Toward more robust plant–soil feedback research: reply

Rinella, Matthew J.; Reinhart, Kurt O.

doi:10.1002/ecy.2810

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our analysis shows that 42% of the examined literature on plant–soil feedbacks has used soil sample pooling, and hence understanding the degree to which pooling biases results is critical to how we view decades of scientific understanding. However, in contrast to predictions based on criticisms of the soil pooling approach (Reinhart & Rinella, 2016; Rinella & Reinhart, 2017, 2018, 2019; Smith‐Ramesh & Reynolds, 2017), our meta‐analysis of data from 71 experiments and 215 plant species found no evidence that plant–soil feedback direction, magnitude or variance were systematically influenced by pooled inoculum treatments.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…Contrary to the model predictions, the first empirical test of pooling effects found that the plant–soil feedbacks of both Norway spruce ( Picea abies ) and Scots pine ( Pinus sylvestris ) were consistent regardless of whether soil samples were pooled (Gundale et␣al ., 2019). However, Rinella & Reinhart (2019) attributed the similar results to statistical coincidence (i.e. only two tree species were studied, a low sample size for inference) and noted that plant–soil feedback variance was reduced when pooled soil samples were used (Table␣4 of Gundale et␣al ., 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Therefore, rather than arguing whether soil pooling is ‘correct’ or not, the soil treatment may simply change the meaning and scope of inference of the findings (Gundale et␣al ., 2019). However, several papers have argued that pooling of soil samples among experimental units overlooks the heterogeneous distribution of soil biota communities, increases the likelihood of plants encountering particularly impactful soil biota (Smith‐Ramesh & Reynolds, 2017) and underestimates plant–soil feedback variance, potentially leading to type I errors and biased inferences (Reinhart & Rinella, 2016; Rinella & Reinhart, 2017, 2018, 2019; Peacher & Meiners, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Soil sample pooling generates no consistent inference bias: a meta‐analysis of 71 plant–soil feedback experiments

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is current debate on how soil sample pooling affects the measurement of plant-soil feedbacks. Several studies have suggested that pooling soil samples among experimental units reduces variance and can bias estimates of plant-soil feedbacks. However, it is unclear whether pooling has resulted in systematic mismeasurement of plant-soil feedbacks in the literature. Using data from 71 experiments, we tested whether pairwise plant-soil feedback direction, magnitude, and variance differed among soil pooling treatments. We also tested whether pooling has altered our understanding of abiotic and biotic drivers that influence pairwise plant-soil feedbacks.Pooling of soil samples among experimental units was used in 42% of examined experiments.Contrary to predictions, pooling did not affect mean pairwise plant-soil feedback effect size or within-experiment variance. Accounting for soil sample pooling also did not significantly alter our understanding of the drivers of pairwise plant-soil feedbacks. We conclude that there is no evidence that soil sample pooling systematically biases estimates of plant-soil feedback direction, magnitude, variance, or drivers across many studies. Given the debate of whether to pool soil samples, researchers should be aware of potential criticisms and carefully consider how experimental design and soil pooling methods influence experiment interpretation.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Soil sample pooling generates no consistent inference bias: a meta‐analysis of 71 plant–soil feedback experiments

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some feel that performing assays on mixtures of samples, in place of independent samples, is a simpler means of conducting plant–soil interactions research (e.g., Cahill et al , Gundale et al , , Teste et al ). However, others have warned that performing assays on a mixture of samples in place of the original samples is likely to produce biased inferences (Reinhart and Rinella , Rinella and Reinhart , ). The contemporary focus on plant–microbe interactions as critical components of plant communities makes assessing experimental protocols of great importance (Gundale et al ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inoculum handling alters the strength and direction of plant–microbe interactions

Peacher

Meiners

2020

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The pooling of soil samples in plant–microbe interaction studies is commonly employed, but the impact of sample handling has rarely been explored experimentally. Concerns have been raised that sample pooling may reduce biological variation leading to inflated type I errors or may alter the magnitude of microbial effects observed, invalidating the results achieved. To assess the impact of inocula pooling on plant–microbe interactions, we examined the reciprocal influence of unpooled and pooled soil microbial inocula on growth of Solidago altissima and Schizachyrium scoparium, with and without inoculum sterilization. Soil pooling had no effect on the variance among replicates in either plant species. However, pooling dramatically altered the magnitude and direction of microbial impacts on plant performance. Pooling of Solidago altissima soil increased the antagonistic effects on growth of both target species. In contrast, pooling of Schizachyrium scoparium soil shifted impacts on Solidago altissima from effectively neutral to slightly positive. Pooling in this system altered both the strength and direction of plant–microbe interactions relative to unpooled soils. Therefore soil mixing should be avoided when the research goal is to determine naturally occurring interaction strengths, even within a single habitat.

show abstract

“…The live soils were mixed within the host species to allow maximum statistical power in the experiment, especially when sampling intensity of soils is low in our study (Cahill Jr et al, 2017 ). While we are aware of the debate regarding issues of soil sample pooling (Reinhart & Rinella, 2016 ; Rinella & Reinhart, 2019 ), a recent meta‐analysis found no evidence that soil sample pooling systematically biases estimates of plant–soil feedback direction, magnitude, or variance (Allen et al, 2021 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Host‐specific soil microbes contribute to habitat restriction of closely related oaks (Quercusspp.)

Brown

Ricklefs

2022

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Habitat divergence among close relatives is a common phenomenon. Studying the mechanisms behind habitat divergence is fundamental to understanding niche partitioning, species diversification, and other evolutionary processes. Recent studies found that soil microbes regulate the abundance and diversity of plant species. However, it remains unclear whether soil microbes can affect the habitat distributions of plants and drive habitat divergence. To fill in this knowledge gap, we investigated whether soil microbes might restrict habitat distributions of closely related oaks ( Quercus spp.) in eastern North America. We performed a soil inoculum experiment using two pairs of sister species (i.e., the most closely related species) that show habitat divergence: Quercus alba (local species) vs. Q. michauxii (foreign), and Q. shumardii (local) vs. Q. acerifolia (foreign). To test whether host‐specific soil microbes are responsible for habitat restriction, we investigated the impact of local sister live soil (containing soil microbes associated with local sister species) on the survival and growth of local and foreign species. Second, to test whether habitat‐specific soil microbes are responsible for habitat restriction, we examined the effect of local habitat live soil (containing soil microbes within local sister's habitats, but not directly associated with local sister species) on the seedlings of local and foreign species. We found that local sister live soil decreased the survival and biomass of foreign species' seedlings while increasing those of local species, suggesting that host‐specific soil microbes could potentially mediate habitat exclusion. In contrast, local habitat live soil did not differentially affect the survival or biomass of the local vs. foreign species. Our study indicates that soil microbes associated with one sister species can suppress the recruitment of the other host species, contributing to the habitat partitioning of close relatives. Considering the complex interactions with soil microbes is essential for understanding the habitat distributions of closely related plants.

show abstract

Toward more robust plant–soil feedback research: reply

Cited by 8 publications

References 11 publications

Soil sample pooling generates no consistent inference bias: a meta‐analysis of 71 plant–soil feedback experiments

Soil sample pooling generates no consistent inference bias: a meta‐analysis of 71 plant–soil feedback experiments

Inoculum handling alters the strength and direction of plant–microbe interactions

Host‐specific soil microbes contribute to habitat restriction of closely related oaks (Quercusspp.)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About