Search for: All records

Abstract Microorganisms can help plants and animals contend with abiotic stressors, but why they provide such benefits remains unclear. Here we investigated byproduct benefits, which occur when traits that increase the fitness of one species provide incidental benefits to another species with no direct cost to the provider. In a greenhouse experiment, microbial traits predicted plant responses to soil moisture such that bacteria with self‐beneficial traits in drought increased plant early growth, size at reproduction, and chlorophyll concentration under drought, while bacteria with self‐beneficial traits in well‐watered environments increased these same plant traits in well‐watered soils. Thus, microbial traits that promote microbial success in different moisture environments also promote plant success in these same environments. Our results demonstrate that byproduct benefits, a concept developed to explain the evolution of cooperation in pairwise mutualisms, can also extend to interactions between plants and nonsymbiotic soil microbes. 

Abstract: Improved soil health (SH) is critical in achieving agricultural resilience and miti- gating climate risks. Whether SH management practices are widely used depends greatly on US farmers’ voluntary decision-making. Toward understanding this point, much research has addressed factors that contribute to the adoption (or lack thereof) of SH-promoting practices, but less is known in terms of farmers’ perceptions of SH itself and the corresponding man- agement practices they see as related to achieving SH. To offer introductory insight on this knowledge gap and support better buy-in from farmers toward positive SH outcomes, our research draws upon qualitative interviews with 91 farmers across three key agricultural states in the Midwest (Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan). We develop a more detailed understanding of farmers’ views on SH, and why and how they manage for it. Nearly all interviewed farmers were familiar with the concept of SH and most viewed it favorably. A minority of farmers lacked familiarity with the term “SH” yet still managed for it. Skeptics of SH largely cited uncertainties related to over-zealous messaging by proponents of SH or lack of evidence for the return on investment of SH practices. Overall, farmers’ perceptions of SH largely aligned with the scientific community’s understanding of soils being a dynamic system, though farmers most dominantly defined SH by its biological component. Farmers perceived a host of benefits of SH, most often noting benefits to production, followed by improvements in physical aspects of the soil such as erosion control and increased organic matter. Notably, pro- duction and sustainability benefits were often cited together, suggesting that SH management is increasingly seen as a “win-win” by farmers. Additionally, we found that many farmers view themselves as active participants in SH outcomes and believe their management choices are indicators of positive SH outcomes, regardless of the practices they employ, including some strategies (such as tillage or tile drainage) that do not align with scientifically documented approaches to improving SH. Our findings show that farmers report engaging in an array of SH management practices that target both biotic and abiotic components of soils, and often use multiple practices in tandem to promote SH on their farms. Achieving better SH in agricultural production in the future will require engaging farmers in SH management by tailoring outreach and communication strategies to align with the perspectives and language farmers themselves use to conceptualize SH.