是什么决定了植物向菌根真菌的碳转移?

IF 8.3 1区 生物学 Q1 PLANT SCIENCES New Phytologist Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1111/nph.20145
Rebecca A. Bunn, Ana Corrêa, Jaya Joshi, Christina Kaiser, Ylva Lekberg, Cindy E. Prescott, Anna Sala, Justine Karst
{"title":"是什么决定了植物向菌根真菌的碳转移?","authors":"Rebecca A. Bunn,&nbsp;Ana Corrêa,&nbsp;Jaya Joshi,&nbsp;Christina Kaiser,&nbsp;Ylva Lekberg,&nbsp;Cindy E. Prescott,&nbsp;Anna Sala,&nbsp;Justine Karst","doi":"10.1111/nph.20145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Biological Market Models are common evolutionary frameworks to understand the maintenance of mutualism in mycorrhizas. ‘Surplus C’ hypotheses provide an alternative framework where stoichiometry and source–sink dynamics govern mycorrhizal function. A critical difference between these frameworks is whether carbon transfer from plants is regulated by nutrient transfer from fungi or through source–sink dynamics. In this review, we: provide a historical perspective; summarize studies that asked whether plants transfer more carbon to fungi that transfer more nutrients; conduct a meta-analysis to assess whether mycorrhizal plant growth suppressions are related to carbon transfer; and review literature on cellular mechanisms for carbon transfer. In sum, current knowledge does not indicate that carbon transfer from plants is directly regulated by nutrient delivery from fungi. Further, mycorrhizal plant growth responses were linked to nutrient uptake rather than carbon transfer. These findings are more consistent with ‘Surplus C’ hypotheses than Biological Market Models. However, we also identify research gaps, and future research may uncover a mechanism directly linking carbon and nutrient transfer. Until then, we urge caution when applying economic terminology to describe mycorrhizas. We present a synthesis of ideas, consider knowledge gaps, and suggest experiments to advance the field.</p>","PeriodicalId":214,"journal":{"name":"New Phytologist","volume":"244 4","pages":"1199-1215"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/nph.20145","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What determines transfer of carbon from plants to mycorrhizal fungi?\",\"authors\":\"Rebecca A. Bunn,&nbsp;Ana Corrêa,&nbsp;Jaya Joshi,&nbsp;Christina Kaiser,&nbsp;Ylva Lekberg,&nbsp;Cindy E. Prescott,&nbsp;Anna Sala,&nbsp;Justine Karst\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/nph.20145\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Biological Market Models are common evolutionary frameworks to understand the maintenance of mutualism in mycorrhizas. ‘Surplus C’ hypotheses provide an alternative framework where stoichiometry and source–sink dynamics govern mycorrhizal function. A critical difference between these frameworks is whether carbon transfer from plants is regulated by nutrient transfer from fungi or through source–sink dynamics. In this review, we: provide a historical perspective; summarize studies that asked whether plants transfer more carbon to fungi that transfer more nutrients; conduct a meta-analysis to assess whether mycorrhizal plant growth suppressions are related to carbon transfer; and review literature on cellular mechanisms for carbon transfer. In sum, current knowledge does not indicate that carbon transfer from plants is directly regulated by nutrient delivery from fungi. Further, mycorrhizal plant growth responses were linked to nutrient uptake rather than carbon transfer. These findings are more consistent with ‘Surplus C’ hypotheses than Biological Market Models. However, we also identify research gaps, and future research may uncover a mechanism directly linking carbon and nutrient transfer. Until then, we urge caution when applying economic terminology to describe mycorrhizas. We present a synthesis of ideas, consider knowledge gaps, and suggest experiments to advance the field.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":214,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Phytologist\",\"volume\":\"244 4\",\"pages\":\"1199-1215\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/nph.20145\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Phytologist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.20145\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PLANT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Phytologist","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.20145","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PLANT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生物市场模型是理解菌根维持互生关系的常见进化框架。过剩碳 "假说提供了另一种框架,在这种框架中,化学计量和源-汇动力学控制着菌根的功能。这些框架之间的关键区别在于,植物的碳转移是受真菌的养分转移调节,还是受源汇动态调节。在这篇综述中,我们将:提供一个历史视角;总结关于植物是否将更多的碳转移给转移更多养分的真菌的研究;进行荟萃分析以评估菌根植物生长抑制是否与碳转移有关;以及回顾关于碳转移的细胞机制的文献。总之,目前的知识并不表明植物的碳转移直接受真菌养分输送的调节。此外,菌根植物的生长反应与养分吸收而非碳转移有关。这些发现更符合 "剩余碳 "假说,而不是生物市场模型。不过,我们也发现了一些研究空白,未来的研究可能会发现碳和养分转移直接相关的机制。在此之前,我们敦促在使用经济术语描述菌根时要谨慎。我们综述了各种观点,考虑了知识差距,并提出了推进该领域研究的实验建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
What determines transfer of carbon from plants to mycorrhizal fungi?

Biological Market Models are common evolutionary frameworks to understand the maintenance of mutualism in mycorrhizas. ‘Surplus C’ hypotheses provide an alternative framework where stoichiometry and source–sink dynamics govern mycorrhizal function. A critical difference between these frameworks is whether carbon transfer from plants is regulated by nutrient transfer from fungi or through source–sink dynamics. In this review, we: provide a historical perspective; summarize studies that asked whether plants transfer more carbon to fungi that transfer more nutrients; conduct a meta-analysis to assess whether mycorrhizal plant growth suppressions are related to carbon transfer; and review literature on cellular mechanisms for carbon transfer. In sum, current knowledge does not indicate that carbon transfer from plants is directly regulated by nutrient delivery from fungi. Further, mycorrhizal plant growth responses were linked to nutrient uptake rather than carbon transfer. These findings are more consistent with ‘Surplus C’ hypotheses than Biological Market Models. However, we also identify research gaps, and future research may uncover a mechanism directly linking carbon and nutrient transfer. Until then, we urge caution when applying economic terminology to describe mycorrhizas. We present a synthesis of ideas, consider knowledge gaps, and suggest experiments to advance the field.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
New Phytologist
New Phytologist 生物-植物科学
自引率
5.30%
发文量
728
期刊介绍: New Phytologist is an international electronic journal published 24 times a year. It is owned by the New Phytologist Foundation, a non-profit-making charitable organization dedicated to promoting plant science. The journal publishes excellent, novel, rigorous, and timely research and scholarship in plant science and its applications. The articles cover topics in five sections: Physiology & Development, Environment, Interaction, Evolution, and Transformative Plant Biotechnology. These sections encompass intracellular processes, global environmental change, and encourage cross-disciplinary approaches. The journal recognizes the use of techniques from molecular and cell biology, functional genomics, modeling, and system-based approaches in plant science. Abstracting and Indexing Information for New Phytologist includes Academic Search, AgBiotech News & Information, Agroforestry Abstracts, Biochemistry & Biophysics Citation Index, Botanical Pesticides, CAB Abstracts®, Environment Index, Global Health, and Plant Breeding Abstracts, and others.
期刊最新文献
Pinpointing the timing of meiosis: a critical factor in evaluating the impact of abiotic stresses on the fertility of cereal crops Meta-analysis reveals globally sourced commercial mycorrhizal inoculants fall short Trade-offs involved in the choice of pot vs field experiments Herbicidal interference: glyphosate drives both the ecology and evolution of plant–herbivore interactions Matthew Naish
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1