Plant-soil feedback (PSF) is a fundamental mechanism explaining plant community composition. Two-phase experiments, i.e., conditioning and feedback, represent a common methodology to study PSF. The duration of the conditioning phase varies among studies and the PSF observed is often explained by its biotic component. Little is known about the temporal variation of PSF and its abiotic component. As early life stages are crucial for plant establishment, we grew Rorippa austriaca in soil conditioned over 2, 4, 6 or 8 weeks by a conspecific or a co-occurring species, Agrostis capillaris. For each conditioning duration, we analysed the soil chemical properties and the direction and intensity of intra- or inter-specific feedbacks. With increasing duration, the negative intra- and inter-specific feedbacks became stronger and weaker, respectively. The inter-specific feedback was more negative than the intra-specific feedback at 2 weeks and this reversed thereafter. The Mg content decreased with conditioning duration whatever the conditioning species was. With increasing duration, conditioning by R. austriaca strongly decreased pH, while A. capillaris did not affect pH. The K and P contents were not affected by the conditioning duration and were higher in R. austriaca soil than in A. capillaris soil. Our results suggest that not only conditioning species but also duration of conditioning phase may affect the magnitude of PSF. The changes in soil chemical properties linked to the conditioning species or the conditioning phase duration may drive the feedbacks by affecting plant growth directly or via the interacting microbial communities.

Department of Botany Faculty of Science Charles University Prague Benátská 2 128 01 Prague Czech Republic

Institute of Botany The Czech Academy of Sciences Zámek 1 252 43 Průhonice Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Ecology. 2008 Feb;89(2):371-9 PubMed

J Plant Physiol. 2003 Jun;160(6):615-26 PubMed

AoB Plants. 2015 Mar 13;7:null PubMed

New Phytol. 2006;170(1):165-75 PubMed

New Phytol. 2015 Aug;207(3):830-40 PubMed

Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2006;57:233-66 PubMed

PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e31596 PubMed

Nat Rev Microbiol. 2013 Nov;11(11):789-99 PubMed

New Phytol. 2017 Oct;216(1):11-14 PubMed

Oecologia. 2008 Dec;158(3):463-72 PubMed

Ecol Evol. 2014 Jun;4(12):2533-45 PubMed

Oecologia. 2017 Jun;184(2):543-554 PubMed

Nature. 2002 May 2;417(6884):67-70 PubMed

Ecol Lett. 2008 Sep;11(9):980-92 PubMed

PLoS One. 2016 Jun 23;11(6):e0157800 PubMed

Plant Signal Behav. 2009 Aug;4(8):777-80 PubMed

Res Microbiol. 2001 Oct;152(8):707-16 PubMed

PLoS Biol. 2006 May;4(5):e140 PubMed

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Jan 17;103(3):626-31 PubMed

Science. 2017 Jan 13;355(6321):173-176 PubMed

Ecology. 2008 Sep;89(9):2399-406 PubMed

Ecol Lett. 2010 Jul;13(7):803-9 PubMed

Ecology. 2008 Mar;89(3):773-81 PubMed

Nat Plants. 2015;1(6):null PubMed

New Phytol. 2016 May;210(3):786-9 PubMed

Ecology. 2015 Aug;96(8):2289-99 PubMed

PLoS One. 2013 Nov 12;8(11):e80535 PubMed

ISME J. 2010 Oct;4(10):1340-51 PubMed

Oecologia. 1998 Feb;113(4):447-455 PubMed

FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2008 Aug;65(2):193-201 PubMed

Oecologia. 2008 Aug;157(2):211-20 PubMed

Trends Plant Sci. 2016 Mar;21(3):171-173 PubMed

Ecol Evol. 2013 Jul;3(7):2322-33 PubMed

Oecologia. 2013 Dec;173(4):1295-307 PubMed

Ecol Lett. 2013 Oct;16(10):1277-84 PubMed

PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e26321 PubMed

Trends Ecol Evol. 2005 Nov;20(11):634-41 PubMed

Heredity (Edinb). 2005 Jun;94(6):664-70 PubMed

FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2007 Nov;62(2):142-60 PubMed

Ecology. 2013 Jan;94(1):32-40 PubMed

New Phytol. 2014 Oct;204(2):408-23 PubMed

Mol Ecol. 2003 Jul;12(7):1831-41 PubMed

Trends Ecol Evol. 1995 Jul;10(7):270-5 PubMed

New Phytol. 2005 Nov;168(2):305-12 PubMed

Ecol Lett. 2006 Sep;9(9):1080-8 PubMed

Plant-soil interactions in the native range of two congeneric species with contrasting invasive success