Emily Galloway, Paul A. Price, Emily Grman, Jonathan T. Bauer
{"title":"Rare legumes are missing mutualists, but herbivory and environmental filtering are more important determinants of reintroduction success","authors":"Emily Galloway, Paul A. Price, Emily Grman, Jonathan T. Bauer","doi":"10.1111/rec.14278","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Soil microbial mutualists like rhizobia bacteria can promote the establishment of rare, late‐successional legumes. Despite restoration efforts, these mutualists are often absent in the microbiome. Therefore, restoring this mutualism by directly inoculating rare legumes with rhizobia mutualists may increase plant establishment. We inoculated seedlings of <jats:italic>Amorpha canescens</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>Dalea purpurea</jats:italic>, and <jats:italic>Lespedeza capitata</jats:italic> with three strains of species‐specific rhizobia each to investigate how this mutualism would promote growth in the field and in the greenhouse. Because many herbaceous plants are vulnerable to herbivory, we used exclosures for half of our field transplantations to prevent mammalian herbivory. We did not find that rhizobia bacteria directly promoted the growth of our legumes in the field but rather that herbivory and environmental conditions overwhelmed the effects of the rhizobia. Of the plants transplanted, only 17.78% of 180 survived to the end of the growing season, all of which were protected from herbivory. Survival at the end of the growing season was also greater in the northern, drier end of the field site. In the second growing season, plants were more likely to survive in the exclosure treatment, while only four recovered in the open treatment. In the greenhouse, we found increased nodulation with inoculations, supporting the hypothesis that species‐specific mutualists are absent from restoration sites. Though several recent studies have shown that restoring mutualistic interactions has the potential to dramatically improve the outcomes of ecological restoration, our results show that protecting rare species from herbivory after transplantation might achieve greater gains in establishment.","PeriodicalId":54487,"journal":{"name":"Restoration Ecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Restoration Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14278","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Soil microbial mutualists like rhizobia bacteria can promote the establishment of rare, late‐successional legumes. Despite restoration efforts, these mutualists are often absent in the microbiome. Therefore, restoring this mutualism by directly inoculating rare legumes with rhizobia mutualists may increase plant establishment. We inoculated seedlings of Amorpha canescens, Dalea purpurea, and Lespedeza capitata with three strains of species‐specific rhizobia each to investigate how this mutualism would promote growth in the field and in the greenhouse. Because many herbaceous plants are vulnerable to herbivory, we used exclosures for half of our field transplantations to prevent mammalian herbivory. We did not find that rhizobia bacteria directly promoted the growth of our legumes in the field but rather that herbivory and environmental conditions overwhelmed the effects of the rhizobia. Of the plants transplanted, only 17.78% of 180 survived to the end of the growing season, all of which were protected from herbivory. Survival at the end of the growing season was also greater in the northern, drier end of the field site. In the second growing season, plants were more likely to survive in the exclosure treatment, while only four recovered in the open treatment. In the greenhouse, we found increased nodulation with inoculations, supporting the hypothesis that species‐specific mutualists are absent from restoration sites. Though several recent studies have shown that restoring mutualistic interactions has the potential to dramatically improve the outcomes of ecological restoration, our results show that protecting rare species from herbivory after transplantation might achieve greater gains in establishment.
期刊介绍:
Restoration Ecology fosters the exchange of ideas among the many disciplines involved with ecological restoration. Addressing global concerns and communicating them to the international research community and restoration practitioners, the journal is at the forefront of a vital new direction in science, ecology, and policy. Original papers describe experimental, observational, and theoretical studies on terrestrial, marine, and freshwater systems, and are considered without taxonomic bias. Contributions span the natural sciences, including ecological and biological aspects, as well as the restoration of soil, air and water when set in an ecological context; and the social sciences, including cultural, philosophical, political, educational, economic and historical aspects. Edited by a distinguished panel, the journal continues to be a major conduit for researchers to publish their findings in the fight to not only halt ecological damage, but also to ultimately reverse it.