Abstract
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) form mutualistic associations with most terrestrial plants, playing essential roles in nutrient cycling and plant productivity. While protistan predation can influence AMF richness and composition, the extent to which trophic interactions, alongside environmental factors, shape AMF diversity and community structure in plantation ecosystems remains unclear. Here, we analyzed 432 samples from two microhabitats (216 rhizosphere soils and 216 roots) of dominant afforestation species ( Pinus tabuliformis and Ulmus pumila ) across two seasons (spring and autumn). We assessed the effects of biotic (plant biomass, litter, root traits, protistan consumer diversity, and trophic network properties) and abiotic (soil physicochemical) factors on AMF α- and β diversity. Trophic associations, quantified by network edge number and connectance, as well as plant-related variables, emerged as primary predictors of AMF diversity across species, microhabitats, and seasons. Root traits were key determinants in root-associated AMF diversity, while litter characteristics influenced rhizosphere AMF communities. Notably, protistan consumer diversity significantly affected AMF β diversity, but not α-diversity, whereas trophic network properties consistently exerted strong direct effects on both diversity metrics. Overall, trophic associations had a stronger influence on AMF diversity than consumer richness alone. These findings highlight the critical yet often underappreciated role of trophic interactions in regulating mycorrhizal community dynamics in afforested landscapes.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Trophic association network properties emerged as primary predictors of AMF diversity in plantation forests
- Taxon
- Pinus tabuliformis and Ulmus pumila
Pinus tabuliformis
Ulmus pumilae1 - Treatment
- Trophic associationse3
- Outcome
- AMF diversitye3
- Setting
- plantation ecosystemse2
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“dominant afforestation species ( Pinus tabuliformis and Ulmus pumila )”
e2“community structure in plantation ecosystems”
e3“Trophic associations, quantified by network edge number and connectance, as well as plant-related variables, emerged as primary predictors of AMF diversity across species, microhabitats, and seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
Root traits were key determinants of root-associated AMF diversity
- Taxon
- Pinus tabuliformis and Ulmus pumilaPinus tabuliformisUlmus pumilae1
- Organ / stage
- roote4
- Outcome
- root-associated AMF diversitye4
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“dominant afforestation species ( Pinus tabuliformis and Ulmus pumila )”
e4“Root traits were key determinants in root-associated AMF diversity”
Claim · model-written summary
Litter characteristics influenced rhizosphere AMF communities
- Taxon
- Pinus tabuliformis and Ulmus pumilaPinus tabuliformisUlmus pumilae1
- Organ / stage
- rhizospheree5
- Treatment
- litter characteristicse5
- Outcome
- AMF communitiese5
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“dominant afforestation species ( Pinus tabuliformis and Ulmus pumila )”
e5“litter characteristics influenced rhizosphere AMF communities”
Claim · model-written summary
Protistan consumer diversity significantly affected AMF beta diversity
- Taxon
- Pinus tabuliformis and Ulmus pumilaPinus tabuliformisUlmus pumilae1
- Interactor
- protistan consumere6other
- Outcome
- AMF β diversitye6
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“dominant afforestation species ( Pinus tabuliformis and Ulmus pumila )”
e6“protistan consumer diversity significantly affected AMF β diversity”
Claim · model-written summary
Protistan consumer diversity did not significantly affect AMF alpha diversity
- Taxon
- Pinus tabuliformis and Ulmus pumilaPinus tabuliformisUlmus pumilae1
- Interactor
- protistan consumere6other
- Outcome
- α-diversitye7
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“dominant afforestation species ( Pinus tabuliformis and Ulmus pumila )”
e6“protistan consumer diversity significantly affected AMF β diversity”
e7“but not α-diversity”
Claim · model-written summary
Trophic network properties consistently exerted strong direct effects on both AMF diversity metrics
- Taxon
- Pinus tabuliformis and Ulmus pumilaPinus tabuliformisUlmus pumilae1
- Treatment
- trophic network propertiese2
- Outcome
- both diversity metricse2
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“dominant afforestation species ( Pinus tabuliformis and Ulmus pumila )”
e2“trophic network properties consistently exerted strong direct effects on both diversity metrics”
Claim · model-written summary
Trophic associations had a stronger influence on AMF diversity than consumer richness alone
- Taxon
- Pinus tabuliformis and Ulmus pumilaPinus tabuliformisUlmus pumilae1
- Treatment
- trophic associationse2
- Outcome
- AMF diversitye2
- Direction
- strongere2
- Comparator
- consumer richness alonee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“dominant afforestation species ( Pinus tabuliformis and Ulmus pumila )”
e2“trophic associations had a stronger influence on AMF diversity than consumer richness alone”