Zikun Mao, Fons van der Plas, Adriana Corrales, Kristina J. Anderson-Teixeira, Norman A. Bourg, Chengjin Chu, Zhanqing Hao, Guangze Jin, Juyu Lian, Fei Lin, Buhang Li, Wenqi Luo, William J. McShea, Jonathan A. Myers, Guochun Shen, Xihua Wang, En-Rong Yan, Ji Ye, Wanhui Ye, Zuoqiang Yuan, Xugao Wang
{"title":"Scale-dependent diversity–biomass relationships can be driven by tree mycorrhizal association and soil fertility","authors":"Zikun Mao, Fons van der Plas, Adriana Corrales, Kristina J. Anderson-Teixeira, Norman A. Bourg, Chengjin Chu, Zhanqing Hao, Guangze Jin, Juyu Lian, Fei Lin, Buhang Li, Wenqi Luo, William J. McShea, Jonathan A. Myers, Guochun Shen, Xihua Wang, En-Rong Yan, Ji Ye, Wanhui Ye, Zuoqiang Yuan, Xugao Wang","doi":"10.1002/ecm.1568","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Diversity–biomass relationships (DBRs) often vary with spatial scale in terrestrial ecosystems, but the mechanisms driving these scale-dependent patterns remain unclear, especially for highly heterogeneous forest ecosystems. This study explores how mutualistic associations between trees and different mycorrhizal fungi, i.e., arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) vs. ectomycorrhizal (EM) association, modulate scale-dependent DBRs. We hypothesized that in soil-heterogeneous forests with a mixture of AM and EM tree species, (i) AM and EM tree species would respond in contrasting ways (i.e., positively vs. negatively, respectively) to increasing soil fertility, (ii) AM tree dominance would contribute to higher tree diversity and EM tree dominance to greater standing biomass, and that as a result (iii) mycorrhizal associations would exert an overall negative effect on DBRs across spatial scales. To empirically test these hypotheses, we collected detailed tree distribution and soil information (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, organic matter, pH) from seven temperate and subtropical AM–EM mixed forest megaplots (16–50 ha). Using a spatial codispersion null model and structural equation modeling, we identified the relationships among AM or EM tree dominance, soil fertility, tree species diversity, and biomass and, thus, DBRs across 0.01- to 1-ha scales. We found the first evidence overall supporting the three aforementioned hypotheses in these AM–EM mixed forests: (i) In most forests, with increasing soil fertility, tree communities changed from EM-dominated to AM-dominated; (ii) increasing AM tree dominance had an overall positive effect on tree diversity and a negative effect on biomass, even after controlling for soil fertility and number of trees. Together, (iii) the changes in mycorrhizal dominance along soil fertility gradients weakened the positive DBR observed at 0.01- to 0.04-ha scales in nearly all forests and drove negative DBRs at 0.25- to 1-ha scales in four out of seven forests. Hence, this study highlights a soil-related mycorrhizal dominance mechanism that could partly explain why, in many natural forests, biodiversity–ecosystem functioning (BEF) relationships shift from positive to negative with increasing spatial scale.</p>","PeriodicalId":11505,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Monographs","volume":"93 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Monographs","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecm.1568","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
Diversity–biomass relationships (DBRs) often vary with spatial scale in terrestrial ecosystems, but the mechanisms driving these scale-dependent patterns remain unclear, especially for highly heterogeneous forest ecosystems. This study explores how mutualistic associations between trees and different mycorrhizal fungi, i.e., arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) vs. ectomycorrhizal (EM) association, modulate scale-dependent DBRs. We hypothesized that in soil-heterogeneous forests with a mixture of AM and EM tree species, (i) AM and EM tree species would respond in contrasting ways (i.e., positively vs. negatively, respectively) to increasing soil fertility, (ii) AM tree dominance would contribute to higher tree diversity and EM tree dominance to greater standing biomass, and that as a result (iii) mycorrhizal associations would exert an overall negative effect on DBRs across spatial scales. To empirically test these hypotheses, we collected detailed tree distribution and soil information (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, organic matter, pH) from seven temperate and subtropical AM–EM mixed forest megaplots (16–50 ha). Using a spatial codispersion null model and structural equation modeling, we identified the relationships among AM or EM tree dominance, soil fertility, tree species diversity, and biomass and, thus, DBRs across 0.01- to 1-ha scales. We found the first evidence overall supporting the three aforementioned hypotheses in these AM–EM mixed forests: (i) In most forests, with increasing soil fertility, tree communities changed from EM-dominated to AM-dominated; (ii) increasing AM tree dominance had an overall positive effect on tree diversity and a negative effect on biomass, even after controlling for soil fertility and number of trees. Together, (iii) the changes in mycorrhizal dominance along soil fertility gradients weakened the positive DBR observed at 0.01- to 0.04-ha scales in nearly all forests and drove negative DBRs at 0.25- to 1-ha scales in four out of seven forests. Hence, this study highlights a soil-related mycorrhizal dominance mechanism that could partly explain why, in many natural forests, biodiversity–ecosystem functioning (BEF) relationships shift from positive to negative with increasing spatial scale.
期刊介绍:
The vision for Ecological Monographs is that it should be the place for publishing integrative, synthetic papers that elaborate new directions for the field of ecology.
Original Research Papers published in Ecological Monographs will continue to document complex observational, experimental, or theoretical studies that by their very integrated nature defy dissolution into shorter publications focused on a single topic or message.
Reviews will be comprehensive and synthetic papers that establish new benchmarks in the field, define directions for future research, contribute to fundamental understanding of ecological principles, and derive principles for ecological management in its broadest sense (including, but not limited to: conservation, mitigation, restoration, and pro-active protection of the environment). Reviews should reflect the full development of a topic and encompass relevant natural history, observational and experimental data, analyses, models, and theory. Reviews published in Ecological Monographs should further blur the boundaries between “basic” and “applied” ecology.
Concepts and Synthesis papers will conceptually advance the field of ecology. These papers are expected to go well beyond works being reviewed and include discussion of new directions, new syntheses, and resolutions of old questions.
In this world of rapid scientific advancement and never-ending environmental change, there needs to be room for the thoughtful integration of scientific ideas, data, and concepts that feeds the mind and guides the development of the maturing science of ecology. Ecological Monographs provides that room, with an expansive view to a sustainable future.