FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2998536710> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2998536710 endingPage "1069" @default.
• W2998536710 startingPage "1065" @default.
• W2998536710 abstract "More than 80% of plant species exchange resources with mycorrhizal fungi and these associations impact both partners at multiple scales, from individuals to ecosystems. In total, 172 participants from 33 countries and 160 institutions met at the 10th International Conference on Mycorrhiza (ICOM 10) in the city of Mérida in the Yucatan peninsula in Mexico – an area famous for its Mayan archaeological sites, cenotes, and the Chicxulub impact crater that marks the end of the Cretaceous period. They discussed latest advances on mycorrhizal research across 125 talks and 111 posters in 14 sessions focused on the biology, physiology, ecology, evolution and conservation of these interactions from molecules to biomes (Fig. 1). In particular, the contribution of mycorrhizal research to sustainability in agriculture, conservation and ecosystem restoration (Fig. 2) emerged as a promising topic to address today's challenges in the realm of human population growth, globalization and climate change. Several speakers discussed the increasing abundance of commercial arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) products for agriculture, from ‘biofertilisers’ to advances in seed coating technology (i.e. adding mycorrhizal fungal spores directly to seeds along with nutrients and plant-helper bacteria), and the interest in these products from growers. A noticeable recurring theme was that commercial biofertilisers make rather dramatic claims about their effectiveness, without evidence of their application leading to direct improvements in crop yield or nutrition. Jan Jansa's (Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic) keynote presentation made the point that biofertilisers do not create nutrients per se; however, they may help plants to access existing nutrient sources, and may provide non-nutritional benefits. Examples of non-nutritional mycorrhizal benefits include increased soil glomalin inputs, tolerance of microplastics inputs, and alteration of the soil microbiome (Svenningsen et al., 2018; de Souza Machado et al., 2019; Hestrin et al., 2019). Marcel van der Heijden (Agroscope, Zurich, Switzerland) and Ashleigh Elliott (University of Leeds, UK) presented data on the application of commercial inoculants in field and glasshouse trials; crops grown with a commercial AM fungal inoculant exhibited higher root colonization but there were few benefits to growth. Notably, the quality (in terms of active AM fungal propagules) and effectiveness of different commercial products was highly variable. Miranda Hart (University of British Columbia, Kelowna, Canada) made the case that the variable responses of AM fungal inoculum in field trials are like those observed in the case of plant species invasions (Thomsen & Hart, 2018), and that current practices were too focused on establishing the most vigorous AM fungi. Some important questions arose from the workshop discussion on the topic: how can we, as a research community, contribute to ensuring that mycorrhizal fungal inoculum products are (1) appropriate, for example, are we selecting the most suitable fungi for a given system, rather than good invaders?; and (2) successful, for example, would a ‘certificate of effectiveness’ be required? In terms of alternative approaches to agriculture, Rillig & Lehmann (2019) identified c. 285 000 combinations of agricultural practices. In his keynote presentation, Jan Jansa emphasized the need to rigorously quantify the AM symbiosis and its effects in the field, to enable the production of equations and models that make useful predictions, so that we can best make use of the AM symbiosis as a valuable biological resource. Jansa also highlighted the potential to look further down the production chain not only to crop productivity but to the quality of the food product (e.g. do mycorrhizas affect food nutritional content, taste, or spoilage), such as lowered pest impacts, postharvest disease reduction, and thus reduction of food waste (e.g. AM fungi for food security). Effective use of the mycorrhizal symbiosis for restoration and conservation requires a deeper understanding of mycorrhizal functionality and related ecosystem processes, and how these processes and functions are altered through interactions with other actors and changing conditions. For instance, several talks (e.g. Heike Bücking, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, USA; Ricardo Arraiano Castilho, Kew Gardens, London, UK) highlighted the importance of local soil factors and host nutrient demand in shaping mycorrhizal fungal communities, and whether changes in local environmental conditions associated with climate change (i.e. drought) or nutrient deposition (i.e. soil fertility) may disrupt the structure of these communities. Many speakers discussed the contribution of mycorrhizas in low impact, sustainable approaches to ecosystem restoration (e.g. Brian Pickles, University of Reading, UK; Cameron Egan, University of Hawai‘i, Mānoa, HI, USA) and species conservation (e.g. Nicole Hynson, University of Hawai‘i, Mānoa, HI, USA; Louise Egerton-Warburton, Chicago Botanic Garden, Glencoe, IL, USA). Still, other mechanisms related to the activities of mycorrhizal fungi, such as carbon sequestration (i.e. priming effect discussed by María Pozo, EEZ-CSIC, Granada, Spain; and Johanna Pausch, University of Bayreuth, Germany) or the outcome of interactions among important actors, such as signalling pathways for kin recognition (e.g. Monika Gorzelak, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, Canada), need to be accounted for when considering mycorrhizal applications in conservation and ecosystem restoration. A key theme is that different ecosystems may well need different approaches (i.e. there is no ‘silver bullet’ for restoration or conservation). For example, Louise Egerton-Warburton found that ‘cedar’ (Widdringtonii wrighteii) seedlings grew well in nursery conditions but experienced drastic mortality following transfer to the field in Malawi. In turn, Nicole Hynson and Cameron Egan's work showed that incomplete recovery of Hawaiian native fungal communities following successful growth of planted native host trees may compromise forest restoration. However, the presence of diverse mycorrhizal fungal communities is not the only requirement for a successful restoration plan. For instance, when comparing the performance of AM fungal species on high- and low-quality (determined by associated fungal biomass) native plant hosts in tallgrass prairie, Ylva Lekberg (MPG Ranch, Missoula, MT, USA) found that AM fungal identity and abundance influenced plant performance, while AM fungal species diversity was unimportant in this regard. Similar results were found in a successional plant-feedback study where only the appropriate late successional AM fungi with their corresponding plant species grew faster and larger (Koziol & Bever, 2019). In the North American Southwest, Catherine (Kitty) Gehring (Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA) found that intraspecific drought tolerance of pinyon pine was strongly associated with root-colonizing ectomycorrhizal (ECM) fungal species composition. Here, drought-tolerant pinyons tended to associate with Geospora spp., which increased water flow velocity in drought-tolerant seedling lineages and reduced it in intolerant lineages. A related study revealed that after successive droughts, ECM fungal species composition and abundance in roots of pinyon pines were responsive to tree mortality, with Geospora increasing and Tuber spp. decreasing in response to pine death (Mueller et al., 2019). These studies indicate that the identity of mycorrhizal fungi and their interaction with certain host traits are critical for achieving restoration aims. Understanding patterns of plant mycorrhizal type dominance, for instance in highly protected and valuable ecosystems, is key to understanding many ecosystem processes and their dynamics, and hence predicting limiting factors and environmental risks. In his keynote presentation, Richard Phillips (Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA) presented a plethora of works describing differences in functioning between forests dominated by AM and ECM trees in similar climatic conditions (e.g. Zhang et al., 2018). It had long been hypothesized that ECM-dominated forests accumulate more soil carbon, due in part to visibly greater production of recalcitrant organic matter. Yet when soils from ECM- and AM-dominated forests in proximity were compared to a depth of 1 m, greater accumulation of soil organic matter was found in AM-dominated forests (Craig et al., 2018). Several talks presented at ICOM 10 highlighted how processes such as carbon storage, soil enzymatic activities, nutrient cycling, and ecosystem-level sensitivity to global changes may vary (in part) because of mycorrhizal interactions (e.g. Haley Dunleavy, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA; Tom Thirkell, University of Leeds, UK; Melanie Jones, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, Canada). These results clearly stress the need to consider how the dominance of different mycorrhizal types may impact ecosystem function, and the consequences of host changes for broader ecosystem dynamics, management, and restoration. Nonetheless, subdominant plant species such as herbs and grasses in the forest understory can also play significant roles in ecosystems. For example, Rebecca Bunn (Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA, USA) revisited the ‘direct mineral cycling hypothesis' from the 1960s and showed that AM fungal hyphae are active in forest leaf litter through cooperation with other microorganisms (e.g. Lin Zhang, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China), even in ecosystems dominated by ECM trees (Bunn et al., 2019). Despite these recent advances in using plant mycorrhizal type to investigate ecosystem processes, distinguishing between the plant mycorrhizal types (such as AM, ECM, or dual AM and ECM) is not always easily solved and different approaches co-exist (Brundrett & Tedersoo, 2019; Bueno et al., 2019). ICOM 10 facilitated an interesting debate in this respect, discussing possibilities for merging functional, morphological, and experimental approaches to tackle this important issue. Studies of the functions of symbioses in the presence of their closest neighbours are also warranted. Marco Cosme (Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium) illustrated the role that mycorrhizal fungi can play in ‘non-mycorrhizal’ plant functional responses, in which a presumed non-host species (Arabidopsis thaliana) in the presence of a mycorrhizal plant (Medicago truncatula colonized by the AM fungus Rhizophagus sp.) exhibited root cortex colonization. No nutrient exchange (via arbuscules) was observed, but the non-host plant exhibited activation of AM fungal-induced resistance to pathogens (Fernández et al., 2019), indicating a functionally beneficial colonization of the presumed non-host species. All in all, examining the multifunctional effects of the entire root mycobiome, including non-mycorrhizal and ‘fine root endophyte’ fungi (Hoysted et al., 2019) across plants, may be crucial to predicting the effect of global changes in natural and managed ecosystems. During the conference, key challenges facing mycorrhizal research (and researchers) in the coming decades were addressed: Mycorrhizal symbioses are already highly complex, so how do we decipher mycorrhizal effects in systems subjected to multiple simultaneous pressures? Many speakers discussed mycorrhizal responses to climate change impacts such as drought, fire, and insect outbreaks (e.g. Philip Brailey, University of York, UK; Jean Carlos Rodríguez-Ramos, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada; Yong Zheng, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou, China). Restoration of ecosystems exposed to pollutants (e.g. microplastics) was another common theme, as exemplified by Matthias Rillig's (Freie Universität Berlin, Germany) keynote talk. Species introductions of exotic fungi and/or exotic hosts are another important topic that potentially leads to fungal invasions. For example, global patterns in native vs introduced island floras revealed a strong tendency towards introduced mycorrhizal plants compared to non-mycorrhizal natives (Delavaux et al., 2019), with some notable exceptions to the general pattern (e.g. Hawai'i). Anne Pringle's (University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA) research on Amanita muscaria (fly agaric) invasions in North America revealed that the population structure of this invasive fungus differed dramatically compared to its native range. The interactive effects of global change processes on mycorrhizal fungi and their hosts will undoubtedly provoke significant research effort from the mycorrhizal research community. Although this topic is not new, finding ecologically relevant control for, and measurement of, the mycorrhizal status of plants is still controversial. Is ‘non-mycorrhizal’ really an appropriate control condition for plants, given the prevalence of mycorrhizal fungi in natural and anthropogenic ecosystems (i.e. plants without mycorrhizal symbionts are rare), or would severing/restricting common mycorrhizal networks be more relevant to experimental control (e.g. David Johnson, University of Manchester, UK)? The advent of modern high-throughput plant phenotyping systems has allowed us to begin characterizing mycorrhizal host plant (shoot) growth responses (positive through to negative) over time (Watts-Williams et al., 2019), rather than just at the harvest time point. This technology will be especially useful when it extends to root phenotyping platforms that allow for high resolution screening, and analysis of the effects of mycorrhizal fungi on root growth and morphology over time. Several issues remain unresolved among the continual technological advances used for molecular work and interpretation of those data, as sequencing of mycorrhizal fungal communities becomes more commonplace. As Annegret Kohler's (INRA, Nancy, France) keynote talk asked: What does gene copy number mean in terms of function? What does sequence abundance really mean in terms of species abundances? Many researchers uncritically present sequence abundances from next generation sequencing platforms as if they were equivalent to species relative abundances, although the ecological relevance of sequence abundance data needs to be cautiously addressed within the mycorrhizal (Nguyen et al., 2015) and wider microbiome (Gloor et al., 2017) research communities. Clearly, there needs to be more care with the use of metagenomic data and this may prove to be a suitable topic for a discussion session at a future ICOM. This report is dedicated to the memory of the late Professor Sally E. Smith (1941–2019; doi: 10.1111/nph.15569). Sally's illustrious research career spanned more than 50 years and contributed important findings, particularly on the AM symbiosis. She inspired many young scientists to pursue careers in plant and mycorrhiza research, and she will be greatly missed by the mycorrhiza research community. Sally received the Eminent Mycorrhiza Researcher Award at ICOM 10. The authors thank the local organizing committee, the international scientific committee, the International Mycorrhiza Society, and all the delegates at ICOM 10 for many stimulating talks, posters, and discussions throughout the conference. CGB was funded by the Estonian Research Council (grant IUT 20-28), and the European Regional Development Fund (Centre of Excellence EcolChange). The authors declare no conflict of interest." @default.
• W2998536710 created "2020-01-10" @default.
• W2998536710 creator A5039193942 @default.
• W2998536710 creator A5072134671 @default.
• W2998536710 creator A5082250183 @default.
• W2998536710 creator A5091406742 @default.
• W2998536710 date "2020-01-02" @default.
• W2998536710 modified "2023-10-03" @default.
• W2998536710 title "Mycorrhizas for a sustainable world" @default.
• W2998536710 cites W1985638738 @default.
• W2998536710 cites W2769542288 @default.
• W2998536710 cites W2791180038 @default.
• W2998536710 cites W2793189487 @default.
• W2998536710 cites W2802289855 @default.
• W2998536710 cites W2802438674 @default.
• W2998536710 cites W2888868845 @default.
• W2998536710 cites W2889617483 @default.
• W2998536710 cites W2912232914 @default.
• W2998536710 cites W2917238617 @default.
• W2998536710 cites W2921784278 @default.
• W2998536710 cites W2923675561 @default.
• W2998536710 cites W2941378544 @default.
• W2998536710 cites W2941963340 @default.
• W2998536710 cites W2949830037 @default.
• W2998536710 cites W2951981738 @default.
• W2998536710 cites W2955542252 @default.
• W2998536710 cites W2965981370 @default.
• W2998536710 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16307" @default.
• W2998536710 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31894588" @default.
• W2998536710 hasPublicationYear "2020" @default.
• W2998536710 type Work @default.
• W2998536710 sameAs 2998536710 @default.
• W2998536710 citedByCount "14" @default.
• W2998536710 countsByYear W29985367102020 @default.
• W2998536710 countsByYear W29985367102021 @default.
• W2998536710 countsByYear W29985367102022 @default.
• W2998536710 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2998536710 hasAuthorship W2998536710A5039193942 @default.
• W2998536710 hasAuthorship W2998536710A5072134671 @default.
• W2998536710 hasAuthorship W2998536710A5082250183 @default.
• W2998536710 hasAuthorship W2998536710A5091406742 @default.
• W2998536710 hasBestOaLocation W29985367101 @default.
• W2998536710 hasConcept C39432304 @default.
• W2998536710 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2998536710 hasConceptScore W2998536710C39432304 @default.
• W2998536710 hasConceptScore W2998536710C86803240 @default.
• W2998536710 hasFunder F4320321090 @default.
• W2998536710 hasFunder F4320335322 @default.
• W2998536710 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2998536710 hasLocation W29985367101 @default.
• W2998536710 hasLocation W29985367102 @default.
• W2998536710 hasOpenAccess W2998536710 @default.
• W2998536710 hasPrimaryLocation W29985367101 @default.
• W2998536710 hasRelatedWork W1641042124 @default.
• W2998536710 hasRelatedWork W1990804418 @default.
• W2998536710 hasRelatedWork W1993764875 @default.
• W2998536710 hasRelatedWork W2013243191 @default.
• W2998536710 hasRelatedWork W2046158694 @default.
• W2998536710 hasRelatedWork W2082860237 @default.
• W2998536710 hasRelatedWork W2117258802 @default.
• W2998536710 hasRelatedWork W2130076355 @default.
• W2998536710 hasRelatedWork W2151865869 @default.
• W2998536710 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2998536710 hasVolume "225" @default.
• W2998536710 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2998536710 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2998536710 magId "2998536710" @default.
• W2998536710 workType "article" @default.