• Energy Research

In agricultural and natural systems researchers have demonstrated large effects of plant-soil feedback (PSF) on plant growth. However, the concepts and approaches used in these two types of systems have developed, for the most part, independently. Here, we present a conceptual framework that integrates knowledge and approaches from these two contrasting systems. We use this integrated framework to demonstrate (i) how knowledge from complex natural systems can be used to increase agricultural resource-use efficiency and productivity and (ii) how research in agricultural systems can be used to test hypotheses and approaches developed in natural systems. Using this framework, we discuss avenues for new research toward an ecologically sustainable and climate-smart future.

AbstractSpecies-rich plant communities can produce twice as much aboveground biomass as monocultures, but the mechanisms remain unresolved. We tested whether plant-soil feedbacks (PSFs) can help explain these biodiversity-productivity relationships. Using a 16-species, factorial field experiment we found that plants created soils that changed subsequent plant growth by 27% and that this effect increased over time. When incorporated into simulation models, these PSFs improved predictions of plant community growth and explained 14% of overyielding. Here we show quantitative, field-based evidence that diversity maintains productivity by suppressing plant disease. Though this effect alone was modest, it helps constrain the role of factors, such as niche partitioning, that have been difficult to quantify. This improved understanding of biodiversity-productivity relationships has implications for agriculture, biofuel production and conservation.

AbstractRelatively little is known about how plant–soil feedbacks (PSFs) may affect plant growth in field conditions where factors such as herbivory may be important. Using a potted experiment in a grassland, we measured PSFs with and without aboveground insect herbivory for 20 plant species. We then compared PSF values to plant landscape abundance. Aboveground herbivory had a large negative effect on PSF values. For 15 of 20 species, PSFs were more negative with herbivory than without. This occurred because plant biomass on “home” soils was smaller with herbivory than without. PSF values with herbivory were correlated with plant landscape abundance, whereas PSF values without herbivory were not. Shoot nitrogen concentrations suggested that plants create soils that increase nitrogen uptake, but that greater shoot nitrogen values increase herbivory and that the net effect of positive PSF and greater aboveground herbivory is less aboveground biomass. Results provided clear evidence that PSFs alone have limited power in explaining species abundances and that herbivory has stronger effects on plant biomass and growth on the landscape. Our results provide a potential explanation for observed differences between greenhouse and field PSF experiments and suggest that PSF experiments need to consider important biotic interactions, like aboveground herbivory, particularly when the goal of PSF research is to understand plant growth in field conditions.

• As described in the two-layer hypothesis, woody plants are often assumed to use deep soils to avoid competition with grasses. Yet the direct measurements of root activity needed to test this hypothesis are rare. • Here, we injected deuterated water into four soil depths, at four times of year, to measure the vertical and horizontal location of water uptake by trees and grasses in a mesic savanna in Kruger National Park, South Africa. • Trees absorbed 24, 59, 14 and 4% of tracer from the 5, 20, 50, and 120 cm depths, respectively, while grasses absorbed 61, 29, 9 and 0.3% of tracer from the same depths. Only 44% of root mass was in the top 20 cm. Trees absorbed tracer under and beyond their crowns, while 98% of tracer absorbed by grasses came from directly under the stem. • Trees and grasses partitioned soil resources (20 vs 5 cm), but this partitioning did not reflect, as suggested by the two-layer hypothesis, the ability of trees to access deep soil water that was unavailable to grasses. Because root mass was a poor indicator of root activity, our results highlight the importance of precise root activity measurements.

SummaryShrub encroachment, forest decline and wildfires have caused large‐scale changes in semi‐arid vegetation over the past 50 years. Climate is a primary determinant of plant growth in semi‐arid ecosystems, yet it remains difficult to forecast large‐scale vegetation shifts (i.e. biome shifts) in response to climate change. We highlight recent advances from four conceptual perspectives that are improving forecasts of semi‐arid biome shifts. Moving from small to large scales, first, tree‐level models that simulate the carbon costs of drought‐induced plant hydraulic failure are improving predictions of delayed‐mortality responses to drought. Second, tracer‐informed water flow models are improving predictions of species coexistence as a function of climate. Third, new applications of ecohydrological models are beginning to simulate small‐scale water movement processes at large scales. Fourth, remotely‐sensed measurements of plant traits such as relative canopy moisture are providing early‐warning signals that predict forest mortality more than a year in advance. We suggest that a community of researchers using modeling approaches (e.g. machine learning) that can integrate these perspectives will rapidly improve forecasts of semi‐arid biome shifts. Better forecasts can be expected to help prevent catastrophic changes in vegetation states by identifying improved monitoring approaches and by prioritizing high‐risk areas for management.

AbstractPlant–soil feedback (PSF) has gained attention as a mechanism promoting plant growth and coexistence. However, most PSF research has measured monoculture growth in greenhouse conditions. Translating PSFs into effects on plant growth in field communities remains an important frontier for PSF research. Using a 4‐year, factorial field experiment in Jena, Germany, we measured the growth of nine grassland species on soils conditioned by each of the target species (i.e., 72 PSFs). Plant community models were parameterized with or without these PSF effects, and model predictions were compared to plant biomass production in diversity–productivity experiments. Plants created soils that changed subsequent plant biomass by 40%. However, because they were both positive and negative, the average PSF effect was 14% less growth on “home” than on “away” soils. Nine‐species plant communities produced 29 to 37% more biomass for polycultures than for monocultures due primarily to selection effects. With or without PSF, plant community models predicted 28%–29% more biomass for polycultures than for monocultures, again due primarily to selection effects. Synthesis: Despite causing 40% changes in plant biomass, PSFs had little effect on model predictions of plant community biomass across a range of species richness. While somewhat surprising, a lack of a PSF effect was appropriate in this site because species richness effects in this study were caused by selection effects and not complementarity effects (PSFs are a complementarity mechanism). Our plant community models helped us describe several reasons that even large PSF may not affect plant productivity. Notably, we found that dominant species demonstrated small PSF, suggesting there may be selective pressure for plants to create neutral PSF. Broadly, testing PSFs in plant communities in field conditions provided a more realistic understanding of how PSFs affect plant growth in communities in the context of other species traits.