Do native and invasive plants differ in their interactions with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi? A meta‐analysis

Abstract

Summary1. Divergent hypotheses have been proposed that suggest plant invasions either enhance or degrade the mutualism between plants and arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi, but their relative support remains unknown. 2. We conducted a meta-analysis using 67 publications, involving 70 native and 55 invasive plant species to assess support for the enhanced mutualism hypothesis, the degraded mutualism hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis that factors other than invasive status (such as plant functional group) better predict AM function following invasion. We used multiple measurements to test these hypotheses: AM fungal colonization, growth responses to AM fungi and AM fungal-mediated shifts in competitive interactions among native and invasive plants. Additionally, we assessed whether invasive plants alter AM associations in native plants and whether native and invasive plants host different AM fungal abundances and communities. 3. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal colonization (%) and average growth responses did not differ between native and invasive plants. However, growth responses (AE) were dampened among invasive plants, and the positive correlation between AM fungal colonization and growth response in native plants was absent in invasive plants. Rather than plant invasive status, plant functional group was a significant explanatory factor; forbs were generally more colonized and exhibited positive growth responses (when grown alone and in competition), whereas grass responses were neutral to negative. 4. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal abundance (measured by percentage colonization, extraradical hyphal and spore densities, as well as neutral lipid fatty acid and glomalin concentrations) did not differ between native and invasive plants, but invasive plants hosted different AM fungal communities in 78% of studies. AM fungal colonization of native plants was lower when grown with, or after, invasive plants, likely due to the prevalence of non-mycorrhizal plants in studies of neighbour and legacy effects. 5. Synthesis. Neither the degraded nor the enhanced mutualism hypothesis was supported, suggesting that invasions do not select for directional shifts in AM associations. Instead, our results indicate that AM fungi are most likely to influence invasion trajectories when native and invasive plants belong to different functional groups.

Effects of root decomposition on plant–soil feedback of early‐ and mid‐successional plant species

“…Consequently, root addition may have had stronger negative effects on forb growth in the conditioning phase, and may have led to a stronger decrease in forb biomass in home soil than in foreign soil in the feedback phase. Although forbs generally benefit more from AMF than grasses (Hoeksema et al, 2010;Bunn et al, 2015), in some grass-dominated systems, like ours, the opposite pattern is observed (Wilson & Hartnett, 1997;McCain et al, 2011). As a result, forbs may benefit less from the presence of AMF in grassland systems, resulting in stronger negative PSF effects.…”

Host plant physiology and mycorrhizal functioning shift across a glacial through future CO2 gradient

“…These growth strategies may facilitate more beneficial mycorrhizal associations in T. ceratophorum, especially when [CO 2 ] limits plant growth. A recent meta-analysis further shows that mycorrhizal responses are often dampened in invasive plant species (Bunn et al, 2015). Furthermore, the positive relationship between fungal colonization and plant size that is often observed for native hosts is generally absent in invasive hosts.…”

Role and influence of soil microbial communities on plant invasion

“…This does not support the divergent hypothesis that states plant invasion either promote or decrease the mutualistic association between plants and AM fungi. Though the abundance of AM fungi in both, native and invasive plant species did not differ, the AM colonization was lower in the native plant species when compared with invasive ones (Bunn et al, 2015).…”