Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T21:34:08.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Responsiveness of certain agronomic weed species to arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2007

C. Vatovec ,
N. Jordan  and
S. Huerd
C. Vatovec
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, 411 Borlaug Hall, 1991 Upper Buford Circle, St Paul, MN 55108, USA.
N. Jordan*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, 411 Borlaug Hall, 1991 Upper Buford Circle, St Paul, MN 55108, USA.
S. Huerd
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, 411 Borlaug Hall, 1991 Upper Buford Circle, St Paul, MN 55108, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: jorda020@tc.umn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) are plant root symbionts that provide many benefits to crop production and agro-ecosystem function; therefore, management of AMF is increasingly seen as important to ecological farming. Agronomic weeds that form a symbiotic relationship with AMF can increase diversity and abundance of agronomically beneficial AMF taxa. Also, AMF can strongly affect plant community composition, and may thus provide some degree of biological control for weeds. Therefore, relationships between weeds and AMF have a dual significance in ecological farming, but are relatively unexamined. In glasshouse experiments, seedlings of 14 agronomic weed species were grown in the presence or absence of AMF inocula sampled from each of three types of cropping systems: organic, transitional-organic or high-input/conventional. For each weed species, AMF root colonization rates and growth responses to AMF were assessed. On the basis of observed colonization levels, the species were classified as strong hosts (five species), weak hosts (three) and non-host species (six). Among species, biomass responses to AMF were highly variable. Strong hosts showed more positive responses to AMF than weak hosts, although the range of responses was great. Non-hosts did not suffer consistent negative biomass responses to AMF, although strong biomass reductions were noted for certain species–inoculum combinations. Biomass responses to inocula from different cropping systems varied significantly among weed species in one of two experiments. Results suggest that weed–AMF interactions can affect weed community dynamics. We recommend investigation of these interactions in agro-ecosystems that use management methods likely to intensify weed–AMF interactions, such as conservation tillage and cover cropping.

Keywords

weed ecologyagro-ecological restorationmycorrhizaemycorrhizal responsivenessweed biocontrol
Type
Research Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 181 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Altieri, M.A. 1999. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 74: 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Matson, P.A., Parton, W.J., Power, A.G., and Swift, M.J. 1997. Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 277: 504–509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Altieri, M.A. 2002. Agroecological principles for sustainable agriculture. In Uphoff, N. (ed). Agroecological Innovations: Increasing Food Production with Participatory Development. Earthscan Publications, Sterling, VA 40–46.Google Scholar
4Jordan, N.R. and Vatovec, C.M. 2004. Agroecological benefits from weeds. In Uphoff, N. (ed.). Weed Ecology and Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
5Smith, W.E., and Read, D.J. 1997. Mycorrhizal Symbiosis. 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
6Miller, R.M., and Jastrow, J.D. 1992. The role of mycorrhizal fungi in soil conservation. In Bethlenfalvay, G.J., Linderman, R. (eds). Mycorrhizae in Sustainable Agriculture, ASA, Special Publication No. 54 ASA, Madison, WI. p. 29–44.Google Scholar
7Feldmann, F., and Boyle, C. 1999. Weed-mediated stability of arbuscular mycorrhizal effectiveness in maize monocultures. Journal of Applied Botany 73: 1–5.Google Scholar
8Kabir, Z., and Koide, R.T. 2000. The effect of dandelion or a cover crop on mycorrhiza inoculum potential, soil aggregation and yield of maize. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 78: 167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Gange, A.C., Brown, V.K., and Sinclair, G.S. 1993. Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: a determinant of plant community structure in early succession. Functional Ecology 7: 616–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Francis, R., and Read, D.J. 1995. Mutualism and antagonism in the mycorrhizal symbiosis, with special reference to impacts on plant community structure. Canadian Journal of Botany 73: (suppl 1): S1301–S1309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Hartnett, D.C., and Wilson, G.W.T. 1999. Mycorrhizae influence plant community structure and diversity in tallgrass prairie. Ecology 80: 1187–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Kiers, E.T., Lovelock, C.E., Krueger, E.L., and Herre, E.A. 2000. Differential effects of tropical arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal inocula on root colonization and tree seedling growth: implications for tropical forest diversity. Ecology Letters 3: 106–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Castelli, J.P., and Casper, B.B. 2003. Intraspecific AM fungal variation contributes to plant fungal feedback in a serpentine grassland. Ecology 84: 323–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Koide, R.T., Li, M., Lewis, J., and Irby, C. 1988. Role of mycorrhizal infection in the growth and reproduction of wild vs. cultivated plants. Oecologia 77: 537–543.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Koide, R.T., and Lu, X.H. 1992. Mycorrhizal infection of wild oats: maternal effects on offspring growth and reproduction. Oecologia 90: 218–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Stanley, M.R., Koide, R.T., and Shumway, D.L. 1993. Mycorrhizal symbiosis increases growth, reproduction and recruitment of Abutilon theophrasti Medic. in the field. Oecologia 94: 30–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Shumway, D.L., and Koide, R.T. 1994. Reproductive responses to mycorrhizal colonization of Abutilon theophrasti plants grown for two generations in the field. New Phytologist 128: 219–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Koide, R.T., and Lu, X.H. 1995. On the cause of offspring superiority conferred by mycorrhizal infection of Abutilon theophrasti. New Phytologist 131: 435–441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Heppell, K.B., Shumway, D.L., and Koide, R.T. 1998. The effect of mycorrhizal infection of Abutilon theophrasti on competitiveness of offspring. Functional Ecology 12: 171–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Bever, J.D., Westover, K.M., and Antonovics, J. 1997. Incorporating the soil community into plant population dynamics: the utility of the feedback approach. Journal of Ecology 85: 561–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Koide, R.T., and Li, M. 1991. Mycorrhizal fungi and the nutrient ecology of three oldfield annual plant species. Oecologia 85: 403–412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Sanders, I.R., and Koide, R.T. 1994. Nutrient acquisition and community structure in co-occurring mycotrophic and non-mycotrophic old-field annuals. Functional Ecology 8: 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Hartnett, D.C., Samenus, R.J., Fischer, L.E., and Hetrick, B.A.D. 1994. Plant demographic responses to mycorrhizal symbiosis in tallgrass prairie. Oecologia 99: 21–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Bever, J.D., Morton, J.B., Antonovics, J., and Schultz, P.A. 1996. Host-dependent sporulation and species diversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in a mown grassland. Journal of Ecology 84: 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25Wilson, G.W.T., and Hartnett, D.C. 1998. Interspecific variation in plant responses to mycorrhizal colonization in tallgrass prairie. American Journal of Botany 85: 1732–1738.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26van der Heijden, M.G.A., Boller, T., Weimken, A., and Sanders, I.R. 1998. Different arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal species are potential determinants of plant community structure. Ecology 79: 2082–2091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Grubb, P.J. 1986. The ecology of establishment In Bradshaw, A.D., Goode, D.A., Thorpe, E. (eds). Ecology and Design in Landscape Symposium of British Ecological Society 24: p. 83–97.Google Scholar
28Allen, M.F., Allen, E.B., and Friese, C.F. 1989. Response of the non-mycorrhizal plant Salsola kali to invasion by vesicular–arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytologist 111: 45–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29Johnson, N.C., Grahan, J.H., and Smith, F.A. 1997. Functioning of mycorrhizal associations along the mutualism–parasitism continuum. New Phytologist 135: 575–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30Muthukumar, T., Udayiam, K., Karthikeyan, A., and Manian, S. 1997. Influence of native endomycorrhiza, soil flooding and nurse plant on mycorrhizal status and growth of purple nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus L.). Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 61: 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31Johnson, N.C. 1998. Responses of Salsoli kali and Panicum virgatum to mycorrhizal fungi, phosphorus and soil organic matter: implications for reclamation. Journal of Applied Ecology 35: 86–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32Gange, A.C., Lindsay, D.E., and Ellis, L.S. 1999. Can arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi be used to control the undesirable grass Poa annua on golf courses. Journal of Applied Ecology 36: 909–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33Jordan, N.R., Zhang, J., and Huerd, S. 2000. Arbuscular–mycorrhizal fungi: potential roles in weed management. Weed Research 40: 397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34Hamel, C. 1996. Prospects and problems pertaining to the management of arbuscular mycorrhizae in agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 60: 97–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35Ames, R.N., Mihara, K.L., and Bethlenfalvay, G.J. 1987. The establishment of microorganisms in vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal and control treatments. Biology and Fertility of Soils 3: 217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36Grace, C., and Stribley, D.P. 1991. A safer procedure for routine staining of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Mycological Research 95: 1160–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37McGonigle, T.P., Miller, M.H., Evans, D.G., Fairchild, G.L., and Swan, J.A. 1990. A new method which gives an objective measure of colonization of roots by vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytologist 115: 495–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38SAS Institute. 2002. SAS/STAT Users Guide: release 8.02 SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
39Tester, M., Smith, S.E., and Smith, F.A. 1987. The phenomenon of “non-mycorrhizal” plants. Canadian Journal of Botany 65: 419–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40Streitwolf-Engel, R., Boller, T., Wiemken, A., and Sanders, I.R. 1997. Clonal growth traits of two Prunella species are determined by co-occurring arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi from a calcareous grassland. Journal of Ecology 85: 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41van der HeijdenM.G.A., M.G.A.,, Klironomos, J.N., Ursic, M., Moutoglis, P., Streitwolf-Engel, R., Boller, T., Wiemken, A., and Sanders, I.R. 1998. Mycorrhizal fungal diversity determines plant biodiversity, ecosystem variability and productivity. Nature 396: 69–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42Hart, M.M., and Klironomos, J.N. 2002. Diversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and ecosystem functioning. In van der Heijden, M.G.A., and Sanders, I. (eds). Mycorrhizal Ecology. Ecological Studies. Vol. 157. Springer-Verlag Berlin. p. 225–242.Google Scholar
43Forcella, F., Colbach, N. Kegode G. 2000. Estimating seed production of three Setaria species in row crops. Weed Science 48: 436–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44Eason, W.R., Scullion, J.R., and Scott, E.P. 1999. Soil parameters and plant responses associated with arbuscular mycorrhizas from contrasting grassland management regimes. Agricultural Ecosystems and Environment 73: 245–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45Kabir, Z., and Koide, R.T. 2000. The effect of dandelion or a cover crop on mycorrhiza inoculum potential, soil aggregation and yield of maize. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 78: 167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46Kremer, R.J., and Li, J.M. 2003. Developing weed-suppressive soils through improved soil quality management. Soil and Tillage Research 72(2): 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar