02250nas a2200349 4500008004100000245011000041210006900151300001400220490000700234520126000241100001801501700001701519700001601536700001601552700001501568700001701583700001601600700002001616700001601636700001801652700001501670700001701685700001601702700001601718700001901734700001801753700001701771700001601788700001401804700001701818856006501835 2020 eng d00aConnections and feedback: Aquatic, plant, and soil microbiomes in heterogeneous and changing environments0 aConnections and feedback Aquatic plant and soil microbiomes in h a548 - 5620 v703 a

Plant, soil, and aquatic microbiomes interact, but scientists often study them independently. Integrating knowledge across these traditionally separate subdisciplines will generate better understanding of microbial ecological properties. Interactions among plant, soil, and aquatic microbiomes, as well as anthropogenic factors, influence important ecosystem processes, including greenhouse gas fluxes, crop production, nonnative species control, and nutrient flux from terrestrial to aquatic habitats. Terrestrial microbiomes influence nutrient retention and particle movement, thereby influencing the composition and functioning of aquatic microbiomes, which, themselves, govern water quality, and the potential for harmful algal blooms. Understanding how microbiomes drive links among terrestrial (plant and soil) and aquatic habitats will inform management decisions influencing ecosystem services. In the present article, we synthesize knowledge of microbiomes from traditionally disparate fields and how they mediate connections across physically separated systems. We identify knowledge gaps currently limiting our abilities to actualize microbiome management approaches for addressing environmental problems and optimize ecosystem services.

1 aDodds, W., K.1 aZeglin, L.H.1 aRamos, R.J.1 aPlatt, T.G.1 aPandey, A.1 aMichaels, T.1 aMasigol, M.1 aKlompen, A.M.L.1 aKelly, M.C.1 aJumpponen, A.1 aHauser, E.1 aHansen, P.M.1 aGreer, M.J.1 aFattahi, N.1 aDelavaux, C.S.1 aConnell, R.K.1 aBillings, S.1 aBever, J.D.1 aBarua, N.1 aAgusto, F.B. uhttps://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/70/7/548/582695802228nas a2200229 4500008004100000245014400041210006900185300001300254490000800267520148400275653001601759653002101775653002101796653001301817653001601830653002001846100001601866700001701882700001801899700001501917856006601932 2014 eng d00aExperimental evidence that invasive grasses use allelopathic biochemicals as a potential mechanism for invasion: Chemical warfare in nature0 aExperimental evidence that invasive grasses use allelopathic bio a165 -1790 v3853 a

Background and aims Bothriochloa spp. are non-native warm-season grasses invading native grasslands of the southern and central Great Plains, altering ecological services these grasslands supply. Our study investigated potential allelopathic effects of the invasive grass species B. ischaemum on native grass germination, growth, and survival. Methods Leachate or litter from Andropogon gerardii (native) or B. ischaemum were applied to two native grass species (A. gerardii; Schizachyrium scoparium). Leachate and litter were also added to B. ischaemum and a water control was included. Germination, above- and belowground biomass, and survival were determined. Results Application of B. ischaemum leachate or litter significantly reduced the germination, growth, and survival of both A. gerardii and S. scoparium but had no conspecific effects, while A. gerardii treatments had no effect on any species. Conclusions Bothriochloa spp. may gain a competitive advantage through allelopathic biochemicals. It is unclear if these allelopathic effects directly hinder competitors or indirectly hinder them through alterations in soil microbial communities, however, reductions in germination of native seeds strongly support direct allelopathic effects. Greater phenolic content in native grass leachates suggest allelopathic biochemical production may not be unique to non-native species and may be a mechanism for maintenance of plant species biodiversity in native systems.

10aAllelopathy10aBothriochloa spp10aInvasive species10aLeachate10aLeaf litter10aYellow bluestem1 aGreer, M.J.1 aWilson, G.T.1 aHickman, K.R.1 aWilson, S. uhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11104-014-2209-300419nas a2200121 4500008004100000245006300041210005600104300001300160490000700173100001600180700001700196856008400213 2014 eng d00aRestoration ecology: introduction in a “timely” manner0 aRestoration ecology introduction in a timely manner a274 -2800 v951 aGreer, M.J.1 aWilson, G.T. uhttps://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1890/0012-9623-95.3.27403016nas a2200133 4500008004100000245011700041210006900158260004600227490002200273520251000295100001602805700001802821856004302839 2013 eng d00aGrassland invasion by non-native grass species: ecological issues of multiple species at multiple trophic levels0 aGrassland invasion by nonnative grass species ecological issues  aStillwater, OKbOklahoma State University0 vPhD. Dissertation3 a

Invasion of native grasslands by non-native grasses is of great economic and ecologic concern. Non-native grasses have potential to alter ecosystem functions, habitat quality, disturbance regimes, and feedback loops. These alterations can have bottom-up or top-down effects that may negatively influence grasslands at multiple trophic levels. I conducted three integrated studies to assess non-native grass invasion: 1) on the competitive interactions between native vs. non-native grass species with community-level implications; 2) possible utilization of allelopathic biochemicals as an invasion mechanism; and 3) possible alterations in the small mammal communities with implications for ecosystem-level function. My first study indicated that both invasive and native species varied in mycorrhizal dependency along a continuum from obligately to facultatively dependent. Native species biomass production was consistently reduced when planted into 'away' soil, as compared to 'home' soil. Increased biomass production of native grasses was consistently observed following additions of native prairie soil to steam-pasteurized soil from the invaded sites, indicating invasive feedbacks may occur through alterations in biotic communities. My second study indicated that Bothriochloa spp. may gain a competitive advantage through the use of allelopathic biochemicals. However, it is unclear if these allelopathic effects directly hinder competitors, or indirectly hinder competitors through alterations of soil microbial communities. Determination of allelopathic biochemicals was not definitive. Data from my third study indicate that invasion of B. ischaemum into the native grasslands lowered all abundance metrics for deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), while increasing all abundance metrics for hispid cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus), as compared to native grassland controls. Species-specific models show cotton rats select vegetation that supplies aerial predator avoidance and deer mice select habitat that increases foraging efficency. Alterations in these small mammal communities may have profound effects on ecosystem functioning. Our research indicates non-native grass invasion alters native communities on multiple trophic levels. I propose management practices for restoration may be most successful if determined on a species-specific and site-specific basis, as different species appear to use different mechanisms for successful invasion into native prairies.

1 aGreer, M.J.1 aHickman, K.R. uhttps://shareok.org/handle/11244/14859