1
|
Stroud JT, Delory BM, Barnes EM, Chase JM, De Meester L, Dieskau J, Grainger TN, Halliday FW, Kardol P, Knight TM, Ladouceur E, Little CJ, Roscher C, Sarneel JM, Temperton VM, van Steijn TLH, Werner CM, Wood CW, Fukami T. Priority effects transcend scales and disciplines in biology. Trends Ecol Evol 2024; 39:677-688. [PMID: 38508922 DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2024.02.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2023] [Revised: 02/12/2024] [Accepted: 02/14/2024] [Indexed: 03/22/2024]
Abstract
Although primarily studied through the lens of community ecology, phenomena consistent with priority effects appear to be widespread across many different scenarios spanning a broad range of spatial, temporal, and biological scales. However, communication between these research fields is inconsistent and has resulted in a fragmented co-citation landscape, likely due to the diversity of terms used to refer to priority effects across these fields. We review these related terms, and the biological contexts in which they are used, to facilitate greater cross-disciplinary cohesion in research on priority effects. In breaking down these semantic barriers, we aim to provide a framework to better understand the conditions and mechanisms of priority effects, and their consequences across spatial and temporal scales.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J T Stroud
- School of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
| | - B M Delory
- Institute of Ecology, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany; Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - E M Barnes
- Thomas H. Gosnell School of Life Sciences, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623, USA
| | - J M Chase
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; Institute of Computer Science, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany
| | - L De Meester
- Leibniz Institut für Gewässerökologie und Binnenfischerei (IGB), Müggelseedamm 310, 12587 Berlin, Germany; Institute of Biology, Freie Universität Berlin, Königin-Luise-Strasse 1-3, 14195 Berlin, Germany; Laboratory of Aquatic Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - J Dieskau
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; Department of Geobotany and Botanical Garden, Martin-Luther University, Germany
| | - T N Grainger
- Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
| | - F W Halliday
- Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA
| | - P Kardol
- Department of Forest Mycology and Plant Pathology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden; Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 90183 Umeå, Sweden
| | - T M Knight
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; Department of Community Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Halle (Saale), Germany; Institute of Biology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany
| | - E Ladouceur
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; Institute of Computer Science, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany
| | - C J Little
- School of Environmental Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada
| | - C Roscher
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; Department of Physiological Diversity, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Leipzig, Germany
| | - J M Sarneel
- Department of Ecology and Environmental Science, Umea University, 901 87 Umea, Sweden
| | - V M Temperton
- Institute of Ecology, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany
| | - T L H van Steijn
- Department of Ecology and Environmental Science, Umea University, 901 87 Umea, Sweden
| | - C M Werner
- Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Sustainability, Southern Oregon University, Ashland, OR 97520, USA
| | - C W Wood
- Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
| | - T Fukami
- Departments of Biology and Earth System Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kandlikar GS. Quantifying soil microbial effects on plant species coexistence: A conceptual synthesis. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY 2024:e16316. [PMID: 38659131 DOI: 10.1002/ajb2.16316] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2023] [Revised: 03/01/2024] [Accepted: 03/04/2024] [Indexed: 04/26/2024]
Abstract
Soil microorganisms play a critical role in shaping the biodiversity dynamics of plant communities. These microbial effects can arise through direct mediation of plant fitness by pathogens and mutualists, and over the past two decades, numerous studies have shined a spotlight on the role of dynamic feedbacks between plants and soil microorganisms as key determinants of plant species coexistence. Such feedbacks occur when plants modify the composition of the soil community, which in turn affects plant performance. Stimulated by a theoretical model developed in the 1990s, a bulk of the empirical evidence for microbial controls over plant coexistence comes from experiments that quantify plant growth in soil communities that were previously conditioned by conspecific or heterospecific plants. These studies have revealed that soil microbes can generate strong negative to positive frequency-dependent dynamics among plants. Even as soil microbes have become recognized as a key player in determining plant coexistence outcomes, the past few years have seen a renewed interest in expanding the conceptual foundations of this field. New results include re-interpretations of key metrics from classic two-species models, extensions of plant-soil feedback theory to multispecies communities, and frameworks to integrate plant-soil feedbacks with processes like intra- and interspecific competition. Here, I review the implications of theoretical developments for interpreting existing empirical results and highlight proposed analyses and designs for future experiments that can enable a more complete understanding of microbial regulation of plant community dynamics.
Collapse
|