A systematic review on the effects of Epichloë fungal endophytes on drought tolerance in cool - season grasses

Symptomless fungal endophytes in the genus Epichloë are repeatedly mentioned to increase tolerance of cool-season grasses to a wide range of environmental stress factors, mainly drought. However, the generality of this idea is challenged because (i) most studies have been conducted on two economical...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Otros Autores: Decunta, Facundo Alcides, Pérez, Luis Ignacio, Malinowski, Dariusz P., Molina Montenegro, Marco A., Gundel, Pedro Emilio
Formato: Artículo
Lenguaje:Inglés
Materias:
Acceso en línea:http://ri.agro.uba.ar/files/download/articulo/2021decunta.pdf
LINK AL EDITOR
Aporte de:Registro referencial: Solicitar el recurso aquí
LEADER 04886cab a22004217a 4500
001 20220711113456.0
003 AR-BaUFA
005 20220928122819.0
008 220711t2021 sz d||||o|||| 00| 0 eng d
999 |c 54786  |d 54786 
999 |d 54786 
999 |d 54786 
999 |d 54786 
999 |d 54786 
022 |a 1664-462X 
024 |a 10.3389/fpls.2021.644731 
040 |a AR-BaUFA  |c AR-BaUFA 
245 1 |a A systematic review on the effects of Epichloë fungal endophytes on drought tolerance in cool - season grasses 
520 |a Symptomless fungal endophytes in the genus Epichloë are repeatedly mentioned to increase tolerance of cool-season grasses to a wide range of environmental stress factors, mainly drought. However, the generality of this idea is challenged because (i) most studies have been conducted on two economically important forage grasses (tall fescue [Festuca arundinacea (Schreb.) Dumort] and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.)), (ii) endophyte-mediated mechanisms and effects on plant responses to drought have shown to be highly variable across species, and that (iii) symbiosis incidence in plant populations occurring in extremely arid environments is usually low. We question this idea by reviewing the existing information about Epichloë fungal endophyte effects on drought tolerance in cool-season grasses. We combined standard review, vote counting, and calculation of effect sizes to synthesize the literature, identify information gaps, and guide future research. The total number of studies was higher for domesticated than for wild species, a ratio that was balanced when papers with data quality for effect size calculus were considered. After the drought, endophyte-infected plants accumulated more aboveground and belowground biomass than non-infected counterparts, while no effect on tillering was observed. However, these effects remained significant for wild (even on tillering) but not for domesticated species. Interestingly, despite the continuous effort in determining physiological mechanisms behind the endophyte effects, no studies evaluated plant fecundity as a measure of ecological fitness nor vital rates (such as survival) as to escalate individual-level variables to population. Together with the high variability in results, our work shows that generalizing a positive effect of fungal endophytes in plant tolerance to drought may be misleading. Future studies combining field surveys with manipulative experiments would allow us to unravel the role of fungal endophytes in plant adaptation by considering the evolutionary history of species and populations to the different ecological contexts. 
650 |2 Agrovoc  |9 26 
653 |a SYMBIOSIS 
653 |a MUTUALISM 
653 |a ABIOTIC STRESS 
653 |a WILD GRASSES 
653 |a DOMESTICATED GRASSES 
653 |a WATER SHORTAGE 
653 |a META ANALYSIS 
700 1 |a Decunta, Facundo Alcides  |u Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura (IFEVA). Buenos Aires, Argentina.  |u CONICET – Universidad de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura (IFEVA). Buenos Aires, Argentina.  |9 72923 
700 1 |a Pérez, Luis Ignacio  |u Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura (IFEVA). Buenos Aires, Argentina.  |u CONICET – Universidad de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura (IFEVA). Buenos Aires, Argentina.  |9 36644 
700 1 |a Malinowski, Dariusz P.  |u Texas A and M AgriLife Research, Vernon, TX, United States.  |9 73867 
700 1 |a Molina Montenegro, Marco A.  |u Universidad de Talca. Instituto de Ciencias Biológicas. Talca, Chile.  |u Universidad Católica del Norte. Centro de Estudios Avanzados en Zonas Áridas (CEAZA). Chile.  |u Universidad Católica del Maule. Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Avanzados del Maule (CIEAM). Talca, Chile.  |9 68288 
700 1 |a Gundel, Pedro Emilio  |u Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura (IFEVA). Buenos Aires, Argentina.  |u CONICET – Universidad de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura (IFEVA). Buenos Aires, Argentina.  |u Universidad de Talca. Instituto de Ciencias Biológicas. Talca, Chile.  |9 28667 
773 |g Vol.12 (2021), art.644731, 9 p., grafs., tbls.  |t Frontiers in Plant Science 
856 |f 2021decunta  |i en internet  |q application/pdf  |u http://ri.agro.uba.ar/files/download/articulo/2021decunta.pdf  |x ARTI202206 
856 |u http://www.frontiersin.org  |z LINK AL EDITOR 
942 |c ARTICULO 
942 |c ENLINEA 
976 |a AAG