Morris William F, Hufbauer Ruth A, Agrawal Anurag A, Bever James D, Borowicz Victoria A, Gilbert Gregory S, Maron John L, Mitchell Charles E, Parker Ingrid M, Power Alison G, Torchin Mark E, Vázquez Diego P
Department of Biology, Duke University, Box 90338, Durham, North Carolina 27708-0338, USA.
Ecology. 2007 Apr;88(4):1021-9. doi: 10.1890/06-0442.
Plants engage in multiple, simultaneous interactions with other species; some (enemies) reduce and others (mutualists) enhance plant performance. Moreover, effects of different species may not be independent of one another; for example, enemies may compete, reducing their negative impact on a plant. The magnitudes of positive and negative effects, as well as the frequency of interactive effects and whether they tend to enhance or depress plant performance, have never been comprehensively assessed across the many published studies on plant-enemy and plant-mutualist interactions. We performed a meta-analysis of experiments in which two enemies, two mutualists, or an enemy and a mutualist were manipulated factorially. Specifically, we performed a factorial meta-analysis using the log response ratio. We found that the magnitude of (negative) enemy effects was greater than that of (positive) mutualist effects in isolation, but in the presence of other species, the two effects were of comparable magnitude. Hence studies evaluating single-species effects of mutualists may underestimate the true effects found in natural settings, where multiple interactions are the norm and indirect effects are possible. Enemies did not on average influence the effects on plant performance of other enemies, nor did mutualists influence the effects of mutualists. However, these averages mask significant and large, but positive or negative, interactions in individual studies. In contrast, mutualists ameliorated the negative effects of enemies in a manner that benefited plants; this overall effect was driven by interactions between pathogens and belowground mutualists (bacteria and mycorrhizal fungi). The high frequency of significant interactive effects suggests a widespread potential for diffuse rather than pairwise coevolutionary interactions between plants and their enemies and mutualists. Pollinators and mycorrhizal fungi enhanced plant performance more than did bacterial mutualists. In the greenhouse (but not the field), pathogens reduced plant performance more than did herbivores, pathogens were more damaging to herbaceous than to woody plants, and herbivores were more damaging to crop than to non-crop plants (suggesting evolutionary change in plants or herbivores following crop domestication). We discuss how observed differences in effect size might be confounded with methodological differences among studies.
植物与其他物种同时进行多种相互作用;一些物种(敌人)会降低植物的表现,而另一些物种(互利共生者)则会增强植物的表现。此外,不同物种的影响可能并非相互独立;例如,敌人之间可能存在竞争,从而减少它们对植物的负面影响。在众多已发表的关于植物-敌人和植物-互利共生者相互作用的研究中,正面和负面影响的程度、相互作用效应的频率以及它们是倾向于增强还是抑制植物表现,从未得到全面评估。我们对实验进行了一项元分析,在这些实验中,两个敌人、两个互利共生者或一个敌人和一个互利共生者被作为因子进行操控。具体而言,我们使用对数响应比进行了因子元分析。我们发现,单独来看,(负面的)敌人效应的程度大于(正面的)互利共生者效应,但在存在其他物种的情况下,这两种效应的程度相当。因此,评估互利共生者单物种效应的研究可能低估了在自然环境中发现的真实效应,在自然环境中,多种相互作用是常态且可能存在间接效应。敌人平均而言不会影响其他敌人对植物表现的影响,互利共生者也不会影响其他互利共生者的影响。然而,这些平均值掩盖了个别研究中显著且大的、但为正面或负面的相互作用。相比之下,互利共生者以有利于植物的方式减轻了敌人的负面影响;这种总体效应是由病原体与地下互利共生者(细菌和菌根真菌)之间的相互作用驱动的。显著相互作用效应的高频率表明,植物与其敌人和互利共生者之间广泛存在着扩散而非成对的协同进化相互作用的潜力。传粉者和菌根真菌比细菌互利共生者更能增强植物表现。在温室(而非田间)中,病原体比食草动物更能降低植物表现,病原体对草本植物的损害比对木本植物更大,食草动物对作物的损害比对非作物植物更大(这表明作物驯化后植物或食草动物发生了进化变化)。我们讨论了观察到的效应大小差异可能如何与研究之间的方法学差异相混淆。