PLoS ONE (Mar 2011)

Prevailing negative soil biota effect and no evidence for local adaptation in a widespread Eurasian grass.

  • Viktoria Wagner,
  • Pedro M Antunes,
  • Michael Ristow,
  • Ute Lechner,
  • Isabell Hensen

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017580
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 6, no. 3
p. e17580

Abstract

Read online

Soil biota effects are increasingly accepted as an important driver of the abundance and distribution of plants. While biogeographical studies on alien invasive plant species have indicated coevolution with soil biota in their native distribution range, it is unknown whether adaptation to soil biota varies among populations within the native distribution range. The question of local adaptation between plants and their soil biota has important implications for conservation of biodiversity and may justify the use of seed material from local provenances in restoration campaigns.We studied soil biota effects in ten populations of the steppe grass Stipa capillata from two distinct regions, Europe and Asia. We tested for local adaptation at two different scales, both within (ca. 10-80 km) and between (ca. 3300 km) regions, using a reciprocal inoculation experiment in the greenhouse for nine months. Generally, negative soil biota effects were consistent. However, we did not find evidence for local adaptation: both within and between regions, growth of plants in their 'home soil' was not significantly larger relative to that in soil from other, more distant, populations.Our study suggests that negative soil biota effects can prevail in different parts of a plant species' range. Absence of local adaptation points to the possibility of similar rhizosphere biota composition across populations and regions, sufficient gene flow to prevent coevolution, selection in favor of plasticity, or functional redundancy among different soil biota. From the point of view of plant--soil biota interactions, our findings indicate that the current practice of using seeds exclusively from local provenances in ecosystem restoration campaigns may not be justified.