The effects of mycorrhizal colonization on phytophagous insects and their natural enemies in soybean fields

Élisée Emmanuel Dabré; Soon-Jae Lee; Mohamed Hijri; Colin Favret

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0257712

Abstract

The use of belowground microorganisms in agriculture, with the aim to stimulate plant growth and improve crop yields, has recently gained interest. However, few studies have examined the effects of microorganism inoculation on higher trophic levels in natural conditions. We examined how the diversity of phytophagous insects and their natural enemies responded to the field-inoculation of soybean with a model arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus (AMF), Rhizophagus irregularis, combined with a nitrogen-fixing bacterium, Bradyrhizobium japonicum, and a plant growth-promoting bacterium, Bacillus pumilus. We also investigate if the absence or presence of potassium fertilizer can affect this interaction. We found an increase in the abundance of piercing-sucking insects with the triple inoculant irrespective of potassium treatment, whereas there were no differences among treatments for other insect groups. A decrease in the abundance of the soybean aphid, Aphis glycines, with the double inoculant Rhizophagus + Bradyrhizobium was observed in potassium enriched plots and in the abundance of Empoasca spp. with potassium treatment independent of inoculation type. Although it was not possible to discriminate the mycorrhization realized by inoculum from that of the indigenous AMF in the field, we confirmed global negative effects of overall mycorrhizal colonization on the abundance of phytophagous piercing-sucking insects, phytophagous chewing insects, and the alpha diversity of phytophagous insects. In perspective, the use of AMF/Rhizobacteria inoculants in the field should focus on the identity and performance of strains to better understand their impact on insects.

Citation: Dabré ÉE, Lee S-J, Hijri M, Favret C (2021) The effects of mycorrhizal colonization on phytophagous insects and their natural enemies in soybean fields. PLoS ONE 16(9): e0257712. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257712

Editor: Alejandro Carlos Costamagna, University of Manitoba, CANADA

Received: October 24, 2020; Accepted: September 8, 2021; Published: September 22, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Dabré et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery grants to CF (RGPIN 2017-06287) and to MH (RGPIN-2018-04178). EED received a scholarship from the Islamic Development Bank to support education fees and living allowances. Premier Tech Biotechnologies provided the seeds and inoculants and, in collaboration with La Coop Fédérée, the access to fields trials in for data collection.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

1. Introduction

Plant beneficial soil microbes, including mycorrhizal fungi and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), have long been studied and applied for their positive effects on plant growth, nutrient mobilization, and agricultural product yield [1,2]. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), of the phylum Glomeromycota [3,4], form one of the most widespread symbiotic associations with plant roots and constitute an important functional group in terrestrial ecosystems [5]. They are obligate biotrophs that form symbiotic associations with more than 80% of vascular plant species [6,7]. Whereas the autotrophic plant delivers photoassimilates to the fungus, the fungal partner, in return, improves water and nutrient uptake, especially of phosphorus [8].

Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria are also one of the major microbial groups that interact with plants. There are those that are obligatory symbiotic with the plants, for example rhizobia and legumes, and those that are free-living near, on, or even within the plant organs, these latter known as endophytes [9]. Rhizobia are a polyphyletic group of Gram-negative bacteria that are associated with most legumes by forming root nodules and that facilitate plant growth by fixing nitrogen [10]. Free-living PGPR can promote plant growth directly or indirectly [11]. Direct effects of these bacterial associates are related to production of plant growth regulators (phytohormones, antioxidants and enzymes) or improvements in nutrient uptake [12]. Indirect effects are related to the production of metabolites, such as antibiotics or siderophores that decrease the growth of phytopathogens and other deleterious organisms [13,14].

Soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr., is the most important agricultural legume for oil and protein production [15]. Legumes can form tripartite symbiotic associations with nodule-inducing rhizobia and AMF, that may benefit growth, development, and the uptake of both phosphorous and nitrogen [16–19]. It was shown in soybean and common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) that the co-inoculation of AMF and rhizobium improved production, efficiency of photosynthesis, nodulation and, especially, an increase in both phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations [20,21]. In addition, some studies showed that co-inoculation of soybean with PGPR of Bacillus species and the rhizobia Bradyrhizobium japonicum, increases nodulation and nitrogen fixation [9,22].

Chemical inputs in the form of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizers are used to increase agricultural productivity. Their use generally increases potentially pestiferous herbivore populations [23], although in some cases they can reduce the density of these insects [24]. For example, the use of potassium fertilizer in soybean reduces aphid populations by limiting the availability of amino acids [25]. In sustainable, low-synthetic-input agricultural cropping systems, the use of microorganisms as inoculants, in combination with certain fertilizers, may help maintain soil fertility and plant health [17]. As a consequence of the symbiosis, these microorganisms can change host plant feature for insect herbivores through their impact on plant nutritional quality and/or by priming effects that lead to enhanced inducible and constitutive plant defences [26,27]. Previous studies have shown that AMF-induced changes in plant traits positively or negatively affect the individual performance of aboveground phytophagous insects [26,28,29]. At the community level, AMF positively affected piercing-sucking insects and specialist chewing insects, but generalist chewers are negatively affected [26,30]. As with AMF, rhizobacteria can also influence plant–herbivore interactions, but the consequences depend on the identity of the plant and insect species and the degree of insect specialism [31,32]. For example, in a garden experiment, a study on rhizobacteria-insect communities showed that rhizobia affected the abundance of chewing insects, while no effect was observed with the sap feeders (piercing-sucking insects) [33].

Little is known about the effects of AMF and PGPR (and/or Rhizobia) on foliage-feeding insects in natural agricultural conditions [32]. Most studies to date have been undertaken under controlled conditions in the laboratory or green-house [27,28,33], and by using methods to eliminate indigenous microorganisms from experimental fields [34,35]. Also, microorganism-plant-insect interactions impact not just the herbivores, but also higher trophic levels such as their natural enemies [36,37].

We examined the effects of a combined inoculation of the AMF Rhizophagus irregularis (synonyms: Rhizoglomus irregulare, Glomus irregulare, G. intraradices) isolate DAOM 197198 (PTB 297), the Rhizobia Bradyrhizobium japonicum strain PTB 162, the PGPR Bacillus pumilus strain PTB180 and potassium fertilizer on the phytophagous insects of soybean and their natural enemies under field cropping conditions.

As the ecological consequences of inoculants in the field are poorly understood and may not be easily predicted [38], in this study we sought to anticipate possible undesired effects of the inoculation of AMF and rhizobacteria on the communities of phytophagous insects. The co-inoculation of the three microorganisms can affect the host plant growth, development, and nutritional status directly and indirectly by the interaction with local microbial community. Therefore, we hypothesized that: 1) the inoculation of AMF and rhizobacteria will increase the abundance and species richness of functional groups such as piercing-sucking and chewing insects of host plant; and that 2) the abundance and richness of these insects will be correlated with the degree of mycorrhizal root colonization. To test these two hypotheses, we conducted an experiment on two agricultural fields of soybean.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Living material

Seeds of the soybean cultivar AURIGA and microorganism inoculants were supplied by Premier Tech (Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec, Canada) as follows:

AGTIV^®SOYBEAN powder based on a mixture of R. irregularis isolate DAOM197198 (PTB 297) at a dose of 2750 viable spores per gram of product and B. japonicum PTB 162 at a dose of 2.5x10⁹ cells per gram of product. Another inoculant consisted of mixture of AGTIV^® SOYBEAN and Bacillus pumilus strain PTB180.

2.2. Experimental design

The study was conducted from May to September 2017, in two fields located at Varennes (45.693˚ N, 73.365˚ W) and Saint-Simon (45.681˚ N, 72.856˚ W), Quebec, Canada. The climate type at both sites, approximately 35 km from each other, is temperate-cold. The growing season typically lasts 5 months, from May to September, with July being the hottest month and August being the wettest. At Varennes, the average temperature is 20.1°C with maximum of 24.8°C and minimum of 15.4°C and the average precipitation is 69.9 mm. At Saint-Simon, the warmest month recorded an average temperature of 19.8°C with maximum of 24.8°C and minimum of 14.7°C and an average rainfall of 74.18 mm (See https://climat.meteo.gc.ca/historical_data/search_historic_data_f.html). Sowing took place at Varennes and Saint-Simon on May 20 and 25, respectively. Seeds were precoated with substrate containing inoculants in the seed drill before sowing with an application dose of 300g per hectare. The experiment at each site consisted of a factorial design of three inoculant treatments (control [C], double inoculation with R. irregularis and B. japonicum [MR] and triple inoculation with the addition of B. pumilus to the double inoculant, [MRB]) combined with two treatments either with or without potassium fertilizer ([K-] and [K+]). So, we had 3 treatments per each potassium level/block replicated 8 times, for a total of 48 plots per site. This potassium fertilizer (NPK [0–0–60]) of 80 units was applied at a dose of 240 g per plot at Varennes and 175 g per plot at Saint-Simon following soil analysis one day before sowing.

At Varennes, each plot measured 6 m x 3 m, contained 4 rows of seedlings with 75 cm between adjacent rows, and an 8 m spacer separated each block. The previous crop had been wheat in this site and soybeans were grown alongside the trial during the growing season. On June 25, 2017, two herbicide treatments, Reflex® (Fomesafen) at a dose of 1L/ha and Pursuit® (Imazethapyr) at a dose of 0.312 L/ha were applied before the insect sampling. Also, a foliar Crop Booster (15-3-6 foliar spray fertilizer) was applied at 2 L /ha.

At Saint-Simon, each plot measured 5 m x 1.44 m, with row spacing of 36 cm, and a 2 m space separated each block. The previous crop had been maize, and soybeans were also grown alongside the trial. At this site, three herbicides were applied just before sowing: Dual II Magnum (S-metolachlor & R-enantiomer) at 1.75 L/ha, Pursuit® (Imazethapyr) at a dose of 0.312 L/ha and FirstRate (cloransulam-methyl) at a dose of 20,8 G/ha. Despite the use of herbicide, we noticed the growth of weeds at the early flowering stage (R1) on most of the 4 rows going towards a water canal located at 15 m.

The two sites were test sites of Premier Tech, which provided us the seeds and inoculants and they belong to Sollio Cooperative Group (formerly called La Coop fédérée), a cooperative of agricultural producers in Québec.

2.3. Insect trapping and sampling

We sampled insects at Varennes and Saint-Simon on July 4 and 11, respectively (active growth/early flowering stage). Three sampling methods were: yellow pan traps, pitfall traps, and D-Vac aspiration [39]: when the leaf-blower motor is activated, it rotates a fan that creates a flow of air through the tube to draw insects into a collecting bag attached to the end of a 1 m PVC tube.

In each plot, two pan traps and two pitfalls [40] were placed 3 to 5 m apart on the ground within the two center rows so that each trap was approximately 1.5 m from the edge of the plot and 2.25 m from another pan or pitfall in the adjacent plot. Each trap was filled approximately ¾ with water and a few drops of unscented dishwashing detergent to reduce the surface tension [41]. Traps were installed at 9:00 am the day before and recovered 24 hours later. The D-Vac sampling was carried out on the central rows of each plot for 1 minute before the traps were collected. Following each sampling, insects were either kept in the freezer [42], or stored in polyethylene bags (Whirl-Pak^®) in 75% ethanol until identification [41].

2.4. Arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization measurement

Two individual plants with their roots and rhizosphere soils from the two central rows in each plot were uprooted randomly six weeks after sowing [43]. Roots were kept in polyethylene bags (Whirl-Pak^®) with 50% ethanol and their cleaning was done according to the method described by Antunes et al. 2006 [44]. To estimate the mycorrhizal colonization rate, all the root samples were heated in 10% (wt/vol) KOH solution at 70˚ C for 1 hour before staining with a 5% solution of black ink (Sheaffer^®) in 5% acetic acid solution for 20 min at 70˚ C. Roots were then cleaned for 40 min with acidified water (a few drops of 5% acetic acid in water) to remove excess of ink. These roots were mounted on slides and observed under an optical microscope at 100x magnification. The percentage of the root colonized was measured on structures like hyphae, vesicles and AMF arbuscules with the grid-line intersect method [45,46]. We assume that at plot level, each plant is more or less equally influenced by native fungi in its close environment. In this case, the measured mycorrhizal colonization rate is representative of the plot.

2.5. Insect identification

We sorted the insect specimens to order and family, when possible, and then into operational taxonomic units (OTUs) or morphospecies [47]. For this purpose, each OTU was photographed and several morphological characters were used for their characterization [47,48]. For Microhymenoptera, we favored the wing pattern, shape and length of antennae, whereas in Diptera we relied more on the wing pattern. For aphids (Hemiptera: Aphididae), we focused on the size and shape of the cornicles, the cauda, and sclerotization of the body. We identified the soybean aphid, Aphis glycines Matsumura (Hemiptera: Aphididae) [49], and Empoasca spp. (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) [50], although this latter was probably mostly Empoasca fabae (Harris). Voucher material is deposited at the University of Montreal’s Ouellet-Robert Entomological Collection.

To evaluate insect abundance and species richness, we focused on insects that may have a direct and indirect impact on the crop, namely phytophagous insects and their natural enemies. The insects were then classified into functional groups based on their feeding mode (for phytophagous insects, piercing-sucking and chewing insects) and mode of life (for natural enemies) [51] (Table 1).

Download:

Table 1. Number of specimens and operational taxonomic units (OTUs) of insect functional groups depending on the type of trap, D-Vac, pan trap (PT), and pitfall (PF), used during sampling in soybean fields.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257712.t001

2.6. Statistical analysis

All analyses were performed with R (version 3.5.3) (R Core Team 2019). The Shannon index (⍺-diversity), that relates the number and relative abundance of species in each elementary plot, was calculated using the formula: Where H’ = Shannon’s index of ⍺ diversity; s = total number of species; n_i = number of individuals of species i; N = total number of individuals of all species; ln = the natural logarithm [52]. To examine the effects of inoculants and potassium on crop yield, mycorrhizal colonization rate of roots, abundance (total number of specimens per OTU), and alpha diversity (Shannon index) per treatment for each functional group of insects, we used a linear mixed models (LMMs) with the lmer function in the package lmerTest [53].

Inoculant treatments (C, MR, MRB) and potassium ([K-], [K+]) were considered as fixed effects, while the block as the random effect, and they were crossed in the model. Other parameters (yield, abundance, Shannon index, mycorrhizal colonization rate) were the response variables used individually in the LMMs. The normality of the distribution and the homogeneity of the variance were tested by the Shapiro-Wilk and Levene’s tests, respectively. When non-normal distribution and heteroscedasticity were observed, we used the function "sqrt" (square root) or "log" to transform the variable response before modeling [54]. When the model is established, we applied the function "Anova" in the package "car" to test the difference among treatments. When significant differences were observed, post hoc test was applied with Tukey’s honest significant difference (HSD) in package "mutlcomp".

To assess the influence of AMF colonization, we evaluated the correlation between various insect abundances or alpha diversity parameters and the mycorrhizal colonization measured in different plots. As the data did not meet the assumptions of normal distribution, we applied Kendall correlation analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Effects of AMF and rhizobacteria inoculation on crop yield and mycorrhizal colonization

Inoculation and fertilizer had no effects on root mycorrhizal colonization and grain yield at Varennes and Saint-Simon (S1 Table). There were no significant differences between inoculant treatments (C, MR, MRB) for AMF colonization of roots or crop yield irrespective of potassium (Table 2). We did not directly measure the effect of the inoculation on the bacterial community or on the taxonomic diversity of the microbial community in general.

Download:

Table 2. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi root colonization and yield of soybean at different levels of inoculation irrespective of potassium fertilizer application at Varennes and Saint-Simon.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257712.t002

3.2. Observed insect abundance and species richness among different inoculation treatments

A total of 6642 insects were collected and identified by morphology. These were sorted to 150 OTUs belonging to 6 orders of insects (Table 1). Among these specimens, 1995 were classified as phytophagous (1694 piercing-sucking and 301 chewing insects), 1839 as their natural enemies including 1358 as potential natural enemies of aphids.

No interaction was found between the inoculant treatments and the potassium at Varennes (S2 Table). There was a significant difference in the abundance of piercing-sucking insects by inoculation treatments irrespective of potassium application (F_2.28 = 4.12, P = 0.026, S2 Table). The average abundance of piercing-sucking insects was higher with the inoculant [MRB] (26.1) relative to the control [C] (18.9), while the number of insects with the inoculant [MR] (22.8) was not different from that of other treatments (S3 Table). There were no differences among inoculant treatments for the abundance of other insect groups (chewing insects, aphids without A. glycines, aphids’ natural enemies, A. glycines and Empoasca spp.) (S2 Table).

Similarly, there were no differences among inoculants treatments for the insect groups at Saint-Simon, except A. glycines and Empoasca spp. (S2 Table). The significant interaction between inoculants and potassium was observed with the abundance of A. glycines (F_2.21 = 6.69, P = 0.006, S2 Table, Fig 1). In potassium-fertilized [K+] plots (blue boxplots), there was a significant difference between the control [C] plots, which had higher numbers of aphids relative to the inoculated [MR] plots, while aphid numbers in inoculated [MRB] plots were not different than the other treatments (Fig 1B). However, in the unfertilized [K-] plots (pink boxplots), the inoculations did not have any significant effect on the abundance of this aphid species (Fig 1A): all three inoculations yielded similar results. Independent of inoculant, Empoasca spp. exhibited a difference in the presence of potassium (F_1.35 = 5.53, P = 0.024, S2 Table). The plots without potassium [K-] had higher number of leafhoppers than the potassium-fertilized [K+] plots (S3 Table).

Download:

Fig 1. Boxplots of Aphis glycines abundance per plant in each inoculant treatment (Control: C; Mycorrhizae+Rhizobium: MR; Mycorrhizae+Rhizobium+Bacillus: MRB) at Saint-Simon.

(A) with the application of potassium and (B) without the application of potassium. Letters above indicate significant differences among treatments based on Tukey’s honest significant difference (HSD) test after Linear mixed effect model (LMM) follow by ANOVA (P<0.05). Triangle dots inside the boxplots represent the means.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257712.g001

We examined the effect of the inoculants on the diversity of the second trophic level (i.e. the 36 phytophagous insect OTUs). As with the previous analyses on the abundance of insect groups, the various inoculant and fertilizer treatments showed no effect on phytophagous insect diversity, as measured with the Shannon index, neither at Varennes (F_2,35 = 0.66, P = 0.50) nor at Saint-Simon (F_2,21 = 0.57, P = 0.57) (S2 Table).

3.3. Correlation between AMF colonization and abundance/richness of insects

Even though it is not possible to discriminate the root colonization realized with the inoculum from that caused by indigenous AMF, the variation in the degree of mycorrhizal root colonization irrespective of inoculation treatments allowed us to test the effect of mycorrhization on insect abundance and diversity, independent of inoculant treatment. The abundance of piercing-sucking insects, chewing insects, as well as their alpha diversity, were all negatively correlated with the level of mycorrhizal colonization (as measured per plot) at Varennes, whereas no correlation was observed at Saint-Simon (Figs 2–4, S4 Table). No correlation was observed at either site between the level of mycorrhizal colonization and the abundance of natural enemies of aphids, A. glycines, aphids excluding A. glycines, or Empoasca spp. (S4 Table).

Download:

Fig 2. Correlation between AMF colonization rate and piercing-sucking insect abundance at Varennes and Saint-Simon.

Negative correlation at Varennes (V; blue dots) (Kendall tau: -0.24; P = 0.016). No correlation at Saint-Simon (S; pink dots) (Kendall tau: 0.08; P = 0.43).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257712.g002

Download:

Fig 3. Correlation between AMF colonization rate and chewing insect abundance at Varennes and Saint-Simon.

Negative correlation at Varennes (V; blue dots) (Kendall tau: -0.20; P = 0.052). No correlation at Saint-Simon (S; pink dots) (Kendall tau: 0.075; P = 0.50).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257712.g003

Download:

Fig 4. Correlation between AMF colonization rate and Shannon index of phytophagous insects (piercing-sucking and chewing) at Varennes and Saint-Simon.

Negative correlation at Varennes (V; blue dots) (Kendall tau: -0.26; P = 0.008). No correlation at Saint-Simon (S; pink dots) (Kendall tau: 0.15; P = 0.11).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257712.g004

4. Discussion

The inoculation with R. irregularis, B. japonicum and B. pumilus, irrespective of potassium fertilizer in soybean fields showed differences in the abundance of piercing-sucking insects at Varennes (S2 and S3 Tables), whereas no effect was observed on the abundance of chewing insects, aphids, aphid enemies, or on the species richness of phytophagous insects. At Saint-Simon, the inoculations had no discernible effect on any of these same insect groups (S2 Table), except for Empoasca spp. which exhibited difference in abundance in potassium-fertilized plots (S2 and S3 Tables). But with A. glycines, the inoculants interacted with potassium (Fig 1; S2 Table). Numerous studies have paid attention to the effects of belowground symbiotic microbes on aboveground plant–arthropod interactions [55,56]. For example, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi positively affected the abundance of piercing-sucking insects and specialist chewers but decreased that of generalist chewers [30]. In the same line, some studies showed that the community composition of herbivores was significantly different between plants associated or unassociated with Rhizobia [33,57]. For example, Rhizobia positively affected the chewing insects but not the piercing-sucking insects [33]. Studies conducted on free-living PGPR reported negative effects of PGPR on pests in different crops [32]. However, most of these studies were conducted in controlled conditions with one or few strains. In field conditions, cultivated legumes encounter a diverse local rhizobacteria (Rhizobia and free-living PGPR) and AMF community in the soil, including microorganisms from inoculants applied [30,35,57]. Further, both introduced inoculants and indigenous microbial community can influence host plant [36,58], and this can temper the dramatic effects otherwise seen in non-field conditions. In our study, the presence and diversity of indigenous AMF explains root colonization observed in the non-inoculated control plots (Table 2). However, our root colonization observations were purely quantitative, and thus do not preclude a possible compositional change in the root colonizing AMF community.

We found that the differences among inoculation treatments are not only affected by the sites of action, but also by the fertilization. On potassium-enriched plots in Saint-Simon, there was a significant difference between the control [C], which had the highest number of aphids, as compared to the double inoculant [MR], while no effects were observed in plots without potassium fertilizer (Fig 1B). The decrease we observed in soybean aphid abundance only with potassium fertilization suggests that the interaction between rhizobium and AMF can be influenced by nutrient condition. Previous studies showed that increased potassium levels directly and negatively influenced the soybean aphid [59,60]. It has been suggested that potassium deficiency in plant may induce an increase in levels of asparagine and other low-molecular-weight nitrogen-containing compounds, being thereby beneficial to aphids that have a nitrogen-limited diet [25]. However, in the current study, apart Empoasca spp., there was no difference between potassium treatments for all the insect groups, showing the previously reported scenario is not always the case in actual field conditions.

Importantly, our study found that independent of inoculation, AMF colonization seems to play an important role in microorganism-plant-insect interactions. In line with our second hypothesis, i.e, AMF colonization of plants can affect insect abundance and richness in field conditions, there was a negative correlation between the degree of AMF colonization and the abundance of (1) piercing-sucking insects, (2) chewing insects and (3) the species richness of phytophagous insects (Figs 2–4). Contrary to these findings, some reports have shown that increased AMF colonization positively influences insect performance [30,53,61,62]. Functional groups such as piercing-sucking insects (specialists and generalists) and specialist chewing insects were positively associated with high AMF-colonized plants [30]. These studies suggested that in well-established mycorrhizal plants, there was an increase of carbon/nutrient balance, which in turn lead to increased levels of carbon-based feeding deterrents, such as iridoid glycosides, that were less deleterious to piercing-sucking and specialist insects [30] than to generalists. Specialists show a high degree of adaptation to their host’s defenses and they usually perform better on mycorrhizal plants, probably because of the improved nutritional quality of the host [26].

On the other hand and in line with our investigation, some reports documented negative AMF-induced effects on insects [30]. Gange et al. (2002) showed that generalist chewing insects were negatively affected by the presence of well-established AMF communities [63]. Generalist chewing insects are relatively sensitive to plant defenses: they feed on leaf tissue, causing massive damage that activates a strong chemical defense [62]. Therefore, it is possible that the negative correlation between chewing insects and AMF plant colonization observed in our study is due to the generalist feeding habits of the chewing insects sampled. The fact that significant correlations were found only at Varennes and not at Saint-Simon is likely because the former site had an overall high number of these insect groups (Table 1).

Observed correlations in our study cannot answer which factors are actual causes or mere correlations. The outcome of an AMF-plant-insect interaction can also work in the reverse direction: herbivory can reduce AMF root colonization [29,62]. In a study where aphids were introduced to the plant before its being colonized by AMF, authors observed a reduction in subsequent AMF colonization [64]. They suggested that the antagonistic effect of aphids could operate either via reduced carbon allocation to AMF, because aphids drain carbon from the plants, or by defence-related signalling induced by the aphids that is antagonistic to AMF.

5. Conclusions

Our study showed that, under some field conditions, rhizosphere microbe inoculation can elicit an effect depending on the feeding mode of insects on soybean. However, understanding the more proximate causes of that inoculation effect will require further research on the relative diversity and composition of the microbial rhizosphere flora. Our key finding was that the mycorrhizal status of the plant plays a role in AMF-plant-insect interaction. We found that the abundance and richness of phytophagous insects (piercing-sucking and chewing) and their alpha diversity were negatively correlated with the AMF colonization rate. We suggest that mycorrhizal colonization plays a key role in insect-plant microbe interactions and its effects on insects depend on the degree of feeding specificity. Still there are contradictory reports regarding AMF effects on insect communities. Considering the suppressive effect of potassium fertilization on aphids in the AMF-inoculated plots and the other site- specific effects observed in our study suggest that, the abiotic environment also plays a crucial role in these tripartite interactions. Along with a better understanding of the many microbial actors, we believe future study on abiotic conditions will bring better understanding of these interactions and harnessing of microorganism for agriculture.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi root colonization and yield of soybean at Varennes and Saint-Simon based on inoculation treatments (Control (C), Mycorrhizae+Rhizobium (MR), Mycorrhizae+Rhizobium+Bacillus (MRB)), potassium treatments (K-: Without potassium; K+: With potassium), tested individually and in interaction (F-value, df, P-value).

P <0.05; n = 48.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257712.s001

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Abundance of insect functional groups sampled on soybean at Varennes and Saint-Simon based on inoculation treatments (Control (C), Mycorrhizae+Rhizobium (MR), Mycorrhizae+Rhizobium+Bacillus (MRB), potassium treatments (K-: Without potassium; K+: With potassium), tested individually and in interaction (F-value, df, P-value).

Linear mixed effect model (LMM) follows by ANOVA. *: P <0.05; **: P <0.001; n = 48.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257712.s002

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Abundance of piercing-sucking insects and Empoasca spp. sampled on soybean at Varennes and Saint-Simon respectively based on inoculation treatments (Control (C), Mycorrhizae+Rhizobium (MR), Mycorrhizae+Rhizobium+Bacillus (MRB)) irrespective of potassium (K-: Without potassium; K+: With potassium) and vice versa.

Values represent mean ± SE of 8 replicates (n = 48) in each site. Letters follow by mean ± SE indicate significant differences among treatments based on the Tukey’s honest significant difference (HSD) test after Linear mixed effect model (LMM) follow by ANOVA. *: P <0.05.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257712.s003

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Correlation between the rate of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi colonization in the roots of soybean and the abundance and richness of insects at Varennes and Saint-Simon.

Values represent correlation coefficients. **: P <0.05; *: P<0.1.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257712.s004

(DOCX)

S1 Data.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257712.s005

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Premier Tech Biotechnologies (Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec, Canada) for the support in field trials and experimental design, especially Dominique Léquéré. We also thank Renaud Hadd and Lucie Kablan from Sollio Cooperative Group for their assistance. We are gratefully to Thomas Théry (Université de Montréal) for his support in the identification of some insect species. We also thank Stéphane Daigle (Institut de recherche en biologie végétale) for help with statistical analyses. We gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments from anonymous referees that improved the quality of this manuscript.

References

1. Bennett AE, Millar NS, Gedrovics E, Karley AJ. Plant and insect microbial symbionts alter the outcome of plant-herbivore-parasitoid interactions: implications for invaded, agricultural and natural systems. Austin A, editor. Journal of Ecology. 2016;104: 1734–1744.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
2. Rasmann S, Bennett A, Biere A, Karley A, Guerrieri E. Root symbionts: Powerful drivers of plant above- and belowground indirect defenses: Root symbionts and indirect defenses. Insect Science. 2017;24: 947–960. pmid:28374534
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Schüβler A, Schwarzott D, Walker C. A new fungal phylum, the Glomeromycota: phylogeny and evolution. Mycological Research. 2001;105: 1413–1421.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
4. Tedersoo L, Sánchez-Ramírez S, Kõljalg U, Bahram M, Döring M, Schigel D, et al. High-level classification of the Fungi and a tool for evolutionary ecological analyses. Fungal Diversity. 2018;90: 135–159.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
5. Hodge A. Microbial ecology of the arbuscular mycorrhiza. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 2000;32: 91–96. pmid:10817861
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Wang B, Qiu Y-L. Phylogenetic distribution and evolution of mycorrhizas in land plants. Mycorrhiza. 2006;16: 299–363. pmid:16845554
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Kloppholz S, Kuhn H, Requena N. A Secreted Fungal Effector of Glomus intraradices Promotes Symbiotic Biotrophy. Current Biology. 2011;21: 1204–1209. pmid:21757354
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Schweiger R, Baier MC, Müller C. Arbuscular Mycorrhiza-Induced Shifts in Foliar Metabolism and Photosynthesis Mirror the Developmental Stage of the Symbiosis and Are Only Partly Driven by Improved Phosphate Uptake. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions. 2014;27: 1403–1412. pmid:25162317
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Glick BR. The enhancement of plant growth by free-living bacteria. Can J Microbiol. 1995;41: 109–117.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
10. Compant S, Clément C, Sessitsch A. Plant growth-promoting bacteria in the rhizo- and endosphere of plants: Their role, colonization, mechanisms involved and prospects for utilization. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2010;42: 669–678.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
11. Bai Y, Zhou X, Smith DL. Enhanced Soybean Plant Growth Resulting from Coinoculation of Bacillus Strains with Bradyrhizobium japonicum. Crop Sci. 2003;43: 1774–1781.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
12. Ahemad M, Kibret M. Mechanisms and applications of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: Current perspective. Journal of King Saud University—Science. 2014;26: 1–20.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
13. Bhattacharyya PN, Jha DK. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): emergence in agriculture. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2012;28: 1327–1350. pmid:22805914
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Russo A, Vettori L, Felici C, Fiaschi G, Morini S, Toffanin A. Enhanced micropropagation response and biocontrol effect of Azospirillum brasilense Sp245 on Prunus cerasifera L. clone Mr.S 2/5 plants. Journal of Biotechnology. 2008;134: 312–319. pmid:18358553
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Graham PH, Vance CP. Legumes: Importance and Constraints to Greater Use. Plant Physiol. 2003;131: 872–877. pmid:12644639
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Xavier LJC, Germida JJ. Selective interactions between arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. viceae enhance pea yield and nutrition. Biol Fertil Soils. 2003;37: 261–267.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
17. Artursson V, Finlay RD, Jansson JK. Interactions between arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and bacteria and their potential for stimulating plant growth. Environ Microbiol. 2006;8: 1–10. pmid:16343316
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Wang X, Pan Q, Chen F, Yan X, Liao H. Effects of co-inoculation with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and rhizobia on soybean growth as related to root architecture and availability of N and P. Mycorrhiza. 2011;21: 173–181. pmid:20544230
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Iffis B, St-Arnaud M, Hijri M. Petroleum hydrocarbon contamination, plant identity and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal (AMF) community determine assemblages of the AMF spore-associated microbes: Assemblages of AMF and their spore-associated microbes. Environ Microbiol. 2016;18: 2689–2704. pmid:27376781
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Tajini F, Trabelsi M, Drevon J-J. Co-inoculation with Glomus intraradices and Rhizobium tropici CIAT899 increases P use efficiency for N2 fixation in the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) under P deficiency in hydroaeroponic culture. Symbiosis. 2011;53: 123–129.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
21. Takács T, Cseresnyés I, Kovács R, Parádi I, Kelemen B, Szili-Kovács T, et al. Symbiotic Effectivity of Dual and Tripartite Associations on Soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) Cultivars Inoculated With Bradyrhizobium japonicum and AM Fungi. Front Plant Sci. 2018;9: 1631. pmid:30483288
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Zhang F. Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria and Soybean [Glycine max(L.) Merr.] Nodulation and Nitrogen Fixation at Suboptimal Root Zone Temperatures. Annals of Botany. 1996;77: 453–460.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
23. Baidoo PK, Mochiah MB. The influence of nutrient application on the pests and natural enemies of pests of okra Abelmoschus esculentus (L.)(Moench.). Journal of Applied Biosciences. 2011;41: 2765–2771.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
24. Bala K, Sood A, Pathania VS, Thakur S. Effect of plant nutrition in insect pest management: A review. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2018;7: 2737–2742.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
25. Walter AJ, DiFonzo CD. Soil Potassium Deficiency Affects Soybean Phloem Nitrogen and Soybean Aphid Populations. en. 2007;36: 26–33. pmid:17349112
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Gehring C, Bennett A. Mycorrhizal Fungal–Plant–Insect Interactions: The Importance of a Community Approach. Environmental Entomology. 2009;38: 93–102. pmid:19791601
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Jung SC, Martinez-Medina A, Lopez-Raez JA, Pozo MJ. Mycorrhiza-Induced Resistance and Priming of Plant Defenses. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 2012;38: 651–664. pmid:22623151
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Gehring CA, Whitham TG. Mycorrhizae-herbivore interactions: population and community consequences. Mycorrhizal ecology. Springer; 2002. pp. 295–320. Available: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-38364-2_12.
29. Koricheva J, Gange AC, Jones T. Effects of mycorrhizal fungi on insect herbivores: a meta-analysis. Ecology. 2009;90: 2088–2097. pmid:19739371
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Gange AC, Stagg PG, Ward LK. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi affect phytophagous insect specialism. Ecology Letters. 2002;5: 11–15.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
31. Dean J, Mescher M, De Moraes C. Plant Dependence on Rhizobia for Nitrogen Influences Induced Plant Defenses and Herbivore Performance. IJMS. 2014;15: 1466–1480. pmid:24451132
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Gadhave KR, Gange AC. Interactions Involving Rhizobacteria and Foliar-Feeding Insects. In: Ohgushi T, Wurst S, Johnson SN, editors. Aboveground–Belowground Community Ecology. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. pp. 117–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91614-9_6
33. Katayama N, Zhang ZQ, Ohgushi T. Community-wide effects of below-ground rhizobia on above-ground arthropods. Ecological Entomology. 2011;36: 43–51.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
34. Ueda K, Tawaraya K, Murayama H, Sato S, Nishizawa T, Toyomasu T, et al. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on the abundance of foliar-feeding insects and their natural enemy. Applied Entomology and Zoology. 2013;48: 79–85.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
35. Gehring CA, Whitham TG. Interactions between aboveground herbivores and the mycorrhizal mutualists of plants. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 1994;9: 251–255.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
36. Balog A, Loxdale HD, lint J, Benedek K, Szab K-A, J?nosi-Rancz K-T, et al. The arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Rhizophagus irregularis affects arthropod colonization on sweet pepper in both the field and greenhouse. Journal of Pest Science. 2017;90: 935–946.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
37. Pérez-Montaño F, Alías-Villegas C, Bellogín RA, del Cerro P, Espuny MR, Jiménez-Guerrero I, et al. Plant growth promotion in cereal and leguminous agricultural important plants: From microorganism capacities to crop production. Microbiological Research. 2014;169: 325–336. pmid:24144612
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Antunes PM, Koch AM, Dunfield KE, Hart MM, Downing A, Rillig MC, et al. Influence of commercial inoculation with Glomus intraradices on the structure and functioning of an AM fungal community from an agricultural site. Plant Soil. 2009;317: 257–266.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
39. Dietrick EJ, Schlinger EI, Garber MJ. Vacuum cleaner principle applied in Sampling Insect Populations in alfalfa fields by new machine method. California Agriculture. 1960;14: 9–11.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
40. Campbell JW, Hanula JL. Efficiency of Malaise traps and colored pan traps for collecting flower visiting insects from three forested ecosystems. Journal of Insect Conservation. 2007;11: 399–408.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
41. Vrdoljak SM, Samways MJ. Optimising coloured pan traps to survey flower visiting insects. Journal of Insect Conservation. 2012;16: 345–354.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
42. Doxon ED, Davis CA, Fuhlendorf SD. Comparison of two methods for sampling invertebrates: vacuum and sweep-net sampling: Methods of Sampling Invertebrates. Journal of Field Ornithology. 2011;82: 60–67.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
43. Antunes PM, de Varennes A, Zhang T, Goss MJ. The Tripartite Symbiosis Formed by Indigenous Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi, Bradyrhizobium japonicum and Soya Bean Under Field Conditions. J Agron Crop Sci. 2006;192: 373–378.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
44. Vierheilig H, Coughlan AP, Wyss U, Piche Y. Ink and Vinegar, a Simple Staining Technique for Arbuscular-Mycorrhizal Fungi. 1998;64: 4.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
45. McGonigle TP, Evans DG, Miller MH. Effect of degree of soil disturbance on mycorrhizal colonization and phosphorus absorption by maize in growth chamber and field experiments. New Phytol. 1990;116: 629–636.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
46. Gange AC, Bower E, Stagg PG, Aplin DM, Gillam AE, Bracken M. A comparison of visualization techniques for recording arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization. New Phytologist. 1999;142: 123–132.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
47. Favret C, Lessard V, Trépanier A, Eon‐Le Guern T, Théry T. Voegtlin‐style suction traps measure insect diversity and community heterogeneity. Insect Conserv Divers. 2019;12: 373–381.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
48. Derraik JGB, Closs GP, Dickinson KJM, Sirvid P, Barratt BIP, Patrick BH. Arthropod Morphospecies versus Taxonomic Species: a Case Study with Araneae, Coleoptera, and Lepidoptera. Conservation Biology. 2002;16: 1015–1023.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
49. Voegtlin DJ, Halbert SE, Qiao G. A Guide to Separating Aphis glycines Matsumura and Morphologically Similar Species That Share Its Hosts. Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 2004;97: 6.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
50. Ross HH. An Evolutionary Outline of the Leafhopper Genus Empoasca Subgenus Kybos, with a Key to the Nearetic Fauna (Hemiptera, Cicadellidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 1963;56: 202–223.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
51. Torcat Fuentes M, Lenardis A, de la Fuente EB. Insect assemblies related to volatile signals emitted by different soybean–weeds–herbivory combinations. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2018;255: 20–26.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
52. Beisel J-N, Moreteau J-C. A simple formula for calculating the lower limit of Shannon’s diversity index. Ecological Modelling. 1997;99: 289–292.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
53. Tomczak VV, Müller C. Influence of arbuscular mycorrhizal stage and plant age on the performance of a generalist aphid. Journal of Insect Physiology. 2017;98: 258–266. pmid:28159616
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
54. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems: Data exploration. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2010;1: 3–14.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
55. Hartley SE, Gange AC. Impacts of Plant Symbiotic Fungi on Insect Herbivores: Mutualism in a Multitrophic Context. Annual Review of Entomology. 2009;54: 323–342. pmid:19067635
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
56. Pineda A, Soler R, Pozo MJ, Rasmann S, Turlings TCJ. Editorial: Above-belowground interactions involving plants, microbes and insects. Front Plant Sci. 2015;6. pmid:25657654
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
57. Dean JM, Mescher MC, De Moraes CM. Plant–rhizobia mutualism influences aphid abundance on soybean. Plant Soil. 2009;323: 187–196.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
58. Gange AC. Species-specific responses of a root-and shoot-feeding insect to arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization of its host plant. New Phytologist. 2001;150: 611–618.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
59. Myers SW, Gratton C, Wolkowski RP, Hogg DB, Wedberg JL. Effect of Soil Potassium Availability on Soybean Aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) Population Dynamics and Soybean Yield. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2005;98: 8. pmid:15765672
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
60. Myers SW, Gratton C. Influence of Potassium Fertility on Soybean Aphid, Aphis glycines Matsumura (Hemiptera: Aphididae), Population Dynamics at a Field and Regional Scale. Environ Entomol. 2006;35: 219–227.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
61. Tomczak VV, Schweiger R, Müller C. Effects of Arbuscular Mycorrhiza on Plant Chemistry and the Development and Behavior of a Generalist Herbivore. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 2016;42: 1247–1258. pmid:27787678
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
62. Howe GA, Jander G. Plant Immunity to Insect Herbivores. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2008;59: 41–66. pmid:18031220
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
63. Gange AC, West HM. Interactions between arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and foliar-feeding insects in Plantago lanceolata L. New Phytologist. 1994;128: 79–87. pmid:33874534
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
64. Babikova Z, Gilbert L, Randall KC, Bruce TJA, Pickett JA, Johnson D. Increasing phosphorus supply is not the mechanism by which arbuscular mycorrhiza increase attractiveness of bean (Vicia faba) to aphids. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2014;65: 5231–5241. pmid:25200735
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Bennett AE, Millar NS, Gedrovics E, Karley AJ. Plant and insect microbial symbionts alter the outcome of plant-herbivore-parasitoid interactions: implications for invaded, agricultural and natural systems. Austin A, editor. Journal of Ecology. 2016;104: 1734–1744.
View Article
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Rasmann S, Bennett A, Biere A, Karley A, Guerrieri E. Root symbionts: Powerful drivers of plant above- and belowground indirect defenses: Root symbionts and indirect defenses. Insect Science. 2017;24: 947–960. pmid:28374534
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[5] View Article

[6] PubMed/NCBI

[7] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Schüβler A, Schwarzott D, Walker C. A new fungal phylum, the Glomeromycota: phylogeny and evolution. Mycological Research. 2001;105: 1413–1421.
View Article
Google Scholar

[9] View Article

[10] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Tedersoo L, Sánchez-Ramírez S, Kõljalg U, Bahram M, Döring M, Schigel D, et al. High-level classification of the Fungi and a tool for evolutionary ecological analyses. Fungal Diversity. 2018;90: 135–159.
View Article
Google Scholar

[12] View Article

[13] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Hodge A. Microbial ecology of the arbuscular mycorrhiza. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 2000;32: 91–96. pmid:10817861
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[15] View Article

[16] PubMed/NCBI

[17] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Wang B, Qiu Y-L. Phylogenetic distribution and evolution of mycorrhizas in land plants. Mycorrhiza. 2006;16: 299–363. pmid:16845554
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[19] View Article

[20] PubMed/NCBI

[21] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Kloppholz S, Kuhn H, Requena N. A Secreted Fungal Effector of Glomus intraradices Promotes Symbiotic Biotrophy. Current Biology. 2011;21: 1204–1209. pmid:21757354
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[23] View Article

[24] PubMed/NCBI

[25] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Schweiger R, Baier MC, Müller C. Arbuscular Mycorrhiza-Induced Shifts in Foliar Metabolism and Photosynthesis Mirror the Developmental Stage of the Symbiosis and Are Only Partly Driven by Improved Phosphate Uptake. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions. 2014;27: 1403–1412. pmid:25162317
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[27] View Article

[28] PubMed/NCBI

[29] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Glick BR. The enhancement of plant growth by free-living bacteria. Can J Microbiol. 1995;41: 109–117.
View Article
Google Scholar

[31] View Article

[32] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Compant S, Clément C, Sessitsch A. Plant growth-promoting bacteria in the rhizo- and endosphere of plants: Their role, colonization, mechanisms involved and prospects for utilization. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2010;42: 669–678.
View Article
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Bai Y, Zhou X, Smith DL. Enhanced Soybean Plant Growth Resulting from Coinoculation of Bacillus Strains with Bradyrhizobium japonicum. Crop Sci. 2003;43: 1774–1781.
View Article
Google Scholar

[37] View Article

[38] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Ahemad M, Kibret M. Mechanisms and applications of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: Current perspective. Journal of King Saud University—Science. 2014;26: 1–20.
View Article
Google Scholar

[40] View Article

[41] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Bhattacharyya PN, Jha DK. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): emergence in agriculture. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2012;28: 1327–1350. pmid:22805914
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[43] View Article

[44] PubMed/NCBI

[45] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Russo A, Vettori L, Felici C, Fiaschi G, Morini S, Toffanin A. Enhanced micropropagation response and biocontrol effect of Azospirillum brasilense Sp245 on Prunus cerasifera L. clone Mr.S 2/5 plants. Journal of Biotechnology. 2008;134: 312–319. pmid:18358553
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[47] View Article

[48] PubMed/NCBI

[49] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Graham PH, Vance CP. Legumes: Importance and Constraints to Greater Use. Plant Physiol. 2003;131: 872–877. pmid:12644639
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[51] View Article

[52] PubMed/NCBI

[53] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Xavier LJC, Germida JJ. Selective interactions between arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. viceae enhance pea yield and nutrition. Biol Fertil Soils. 2003;37: 261–267.
View Article
Google Scholar

[55] View Article

[56] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Artursson V, Finlay RD, Jansson JK. Interactions between arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and bacteria and their potential for stimulating plant growth. Environ Microbiol. 2006;8: 1–10. pmid:16343316
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[58] View Article

[59] PubMed/NCBI

[60] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Wang X, Pan Q, Chen F, Yan X, Liao H. Effects of co-inoculation with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and rhizobia on soybean growth as related to root architecture and availability of N and P. Mycorrhiza. 2011;21: 173–181. pmid:20544230
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[62] View Article

[63] PubMed/NCBI

[64] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Iffis B, St-Arnaud M, Hijri M. Petroleum hydrocarbon contamination, plant identity and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal (AMF) community determine assemblages of the AMF spore-associated microbes: Assemblages of AMF and their spore-associated microbes. Environ Microbiol. 2016;18: 2689–2704. pmid:27376781
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[66] View Article

[67] PubMed/NCBI

[68] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Tajini F, Trabelsi M, Drevon J-J. Co-inoculation with Glomus intraradices and Rhizobium tropici CIAT899 increases P use efficiency for N2 fixation in the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) under P deficiency in hydroaeroponic culture. Symbiosis. 2011;53: 123–129.
View Article
Google Scholar

[70] View Article

[71] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Takács T, Cseresnyés I, Kovács R, Parádi I, Kelemen B, Szili-Kovács T, et al. Symbiotic Effectivity of Dual and Tripartite Associations on Soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) Cultivars Inoculated With Bradyrhizobium japonicum and AM Fungi. Front Plant Sci. 2018;9: 1631. pmid:30483288
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[73] View Article

[74] PubMed/NCBI

[75] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Zhang F. Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria and Soybean [Glycine max(L.) Merr.] Nodulation and Nitrogen Fixation at Suboptimal Root Zone Temperatures. Annals of Botany. 1996;77: 453–460.
View Article
Google Scholar

[77] View Article

[78] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Baidoo PK, Mochiah MB. The influence of nutrient application on the pests and natural enemies of pests of okra Abelmoschus esculentus (L.)(Moench.). Journal of Applied Biosciences. 2011;41: 2765–2771.
View Article
Google Scholar

[80] View Article

[81] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Bala K, Sood A, Pathania VS, Thakur S. Effect of plant nutrition in insect pest management: A review. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2018;7: 2737–2742.
View Article
Google Scholar

[83] View Article

[84] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Walter AJ, DiFonzo CD. Soil Potassium Deficiency Affects Soybean Phloem Nitrogen and Soybean Aphid Populations. en. 2007;36: 26–33. pmid:17349112
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[86] View Article

[87] PubMed/NCBI

[88] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Gehring C, Bennett A. Mycorrhizal Fungal–Plant–Insect Interactions: The Importance of a Community Approach. Environmental Entomology. 2009;38: 93–102. pmid:19791601
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[90] View Article

[91] PubMed/NCBI

[92] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Jung SC, Martinez-Medina A, Lopez-Raez JA, Pozo MJ. Mycorrhiza-Induced Resistance and Priming of Plant Defenses. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 2012;38: 651–664. pmid:22623151
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[94] View Article

[95] PubMed/NCBI

[96] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Gehring CA, Whitham TG. Mycorrhizae-herbivore interactions: population and community consequences. Mycorrhizal ecology. Springer; 2002. pp. 295–320. Available: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-38364-2_12.

[ref29] 29. Koricheva J, Gange AC, Jones T. Effects of mycorrhizal fungi on insect herbivores: a meta-analysis. Ecology. 2009;90: 2088–2097. pmid:19739371
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[99] View Article

[100] PubMed/NCBI

[101] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Gange AC, Stagg PG, Ward LK. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi affect phytophagous insect specialism. Ecology Letters. 2002;5: 11–15.
View Article
Google Scholar

[103] View Article

[104] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Dean J, Mescher M, De Moraes C. Plant Dependence on Rhizobia for Nitrogen Influences Induced Plant Defenses and Herbivore Performance. IJMS. 2014;15: 1466–1480. pmid:24451132
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[106] View Article

[107] PubMed/NCBI

[108] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Gadhave KR, Gange AC. Interactions Involving Rhizobacteria and Foliar-Feeding Insects. In: Ohgushi T, Wurst S, Johnson SN, editors. Aboveground–Belowground Community Ecology. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. pp. 117–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91614-9_6

[ref33] 33. Katayama N, Zhang ZQ, Ohgushi T. Community-wide effects of below-ground rhizobia on above-ground arthropods. Ecological Entomology. 2011;36: 43–51.
View Article
Google Scholar

[111] View Article

[112] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Ueda K, Tawaraya K, Murayama H, Sato S, Nishizawa T, Toyomasu T, et al. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on the abundance of foliar-feeding insects and their natural enemy. Applied Entomology and Zoology. 2013;48: 79–85.
View Article
Google Scholar

[114] View Article

[115] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Gehring CA, Whitham TG. Interactions between aboveground herbivores and the mycorrhizal mutualists of plants. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 1994;9: 251–255.
View Article
Google Scholar

[117] View Article

[118] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Balog A, Loxdale HD, lint J, Benedek K, Szab K-A, J?nosi-Rancz K-T, et al. The arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Rhizophagus irregularis affects arthropod colonization on sweet pepper in both the field and greenhouse. Journal of Pest Science. 2017;90: 935–946.
View Article
Google Scholar

[120] View Article

[121] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Pérez-Montaño F, Alías-Villegas C, Bellogín RA, del Cerro P, Espuny MR, Jiménez-Guerrero I, et al. Plant growth promotion in cereal and leguminous agricultural important plants: From microorganism capacities to crop production. Microbiological Research. 2014;169: 325–336. pmid:24144612
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[123] View Article

[124] PubMed/NCBI

[125] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Antunes PM, Koch AM, Dunfield KE, Hart MM, Downing A, Rillig MC, et al. Influence of commercial inoculation with Glomus intraradices on the structure and functioning of an AM fungal community from an agricultural site. Plant Soil. 2009;317: 257–266.
View Article
Google Scholar

[127] View Article

[128] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Dietrick EJ, Schlinger EI, Garber MJ. Vacuum cleaner principle applied in Sampling Insect Populations in alfalfa fields by new machine method. California Agriculture. 1960;14: 9–11.
View Article
Google Scholar

[130] View Article

[131] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Campbell JW, Hanula JL. Efficiency of Malaise traps and colored pan traps for collecting flower visiting insects from three forested ecosystems. Journal of Insect Conservation. 2007;11: 399–408.
View Article
Google Scholar

[133] View Article

[134] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Vrdoljak SM, Samways MJ. Optimising coloured pan traps to survey flower visiting insects. Journal of Insect Conservation. 2012;16: 345–354.
View Article
Google Scholar

[136] View Article

[137] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Doxon ED, Davis CA, Fuhlendorf SD. Comparison of two methods for sampling invertebrates: vacuum and sweep-net sampling: Methods of Sampling Invertebrates. Journal of Field Ornithology. 2011;82: 60–67.
View Article
Google Scholar

[139] View Article

[140] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Antunes PM, de Varennes A, Zhang T, Goss MJ. The Tripartite Symbiosis Formed by Indigenous Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi, Bradyrhizobium japonicum and Soya Bean Under Field Conditions. J Agron Crop Sci. 2006;192: 373–378.
View Article
Google Scholar

[142] View Article

[143] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Vierheilig H, Coughlan AP, Wyss U, Piche Y. Ink and Vinegar, a Simple Staining Technique for Arbuscular-Mycorrhizal Fungi. 1998;64: 4.
View Article
Google Scholar

[145] View Article

[146] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. McGonigle TP, Evans DG, Miller MH. Effect of degree of soil disturbance on mycorrhizal colonization and phosphorus absorption by maize in growth chamber and field experiments. New Phytol. 1990;116: 629–636.
View Article
Google Scholar

[148] View Article

[149] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Gange AC, Bower E, Stagg PG, Aplin DM, Gillam AE, Bracken M. A comparison of visualization techniques for recording arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization. New Phytologist. 1999;142: 123–132.
View Article
Google Scholar

[151] View Article

[152] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Favret C, Lessard V, Trépanier A, Eon‐Le Guern T, Théry T. Voegtlin‐style suction traps measure insect diversity and community heterogeneity. Insect Conserv Divers. 2019;12: 373–381.
View Article
Google Scholar

[154] View Article

[155] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Derraik JGB, Closs GP, Dickinson KJM, Sirvid P, Barratt BIP, Patrick BH. Arthropod Morphospecies versus Taxonomic Species: a Case Study with Araneae, Coleoptera, and Lepidoptera. Conservation Biology. 2002;16: 1015–1023.
View Article
Google Scholar

[157] View Article

[158] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Voegtlin DJ, Halbert SE, Qiao G. A Guide to Separating Aphis glycines Matsumura and Morphologically Similar Species That Share Its Hosts. Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 2004;97: 6.
View Article
Google Scholar

[160] View Article

[161] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Ross HH. An Evolutionary Outline of the Leafhopper Genus Empoasca Subgenus Kybos, with a Key to the Nearetic Fauna (Hemiptera, Cicadellidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 1963;56: 202–223.
View Article
Google Scholar

[163] View Article

[164] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Torcat Fuentes M, Lenardis A, de la Fuente EB. Insect assemblies related to volatile signals emitted by different soybean–weeds–herbivory combinations. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2018;255: 20–26.
View Article
Google Scholar

[166] View Article

[167] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Beisel J-N, Moreteau J-C. A simple formula for calculating the lower limit of Shannon’s diversity index. Ecological Modelling. 1997;99: 289–292.
View Article
Google Scholar

[169] View Article

[170] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Tomczak VV, Müller C. Influence of arbuscular mycorrhizal stage and plant age on the performance of a generalist aphid. Journal of Insect Physiology. 2017;98: 258–266. pmid:28159616
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[172] View Article

[173] PubMed/NCBI

[174] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems: Data exploration. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2010;1: 3–14.
View Article
Google Scholar

[176] View Article

[177] Google Scholar

[ref55] 55. Hartley SE, Gange AC. Impacts of Plant Symbiotic Fungi on Insect Herbivores: Mutualism in a Multitrophic Context. Annual Review of Entomology. 2009;54: 323–342. pmid:19067635
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[179] View Article

[180] PubMed/NCBI

[181] Google Scholar

[ref56] 56. Pineda A, Soler R, Pozo MJ, Rasmann S, Turlings TCJ. Editorial: Above-belowground interactions involving plants, microbes and insects. Front Plant Sci. 2015;6. pmid:25657654
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[183] View Article

[184] PubMed/NCBI

[185] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. Dean JM, Mescher MC, De Moraes CM. Plant–rhizobia mutualism influences aphid abundance on soybean. Plant Soil. 2009;323: 187–196.
View Article
Google Scholar

[187] View Article

[188] Google Scholar

[ref58] 58. Gange AC. Species-specific responses of a root-and shoot-feeding insect to arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization of its host plant. New Phytologist. 2001;150: 611–618.
View Article
Google Scholar

[190] View Article

[191] Google Scholar

[ref59] 59. Myers SW, Gratton C, Wolkowski RP, Hogg DB, Wedberg JL. Effect of Soil Potassium Availability on Soybean Aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) Population Dynamics and Soybean Yield. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2005;98: 8. pmid:15765672
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[193] View Article

[194] PubMed/NCBI

[195] Google Scholar

[ref60] 60. Myers SW, Gratton C. Influence of Potassium Fertility on Soybean Aphid, Aphis glycines Matsumura (Hemiptera: Aphididae), Population Dynamics at a Field and Regional Scale. Environ Entomol. 2006;35: 219–227.
View Article
Google Scholar

[197] View Article

[198] Google Scholar

[ref61] 61. Tomczak VV, Schweiger R, Müller C. Effects of Arbuscular Mycorrhiza on Plant Chemistry and the Development and Behavior of a Generalist Herbivore. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 2016;42: 1247–1258. pmid:27787678
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[200] View Article

[201] PubMed/NCBI

[202] Google Scholar

[ref62] 62. Howe GA, Jander G. Plant Immunity to Insect Herbivores. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2008;59: 41–66. pmid:18031220
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[204] View Article

[205] PubMed/NCBI

[206] Google Scholar

[ref63] 63. Gange AC, West HM. Interactions between arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and foliar-feeding insects in Plantago lanceolata L. New Phytologist. 1994;128: 79–87. pmid:33874534
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[208] View Article

[209] PubMed/NCBI

[210] Google Scholar

[ref64] 64. Babikova Z, Gilbert L, Randall KC, Bruce TJA, Pickett JA, Johnson D. Increasing phosphorus supply is not the mechanism by which arbuscular mycorrhiza increase attractiveness of bean (Vicia faba) to aphids. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2014;65: 5231–5241. pmid:25200735
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[212] View Article

[213] PubMed/NCBI

[214] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Living material

2.2. Experimental design

2.3. Insect trapping and sampling

2.4. Arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization measurement

2.5. Insect identification

2.6. Statistical analysis

3. Results

3.1. Effects of AMF and rhizobacteria inoculation on crop yield and mycorrhizal colonization

3.2. Observed insect abundance and species richness among different inoculation treatments

3.3. Correlation between AMF colonization and abundance/richness of insects

4. Discussion

5. Conclusions

Supporting information

S4 Table. Correlation between the rate of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi colonization in the roots of soybean and the abundance and richness of insects at Varennes and Saint-Simon.

S1 Data.

Acknowledgments

References