Differential plant invasiveness is not always driven by host promiscuity with bacterial symbionts

Klock, Metha M.; Barrett, Luke G.; Thrall, Peter H.; Harms, Kyle E.

doi:10.1093/aobpla/plw060

Cited by 17 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 52 publications

(79 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rodríguez‐Echeverría, ; Rodríguez‐Echeverría et al, ). Others have found the immediate availability of compatible rhizobia to impact the performance of some non‐native acacias (Klock, Barrett, Thrall, & Harms, ; Wandrag, Sheppard, Duncan, & Hulme, ), while other acacias are capable of forming novel associations (Ndlovu et al, ). The lack of host species‐specific clades in our phylogenies suggests that acacias are also capable of sharing the same rhizobial strains.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cointroductions of Australian acacias and their rhizobial mutualists in the Southern Hemisphere

Warrington

Ellis

Novoa

et al. 2019

Journal of Biogeography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Mutualisms are often disrupted for plants introduced to new ranges, yet many of these plants have managed to obtain effective mutualistic associations in their new ranges. There are two potential pathways for non‐native plants to reassemble mutualisms: cointroduction (i.e. familiar associations with cointroduced mutualists) or ecological fitting (i.e. forming or adapting novel associations with resident native mutualists). We assessed the importance of each pathway for mutualist reassembly in four Australian Acacia species (A. baileyana, A. dealbata, A. decurrens and A. melanoxylon) and their associated nitrogen‐fixing rhizobial symbionts in two non‐native locations. Location Native ranges of acacias in south‐eastern Australia and two non‐native ranges in New Zealand and South Africa. Methods Rhizobia associated with each acacia species in each country were isolated and identified based on DNA sequencing of the housekeeping recA gene and the symbiotic nodA gene. Separate phylogenies were reconstructed for each gene region to infer biogeographic histories of acacia‐associated rhizobia. Selected rhizobial strains for each acacia species by country combination were used as inocula in a glasshouse experiment and early growth kinetics and nitrogen fixation efficiency of acacia seedlings were compared between inoculum treatments to determine symbiotic effectiveness. Results All isolated rhizobial strains belonged to the genus Bradyrhizobium. Phylogenetic analyses revealed almost no country‐ or species‐specific clusters of these strains for either gene region and indicated that most acacia‐associated bradyrhizobia in New Zealand and South Africa were cointroduced from Australia. These results were supported by little variation in the growth performances of acacia seedlings, irrespective of inoculum treatment. Main conclusions This study revealed that cointroduction of Australian acacias and their rhizobia may be more prevalent than previously thought. Additionally, a single rhizobium cointroduction event may be sufficient to facilitate the establishment of effective mutualisms in numerous Acacia species, potentially leading to an invasion meltdown.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cointroductions of Australian acacias and their rhizobial mutualists in the Southern Hemisphere

Warrington

Ellis

Novoa

et al. 2019

Journal of Biogeography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, in South Africa there were no differences in the diversity and community composition of rhizobia associated with 19 differentially invasive Acacia species (Table ; Keet et al, ), and no differences in the rhizobia associated with four of those species relative to their native Australian range (Table ; Warrington et al, ). Similarly, there were no differences in the richness or community composition of rhizobia associated with differentially invasive Acacia in their non‐native Californian or native Australian range (Table ; Klock et al, ). Rhizobia associated with Acacia in New Zealand (Warrington et al, ), Portugal (Crisóstomo et al, ; Rodríguez‐Echeverría, ) and the non‐native Australian range (Birnbaum et al, ) were all similar to their native Australian range.…”

Section: No Consistent Evidence That Rhizobial Availability Constrainmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Three of four invasive species had equal biomass in non‐native and native range soils within Australia (Table ; Birnbaum et al, ). While there were differences in survival among seven species in California, this did not correlate with their variable invasion success (Table ; Klock et al, ). Five species that are differentially invasive in New Zealand and globally (Table ) showed similar growth performances in non‐native New Zealand relative to native Australian soils taken from established Acacia populations.…”

Section: No Consistent Evidence That Rhizobial Availability Constrainmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…This interest has generated a series of studies investigating the ability of non‐native Acacia to access rhizobia, and the performance implications of doing so. These include: six studies that examine differentially invasive Acacia species in both native and non‐native locations (Birnbaum, Barrett, Thrall, & Leishman, ; Birnbaum, Bissett, Thrall, & Leishman, ; Birnbaum & Leishman, ; Klock, Barrett, Thrall, & Harms, ; Wandrag et al, ; Warrington et al, ), two that examine only one species but do so in both the native Australian and non‐native (Portugal and South Africa) range (Crisóstomo, Rodríguez‐Echeverría, & Freitas, ; Ndlovu, Richardson, Wilson, & Le Roux, ), and one that examines differentially invasive Acacia in only the non‐native (South Africa) range (Keet et al, ). These studies cover 22 Acacia species that range from only casually occurring in a few locations, to those that are widespread invaders in almost all non‐native locations (Table ), and five geographic ranges: Australia (both native and non‐native ranges), New Zealand, South Africa, the US (California) and Europe (Portugal).…”

Section: The Australian Acacia As a Model Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whenever nodulation was examined in soils collected from established Acacia populations, nodulation was the same in each range. Differences were only observed when nodulation was tested in novel (not previously colonised by Acacia ) soils in New Zealand and California: nodulation was reduced in novel soils in both locations (Klock et al, ; Wandrag et al, ). Although a reduction in rhizobial availability may limit Acacia performance when they are first introduced outside Australia, differentially invasive Acacia appear equally limited.…”

Section: No Consistent Evidence That Rhizobial Availability Constrainmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Availability of soil mutualists may not limit non‐native Acacia invasion but could increase their impact on native soil communities

Wandrag

Birnbaum

Klock

et al. 2020

Journal of Applied Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The availability of compatible mutualistic soil microbes could influence the invasion success of non‐native plant species. Specifically, there may be spatial variation in the distribution of compatible microbes, and species‐specific variation in plant host ability to associate with available microbes. Although either or both factors could promote or limit invasion, the scale over which most studies are conducted makes it difficult to examine these two possibilities simultaneously. However, this is critical to identifying a role of soil microbes in invasion. A series of recent research projects focused on interactions between Australian Acacia and nitrogen‐fixing bacteria (rhizobia) at multiple spatial scales, from the local to the inter‐continental, has allowed us to evaluate this question. Collectively, this research reveals that nodulation, performance and rhizobial community composition are all broadly similar across spatial scales and differentially invasive species. Synthesis and applications. We argue that current research provides convincing evidence that interactions with rhizobia do not determine invasion success in Acacia, but instead highlights key knowledge gaps that remain unfilled. Importantly, the ease with which non‐native Acacia species form mutualistic associations with rhizobia, regardless of invasive status, highlights the critical need to understand the impacts of all non‐native Acacia on native soil communities.

show abstract

Does introduced European Phragmites australis experience belowground microbial enemy release in North America?

Lee,

Chapman,

Mozdzer

et al. 2024

Ecosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Escape from native range enemies can give invasive species a competitive edge according to the enemy‐release hypothesis. While more commonly associated with predators and herbivores, release from belowground microbial antagonists has been recently demonstrated to benefit invasive plants. Biogeographic variation in dominance and comparisons of soil communities suggest that invasive European Phragmites australis may have also benefitted from belowground enemy release in North America (NA). Here we examine the effects of native range (Europe) versus introduced range (NA) soil communities on European and North American P. australis using a reciprocal inoculation seedling growth experiment. Contrary to the enemy‐release hypothesis, we found that North American P. australis was sensitive to soil community origin in that the seedlings grown in European soil communities had higher total biomass than seedlings grown in North American soil communities. This pattern was not observed in the European P. australis seedlings which had similar biomass when grown with North American or European soil communities. Notably, North American P. australis had higher biomass than European P. australis regardless of which soil community it was grown in, suggesting a growth–defense tradeoff. Though the relative abundance of mutualists and pathogens composition did not differ between the two ranges, an indicator analysis revealed that mutualistic fungi and bacteria were key components of European soil communities but not in North American communities. Interestingly, North American soil communities had lower β diversity than European communities suggesting higher levels of community conservation among North American populations. This research represents the first evidence of growth–defense trade‐offs in North American P. australis and offers a novel mechanism in understanding the invasion of P. australis in NA.

show abstract

Differential plant invasiveness is not always driven by host promiscuity with bacterial symbionts

Cited by 17 publications

References 52 publications

Cointroductions of Australian acacias and their rhizobial mutualists in the Southern Hemisphere

Cointroductions of Australian acacias and their rhizobial mutualists in the Southern Hemisphere

Availability of soil mutualists may not limit non‐native Acacia invasion but could increase their impact on native soil communities

Does introduced European Phragmites australis experience belowground microbial enemy release in North America?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About