loading page

Placing plant-soil feedbacks in the context of plant community growth
  • +3
  • Josephine Grenzer,
  • Andrew Kulmatiski,
  • Leslie Forero,
  • Anne Ebeling,
  • Nico Eisenhauer,
  • Jeanette Norton
Josephine Grenzer
Utah State University

Corresponding Author:[email protected]

Author Profile
Andrew Kulmatiski
Utah State University
Author Profile
Leslie Forero
Utah State University
Author Profile
Anne Ebeling
University Jena
Author Profile
Nico Eisenhauer
Universitat Leipzig Fakultat fur Biowissenschaften Pharmazie und Psychologie
Author Profile
Jeanette Norton
Utah State University
Author Profile


1. Plant-soil feedback (PSF) has gained attention as a mechanism promoting plant growth and coexistence. However, because most PSF research has measured monoculture growth in greenhouse conditions, field-based PSF experiments remain an important frontier for PSF research. 2. Using a four-year, factorial field experiment in Jena, Germany, we measured the growth of nine grassland species on soils conditioned by each of the target species (i.e., PSF). Plant community models were parameterized with or without these PSF effects, and model predictions were compared to plant biomass production in new and existing diversity-productivity experiments. 3. Plants created soils that changed subsequent plant biomass by 36%. However, because they were both positive and negative, the net PSF effect was 14% less growth on ‘home’ than ‘away’ soils. At the species level, seven of nine species realized non-neutral PSFs, but the two dominant species grew only 2% less on home than away soils. At the species*soil type level, 31 of 72 PSFs differed from zero. 4. In current and pre-existing diversity-productivity experiments, nine-species plant communities produced 37 to 29% more biomass than monocultures due primarily to selection effects. Null and PSF models predicted 29 to 28% more biomass for polycultures than monocultures, again due primarily to selection effects. 5. Synthesis: In field conditions, PSFs were large enough to be expected to cause roughly 14% overyielding due to complementarity, however, in plant communities overyielding was caused by selections effects, not complementarity effects. Further, large positive and large negative PSFs were associated with subdominant species, suggesting there may be selective pressure for plants to create neutral PSF. Broadly, results highlighted the importance of testing PSF effects in communities because there are several ways in which PSFs may be more or less important to plant growth in communities than suggested from simple PSF values.
19 Mar 2021Submitted to Ecology and Evolution
20 Mar 2021Submission Checks Completed
20 Mar 2021Assigned to Editor
20 Mar 2021Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
18 Apr 2021Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
27 May 20211st Revision Received
28 May 2021Submission Checks Completed
28 May 2021Assigned to Editor
28 May 2021Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
06 Jun 2021Editorial Decision: Accept