Toward more robust plant–soil feedback research: Comment

Teste, François P.; Kardol, Paul; Turner, Benjamín L.; Wardle, David A.; Zemunik, Graham; Renton, Michael; Laliberté, Étienne

doi:10.1002/ecy.2590

Cited by 19 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…1 panel a vs. c of Teste et al. ), and rather than closely resembling their original estimates, their new estimates more closely resemble our estimates (fig. 1 panel c and d of Rinella and Reinhart ).…”

Section: Statistical Models Of Teste Et Al ( )supporting

confidence: 86%

“…Finally, Teste et al. () reanalyze their survival data and claim their new estimates are “qualitatively similar” to their original estimates. This is confusing because their original and new estimates differ markedly both quantitatively and qualitatively (fig.…”

Section: Statistical Models Of Teste Et Al ( )mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Teste et al. () follow Cahill et al. () in arguing that combining soil samples is logical when the goal is estimating treatment means, as opposed to quantifying variability.…”

Section: The Combined Soil Sample Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gundale et al (2019) compound the confusion. These authors conducted experiments comparing combined and separate soil approaches and found "no consistent differences" between results from the two approaches, and Teste et al (2019) construe this as empirical vindication of combined soil methods. But efforts to justify the combined soil method empirically are fundamentally misguided, because this method, like the method of substituting means for raw data, is not legitimate on analytic grounds, without reference to experiments.…”

Section: The Combined Soil Sample Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, we appreciate this chance to explain the problem more simply and clearly. After discussing the methodological problem that Teste et al (2017) and many other studies hold in common, we discuss other aspects of the Teste et al (2019) response to Rinella and Reinhart (2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Toward more robust plant–soil feedback research: reply

Rinella

Reinhart

2019

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Statistical Models Of Teste Et Al ( )supporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Statistical Models Of Teste Et Al ( )mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Teste et al. () follow Cahill et al. () in arguing that combining soil samples is logical when the goal is estimating treatment means, as opposed to quantifying variability.…”

Section: The Combined Soil Sample Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Combined Soil Sample Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Toward more robust plant–soil feedback research: reply

Rinella

Reinhart

2019

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

Plant–soil feedback effects altered by aboveground herbivory explain plant species abundance in the landscape

Heinze

Wacker

Kulmatiski

2020

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation: Heinze, J., A. Wacker, and A. Kulmatiski. 2020. Plant-soil feedback effects altered by aboveground herbivory explain plant species abundance in the landscape. Ecology 101(6):Abstract. Relatively little is known about how plant-soil feedbacks (PSFs) may affect plant growth in field conditions where factors such as herbivory may be important. Using a potted experiment in a grassland, we measured PSFs with and without aboveground insect herbivory for 20 plant species. We then compared PSF values to plant landscape abundance. Aboveground herbivory had a large negative effect on PSF values. For 15 of 20 species, PSFs were more negative with herbivory than without. This occurred because plant biomass on "home" soils was smaller with herbivory than without. PSF values with herbivory were correlated with plant landscape abundance, whereas PSF values without herbivory were not. Shoot nitrogen concentrations suggested that plants create soils that increase nitrogen uptake, but that greater shoot nitrogen values increase herbivory and that the net effect of positive PSF and greater aboveground herbivory is less aboveground biomass. Results provided clear evidence that PSFs alone have limited power in explaining species abundances and that herbivory has stronger effects on plant biomass and growth on the landscape. Our results provide a potential explanation for observed differences between greenhouse and field PSF experiments and suggest that PSF experiments need to consider important biotic interactions, like aboveground herbivory, particularly when the goal of PSF research is to understand plant growth in field conditions.

show abstract

Toward more robust plant–soil feedback research: Comment

Cited by 19 publications

References 22 publications

Toward more robust plant–soil feedback research: reply

Toward more robust plant–soil feedback research: reply

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

Plant–soil feedback effects altered by aboveground herbivory explain plant species abundance in the landscape

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About