title: When do arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi protect plant roots from pathogens?
abstract: Arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi are mainly thought to facilitate phosphorus uptake in plants, but they can also perform several other functions that are equally beneficial. Our recent study sheds light on the factors determining one such function, enhanced plant protection from root pathogens. Root infection by the fungal pathogen Fusarium oxysporum was determined by both plant susceptibility and the ability of an AM fungal partner to suppress the pathogen. The non-susceptible plant species (Allium cepa) had limited F. oxysporum infection even without AM fungi. In contrast, the susceptible plant species (Setaria glauca) was heavily infected and only AM fungi in the family Glomeraceae limited pathogen abundance. Plant susceptibility to pathogens was likely determined by contrasting root architectures between plants, with the simple rooted plant (A. cepa) presenting fewer sites for infection.AM fungal colonization, however, was not limited in the same way in part because plants with fewer, simple roots are more mycorrhizal dependent. Protection only by Glomus species also indicates that whatever the mechanism(s) of this function, it responds to AM fungal families differently. While poor at pathogen protection, AM fungal species in the family Gigasporaceae most benefited the growth of the simple rooted plant species. Our research indicates that plant trait differences, such as root architecture can determine how important each mycorrhizal function is to plant growth but the ability to provide these functions differs among AM fungi.
authors.affiliation: Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada. bsikes@uoguelph.ca
authors.forename: Benjamin A
authors.initials: BA
authors.lastname: Sikes
references.citation: Ecology. 2010 Jun;91(6):1591-7
references.pmid: 20583701
references.citation: Annu Rev Microbiol. 2005;59:19-42
references.pmid: 16153162
references.citation: Science. 2007 Jun 22;316(5832):1746-8
references.pmid: 17588930
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 1995 Oct;10(10):407-11
references.pmid: 21237085
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2009 Dec 7;276(1676):4237-45
references.pmid: 19740877
references.citation: New Phytol. 2002 May;154(2):275-304
references.pmid: 33873429
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Feb 2;107(5):2093-8
references.pmid: 20133855
references.citation: Science. 2009 Jul 31;325(5940):573-4
references.pmid: 19644111
references.citation: New Phytol. 2005 May;166(2):631-8
references.pmid: 15819925