal fungi, plants, and plant enemies: hypotheses and synthesis. American Naturalist 167: 141–152. Bennett AE, Bever JD. 2007. Mycorrhizal species differentially alter plant growth and response to herbivory. Ecology 88: 210–218. Clapp JP, Rodriguez A, Dodd JC. 2001. Inter- and intra-isolate rRNA large subunit variation in Glomus coronatum spores. New Phytologist 149: 539–554. Croll D, Giovannetti M, Koch AM, Sbrana C, Ehinger M, Lammers PJ, Sanders IR. 2009. Nonself vegetative fusion and genetic exchange in the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus intraradices. New Phytologist 181: 924–937. Gutjahr C, Banba M, Croset V, An K, Miyao A, An G, Hirochika H, Imaizumi-Anraku H, Paszkowski U. 2008. Arbuscular mycorrhizaspecific signaling in sice transcends the common symbiosis signaling pathway. Plant Cell 20: 2989–3005. van der Heijden MGA, Klironomos JN, Ursic M, Moutoglis P, Streitwolf-Engel R, Boller T, Wiemken A, Sanders IR. 1998. Mycorrhizal fungal diversity determines plant biodiversity, ecosystem variability and productivity. Nature 396: 69–72. Hijri M, Sanders IR. 2005. Low gene copy number shows that arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi inherit genetically different nuclei. Nature 433: 160–163. 2010 The Authors New Phytologist 2010 New Phytologist Trust New Phytologist Kuhn G, Hijri M, Sanders IR. 2001. Evidence for the evolution of multiple genomes in arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Nature 414: 745–748. McGonigle TP, Miller MH, Evans DG, Fairchild GL, Swan JA. 1990. A new method which gives an objective-measure of colonization of roots by vesicular–arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytologist 115: 495–501. Newsham KK, Fitter AH, Watkinson AR. 1995. Arbuscular mycorrhiza protect an annual grass from root pathogenic fungi in the field. Journal of Ecology 83: 991–1000. Pringle A, Moncalvo JM, Vilgalys R. 2000. High levels of variation in ribosomal DNA sequences within and among spores of a natural population of the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Acaulospora colossica. Mycologia 92: 259–268. Rodriguez A, Clapp JP, Dodd JC. 2004. Ribosomal RNA gene sequence diversity in arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (Glomeromycota). Journal of Ecology 92: 986–989. Smith SE, Read DJ. 2008. Mycorrhizal symbiosis. Cambridge, UK: Academic Press. Letters Forum Supporting Information Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of this article. Notes S1 Supporting methods provide a full description of the materials and methods used in the study. Table S1 Results of the Shapiro–Wilk tests (W) performed to test the null hypothesis that the data were normally distributed Please note: Wiley-Blackwell are not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing material) should be directed to the New Phytologist Central Office. Key words: arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, fungal colonization, genetic exchange, Glomus intraradices, segregation. 2010 The Authors New Phytologist 2010 New Phytologist Trust New Phytologist (2011) 189: 652–657 www.newphytologist.com 657