Abstract
Weeds are the cause of substantial yield loss and extinction of some native species resulting from competition with the associated species for water, sunlight, nutrients and space. Due to the widespread occurrence of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) and their important role in communities and ecosystems, the interaction between weed species and AMF might have an important role in ecosystem functioning. The present review characterizes AMF-weeds interactions, targeting natural and crop ecosystems. In agroecosystems, AMF have the potential to contribute to weed control (i) directly by suppressing growth of many weeds belonging to families that are non-mycorrhizal, or (ii) indirectly by enhancing competitive ability of crop species to the detriment of both mycorrhizal and non mycorrhizal weeds. Some advantages conferred by AMF-weed interaction to associated species make evidence of the importance to identify weed species that can play an important role in ecosystem performance. In unmanaged ecosystems, AMF could play a crucial role in invasive plants control through enhancing the competitive ability of local species to the detriment of invasive ones. Additional methodologies are required to manage highly mycorrhizal invasive species.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Weeds are unwanted species that infest natural and managed areas and presumably compete with neighboring plants for water, nutrients, sunlight and space. In agricultural ecosystems, weeds represent a serious problem for crop production (Oerke and Dehne 1997). They could reduce global yields of major crops by around 34% (Oerke 2006). Yield losses in cereal crops due to competition from weed species in mediterranean area can reach up to 80% (Izquierdo et al. 2003).
Definitions of ‘weed’ in the scientific literature vary, but one common theme is that weed species “[interfere] with the objectives or requirements of humans” (Holzner and Numata 2013). The Weed Science Society of America defines a weed as a plant that causes economic losses or ecological damage, creates health problems for humans or animals, or is undesirable where it is growing. In natural areas, species presenting weedy traits are invasive plants that may threaten biodiversity through causing the extinction of some native species. Invasive plants are defined by Lincoln et al. (1998) as organisms undergoing a mass movement or encroachment from one area to another.
Agricultural weeds and invasive plants are both unwanted species. However, the main difference between the two kinds of species is that related to their respective ecosystems. Agricultural weeds occur in species-poor systems under heavy human control whereas invasive plants occur in multi-species systems that tend to self-regulate. Different methods can be used to control weeds and invasive plants including: manual or mechanical removal, grazing, biocontrol, herbicides, prescribed fire, solarization, and flooding. Each technique has advantages and disadvantages in terms of its effects against weeds, risks to human health and safety, impacts on biodiversity and costs. Herbicides are the main method to control both weeds and invasive plants. However, many problems are related to the use of herbicides, among which are: i) the phenomenon of resistance to herbicides: about 200 weed species were reported to express a resistance to a broad range of herbicides (Heap 2012); ii) the high cost of herbicides; iii) the restriction of the use of many chemical products to protect human health and environment; iv) the reduction of biodiversity through the effects of herbicides on some non-target species (Relyea 2005). However, if the use of herbicides is restricted, the dependence on tillage will be accentuated, which could have important negative environmental impacts and could result in crop damage in the case of high soil moisture (Peruzzi et al. 1997).
Biological control appears as a reliable and growing method to limit the proliferation of unwanted species. Biological control includes using rhizospheric bacteria, fungi or viruses (bioherbicides) to control weeds. Bioherbicides are considered to have less environmental impact than classical herbicides due to their increased target specificity, the rapid degradation of residual biological agent metabolites, and the inability to propagate without human assistance (Harding and Raizada 2015). This approach can provide permanent control with a very favorable cost-benefit ratio, especially considering the increased interest by consumers for agricultural practices that does not use chemical herbicides.
Many fungal species are widely used as biocontrol agents and more specifically, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi “AMF” (Malik and Charaya 2013). AMF live as obligate symbionts within the roots of about 80% of land plants, including plants in most natural and agricultural ecosystems (Gianinazzi-Pearson et al. 1996). It is widely recognized that AMF symbiosis has positive effects on plant growth through enhancing water and nutrient absorption (especially phosphate) and enabling protection against biotic and abiotic stresses (Gianinazzi-Pearson et al. 1996). The fungus benefits in return by receiving carbohydrates from the host (Sylvia 1998). A large range of plant responses to AMF colonization was obtained in studies of many plant species (Bever et al. 1996; Wilson and Hartnett 1998; Van Der Heijden et al. 1998a; Watts-Williams et al. 2019). Some plants do not exhibit any benefit upon AMF inoculation while others even are negatively affected by AMF colonization (Johnson et al. 1997; Klironomos 2003). In fact, not all plants are mycorrhizal, some plant taxa do not usually form recognizable mycorrhizas (Tester et al. 1987) very likely due to the fact that the cost is higher than the benefit. Estimates vary, but plants have been shown to allocate between 4% and 20% of photoassimilates to mycorrhizal roots (Graham 2000). Some species on the other hand are facultative mycorrhizal species which, in contrast to obligate plants depend on mycorrhizae only in the case of a deficiency of nutrients in the soil (Janos 2007).
The beneficial effect of AMF in the control of biotic and abiotic stresses is well documented and has been the subject of numerous publications and reviews in scientific and popularization journals (Berruti et al. 2016). Interesting reviews concerned with the interaction between AMF and weeds or invasive plants were published recently (Bunn et al. 2015; Harding and Raizada 2015; Li et al. 2016; Menzel et al. 2017). However, to our knowledge there are no studies gathering the characterization of the interaction between AMF and unwanted species in unmanaged and crop ecosystems. The main goal of this review is to summarize existing research about the interaction between AMF and weeds in a short term (crop cycle) and between AMF and invasive plants in a long term (natural areas). Understanding these interactions could help to assess the potential of using AMF to manage weeds and invasive plants. Our objectives are to determine: i) the suppressive effects of AMF on weeds along with the hypothesized implied mechanisms, ii) the positive AMF-weeds interaction effects, iii) the traits of AMF-weed interaction in the case of organic agroecosystems, and iv) the repercussions of AMF-invasive plants interaction on the structure of AMF and invasive plants communities in unmanaged systems. Elucidating these topics is necessary to set-up optimal weed control strategies with the goal of looking for an equilibrium between the control of damage caused by weeds and invasive plants and the conservation of biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and soil quality.
2 Suppressive effects of AMF on weeds
2.1 Direct effects
About 95% of the world’s species of higher plants are mycorrhizal (M) (Quilambo 2000). The remaining 5% do not form generally recognizable mycorrhizas due likely to the lack of any recognition enabling the establishment of a functional symbiosis (Giovannetti and Sbrana 1998). Weeds in the families Chenopodiaceae, Amaranthaceae, Polygonaceae and Brassicaceae are non-mycorrhizal (NM) (Glenn et al. 1985). Many experiments have shown reduced biomass, growth and survival of NM weeds upon AMF colonization (Vatovec et al. 2005; Rinaudo et al. 2010; Veiga et al. 2011, 2013; Li 2017). Table 1 summarizes some weed species that exhibited suppression due to AMF effect. For example, AMF colonization reduced the growth and biomass of the weed Stellaria media eight-fold (Veiga et al. 2012). Jordan et al. (2000) reported that AMF reduced biomass production in Amaranthus retroflexus and Chenopodium album by 90% and 80%, respectively. AMF has been shown to suppress also mycorrhizal weeds. For instance, greenhouse experiments have shown a reduced biomass due to AMF colonization for M species Abutilon theophrasti and Setaria lutescens (Vatovec et al. 2005), Echinochloa crus-galli (Rinaudo et al. 2010) and Verbascum thapsus (Francis and Read 1995). Reduced biomass, growth rate and survival were obtained in the case of Echium vulgare, Reseda luteola and Spergula arvensis (Francis and Read 1995).
Different mechanisms could explain the suppressive effect of AMF on weeds. Direct antagonistic effects of AMF on weed species could be attributed to:
-parasitism
AMF inoculation of NM weed species results usually in AMF root colonization although at very low percentages and arbuscular structures are often observed as noted in the works of Rinaudo et al. (2010) and Veiga et al. (2011). The classical explanation of the antagonistic effect of AMF on some weed species (NM species and sometimes M ones), is that the energetic cost of the symbiosis can be greater than the nutritional benefits, leading to plant growth depression. This is thus said to be caused by fungal carbon cost to the host that outweigh any benefits that might be produced by nutrient transfer via the fungus. The AMF will essentially be acting as a weak parasite in this case as suggested by Johnson et al. (1997).
Explaining growth depression induced by AMF-infected weeds by parasitism may, however, be incomplete. Indeed, Li et al. (2008) demonstrated, in the case of plants exhibiting reduced growth due to AMF colonization, that more than 50% of phosphorus (P) in the roots is absorbed by external AMF mycelia even when more P is added to the soil. The amount of P absorbed by AMF mycelium was shown to be not correlated with growth and total P uptake. Substantial P uptake (determined using labeled P) via the external AMF mycelium is observed in many species (Smith et al. 2003, 2004; Zhu et al. 2003; Facelli et al. 2009). This suggests that weeds still benefit from the association with AMF at least in terms of P supply (Jones and Smith 2004). The interaction between incompatible species (AMF and NM weeds) may inactivate direct P uptake through the epidermis and root hairs (Smith et al. 2010) reducing P uptake efficiency. Moreover, changes from one pathway (epidermis and root hairs) to another (AMF mycelium) for P uptake by AM plants may generate additional costs decreasing thus the benefits of the association with AMF (Li et al. 2008).
-defense
Allen et al. (1989) observed cell browning and death upon AMF colonization of roots of Salsola kali reflecting a defense response of this weed species (García-Garrido and Ocampo 2002). In fact, the lack of mutualistic association between incompatible partners (NM plant and AMF) in this case was indicated by the browning of the plant roots. The growth depression observed in weeds could be explained by the allocation of plant reserves to ensure defense against unrecognized fungi. A similar defense response was also reported in the case of M weeds: Echium vulgare exhibited swellings and distortion of the meristems of lateral roots upon infection by AMF (Francis and Read 1995).
-developmental stage
The suppressed growth of weeds due to AMF colonization could be a result of an early developmental stage of the seedling that, for being young, the high carbon cost prevents the establishment of a symbiosis with AMF species. Young hosts may invest carbon in mycorrhizal networks but receive no benefit in return although this situation can change within a short time of the host life. In fact, many studies show growth depressions in some AM plants species during the first several weeks of seedling development which disappear shortly thereafter (Koide 1985; Ronsheim 2012).
Regardless of the mechanisms by which AMF could suppress the performance of weeds, it seems that it is a useful method to fight against weeds particularly those belonging to the NM species. In addition to the mechanisms mentioned above, it is also possible that the negative effects could result from combined effect of many factors (synergistic effect). Antagonistic effects of AMF on some weed species were obtained in greenhouse conditions. Therefore, some of the findings may be an artefact of the experimental conditions, and they may not accurately reflect what actually happens in the field in the presence of other plant species and soil microorganisms. Antagonistic effects of AMF obtained in greenhouse experiments could be partially attributed to the low light or to the limited space for root development in pots (Li et al. 2008). However, in crop systems, in the presence of associated species (crop), the antagonistic effect of AMF colonization on weed performance was demonstrated to be more pronounced (Cameron 2010) -as we will discuss in the following section- suggesting actually a suppressive effect and that AMF could be a useful tool to control weeds.
2.2 Indirect effects (triple interaction AMF-weeds-crop species)
In this section, indirect antagonistic effects of AMF in the case of the triple interaction AMF-weed-crop species will be reviewed. Figure 1 represents a diagram summarizing this triple interaction making separation between NM and M weeds.
2.2.1 NM weeds
Rinaudo et al. (2010) have demonstrated that AMF can suppress NM weeds benefiting an M crop plant species. Their study showed suppression of the weed species C. album while benefiting the crop plant Helianthus annuus (sunflower) via enhancing P nutrition. Also, strong antagonistic effects of AMF colonization on the growth of weed species was obtained in the case of Arabidopsis thaliana inoculated with Glomus intraradices in the presence of host plant ryegrass (Lolium perenne) or clover (Trifolium arvense) (Veiga et al. 2013). The NM weed in this case may have a reduced access to nutrients, especially in the conditions of nutrients deficiency, because these are preferentially taken up by AMF and transported to host crop species enhancing thus crop competitiveness. On the other hand, NM weeds absorb nutrients less efficiently because the direct pathway of P uptake (via the epidermis and root hairs) may be inactivated (Smith et al. 2010) due to AMF infection whereas M crop species can absorb nutrients, in addition to the direct pathway, through the fungal mycelium that delivers nutrients to the root cortex through the arbuscules.
The enhanced suppressive effect of AMF on NM weed growth in the presence of associated species could somewhat be underestimated due to the effect of crop plant density. Crop density could be an important interfering factor in the case of the triple interaction (AMF-weed-associated species). In fact, positive growth responses of M plants compared with NM controls decrease with increasing plant density (number of plant individuals per unit soil volume) (Schroeder-Moreno and Janos 2008). So, when plant density increases, competition for P among the AMF hyphae decreases the benefits of the AMF inoculation because the competition for P among the M plants will equal that among NM control plants. Therefore, the enhanced decrease of NM weeds due to AMF effect in the presence of M associated species, should take into consideration the decrease of M associated species growth due to the competition between individuals.
2.2.2 M weeds
In response to AMF effect, M weeds also showed an enhanced suppressive effect in the presence of associated species. E. crus-galli growth decreased in response to AMF when coexisting with maize (Veiga et al. 2011). Root colonization was also significantly enhanced due to the suppressive effect of AMF. Although many factors depending on both associated species and weed traits may be involved in the suppressive effect of AMF, there are many evidences that competitive ability of M weed species is decreased thus benefiting associated species. The competitiveness of associated species conferred by AMF colonization may be due to nutrient availability in the soil. In conventional agricultural cropping systems characterized by high nitrogen and phosphorus input, strong M crops had a higher positive response to AMF than strong M weeds (Li et al. 2016, a meta-analysis). This could be attributed to the fact that the sinks created by the growth of host crop (dominant species) are higher than the sinks created by the growth of host weed. AMF preferentially allocate nutrients to the crop (the big sink) rather than weed (Bethlenfalvay et al. 1996). Thus, crop species govern mineral absorption from the soil through AMF especially in conditions of relatively high nutrient availability.
In conditions of low nutrient availability, Qiao et al. (2016) showed within an intercropping system, an enhanced growth of some M dependent crop species (maize and faba bean (Vicia faba)) due to AMF colonization, while the growth of the M weed species Setaria viridis was suppressed. Also, Li et al. (2016) demonstrated that the growth of strong M crop species was higher than that of weak M weed species in conditions of low phosphorus and nitrogen. Furthermore, some studies suggest that the outcome of the plant-plant interaction may depend on the responsiveness of the dominant species. When dominant “crop” species are highly M-responsive, the presence of AMF may result in suppression of the subordinate species “weeds” (O’Connor et al. 2002).
The suppressive effect in the case of the triple interaction could be attributed both to direct effects of AMF on weeds and to indirect effects that result from enhancing competitive ability of crop species. Breeding programs must take into account the indirect effects of AMF in order to select highly M responsive crop varieties. This should minimize yield loss due to competition with weeds through conducting studies aiming to compare plant varieties. In fact, commercial crops tend to have lower competitiveness due to the selection of cultivars highly adapted to artificial conditions (Altieri 1999). On the other hand, M colonization of some weed species could vary depending on the identity of the associated species (Massenssini et al. 2014). So, the relationship of AMF-weed-crop species should be properly characterized in order to obtain best results of weed management using AMF.
3 Positive effects of AMF-weed interaction
AMF-weeds interaction does not result always in suppressive effects of weeds (Fig. 1). Many weed species exhibit positive effects upon AMF colonization, generally reflected in enhanced biomass and growth of weeds. Vatovec et al. (2005) studied the effect of AMF colonization on the growth of 14 weed species of temperate field-crop agroecosystems. In spite of the great variability in the results obtained, they found a clear significant positive effect of AMF inoculation in the case of Ambrosia artemisifolia and Cirsium arvense (the average of growth increase was 50% and 68% respectively). The enhanced competitive ability might be due to a higher degree of responsiveness of some weed species to AMF inoculation (Kurle and Pfleger 1994) or to a higher AMF availability around the roots (Hendrix et al. 1995). Another aspect of positive effects of AMF colonization is the vigor observed in the offspring of some weed species. Offspring of M mother plants of wild oat exhibited higher nutrient content of the roots and shoots, greater leaf area and number of seeds by spikelet and P content of seeds than offspring of NM mother plants. This suggest a potential effect of AMF colonization in increasing the vigor of their host’s offspring (Koide and Lu 1992). This fact could have the effect of strengthening weak hosts from generation to generation, with its consequent effect of changing weed community structure. Thus, the ecological significance of maternal M effect on offspring performance might be very high. In fact, some studies suggest that initial size advantages of some species could be very important under competitive conditions because small differences will be greater with time due to competition between species (Weiner 1990).
Similarly, M weeds could have beneficial effects on the diversity and abundance of AMF. Weeds enhance AMF propagule density in the soil by enhancing sporulation or root colonization compared to crop species (Kurle and Pfleger 1994) and could induce differences in dominant AMF species enabling a wider spectrum of AMF to colonize crop roots (Radić et al. 2012). The high proportion of AMF in the soil and therefore the development of extra-radical mycelium will enable an early colonization of the following crop (Kubota et al. 2015). In fact, during crop rotations that involve a low mycotrophic species (wheat, for example) or a non AM crop such as brassica, rape, beet or kale; mycorrhiza formation is inhibited in subsequent mycotrophic species (Hayman et al. 1975; Powell 1982; Plenchette 1989). Moreover, it could take more than two successive growing seasons with a mycorrhizal host to re-establish AMF population to the original level (Harinikumar and Bagyaraj 1988; Duponnois et al. 2001). On the other hand, fallow periods provoke a reduction in the number of mycorrhizal spores and infective mycelium as reported by several studies (Karasawa and Takebe 2011; Schnoor et al. 2011). However, Plenchette (1989) observed that when weeds are not controlled, mycorrhizal infectivity is maintained. It was also reported that minimal rotation to non-host crops and the continual presence of a host plant such as a winter cover crop or perennial weed provide conditions favourable to AMF colonization (Jordan et al. 2000; Koide and Kabir 2000). All this suggest a substantial role of weeds in maintaining AMF populations in the soil.
NM weeds could also play an important role in stabilizing the population of AMF in the soil, even they are not colonized with AMF. For example, Schmidt and Reeves (1984) found that till six months, the NM S. kali does not have a negative effect on the number of viable G. fasciculatum propagules in the soil, but enhanced the survival of the AMF.
AMF-weed interaction could benefit associated plant species. In fact, some M grasses showed an increased ability to extract water from the soil in the presence of both AMF and annual NM weeds although no differences in the nutrients levels of the plants attributable to M associations was detected (Allen and Allen 1986). Also, in the case of the Euphorbia hirsuta, some amount of its leaf extract was suggested to be beneficial for eggplant crop species growth which could result in synergism with AMF and benefiting thus the crop species (Elhag et al. 2015).
We can conclude that in spite of the positive effects of AMF on the growth of some weed species, those could have a positive feed-back on AMF communities in the soil. The abundance and diversity of AMF could have further positive effect on competitive ability of crop species against problematic weeds (Fig. 1). Furthermore, AMF interaction with weeds may improve soil quality and favor beneficial organisms (Jordan et al. 2000). So, attention should focus on identifying weed species that can play an important role in maintaining beneficial effects of AMF on ecosystem functioning.
The aforementioned beneficial effects show that suppression but not eradication of weeds could be a more appropriate practice in cropping systems and especially recommended in organic agriculture as we will discuss in the following section.
4 Weed-AMF interaction in organic agroecosystems
Weeds represent a serious problem in organic culture practice since organic systems tend to harbor 2.3–2.8 times more weed seed densities and 1.3–1.6 times more weed species compared with conventional systems (Kubota et al. 2015). Cultivation is the most common direct form to control weeds as the use of herbicides is not allowed. However, the overuse of tillage may reduce soil quality and destroy AMF hyphae (Peruzzi et al. 1997, Curaqueo et al. 2010, Säle et al. 2015). Thus, the use of bioherbicides including AMF is of great significance. Organic systems are characterized by a lower concentration of total and available soil P than equivalent traditional systems (Gosling and Shepherd 2005) which could be more favorable to AMF abundance. Although the continuous shift of available P from organic to inorganic form could result in a greater P availability to AMF than to roots alone, this shift is gradual in time and could not result in an excess of P availability in the soil compared to mineral fertilizers (Magdoff 1995).
The management of weeds in organic agriculture takes a different perspective from that of conventional one. The former treats the problem of weeds in an extended time domain whilst in conventional agriculture, weed control management aims to prevent or minimize immediately (during the crop cycle) yield loss. Organic weed management practices promote suppression of weeds rather than their eradication keeping thus weeds at minimal level. Relationships between weeds and AMF have a dual significance in organic cropping systems: we could manage weeds to enhance AMF proportion and diversity in the soil and in turn manage AMF to control the growth of problematic weeds (Vatovec et al. 2005). M weeds may serve to maintain diversity and agronomically beneficial taxa of AMF (Kubota et al. 2015). In return, AMF can strongly affect plant community composition, and may thus provide some degree of biological control for weeds.
Available data on weed management via AMF effects in organic farms is limited. Vatovec et al. (2005) obtained high variability between species studied and concluded that there is little evidence that AMF in different cropping systems has differential effects on weed growth. On the other hand, Bilalis et al. (2011) found that organic cultural practices significantly increase weed biomass and AM root colonization of competitive weeds whereas there was no difference in the case of non-competitive weeds studied. The challenge to study the AMF-weed interaction in organic farming is that the soil is richer in microorganisms than conventional areas due basically to the destructive effect of soil biota by pesticides, herbicides and fungicides. This higher underground and aboveground diversity in organic farming systems makes the study of AMF-weed relationship complex: the increased number of factors and order interactions makes difficult the characterization of such relationship. The main strategy to maximize yields in organic systems is selecting cultivars that maintain high yield rates in conditions of severe weed stress (Kubota et al. 2015) and enhancing crop competition where AMF could play a key role as has been shown in conventional agroecosystems.
5 Effect of AMF taxa on weed management
Individual plant hosts can form mycorrhizae with many AMF taxa (Helgason et al. 1999), although they may exert some degree of control over the fungal community composition by selecting more beneficial symbionts. Numerous pot studies have demonstrated variations in the growth rate of plants inoculated with different AMF species (Mosse 1972; Bever et al. 2001). AMF influence on plant competition and on the relative abundances of the competitors was also shown to depend on the specific AMF isolate (Scheublin et al. 2007). Streitwolf-Engel et al. (1997) showed that colonization by different isolates of AMF differentlly affect reproductive allocation by two Prunella species. Some isolates stimulated clonal propagation through stolons, while other isolates stimulated sexual reproduction through flowering. Hieracium pilosella differs greatly in its growth response to several and to a mixture of AMF species (Van Der Heijden et al. 1998a). Othira et al. (2012) demonstrated that the Glomus spp. had the largest effect in suppressing Striga hermonthica in maize compared to Gigaspora and Scutellospora genera.
Some studies in contrast, did not show any effect of AMF taxa on weed performance. Rinaudo et al. (2010) showed that the effects of different AMF taxa on weed growth were not significant (only C. album from other five weed species responded differently to different AMF species) and that AMF diversity (three AMF taxa versus one) did not lead to a reduced weed biomass. The same result was obtained in the case of Bromus erectus (Van Der Heijden et al. 1998a) and Medicago truncatula (Derelle et al. 2015).
The lack of the effect of AMF taxa may be explained by the fact that there is no, or little variation between species of AMF used. The two AMF species used by Derelle et al. (2015) belong to the same genus, Rhizophagus, (R. irregularis and R. clarus) whereas the species used by Rinaudo et al. (2010) are Glomus spp. It seems that variation in growth effects by different AMF taxa is at the genus level and not at the species or isolate level (Hart and Klironomos 2002). However, Gworgwor and Weber (2003) studied the effect of five Glomus species (G. mosseae, G. intradices, G. albidum, G. fasciculatum and G. etunicatum) to control S. hermonthica within sorghum crop species. They found that G. mosseae was the only AMF species that was effective in improving plant growth and in controlling Striga. Furthermore, Xavier et al. (2001) studied the effect of four Glomus species (G. clarum, G. etunicatum, G. intraradices and G. mosseae) on the interaction between two cultivars of wheat and between those and the weed species Avena fatua. They obtained a different level of competitiveness and growth response depending on AMF species. This suggests that differences exist also between AMF species within the same genus.
Mixed AMF species influences the response of weeds to AMF infection. Li et al. (2016) reported that mycorrhizal growth responses were lower in weak host weeds than strong host crop and this difference was more pronounced under mixed AMF inoculum and low nutrient availability. On the other hand, van der Heijden et al. (1998b), using microcosm plant communities in which species diversity, varied from two to fourteen AMF species, demonstrated that plant community diversity and ecosystem productivity increased with increasing AMF species diversity, regardless of which AMF species was present. These results suggest that possible synergism may exist between different AMF species, especially when they belong to different genera (De la Providencia et al. 2005). The possibility of functional complementarity among AMF species must be taken into consideration when choosing AMF species to manage weeds and/or invasive species.
6 AMF-invasive plants interaction in unmanaged ecosystems
Invasive plants are one of the major threats to the natural environment. They may decimate the native plant community and threaten rare species or influence ecosystem properties (Razaida et al. 2008). Due to the widespread occurrence of AMF and its important role in communities and ecosystems (Brundrett 1991), the interaction between invasive species and AMF might have an important role in ecosystem functioning in natural habitats.
AM symbioses play important roles in plant coexistence and in ecosystem management programs that aims to preserve native species diversity (Sanon et al. 2009). They could also play a determining role in succession after a disturbance (Allen and Allen 1984, 1988; Gange et al. 1990, 1993). The AMF community is more diverse in natural areas (Hawkes et al. 2006; Oehl et al. 2010; Souza et al. 2016) and this diversity is a key contributor to the diversity and productivity of plant communities in natural environments (Van Der Heijden et al. 1998b). Thus, AMF-invasive plants interaction studies could elucidate our understanding about underground biotic factors that affect plant fitness and ecosystem performance. It could more specifically help in determining the potential of using AMF to deal with invasive plants in natural areas.
Invasive plants could impact adversely the abundance and diversity of AMF in the case of NM or low AMF dependent species. Invasive plants could affect indigenous AMF through exudation of allelochemicals inhibiting native mutualisms (Stinson et al. 2006). On the other hand, invasive plants that have a preference for a specific AMF species could enhance the abundance and proliferation of a particular AMF. Consequently, this will generate a positive feedback on the growth of invasive plants, enhancing thus its competitiveness at the expense of the native species (Zhang et al. 2010). Some studies by contrast, have found no change in AMF communities following plant invasions or the shift was judged not enough to be of ecological importance (Bunn et al. 2015).
Similarly, AMF have been found to determine plant community composition and function (Smith and Read 2008). Some experiments demonstrated that AMF could facilitate exotic plant invasions by increasing their competitiveness (Richardson et al. 1994). Stampe and Daehler (2003) found that the composition of the AMF community belowground reduces the success of a dominant species Melinis repens, which could promote invasion by the species Bidens pilosa. In some cases, AMF could promote certain invasive weeds by drawing assimilates from native species through AMF hyphae network (Marler et al. 1999) called “common mycorrhizal networks” (CMNs), while in other cases, AMF community could have a role in repelling plant invasion through alleviating allelopathic effects of invasive plants (Barto et al. 2010). This diversity in the outcome of the relationship between AMF, invasive and native species suggests that the potential of using AMF to manage invasive plants might depend on the degree of responsiveness to AMF colonization of both invasive and native species. As AMF associations were less frequently found among invasive plants than native species (Vogelsang et al. 2004; Pringle et al. 2009), the management strategy using AMF should focus on the mycorrhizal status of invasive plants (Fig. 2). For invasive plants that are not mycorrhizal or less dependent on AMF, native species could repel invasion upon AMF colonization through enhancing their competitive ability to the detriment of non-mycorrhizal invasive plants. With respect of mycorrhizal invasive plants, the traits to be determined should be firstly the degree of responsiveness to AMF colonization and secondly, the flexibility to be colonized by different AMF species. According to Moora et al. (2011) for example, the AMF-host symbiosis is relatively non-specific in terms of both plant and AMF partners. This low symbiosis specificity leads to suggest that a determined AMF species are, unlikely, to influence the invasion process because invading plants can form novel symbioses with universal AMF. However, the existence of specificity in the AMF-host relationship was also evidenced (Klironomos 2003; Stampe and Daehler 2003). Klironomos (2003) demonstrated that a mutualistic AMF-host relationship is more common in the case of interaction between locally adapted plants and AMF rather than if one partner (the plant or AMF species) is exotic. This suggests that the spread of invasive plants may be inhibited if required specific AMF species are lacking (Pringle et al. 2009). Therefore, AMF species could be useful to manage invasive plants (exotic species) in unmanaged ecosystems particularly if the invasive plants are characterized to be AMF host specific.
Invasive plants showing flexibility in the association with AMF species could be the most difficult species to deal with. So, a deeper understanding of the interaction between AMF and invasive plants, the interactions between AMF and native species as well as the interaction between AMF associated to native species and invasive plants, is needed. In fact, some weed species have been reported to have their specific microorganism community in the soil (Sarathchandra et al. 1997). Comparative studies to characterize the triple interactions (AMF-invasive plants-native species) should be undertaken as sometimes invasive plants were observed to be more colonized by AMF when grown in indirect competition with native species (Bunn et al. 2015). Invasive species that are facultative are more advantageous for successful establishment and spread (Menzel et al. 2017) because they can use multiple ecological strategies. Additional methodologies could be applied in this case to fight against invasive species using different modes of action.
7 Weed/invasive species management using commercial AMF inoculum
Nowadays, some regions throughout the world are already integrating AMF in intensive agriculture (Cuba, Mexico, Bolivia, Canada and India) (Zimmerman et al. 2009) and some companies (in North America and India) are producing and selling AMF inoculum to farmers. In fact, the potential of a AMF inoculum to increase growth and crop yields has been largely demonstrated (Cely et al. 2016; Adeyemi et al. 2020). However, the efficacy of commercially available AMF inocula in agricultural systems remains controversial. Various constraints still existing regarding AMF application at a large scale, which are mainly related to mass production inoculum and the availability of an immediate methodology to assess AMF colonization in natural and managed ecosystems. In fact, it is not always possible for a commercial inoculum to establish in a given environment (Vosátka et al. 2012). This could be attributed to an incompatibility with host species, local conditions and/or indigenous microorganisms.
For an efficient application of AMF at large scale, the main approach is to select AMF isolates that should be beneficial to a determined host species (best compatibility) and that are more efficient against determined weeds/invasive species (as we already discussed in triple interaction (AMF-weed-host) section). Also, it would be beneficial to consider the synergism that could exist between different AMF taxa (Jansa et al. 2008).
The second axis of investigation is that related to methodologies of mass production of AMF inoculum where the main hurdle lies in the fact that AMF have an obligate symbiont behavior. In spite of this, some advances are made regarding methods for large-scale production of AMF (Ijdo et al. 2011) and its coating on seed (Roy-Bolduc and Hijri 2012; Vosátka et al. 2012, Van der Heijden et al. 2015). The potential of using AMF as seed coating material to reduce significantly the amount of inoculum required is already reported (Oliveira et al. 2016).
The integration of AMF inoculum to a large scale could imply an extra-cost to farmers. However, we should take into account: i) the large saving in fertilizers given the role of AMF in plant nutrition (especially P uptake), ii) the reported role of AMF in stimulating growth and iii) the role of AMF in defense against biotic and abiotic factors. Furthermore, just a small amount of AMF inoculum could be required, especially for productions that imply a transplant stage. Besides, it has been shown that AMF inocula could persist in roots for at least two years after introduction (Pellegrino et al. 2012) and could be prorated in the soil over the years (Barr 2010).
From an ecological perspective, the use of AMF inoculum could benefit projects of reforestation and land recovery, enabling a good soil quality and avoiding soil and water contamination due to crop residues which will contribute to a long term sustainability of ecosystems. AMF inoculum could be introduced in natural ecosystems in small areas that would develop gradually with time in a mycelium network covering larger areas. All those advantages could exceed in terms of benefits, the cost of a commercial AMF inoculum (Fig. 3).
Taking into consideration all constraints related to commercial AMF inoculum, the best strategy (independently of using or not commercial AMF) should be the preservation of native AMF populations, both in natural and managed ecosystems, through adopting AMF-friendly practices such as minimizing tillage (Säle et al. 2015), cover cropping (Lehman et al. 2012), etc. In fact, indigenous AMF should have a better effect on weed and invasive species management in comparison to selected AMF species, for being well adapted to local conditions.
8 The management strategies of weeds and invasive plants using AMF: Conclusions and constraints
AMF could strongly affect the ecology of weeds and invasive plants. In fact, their growth could be promoted or suppressed depending on their mycorrhizal status and the degree of responsiveness to AMF colonization.
Antagonistic effect of AMF colonization was mostly obtained in the case of NM weed species. A strong antagonistic effect of AMF was observed in the case of the triple interaction AMF-weed-crop species which could be due to an increased suppression of weeds and/or to an enhanced growth of crop species. Indeed, AMF could enhance the competitive ability of M species (crop) by increasing nutrient acquisition, while NM weeds will be suppressed due to decreased nutrient availability in the soil and/or to increasing defense responses to AMF inoculation. The management of agricultural problematic weeds that are mycotrophic should be ensured by selecting crop varieties that are highly responsive to AMF colonization. Also, the specificity of the relationship in the case of the triple interaction should be taken into consideration to determine the best combination between AMF taxa, weeds and associated crop species.
It is noteworthy that the challenge of using AMF in agroecosystems lies in the fact that chemical compounds often used are very likely to kill microorganisms that are fundamentally important to plant functions, and could strongly affect plant population and community dynamics. The high amount of fertilizers will impact negatively AMF in two ways: i) in terms of decreasing AMF root colonization (Johnson 2010; Johnson et al. 1997) reducing thus the carbon expense of the plant and ii) decreasing AMF diversity and abundance (Jordan et al. 2000). So, the use of AMF in agroecosystems should be combined with other methods within an integrated weed management program as AMF could be decimated due to artificial conditions. Another aim should be the determination of growing conditions that could not alter AMF quantity and quality.
In spite of causing substantial yield loss, weeds exhibit some advantages to ecosystem functioning in terms of preservation of AMF communities and plant species richness. Their suppression but not whole eradication must be the aim of weed management thus enabling some level of equilibrium between the control of parasitism and preservation of biodiversity. Another goal should be the identification of weed species that can play an important role in maintaining beneficial effects of AMF on plant performance and soil quality.
With respect to invasive plants, the management strategy should also depend on their mycorrhizal status. NM invasive plants could be managed through enhancing the competitive ability of native species using AMF. Mycorrhizal invasive plants that exhibit specificity towards AMF could be managed using different AMF species. Further studies are needed in this context and the main goal should be to determine the responsiveness of invasive plants to colonization by specific AMF species. Till date, the identification of species as hosts or non-hosts is based on experiments evaluating just root colonization. However, this could not enable to distinguish soundly between parasitism and mutualism (Johnson et al. 1997). Invasive plants that do not exhibit specificity towards AMF are the most difficult to control, so additional methods should be combined with the use of AMF. The challenge of using AMF in natural areas to fight against invasive plants is the high amount of inoculum required for large superficies.
Otherwise, the use of AMF to manage weeds and invasive plants should take into account the advantage of using mixed AMF species that could result from synergism between different AMF taxa (Li et al. 2016). The possibility of the existence of a functional complementarity among AMF species must be taken into consideration when choosing AMF species to manage weeds and invasive plants.
We conclude that AMF could play important roles in alleviating the negative effects of unwanted species (weeds and invasive plants) both in highly managed systems in the presence of one species (crops) and in unmanaged systems with multi co-occurring species (natural ecosystems). The higher underground and aboveground diversity in natural areas makes difficult and complex the characterization of the triple interaction AMF-invasive plants-associated species due to the increased number of factors contributing to such interaction. More works should be done in this context to identify AMF species that could be used to manage specific invasive plants.
Abbreviations
- AMF :
-
Arbuscular Mycorrhizal fungi
- M :
-
Mycorrhizal
- NM :
-
Non-Mycorrhizal
References
Adeyemi NO, Atayese MO, Olubode AA, Akan ME (2020) Effect of commercial arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi inoculant on growth and yield of soybean under controlled and natural field conditions. J Plant Nutr 43(4):487–499
Allen EB, Allen MF (1984) Competition between plants of different successional stages: mycorrhizae as regulators. Can J Bot 62:2625–2629
Allen EB, Allen MF (1986) Water relations of xeric grasses in the field: interactions of mycorrhizae and competition. New Phytol 104:559–571
Allen EB, Allen MF (1988) Facilitation of succession by the non-mycotrophic colonizer Salsola kali (Chenopodiaceae) on a harsh site: effects of mycorrhizal fungi. Am J Bot 75:257–266
Allen MF, Allen EB, Friese CF (1989) Responses of the non-mycotrophic plant Salsola kali to invasion by vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol 111:45–49
Altieri MA (1999) The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 74:19–31
Barr J (2010) Restoration of plant communities in the Netherlands through the application of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Symbiosis 52:87–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13199-010-0105-z
Barto K, Friese C, Cipollini D (2010) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi protect a native plant from allelopathic effects of an invader. J Chem Ecol 36:351–360
Berruti A, Lumini E, Balestrini R, Bianciotto V (2016) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi as natural biofertilizers: Let's benefit from past successes. Front Microbiol 6:1556. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.01559
Bethlenfalvay GJ, Mihara KL, Schreiner RP, McDaniel H (1996) Mycorrhizae, biocides and biocontrol. 1. Herbicide-mycorrhiza interactions in soybean and cocklebur treated with Bentazon. Appl Soil Ecol 3:197–204
Bever JD, Morton JB, Antonovics J, Schultz PA (1996) Host-dependent sporulation and species diversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in a mown grassland. J Ecol 84:71–82
Bever JD, Schultz PA, Pringle A, Morton JB (2001) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: more diverse than meets the eye, and the ecological tale of why. BioScience 51:923–931
Bilalis D, Karkanis A, Konstantas A, Patsiali S, Triantafyllidis V (2011) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: a blessing or a curse for weed management in organic olive crops? Aust J Crop Sci 5:858–864
Brundrett M (1991) Mycorrhizas in natural ecosystems. Adv Ecol Res 21:171–313
Bunn RA, Ramsey PW, Lekberg Y (2015) Do native and invasive plants differ in their interactions with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi? A meta-analysis. J Ecol 103:1547–1556
Cameron DD (2010) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi as (agro) ecosystem engineers. Plant Soil 333:1–5
Cely MVT, de Oliveira AG, de Freitas VF, de Luca MB, Barazetti AR, dos Santos IMO, Gionco B, Garcia GV, Prete Cássio EC, Andrade G (2016) Inoculant of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (Rhizophagus clarus) increase yield of soybean and cotton under field conditions. Front Microbiol 7(720):1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00720
Curaqueo G, Acevedo E, Cornejo P, Seguel A, Rubio R, Borie F (2010) Tillage effect on soil organic matter, mycorrhizal hyphae and aggregates in a Mediterranean agroecosystem. Revista de la ciencia del suelo y nutrición vegetal 10(1):12–21. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27912010000100002
De la Providencia IE, Souza FA, Fernandez F, Séjalon-Delmas N, Declerck S (2005) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi reveal distinct patterns of anastomosis formation and hyphal healing mechanisms between different phylogenetic groups. New Phytol 165:261–271
Derelle D, Courty PE, Dajoz I, Declerck S, van Aarle IM, Carmignac D, Genet P (2015) Plant identity and density can influence arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi colonization, plant growth, and reproduction investment in coculture. Botany 93(7):405–412
Duponnois R, Plenchette C, Bâ A (2001) Growth stimulation of seventeen fallow leguminous plants inoculated with Glomus aggregatum in Senegal. Eur J Soil Biol 37:181–186
Elhag AZ, Musa TSA, Gafar MO (2015) The allelopathic effect of Euphorbia hirta and vesicular Arbuscular Mycorrhiza (VAM) on growth of eggplant (Solanum melongena L.). IJAAR 6:222–228
Facelli E, Smith SE, Smith FA (2009) Mycorrhizal symbiosis – overview and new insights into roles of arbuscular mycorrhizas in agro- and natural ecosystems. Australas Plant Pathol 38:338–344. https://doi.org/10.1071/AP09033
Francis R, Read DJ (1995) Mutualism and antagonism in the mycorrhizal symbiosis, with special reference to impacts on plant community structure. Can J Bot 73:1301–1309
Gange AC, Brown VK, Farmer LM (1990) A test of mycorrhizal benefit in an early successional plant community. New Phytol 115:85–91
Gange AC, Brown VK, Sinclair GS (1993) Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: a determinant of plant community structure in early succession. Funct Ecol 7:616–622
García-Garrido JM, Ocampo JA (2002) Regulation of the plant defense response in arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis. J Exp Bot 53:1377–1386
Gianinazzi-Pearson V, Gollotte A, Cordier C, Gianinazzi S (1996) Root defense responses in relation to cell and tissue invasion by symbiotic microorganisms: cytological investigations. In: Nicole M, Gianinazzi-Pearson V (eds) Histology, Ultrastructure and Molecular Cytology of Plant-Microorganism Interactions. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 127–191
Giovannetti M, Sbrana C (1998) Meeting a non-host: the behaviour of AM fungi. Mycorrhiza 8:123–130
Glenn MG, Chew FS, Williams PH (1985) Hyphal penetration of Brassica (Cruciferae) roots by a vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus. New Phytol 99:463–472
Gosling P, Shepherd M (2005) Long term changes in soil fertility in organic farming systems in England, with particular reference to phosphorus and potassium. Agric Ecosyst Environ 105:524–432
Graham JH (2000) Assessing costs of arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis agroecosystems fungi. In: Podila GK, Douds DD (eds) Current advances in Mycorrhizae research. APS Press, St. Paul, pp 127–140
Gworgwor NA, Weber HC (2003) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi-parasite-host interaction for the control of Striga hermonthica (Del.) Benth. in sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]. Mycorrhiza 13:277–281
Harding DP, Raizada MN (2015) Controlling weeds with fungi, bacteria and viruses: a review. Front Plant Sci 6:659
Harinikumar KM, Bagyaraj DJ (1988) Effect of crop rotation on native vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizal propagules in soil. Plant Soil 110:77–80
Hart M, Klironomos JN (2002) Diversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and ecosystem functioning. In: van der Heijden MGA, Sanders IR (eds) Mycorrhizal ecology. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 225–242
Hawkes CV, Belnap J, D’Antonio C, Firestone MK (2006) Arbuscular mycorrhizal assemblages in native plant roots change in the presence of invasive exotic grasses. Plant Soil 281:369–380
Hayman DS, Johnson AM, Ruddlesdin I (1975) The influence of phosphate and crop species on endogone spores and vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza under field conditions. Plant Soil 43:489–495
Heap I (2012) The international survey of herbicide resistant weeds. http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed 26 January 2021
Helgason T, Daniell TJ, Husband R, Fitter AH, Young JPY (1999) Ploughing up the wood-wide web? Nature:394–431
Hendrix JW, Guo BZ, An ZQ (1995) Divergence of mycorrhizal fungal communities in crop production systems. Plant Soil 170:131–140
Holzner W, Numata M (2013) Biology and ecology of weeds, Vol. 2. Springer Science and Business Media, New York
Ijdo M, Cranenbrouck S, Declerck S (2011) Methods for large-scale production of AM fungi: past, present, and future. Mycorrhiza 21:1–16
Izquierdo J, Recasens J, Fernandez-Quintanilla C, Gill G (2003) The effects of crop and weed densities on the interactions between barley and Lolium rigidum in several Mediterranean locations. Agronomie 23(4):529–536
Janos DP (2007) Plant responsiveness to mycorrhizas differs from dependence upon mycorrhizas. Mycorrhiza 17:75–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00572-006-0094-1
Jansa J, Smith FA, Smith SE (2008) Are there benefits of simultaneous root colonization by different arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi? New Phytol 177:779–789
Johnson NC (1998) Responses of Salsola kali and Panicum virgatum to mycorrhizal fungi, phosphorus and soil organic matter: implications for reclamation. J Appl Ecol 35:86–94
Johnson NC (2010) Resource stoichiometry elucidates the structure and function of arbuscular mycorrhizas across scales. New Phytol 185:631–647. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03110.x
Johnson NC, Graham JH, Smith FA (1997) Functioning of mycorrhizal associations along the mutualism-parasitism continuum. New Phytol 135:575–585
Jones MD, Smith SE (2004) Exploring functional definitions of mycorrhizas: are mycorrhizas always mutualisms? Can J Bot 82:1089–1109
Jordan NR, Zhang J, Huerd S (2000) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: potential roles in weed management. Weed Res 40:397–410
Karasawa T, Takebe M (2011) Temporal or spatial arrangements of cover crops to promote arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization and P uptake of upland crops grown after nonmycorrhizal crops. Plant Soil 353:355–366
Klironomos JN (2003) Variation in plant response to native and exotic arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Ecology 84:2292–2301
Koide R (1985) The nature of growth depressions in sunflower caused by vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal infection. New Phytol 99:449–462
Koide RT, Kabir Z (2000) Extraradical hyphae of the Mycorrhizal fungus Glomus intraradices can hydrolyse organic phosphate. New Phytol 148:511–517. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2000.00776.x
Koide RT, Lu X (1992) Mycorrhizal infection of wild oats: maternal effects on offspring growth and reproduction. Oecologia 90:218–226
Kubota H, Quideau SA, Hucl PJ, Spaner DM (2015) The effect of weeds on soil arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and agronomic traits in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under organic management in Canada. Can J Plant Sci 95:615–627
Kurle JE, Pfleger FL (1994) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus spore populations respond to conversions between low-input and conventional management practices in a corn-soybean rotation. Agron J 86:467–475
Lehman RM, Taheri WI, Osborne SL, Buyer JS, Douds DD Jr (2012) Fall cover cropping can increase arbuscular mycorrhizae in soils supporting intensive agricultural production. Agric Ecosyst Environ Appl Soil Ecol 61:300–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2011.11.008
Li M (2017) Impact of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on crop and weed growth: potential implications for integrated weed managment. Ph.D. Dissertation, Illinois. http://hdl.handle.net/2142/97693
Li H, Smith FA, Dickson S, Holloway RE, Smith SE (2008) Plant growth depressions in arbuscular mycorrhizal symbioses: not just caused by carbon drain. New Phytol 178:852–862
Li M, Jordan NR, Koide RT, Yannarell AC, Davis AS (2016) Meta-analysis of crop and weed growth responses to Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi: implications for integrated Weed Management. Weed Sci 64:642–652
Lincoln RJ, Boxshall GA, Clarck PF (1998) A dictionary of ecology, evolution and systematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Magdoff F (1995) Soil quality and management. In: Altieri MA (ed) Agroecology: the science of sustainable agriculture. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, pp 349–364
Malik N, Charaya MU (2013) Deleterious rhizosphere microbes, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and quorum management as emerging tools for the biological management of weeds. Vegetos 26:246–258
Marler MJ, Zabinski CA, Callaway RM (1999) Mycorrhizae indirectly enhance competitive effects of an invasive forb on a native bunchgrass. Ecology 80:1180–1186
Massenssini AM, Bonduki VH, Tótola MR, Ferreira FA, Costa MD (2014) Arbuscular mycorrhizal associations and occurrence of dark septate endophytes in the roots of Brazilian weed plants. Mycorrhiza 24:153–159
Menzel A, Hempel S, Klotz S et al (2017) Mycorrhizal status helps explain invasion success of alien plant species. Ecology 98:92–102
Moora M, Berger S, Davison J, Öpik M, Bommarco R, Bruelheide H, Kühn I, Kunin WE, Metsis M, Rortais A, Vanatoa A, Vanatoa E, Stout JC, Truusa M, Westphal C, Zobel M, Walther GR (2011) Alien plants associate with widespread generalist arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal taxa: evidence from a continental-scale study using massively parallel 454 sequencing. J Biogeogr 38:1305–1317
Mosse B (1972) Effects of different Endogone strains on the growth of Paspalum notatum. Nature 239:221–223
O’Connor PJ, Smith SE, Smith FA (2002) Arbuscular mycorrhizas influence plant diversity and community structure in a semiarid herbland. New Phytol 154:209–218
Oehl F, Laczko E, Bogenrieder A, Stahr K, Bösch R, van der Heijden M, Sieverding E (2010) Soil type and land use intensity determine the composition of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities. Soil Biol Biochem 42:724–738
Oerke EC (2006) Crop losses to pests. J Agric Sci 144:31–43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859605005708
Oerke EC, Dehne HW (1997) Global crop production and the efficacy of crop protection—current situation and future trends. Eur J Plant Pathol 103:203–215
Oliveira RS, Rocha I, Ma Y et al (2016) Seed coating with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi as an ecotechnological approach for sustainable agricultural production of common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) J Toxicol environ health. Part A 79:329–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2016.1153448
Othira JO, Omolo JO, Wachira FN, Onek LA (2012) Effectiveness of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in protection of maize (Zea mays L.) against witchweed (Striga hermonthica Del Benth) infestation. J Agric Biotechnol Sustain Dev 4(3):37–44
Pellegrino E, Turrini A, Gamper HA, Cafà G, Bonari E, Young JPW, Giovannetti M (2012) Establishment, persistence and effectiveness of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal inoculants in the field revealed using molecular genetic tracing and measurement of yield components. New Phytol 194:810–822
Peruzzi A, Barberi P, Ginanni M, Raffaelli M, Silvestri N (1997) Prove sperimentali di controllo meccanico delle infestanti del frumento mediante erpice strigliatore (Field experiments on mechanical weed control with the finger-harrow in wheat). In: Proceedings VI National Conference of Agricultural Engineering, Ancona (I), 11-12 September, pp. 669–678. (in Italian with English abstract)
Plenchette C (1989) Potentiel infectieux mycorhizogène du sol des parcelles du dispositif Deherain. C R Acad Fr 75:23–29
Powell CL (1982) Effect of kale and mustard crops on response of white clover to VAM inoculation in pot trial. NZJ Agric Res 25:461–464
Pringle A, Bever JD, Gardes M, Parrent JL, Rillig MC, Klironomos JN (2009) Mycorrhizal symbioses and plant invasions. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 40:699–715
Qiao X, Bei S, Li H, Christie P, Zhang F, Zhang J (2016) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi contribute to overyielding by enhancing crop biomass while suppressing weed biomass in intercropping systems. Plant Soil 406:173–185
Quilambo OA (2000) Functioning of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) under nutrient deficiency and drought stress in relation to symbiotic associations. PhD dissertation. University of Groningen, Netherlands
Radić T, Hančević K, Likar M, Protega I, Jug-Dujaković I (2012) Neighbouring weeds influence the formation of arbuscular mycorrhiza in grapevine. Symbiosis 563:111–120
Razaida P, Raghubanshi AS, Singh JS (2008) Impact of invasive alien plant species on soil processes: a review. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 78:288–298
Relyea RA (2005) The impact of insecticides and herbicides on the biodiversity and productivity of aquatic communities. Ecol Appl 15:618–627. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-5342
Richardson DM, Williams PA, Hobbs RJ (1994) Pine invasions in the southern hemisphere-determinants of spread and invadability. J Biogeogr 21:511–527
Rinaudo V, Bàrberi P, Giovanneti M, van der Heijden MGA (2010) Mycorrhizal fungi suppress aggressive agricultural weeds. Plant Soil 333:7–20
Ronsheim M (2012) The effect of Mycorrhizae on plant growth and reproduction varies with soil phosphorus and developmental stage. Am Midl Nat 167(1):28–39
Roy-Bolduc A, Hijri M (2012) The use of mycorrhizae to enhance phosphorus uptake: a way out the phosphorus crisis. J Biofert Biopest 2:104. https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-6202.1000104
Säle V, Aguilera P, Laczko E, Mäder P, Berner A, Zihlmann U, van der Heijden MGA, Oehl F (2015) Impact of conservation tillage and organic farming on the diversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Soil Biol Biochem 84:38–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.02.005
Sanon A, Béguiristain T, Cébron A, Berthelin J, Ndoye I, Leyval C, Sylla S, Duponnois R (2009) Changes in soil diversity and global activities following invasions of the exotic invasive plant, Amaranthus viridis L., decrease the growth of native sahelian Acacia species. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 70:118–131
Sarathchandra SU, Burch G, Cox NR (1997) Growth patterns of bacterial communities in the rhizoplane and rhizosphere of white clover (Trifolium repens L.) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) in long-term pasture. Appl Soil Ecol 6:293–299
Scheublin TR, Van Logtestijn RSP, Van Der Heijden MGA (2007) Presence and identity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi influence competitive interactions between plant species. J Ecol 95(4):631–638
Schmidt SK, Reeves FB (1984) Effect of the non-mycorrhizal pioneer plant Salsola kali L. (Chenopodiaceae) on vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae (VAM) fungi. Am J Bot 71:1035–1039
Schnoor TK, Lekberg Y, Rosendahl S, Olsson PA (2011) Mechanical soil disturbance as a determinant of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities in natural grassland. Mycorrhiza 21:211–220
Schroeder-Moreno MS, Janos DP (2008) Intra- and inter-specific density affects plant growth responses to arbuscular mycorrhizas. Botany 86:1180–1193
Smith SE, Read DJ (2008) Mycorrhizal symbioses, 3rd edn. Academic Press, New York
Smith SE, Smith FA, Jakobsen I (2003) Mycorrhizal fungi can dominate phosphate supply to plants irrespective of growth responses. Plant Physiol 133:16–20. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp. 103.024380
Smith SE, Smith FA, Jakobsen I (2004) Functional diversity in arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) symbioses: the contribution of the mycorrhizal P uptake pathway is not correlated with mycorrhizal responses in growth or total P uptake. New Phytol 162:511–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01039.x
Smith SE, Facelli E, Pope S, Smith FA (2010) Plant performance in stressful environments: interpreting new and established knowledge of the roles of arbuscular mycorrhizas. Plant Soil 326:3–20
Souza TAF, Rodriguez-Echeverría S, Alves de Andrade L, Freitas H (2016) Could biological invasion by Cryptostegia madagascariensis alter the composition of the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal community in semi-arid Brazil? Acta Bot Bras 30(1):93–101
Stampe ED, Daehler CC (2003) Mycorrhizal species identity affect plant community structure and invasion: a microcosm study. Oikos 100:362–372
Stinson KA, Campbell SA, Powell JR, Wolfe BE, Callaway RM, Thelen GC, Hallett SG, Prati D, Klironomos JN (2006) Invasive plant suppresses the growth of native tree seedlings by disrupting belowground mutualisms. PLoS Biol 4(5):e140
Streitwolf-Engel R, Boller T, Wiemken A, Sanders IR (1997) Clonal growth traits of two Prunella species are determined by co-occurring arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi from a calcareous grassland. J Ecol 85:181–191
Sylvia DM (1998) Mycorrhizal symbioses. In: Sylvia DM, Hartel P, Fuhrmann J, Zuberer D (eds) Principles and applications of soil microbiology. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, pp 408–426
Tester M, Smith SE, Smith FA (1987) The phenomenon of "nonmycorrhizal" plants. Can J Bot 65:419–431
Van der Heijden MGA, Boller T, Weimken A, Sanders IR (1998a) Different arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal species are potential determinants of plant community structure. Ecology 79:2082–2091
Van der Heijden MGA, Klironomos JN, Ursic M et al (1998b) Mycorrhizal fungal diversity determines plant biodiversity, ecosystem variability and productivity. Nature 396:72–75
Van der Heijden MGA, Martin FM, Selosse MA, Sanders IR (2015) Mycorrhizal ecology and evolution: the past, the present and the future. New Phytol 205:1406–1423. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13288
Vatovec C, Jordan N, Huerd S (2005) Responsiveness of certain agronomic weed species to arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Renew Agr Food Syst 20(3):181–189
Veiga RSL, Jansa J, Frossard E, Van Der Heijden MGA (2011) Can arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi reduce the growth of agricultural weeds? PLoS One 6:e27825
Veiga RSL, Howard K, Van Der Heijden MGA (2012) No evidence for allelopathic effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on the non-host plant Stellaria media. Plant Soil 360:319–331
Veiga RSL, Faccio A, Genre A, Pieterse CM, Bonfante P, van der Heijden MG (2013) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi reduce growth and infects roots of the non-host plant Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell Environ 36:1926–1937
Vogelsang KM, Bever JD, Griswoldand MSP, Schultz PA (2004) The use of mycorrhizal fungi in erosion control applications: California Department of Transportation. Sacramento, California. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/38113
Vosátka M, Látr A, Gianinazzi S, Albrechtová J (2012) Development of arbuscular mycorrhizal biotechnology and industry: current achievements and bottlenecks. Symbiosis 58:29–37
Watts-Williams SJ, Cavagnaro T, Tyerman SD (2019) Variable effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal inoculation on physiological and molecular measures of root and stomatal conductance of diverse Medicago truncatula accessions. Plant Cell Environ 42(1):285–294
Weiner J (1990) Asymmetric competition in plant populations. Trends Ecol Evol 11:360–364
Wilson GWT, Hartnett DC (1998) Interspecific variation in plant responses to mycorrhizal colonization in tallgrass prairie. Am J Bot 85:1732–1738
Xavier L, Boyetchko S, Derksen D (2001) Interactions between wild oat and a weed-competitive and noncompetitive wheat cultivar as influenced by Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi. Conf Proc 347-352. https://harvest.usask.ca/handle/10388/9884. Accessed 18 Feb 2021
Zhang Q, Yang R, Tang J, Yang H, Hu S, Chen S (2010) Positive feedback between mycorrhizal fungi and plants influences plant invasion success and resistance to invasion. PLoS One 5:e12380
Zhu YG, Smith FA, Smith SE (2003) Phosphorus efficiencies and responses of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) to arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi grown in highly calcareous soil. Mycorrhiza 13:93–100
Zimmerman E, St-Arnaud M, Hijri M (2009) Sustainable agriculture and the multigenomic model: how advances in the genetics of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi will change soil management practices. In: Bouarab K, Brisson N, Daayf F (eds) Molecular plant-microbe interactions. CABI, Québec, Canada, pp 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845935740.0269
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Xavier Aranda Frattarola (IRTA de Cabrils, Barcelona), Stefan Schnitzer (Marquette University) and Marta Lopes (Higher Council for Scientific Research, CSIC Zaragoza) for valuable discussions and comments and we would like to express our gratitude to Thomas Kursar (University of Utah) for the correction of the language of this manuscript.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
El Omari, B., El Ghachtouli, N. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi-weeds interaction in cropping and unmanaged ecosystems: a review. Symbiosis 83, 279–292 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13199-021-00753-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13199-021-00753-9