4.7 Article

There are many ways to be a mutualist: Endophytic fungus reduces plant survival but increases population growth

期刊

ECOLOGY
卷 93, 期 3, 页码 565-574

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1890/11-0689.1

关键词

Cinna arundinacea; demography; fungal endophyte; herbivory; mutualism; Neotyphodium schardlii; reproductive parasite; symbiosis; vertical transmission

类别

资金

  1. Godwin Assistant Professorship
  2. NSF-DEB [054278]
  3. Rice Huxley Fellowship
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences
  5. Division Of Environmental Biology [1145588] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One of the challenges to quantifying the costs and benefits of symbiosis is that symbionts can influence different components of host fitness. To improve understanding of the ecology of inherited symbionts, we developed general theory for a perennial host-hereditary symbiont interaction, in which symbionts can have independent and potentially opposing effects on host regeneration and survival. The model showed that negative effects on one component of fitness may be outweighed by positive effects on another, leading to a net positive impact of symbiosis on population growth. Model predictions depended on the availability of suitable patches, which influenced the relative contributions of survival vs. regeneration to host fitness. We then used experimental symbiont removal to quantify effects of a hereditary, fungal endophyte on a grass host. Endophyte presence strongly reduced host survival but increased regeneration. Application of the model revealed that negative effects on plant survival were overwhelmed by beneficial effects on regeneration, resulting in stable endophyte persistence at 100% frequency, consistent with field observations. Our work demonstrates the utility of a demographic perspective for predicting the dynamics of symbioses and supports the hypothesis that symbionts function as mutualists when host and symbiont fitness are coupled through vertical transmission.

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

4.7
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