Tricks of the underground trade: networking below the vines

Life in the soil can be a tricky business for plants and microbes. Nutrients are a limited commodity for some, and competitors may swindle and cheat to gain the upper hand. Strategic partnerships are highly sought after enabling exchange of one commodity for another within elaborate networks.

In a tough economy, well-connected networks promote resilience, sharing of ideas and opportunity to those participating in mutual exchange. However, an efficient network should be an intentional one. Making simple connections is one thing, but choosing the right friends and trade partners is another.

Although it may not appear that obvious on the surface, most land plants are proficient networkers. Below ground, plants form selective partnerships with microorganisms in the soil to access nutrients, water, and protection from pathogens. Those with strong networks are favoured in times of scarcity and change.

Fungal mycelium consisting of thread-like hyphae. Photo by Lex vB at Dutch Wikipedia, (CC0 1.0)

Within soil communities, fungi known as mycorrhizae play a major role in the growth and survival of plants. It is estimated that more than 80% of vascular plants form partnerships with mycorrhizae, an ancient evolutionary network approximately 450 million years old.

Mycorrhizae are of particular importance in the viticultural industry as grapevines are highly reliant on these partnerships for growth and nutrient uptake influencing grape composition, vine health and occurrence of disease. In fact, grapevines form associations with entire communities of mycorrhizae known as arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF).

AMF form close associations within the root tissue of plant hosts through specialized tree-like structures called arbuscules. These allow exchange of mineral nutrients from the soil for carbon fixed by the plant host which is transferred through the extensive hyphal network in the soil. These hyphae form interconnected “superhighways” within the soil, linking neighbouring vines and nearby crops transferring nutrients, such as nitrogen, from one host to another.

Arbuscule of Rhizophagus irregularis colonising a plant root. Photo by Hector Montero, Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

AMF are highly diverse and have different effects on nutrient uptake and growth on grapevines. Depending on the situation, AMF can have positive, neutral, or negative effects on plant growth and stress resistance. However, under field conditions, plants are selective in the networks they build. These communities perform a diverse range of functions which collectively contribute to plant health and characteristics. Therefore, investing in the right trade partners is crucial.

Until recently, the effects of whole AMF communities on grapevines had been largely unexplored. A research project at Lincoln University lead by Dr. Romy Moukarzel sought to understand how AMF different communities influence nutrient uptake and growth of different grapevine rootstocks. 

In other words, who are the trade partners behind the vines and what is the return from these communities?

To answer these questions, AMF communities were recovered from the roots of three different grapevine rootstocks across three different vineyards. Each rootstock was inoculated with its own (“home”) community or communities from other rootstocks (“away”) within three different vineyards. Vine growth, nutrient uptake, and chlorophyll levels were measured to find out if different communities had positive or negative effects on the different rootstocks.

Consistent with previous work, different vineyards and rootstocks had their own unique communities. Growth and nutrient uptake differed depending on the composition of the community and rootstocks responded differently to the same communities. While some species in these communities improved nutrient uptake, others improved growth. In particular, a diverse community with a large representation of AMF of the Glomeraceae family resulted in the greatest increase in grapevine growth.

In one vineyard, home advantage was also evident with “home” communities having greater increase in vine growth compared to “away” communities. Interestingly, when the amount of each AMF inoculum was equalised, home advantage was no longer observed.

By changing the community composition, the positive effects on plant growth were reduced.

New Zealand vineyard. Photo by Jorge Royan (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Moukarzel and colleagues suggested that altering the composition may have resulted in competition between AMF leading to reduced positive effects on the host. AMF are known to compete for host resources, soil nutrients and colonisation sites. As a result, cooperation, and rivalry between AMF within different communities may have major implications for vine productivity.

So, what can grapevines teach us about networking?

Basically, choose your trade partners wisely. Identify friends and adversaries within the network and invest in those relationships with the greatest return.

As proposed by marketing expert, Porter Gale: the so-called ‘new model’ of networking should focus less on ‘handing out as many business cards as possible’ and more on making connections based on how you want to grow. In other words, efficient networking should focus on investing in specific needs and interests. A well connected network with diverse partners offers wide opportunity and stability if components are co-operative.

Overall, the findings generated from the study will be an invaluable insight towards leveraging AMF communities to target specific growth and nutrient requirements of grapevines. This is of particular importance to the viticultural industry as the composition of these communities play an important role in determining vine health, yield, nutrition, grape composition, and wine characteristics.

Featured image: vineyard inter-row by rawpixel.com (CC0 1.0)

While this study has provided a step towards understanding the communities below the vines, soil is a complex system with a wide range of players and there is much to learn about the orchestration of these networks. There are likely many more tricks of the underground trade to uncover.

Moukarzel, R., Ridgway, H. J., Waller, L., Guerin-Laguette, A., Cripps-Guazzone, N., & Jones, E. E. (2022). Soil Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Communities Differentially Affect Growth and Nutrient Uptake by Grapevine Rootstocks. Microbial Ecologyhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-022-02160-z

This article was prepared by a Master of Science postgraduate student Malina Hargreaves as part of the ECOL608 Research Methods in Ecology course.

Comments

Leave a Reply

Discover more from EcoLincNZ

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading