4.5 Article

DO EXTREME ENVIRONMENTS PROVIDE A REFUGE FROM PATHOGENS? A PHYLOGENETIC TEST USING SERPENTINE FLAX

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
卷 96, 期 11, 页码 2010-2021

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.3732/ajb.0900047

关键词

edaphic specialization; Hesperolinon; Linaceae; Melampsora lini; pathogen refuge hypothesis; plant-pathogen interactions; serpentine soil; soil calcium; Uredinales

资金

  1. California Native Plant Society
  2. Hardman Native Plant Research Fellowship
  3. UC Davis Genetic Resources Conservation Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Abiotically extreme environments are often associated with physiologically stressful conditions, small, low-density populations, and depauperate flora and fauna relative to more benign settings. A possible consequence of this may be that organisms that occupy these stressful habitats receive fitness benefits associated with reductions in the frequency and/or intensity of antagonistic species interactions. I investigated a particular form of this effect, formalized as the pathogen refuge hypothesis, through a study of 13 species of wild flax that grow on stressful serpentine soils and are often infected by a pathogenic fungal rust. The host species vary in the degree of their serpentine association: some specialize on extreme serpentine soils, while others are generalists that occur on soils with a wide range of serpentine influence. Phylogenetically explicit analyses of soil chemistry and field-measured disease levels indicated that rust disease was significantly less frequent and severe in flax populations growing in more stressful, low-calcium serpentine soils. These findings may help to explain the persistence of extremophile species in habitats where stressful physical conditions often impose strong autecological fitness costs on associated organisms. Ancestral state reconstruction of serpentine soil tolerance (approximated using soil calcium concentrations) suggested that the ability to tolerate extreme serpentine soils may have evolved multiple times within the focal genus.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据