Relative importance of competition and plant–soil feedback, their synergy, context dependency and implications for coexistence

Ylva Lekberg, James D. Bever, Rebecca A. Bunn, Ragan M. Callaway, Miranda M. Hart, Stephanie N. Kivlin, John Klironomos, Beau G. Larkin, John L. Maron, Kurt O. Reinhart, Michael Remke, Wim H. van der Putten

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

213 Scopus citations

Abstract

Plants interact simultaneously with each other and with soil biota, yet the relative importance of competition vs. plant–soil feedback (PSF) on plant performance is poorly understood. Using a meta-analysis of 38 published studies and 150 plant species, we show that effects of interspecific competition (either growing plants with a competitor or singly, or comparing inter- vs. intraspecific competition) and PSF (comparing home vs. away soil, live vs. sterile soil, or control vs. fungicide-treated soil) depended on treatments but were predominantly negative, broadly comparable in magnitude, and additive or synergistic. Stronger competitors experienced more negative PSF than weaker competitors when controlling for density (inter- to intraspecific competition), suggesting that PSF could prevent competitive dominance and promote coexistence. When competition was measured against plants growing singly, the strength of competition overwhelmed PSF, indicating that the relative importance of PSF may depend not only on neighbour identity but also density. We evaluate how competition and PSFs might interact across resource gradients; PSF will likely strengthen competitive interactions in high resource environments and enhance facilitative interactions in low-resource environments. Finally, we provide a framework for filling key knowledge gaps and advancing our understanding of how these biotic interactions influence community structure.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1268-1281
Number of pages14
JournalEcology Letters
Volume21
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2018

Funding

This manuscript is the product of a workshop sponsored by MPG Ranch. We are indebted to the authors of publications included in the analyses who so generously shared their data. We are also grateful to Dean Pearson, Peter Adler, Peter Kennedy, Philip Ramsey, Mike McTee and three anonymous reviewers for insightful comments that improved earlier drafts of this manuscript, and to Kelly LaFlamme who fed us during the workshop and helped with references. YL and BL are grateful to MPG Ranch for funding, JLM was funded by NSF grant DEB-1553518, and RMC thanks the NSF EPSCoR Track-1 EPS-1101342 (INSTEP 3) for support. This manuscript is the product of a workshop sponsored by MPG Ranch. We are indebted to the authors of publications included in the analyses who so generously shared their data. We are also grateful to Dean Pearson, Peter Adler, Peter Kennedy, Philip Ramsey, Mike McTee and three anonymous reviewers for insightful comments that improved earlier drafts of this manuscript, and to Kelly LaFlamme who fed us during the workshop and helped with references. YL and BL are grateful to MPG Ranch for funding, JLM was funded by NSF grant DEB-1553518, and RMC thanks the NSF EPS-CoR Track-1 EPS-1101342 (INSTEP 3) for support.

FundersFunder number
RMC Research CorporationEPS-CoR Track-1 EPS-1101342
DEB-1553518, EPS-1101342

    Keywords

    • Additive interaction
    • coexistence
    • competition
    • facilitation
    • meta-analysis
    • mutualist
    • pathogen
    • plant–soil feedback
    • resource gradient
    • soil biota

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Relative importance of competition and plant–soil feedback, their synergy, context dependency and implications for coexistence'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this