AUTHOR=Beals Kendall K. , Moore Jessica A. M. , Kivlin Stephanie N. , Bayliss Shannon L. J. , Lumibao Candice Y. , Moorhead Leigh C. , Patel Megan , Summers Jennifer L. , Ware Ian M. , Bailey Joseph K. , Schweitzer Jennifer A. TITLE=Predicting Plant-Soil Feedback in the Field: Meta-Analysis Reveals That Competition and Environmental Stress Differentially Influence PSF JOURNAL=Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution VOLUME=8 YEAR=2020 URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2020.00191 DOI=10.3389/fevo.2020.00191 ISSN=2296-701X ABSTRACT=

Past research on plant-soil feedbacks (PSF), largely undertaken in highly controlled greenhouse conditions, has established that plant species differentially alter abiotic and biotic soil conditions that in turn affect growth of other conspecific and heterospecific individuals in that soil. Yet, whether feedbacks under controlled greenhouse conditions reflect feedbacks in natural environments where plants are exposed to a range of abiotic and biotic pressures is still unresolved. To address how environmental context affects PSF, we conducted a meta-analysis of previously published studies that examined plant growth responses to multiple forms of competition, stress, and disturbance across various PSF methodology. We asked the following questions: (1) Can competition, stress, and disturbance alter the direction and/or strength of PSF? (2) Do particular types of competition, stress, or disturbance affect the direction and/or strength of PSF more than others? and (3) Do methods of conducting PSF research (i.e., greenhouse vs. field experiments and whether the source of soil inoculum conditioning is from the field vs. greenhouse) affect plant growth responses to PSF or competition, stress, and disturbance, or their interactions? We discovered four patterns that may be predictive of what future PSF studies conducted under more realistic conditions might reveal. First, relatively little is known about how PSF responds to environmental stress and disturbance compared to plant-plant competition. Second, specific types of competition enhanced negative effects of soil microbes on plant growth, and specific environmental stressors enhanced positive effects of soil microbes on plant growth. Third, whether PSF experiments are conducted in the field or greenhouse can change plant growth responses. And, fourth, how the soil conditioning phase is conducted can change plant growth responses. With more detail than previously shown, these results confirm that environmental context writ large can change plant growth responses in PSF experiments. These data should aid theory and predictions for conservation and restoration applications by showing the relative importance of competition, stress, and disturbance in PSF studies over time. Lastly, these data demonstrate how variation in experimental methods can alter interpretation and conclusions of PSF studies.