An aboveground pathogen inhibits belowground rhizobia and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in Phaseolus vulgaris

Ballhorn, Daniel J.; Younginger, Brett S.; Kautz, Stefanie

doi:10.1186/s12870-014-0321-4

Cited by 36 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present study indicated that leaf Xac infection generally reduced root mycorrhizal colonization in the treated seedlings. This agrees with an earlier study in which root AMF colonization decreased in common bean plants ( Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘Bush Blue Lake’) after infection with the foliar fungus, Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Ballhorn et al ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Common mycorrhizal networks activate salicylic acid defense responses of trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliata)

Zhang

Zou

Liu

et al. 2019

JIPB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citrus canker, caused by Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri (‘Xac’), is an important quarantine disease in citrus crops. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) form symbiotic interactions with host plants and further affect their disease resistance, possibly by modulating the activity of salicylic acid (SA), a key phytohormone in disease resistance. Common mycorrhizal networks (CMNs) can interconnect plants, but it is not yet clear whether CMNs promote resistance to citrus canker and, if so, whether SA signaling is involved in this process. To test this possibility, we used a two‐chambered rootbox to establish CMNs between trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliata) seedlings in chambers inoculated (treated) or not (neighboring) with the AMF, Paraglomus occultum. A subset of the AMF‐inoculated seedlings were also inoculated with Xac (+AMF+Xac). At 2 d post‐inoculation (dpi), compared with the +AMF−Xac treatment, neighboring seedlings in +AMF+Xac treatment had lower expression levels of the SA biosynthetic genes, PtPAL, PtEPS1, and PtPBS3, but higher SA levels, which attributed to the upregulation of PtPAL and PtPBS3 in treated seedlings and the transfer of SA, via CMNs, to the neighboring seedlings. At 4 dpi, the pathogenesis‐related (PR) protein genes, PtPR1, PtPR4, and PtPR5, and the transcriptional regulatory factor gene, PtNPR1, were activated in neighboring seedlings of +AMF+Xac treatment. At 9 dpi, root phenylalanine ammonia‐lyase activity and total soluble phenol and lignin concentrations increased in neighboring seedlings of +AMF+Xac treatment, likely due to the linkage and signal transfer, via CMNs. These findings support the hypothesis that CMNs transfer the SA signal from infected to neighboring healthy seedlings, to activate defense responses and affording protection to neighboring plants against citrus canker infection.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Common mycorrhizal networks activate salicylic acid defense responses of trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliata)

Zhang

Zou

Liu

et al. 2019

JIPB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(b) Plants attacked by an aboveground herbivore induce systemic defense responses [herbivore-induced resistance (HIR)] in roots, which have a negative impact on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), reducing the scope for ISR (6,9,28). In addition, systemic induced changes in root exudates can either facilitate or inhibit infection by belowground phytophages.…”

Section: Cross-compartment Signaling and Interactions Induced By Abovmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plant-Mediated Systemic Interactions Between Pathogens, Parasitic Nematodes, and Herbivores Above- and Belowground

Biere

Goverse

2016

Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plants are important mediators of interactions between aboveground (AG) and belowground (BG) pathogens, arthropod herbivores, and nematodes (phytophages). We highlight recent progress in our understanding of within- and cross-compartment plant responses to these groups of phytophages in terms of altered resource dynamics and defense signaling and activation. We review studies documenting the outcome of cross-compartment interactions between these phytophage groups and show patterns of cross-compartment facilitation as well as cross-compartment induced resistance. Studies involving soilborne pathogens and foliar nematodes are scant. We further highlight the important role of defense signaling loops between shoots and roots to activate a full resistance complement. Moreover, manipulation of such loops by phytophages affects systemic interactions with other plant feeders. Finally, cross-compartment-induced changes in root defenses and root exudates extend systemic defense loops into the rhizosphere, enhancing or reducing recruitment of microbes that induce systemic resistance but also affecting interactions with root-feeding phytophages.

show abstract

“…Legacies of increased AMF in the soil could benefit the next generation of plants, particularly obligate mycorrhizal species, as is often the case with slow‐growing plants. However, increases in plant defence compounds as the result of aboveground pathogens may also inhibit mutualists (Ballhorn, Younginger, & Kautz, ).…”

Section: Biotic Driversmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why are plant–soil feedbacks so unpredictable, and what to do about it?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study of feedbacks between plants and soils (plant–soil feedbacks; PSFs) is receiving increased attention. However, PSFs have been mostly studied in isolation of abiotic and biotic drivers that could affect their strength and direction. This is problematic because it has led to limited predictive power of PSFs in “the real world,” leaving large knowledge gaps in our ability to predict how PSFs contribute to ecosystem processes and functions. Here, we present a synthetic framework to elucidate how abiotic and biotic drivers affect PSFs. We focus on two key abiotic drivers (temperature and soil moisture) and two key biotic drivers (above‐ground plant consumers and below‐ground top‐down control of pathogens and mutualists). We focus on these factors because they are known drivers of plants and soil organisms and the ecosystem processes they control, and hence would be expected to strongly influence PSFs. Our framework describes the proposed mechanisms behind these drivers and explores their effects on PSFs. We demonstrate the impacts of these drivers using the fast‐ to slow‐growing plant economics spectrum. We use this well‐established paradigm because plants on opposite ends of this spectrum differ in their relationships with soil biota and have developed contrasting strategies to cope with abiotic and biotic environmental conditions. Finally, we present suggestions for improved experimental designs and scientific inference that will capture and elucidate the influence of above‐ and belowground drivers on PSFs. By establishing the role of abiotic and biotic drivers of PSFs, we will be able to make more robust predictions of how PSFs impact on ecosystem function. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.13232/suppinfo is available for this article.

show abstract

An aboveground pathogen inhibits belowground rhizobia and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in Phaseolus vulgaris

Cited by 36 publications

References 56 publications

Common mycorrhizal networks activate salicylic acid defense responses of trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliata)

Common mycorrhizal networks activate salicylic acid defense responses of trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliata)

Plant-Mediated Systemic Interactions Between Pathogens, Parasitic Nematodes, and Herbivores Above- and Belowground

Why are plant–soil feedbacks so unpredictable, and what to do about it?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About