ORCID Profile
0000-0002-3556-5883
Current Organisation
University of Potsdam
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 11-02-2023
DOI: 10.1007/S11104-023-05908-9
Abstract: Plants condition the soil in which they grow, thereby altering the performance of subsequent plants growing in this soil. This phenomenon, known as plant-soil feedback (PSF), has garnered increasing interest. Experiments are moving from single species soil pairings in the glasshouse to community-level field trials. Consequently, our knowledge of the role PSF plays in shaping ecosystem functions has advanced. However, knowledge gaps remain. Here, we explore intrinsic and extrinsic abiotic and biotic drivers of PSF such as maternal effects, plant functional traits, self-DNA, plant-plant competition, herbivory, interactions between soil organisms, temperature, drought, flooding, greenhouse gases, (micro)nutrients, plant-litter-soil feedback and priority effects. These drivers have begun to feature in experiments, thereby increasing our mechanistic understanding of PSF. Nonetheless, many of these topics have received insufficient coverage to determine general principles across larger temporal and spatial scales. Further, conflicting terminology has excluded PSF studies from reviews and meta-analyses. We review terms such as soil sickness, Janzen-Connell hypothesis, soil-related invasive species work, soil legacies, allelopathy and soil-related succession that overlap with PSF but are generally not named as such. Holistic experimental designs that consider the continual reciprocal feedback between the extrinsic environment, plants and soil, as well as the unification of terminologies are necessary if we are to realise the full potential of PSF for understanding and steering ecosystem processes. Here, we compile outstanding questions related to PSF research that emphasis the aforementioned topics and suggest ways to incorporate them into future research in order to advance plant-soil ecology.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 27-01-2021
DOI: 10.1002/ECE3.7167
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 09-10-2023
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 04-2023
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 12-08-2022
DOI: 10.1007/S11258-022-01259-0
Abstract: Studies investigating the effect of aboveground herbivory on plants often use clipping to simulate the effects of herbivores, for practical reasons. However, herbivore movements and transfer of oral secretions during herbivory may cause a different response in plant physiology and morphology compared to clipping. While studies have compared effects of real herbivory vs. clipping on biomass production, plant physiology, and shoot morphology, no study has compared such effects on root morphology. Therefore, we investigated the effect of herbivory by grasshoppers, herbivory simulated by clipping, and no herbivory on root morphological traits of ten grassland plant species. Root morphological traits were differently affected by the two herbivory treatments. Grasshopper herbivory significantly changed root morphology toward thinner roots with increased specific root length and root area, and decreased root tissue density compared to untreated control plants. Clipping had mostly similar, but weaker effects on root morphology than grasshopper herbivory. On the species level, grasshopper herbivory led to strongest changes in root morphology in almost all cases. In contrast, depending on the species, clipping resulted in varying root morphological trait values similar to grasshopper-damaged plants, or in some cases, more closely aligned with control plants. Though clipping was partly able to mimic the effects of herbivory by grasshoppers, results also indicate that, depending on the species, grasshopper herbivory had different but mostly stronger effects. We, therefore, recommend that future studies apply herbivory with real herbivores to better reflect natural responses in plants and related processes that root morphological traits mediate.
Publisher: Pensoft Publishers
Date: 27-09-2019
DOI: 10.3897/BDJ.7.E36387
Abstract: The 150 grassland plots were located in three study regions in Germany, 50 in each region. The dataset describes the yearly grassland management for each grassland plot using 116 variables. General information includes plot identifier, study region and survey year. Additionally, grassland plot characteristics describe the presence and starting year of drainage and whether arable farming had taken place 25 years before our assessment, i.e. between 1981 and 2006. In each year, the size of the management unit is given which, in some cases, changed slightly across years. Mowing, grazing and fertilisation were systematically surveyed: Mowing is characterised by mowing frequency (i.e. number of cuts per year), dates of cutting and different technical variables, such as type of machine used or usage of conditioner. For grazing , the livestock species and age (e.g. cattle, horse, sheep), the number of animals, stocking density per hectare and total duration of grazing were recorded. As a derived variable, the mean grazing intensity was then calculated by multiplying the livestock units with the duration of grazing per hectare [LSU days/ha]. Different grazing periods during a year, partly involving different herds, were summed up to an annual grazing intensity for each grassland. For fertilisation , information on the type and amount of different types of fertilisers was recorded separately for mineral and organic fertilisers, such as solid farmland manure, slurry and mash from a bioethanol factory. Our fertilisation measures neglect dung dropped by livestock during grazing. For each type of fertiliser, we calculated its total nitrogen content, derived from chemical analyses by the producer or agricultural guidelines (Table 3). All three management types, mowing, fertilisation and grazing, were used to calculate a combined land use intensity index (LUI) which is frequently used to define a measure for the land use intensity. Here, fertilisation is expressed as total nitrogen per hectare [kg N/ha], but does not consider potassium and phosphorus. Information on additional management practices in grasslands was also recorded including levelling, to tear-up matted grass covers, rolling, to remove surface irregularities, seed addition, to close gaps in the sward. Investigating the relationship between human land use and bio ersity is important to understand if and how humans affect it through the way they manage the land and to develop sustainable land use strategies. Quantifying land use (the ‘X’ in such graphs) can be difficult as humans manage land using a multitude of actions, all of which may affect bio ersity, yet most studies use rather simple measures of land use, for ex le, by creating land use categories such as conventional vs. organic agriculture. Here, we provide detailed data on grassland management to allow for detailed analyses and the development of land use theory. The raw data have already been used for & 100 papers on the effect of management on bio ersity (e.g. Manning et al. 2015).
No related grants have been discovered for Johannes Heinze.