Phylogenetic signals and predictability in plant-soil feedbacks.
Brownian evolution
biotic interactions
mutualisms
pairwise feedbacks
pathogens
plant-soil interactions
symbioses
Journal
The New phytologist
ISSN: 1469-8137
Titre abrégé: New Phytol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9882884
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2020
11 2020
Historique:
received:
24
03
2020
accepted:
12
06
2020
pubmed:
4
7
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
entrez:
4
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is strong evidence for a phylogenetic signal in the degree to which species share co-evolved biotic partners and in the outcomes of biotic interactions. This implies there should be a phylogenetic signal in the outcome of feedbacks between plants and the soil microbiota they cultivate. However, attempts to identify a phylogenetic signal in plant-soil feedbacks have produced mixed results. Here we clarify how phylogenetic signals could arise in plant-soil feedbacks and use a recent compilation of data from feedback experiments to identify: whether there is a phylogenetic signal in the outcome of plant-soil feedbacks; and whether any signal arises through directional or divergent changes in feedback outcomes with evolutionary time. We find strong evidence for a divergent phylogenetic signal in feedback outcomes. Distantly related plant species show more divergent responses to each other's soil microbiota compared with closely related plant species. The pattern of divergence implies occasional co-evolutionary shifts in how plants interact with soil microbiota, with strongly contrasting feedback responses among some plant lineages. Our results highlight that it is difficult to predict feedback outcomes from phylogeny alone, other than to say that more closely related species tend to have more similar responses.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32619298
doi: 10.1111/nph.16768
pmc: PMC7689780
doi:
Substances chimiques
Soil
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1440-1449Informations de copyright
©2020 The Authors. New Phytologist ©2020 New Phytologist Foundation.
Références
Ecol Lett. 2019 Aug;22(8):1274-1284
pubmed: 31149765
Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2016 Aug 4;54:549-78
pubmed: 27359365
New Phytol. 2016 Nov;212(3):657-667
pubmed: 27440585
New Phytol. 2019 Mar;221(4):2239-2249
pubmed: 30276818
Commun Biol. 2018 Aug 16;1:116
pubmed: 30271996
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 20;10(4):e0123758
pubmed: 25893581
Ecol Lett. 2006 May;9(5):569-74
pubmed: 16643302
Nat Commun. 2019 Apr 5;10(1):1564
pubmed: 30952863
Nature. 2015 Apr 23;520(7548):542-4
pubmed: 25903634
AoB Plants. 2017 Feb 07;9(1):plx005
pubmed: 28702162
Ecol Evol. 2015 Jun;5(12):2333-9
pubmed: 26120423
Ecology. 2018 Mar;99(3):597-606
pubmed: 29493787
Ecol Lett. 2014 Dec;17(12):1613-21
pubmed: 25328022
New Phytol. 2020 May;226(4):1117-1128
pubmed: 31943225
Am Nat. 2020 Apr;195(4):591-602
pubmed: 32216667
ISME J. 2007 May;1(1):28-37
pubmed: 18043611
Ecol Lett. 2010 Jul;13(7):803-9
pubmed: 20482584
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Mar 21;114(12):3252-3257
pubmed: 28270622
BMC Evol Biol. 2014 Nov 28;14:226
pubmed: 25427971
Ecol Lett. 2012 Feb;15(2):111-8
pubmed: 22082078
Oecologia. 2018 Jul;187(3):679-688
pubmed: 29696389
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Mar 20;104(12):4979-83
pubmed: 17360396
Trends Ecol Evol. 2010 Sep;25(9):512-9
pubmed: 20638747
Evolution. 2016 Jul;70(7):1473-85
pubmed: 27241367
Ecol Lett. 2019 Aug;22(8):1178-1191
pubmed: 31134744
Ecol Lett. 2010 Mar;13(3):394-407
pubmed: 20100237
New Phytol. 2015 Feb;205(3):1071-5
pubmed: 25557183