Endophytes shape the legacy left by the above and below ground litter of the host affecting the establishment of a legume

1. Plant litter is a key component of plant–soil feedback (PSF), given its strong potential impacts on plant establishment and growth, through chemical and physical pathways. Although PSF of the layer of dead plant material on the soil surface (above-ground litter) has been widely studied, little...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Otros Autores: Minás, Alexia, García Parisi, Pablo Adrián, Chludil, Hugo Daniel, Omacini, Marina
Formato: Artículo
Lenguaje:Inglés
Materias:
Acceso en línea:http://ri.agro.uba.ar/files/intranet/articulo/2021minas.pdf
LINK AL EDITOR
Aporte de:Registro referencial: Solicitar el recurso aquí
LEADER 04970nab a22003497a 4500
001 20221103154450.0
003 AR-BaUFA
005 20221103171847.0
008 221103t2021 xxuad|||o|||| 00| 0 eng d
999 |c 55065  |d 55065 
999 |d 55065 
022 |a 1365-2435 
024 |a 10.1111/1365-2435.13938 
040 |a AR-BaUFA  |c AR-BaUFA 
245 1 |a Endophytes shape the legacy left by the above and below ground litter of the host affecting the establishment of a legume 
520 |a 1. Plant litter is a key component of plant–soil feedback (PSF), given its strong potential impacts on plant establishment and growth, through chemical and physical pathways. Although PSF of the layer of dead plant material on the soil surface (above-ground litter) has been widely studied, little is known about the role of dead roots (below-ground litter) and the impact of plant symbionts on host litter legacy. 2. Here, we examined whether the fungal endophyte Epichloë occultans changed the effects of above- and below-ground litter of Lolium multiflorum plants on the establishment of Trifolium repens. We hypothesized that both types of litter deposited by the grass-endophyte symbiosis reduce the establishment of the legume due to the release of allelopathic compounds during the decomposition and leaching processes. 3. To test this, we performed two experiments with different quantities of litter produced by plants of the same grass population, with high and low levels of endophyte infection (E+ and E−). Seeds of T. repens were exposed to the above-ground litter with or without the addition of below-ground litter, or to their leachates, to separate the physical and chemical pathways. 4. We found that the treatments with the combination of the above- and belowground litter produced by E+ plants increased the germination speed and seedling emergence of T. repens by 56% compared with both types of litter produced by E− plants. A similar effect was also observed with only the above-ground litter. However, the below-ground litter of E+ plants reduced the germination speed, seedling emergence by 76% and establishment of T. repens by 73% compared with the below-ground litter of E− plants. Besides, the below-ground litter had positive effects on the root colonization by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and reduced the root nodulation of T. repens. The quantity of litter did not affect any of these responses. 5. Our results suggest that these litter legacy effects could be due to the release of endophyte-induced secondary metabolites, such as phenolic and flavonoid compounds. Changes in host plant litter inputs may have consequences for the prevalence of legume plants in grasslands and pastures, affecting their quality and dynamics. 
650 |2 Agrovoc  |9 26 
653 |a ASEXUAL FUNGAL ENDOPHYTES 
653 |a PLANT LITTER INPUTS 
653 |a ROOT LITTER 
653 |a SHOOT LITTER 
653 |a SYMBIOTIC INTERACTIONS 
700 1 |a Minás, Alexia  |u Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambiente. Buenos Aires, Argentina.  |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 74255 
700 1 |a García Parisi, Pablo Adrián  |u Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Departamento de Producción Animal. Buenos Aires, Argentina.  |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 31123 
700 1 |a Chludil, Hugo Daniel  |u Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Departamento de Biología Aplicada y Alimentos. Buenos Aires, Argentina.  |9 44442 
700 1 |a Omacini, Marina  |u Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambiente. Buenos Aires, Argentina.  |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 6464 
773 |g Vol.35, no.12 (2021), p. 2870-2881, il., grafs., tbls.  |t Functional Ecology 
856 |f 2021minas  |i en reservorio  |q application/pdf  |u http://ri.agro.uba.ar/files/intranet/articulo/2021minas.pdf  |x ARTI202212 
856 |u https://www.wiley.com  |z LINK AL EDITOR 
942 |c ARTICULO  |n 1 
942 |c ENLINEA 
976 |a AAG