After abandonment of agricultural fields, some grassland plant species colonize these sites with a frequency equivalent to dry grasslands (generalists) while others are missing or underrepresented in abandoned fields (specialists). We aimed to understand the inability of specialists to spread on abandoned fields by exploring whether performance of generalists and specialists depended on soil abiotic and/or biotic legacy. We performed a greenhouse experiment with 12 species, six specialists and six generalists. The plants were grown in sterile soil from dry grassland or abandoned field inoculated with microbial communities from one or the other site. Plant growth, abundance of mycorrhizal structures and plant response to inoculation were evaluated. We focused on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), one of the most important parts of soil communities affecting plant performance. The abandoned field soil negatively affected plant growth, but positively affected plant response to inoculation. The AMF community from both sites differed in infectivity and taxa frequencies. The lower AMF taxa frequency in the dry grassland soil suggested a lack of functional complementarity. Despite the fact that dry grassland AMF produced more arbuscules, the dry grassland inoculum did not improve phosphorus nutrition of specialists contrary to the abandoned field inoculum. Inoculum origin did not affect phosphorus nutrition of generalists. The lower effectiveness of the dry grassland microbial community toward plant performance excludes its inoculation in the abandoned field soil as a solution to allow settlement of specialists. Still, the distinct response of specialists and generalists to inoculation suggested that they differ in AMF responsiveness.

Department of Botany Faculty of Science Charles University Benátská 2 128 00 Prague Czech Republic

Department of Experimental Plant Biology Faculty of Science Charles University Viničná 5 128 00 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

Mycorrhiza. 2013 Oct;23(7):561-72 PubMed

FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2004 Apr 1;48(1):1-13 PubMed

Mycorrhiza. 2006 May;16(3):159-166 PubMed

Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2011;62:227-50 PubMed

Ecology. 2009 Sep;90(9):2567-76 PubMed

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

Appl Environ Microbiol. 1997 Sep;63(9):3531-8 PubMed

New Phytol. 2015 Mar;205(4):1437-42 PubMed

Mol Ecol. 2014 Apr;23(8):2118-35 PubMed

Mycorrhiza. 2017 Jul;27(5):431-440 PubMed

Am J Bot. 2011 May;98(5):850-8 PubMed

New Phytol. 2006;172(3):554-62 PubMed

Mycorrhiza. 2006 Jul;16(5):299-363 PubMed

Nat Commun. 2017 Feb 08;8:14349 PubMed

Glob Chang Biol. 2015 Feb;21(2):973-85 PubMed

FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2011 Oct;78(1):103-15 PubMed

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

Trends Plant Sci. 2013 Sep;18(9):484-91 PubMed

New Phytol. 2017 May;214(3):1330-1337 PubMed

New Phytol. 2013 Mar;197(4):1104-9 PubMed

Protoplasma. 2012 Jan;249(1):3-19 PubMed

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Feb 2;107(5):2093-8 PubMed

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

ISME J. 2013 Jul;7(7):1424-33 PubMed

Nature. 2010 Aug 5;466(7307):752-5 PubMed

New Phytol. 2007;174(2):244-50 PubMed

Nat Plants. 2016 Jul 11;2:16107 PubMed

Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003 May;69(5):2816-24 PubMed

Ecol Lett. 2009 Jan;12(1):13-21 PubMed

Ecology. 2007 Apr;88(4):965-77 PubMed

New Phytol. 2009 Oct;184(2):424-37 PubMed

Oecologia. 2005 Aug;145(1):1-8 PubMed

Mycorrhiza. 2009 Feb;19(2):81-90 PubMed

PLoS One. 2016 Jul 08;11(7):e0158925 PubMed

New Phytol. 2008;177(3):779-89 PubMed

Nature. 1998 Jul 30;394(6692):431 PubMed

Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007 Sep;73(17):5426-34 PubMed