Abstract
Abstract Cascading effects are ubiquitous in nature and can modify ecological processes. Most plants have mutualistic associations with mycorrhizal fungi, and can be connected to neighboring plants through common mycorrhizal networks (CMNs). However, little is known about how the distribution of nutrients by CMNs to the interconnected plants is affected by higher trophic levels, such as parasitic plants. We hypothesized that parasitism would indirectly drive CMNs to allocate more nutrients to the nonparasitized neighboring plants rather than to the parasitized host plants, and that this would result in a negative‐feedback effect on the growth of the parasitic plant. To test this, we conducted a container experiment, where each container housed two in‐growth cores that isolated the root system of a single Trifolium pratense seedling. The formation of CMNs was either prevented or permitted using nylon fabric with a mesh width of 0.5 or 25 μm, respectively. In each container, either both T. pratense plants were not parasitized or only one was parasitized by the holoparasite Cuscuta australis . To quantify the nutrient distribution by CMNs to the host and neighboring plants, we used 15 N labeling. Growth and 15 N concentrations of C. australis and T. pratense were measured, as well the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi–colonization rates of T. pratense . We found that parasitism by C. australis reduced the biomass of T. pratense . In the absence of the parasite, CMNs increased the 15 N concentration of both T. pratense plants, but did not affect their biomass. However, with the parasite, the difference between host and neighboring T. pratense plants in 15 N concentration and biomass were amplified by CMNs. Furthermore, CMNs decreased the negative effect of C. australis on growth of the host T. pratense plants. Finally, although CMNs did not influence the 15 N concentration of C. australis , they reduced its biomass. Our results indicate that when T. pratense was parasitized by C. australis , CMNs preferentially distributed more mineral nutrients to the nonparasitized neighboring T. pratense plant, and that this had a negative feedback on the growth of the parasite.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 9
Claim · model-written summary
Parasitism by Cuscuta australis reduced the biomass of Trifolium pratense.
- Taxon
- Trifolium pratense
Trifolium pratensee1 - Treatment
- parasitism by C. australise2
- Interactor
- C. australis
Cuscuta australise2parasite - Outcome
- biomasse2
- Direction
- reducede2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the root system of a single Trifolium pratense seedling”
e2“We found that parasitism by C. australis reduced the biomass of T. pratense”
Claim · model-written summary
In the absence of the parasite, CMNs increased the 15N concentration of both Trifolium pratense plants.
- Taxon
- Trifolium pratenseTrifolium pratensee1
- Treatment
- CMNse3
- Outcome
- 15 N concentratione3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Qualifier
- In the absence of the parasitee3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the root system of a single Trifolium pratense seedling”
e3“In the absence of the parasite, CMNs increased the 15 N concentration of both T. pratense plants”
Claim · model-written summary
In the absence of the parasite, CMNs did not affect the biomass of Trifolium pratense plants.
- Taxon
- Trifolium pratenseTrifolium pratensee1
- Treatment
- CMNse4
- Outcome
- biomasse4
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede4
- Qualifier
- In the absence of the parasitee4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the root system of a single Trifolium pratense seedling”
e4“In the absence of the parasite, CMNs increased the 15 N concentration of both T. pratense plants, but did not affect their biomass”
Claim · model-written summary
With the parasite, CMNs amplified the difference between host and neighboring Trifolium pratense plants in 15N concentration and biomass.
- Taxon
- Trifolium pratenseTrifolium pratensee1
- Treatment
- CMNse5
- Outcome
- difference between host and neighboring T. pratense plants in 15 N concentration and biomasse5
- Direction
- amplifiede5
- Qualifier
- with the parasitee5
- Comparator
- neighboring T. pratense plantse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the root system of a single Trifolium pratense seedling”
e5“However, with the parasite, the difference between host and neighboring T. pratense plants in 15 N concentration and biomass were amplified by CMNs”
Claim · model-written summary
CMNs decreased the negative effect of Cuscuta australis on the growth of host Trifolium pratense plants.
- Taxon
- Trifolium pratenseTrifolium pratensee1
- Treatment
- CMNse6
- Interactor
- C. australisCuscuta australise6parasite
- Outcome
- negative effect of C. australis on growthe6
- Direction
- decreasede6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the root system of a single Trifolium pratense seedling”
e6“Furthermore, CMNs decreased the negative effect of C. australis on growth of the host T. pratense plants”
Claim · model-written summary
CMNs did not influence the 15N concentration of Cuscuta australis.
- Taxon
- Trifolium pratenseTrifolium pratensee1
- Treatment
- CMNse7
- Interactor
- C. australisCuscuta australise7parasite
- Outcome
- 15 N concentratione7
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the root system of a single Trifolium pratense seedling”
e7“Finally, although CMNs did not influence the 15 N concentration of C. australis, they reduced its biomass”
Claim · model-written summary
CMNs reduced the biomass of Cuscuta australis.
- Taxon
- Trifolium pratenseTrifolium pratensee1
- Treatment
- CMNse7
- Interactor
- C. australisCuscuta australise7parasite
- Outcome
- biomasse7
- Direction
- reducede7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the root system of a single Trifolium pratense seedling”
e7“Finally, although CMNs did not influence the 15 N concentration of C. australis, they reduced its biomass”
Claim · model-written summary
CMNs preferentially distributed more mineral nutrients to the nonparasitized neighboring Trifolium pratense plant.
- Taxon
- Trifolium pratenseTrifolium pratensee1
- Treatment
- CMNse2
- Outcome
- mineral nutrientse2
- Direction
- preferentially distributed moree2
- Comparator
- nonparasitized neighboring T. pratense plante2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the root system of a single Trifolium pratense seedling”
e2“CMNs preferentially distributed more mineral nutrients to the nonparasitized neighboring T. pratense plant”
Claim · model-written summary
The nutrient redistribution has a negative feedback on parasite growth.
- Taxon
- Trifolium pratenseTrifolium pratensee1
- Outcome
- growth of the parasitee2
- Qualifier
- negative feedbacke2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the root system of a single Trifolium pratense seedling”
e2“and that this had a negative feedback on the growth of the parasite”
The same questions in other papers
mycorrhiza · growth · Trifolium pratense (red clover)Positive and negative results
6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.