Search for: All records

Summary Epiphytic microbes frequently affect plant phenotype and fitness, but their effects depend on microbe abundance and community composition. Filtering by plant traits and deterministic dispersal‐mediated processes can affect microbiome assembly, yet their relative contribution to predictable variation in microbiome is poorly understood.We compared the effects of host‐plant filtering and dispersal on nectar microbiome presence, abundance, and composition. We inoculated representative bacteria and yeast into 30 plants across four phenotypically distinct cultivars ofEpilobium canum. We compared the growth of inoculated communities to openly visited flowers from a subset of the same plants.There was clear evidence of host selection when we inoculated flowers with synthetic communities. However, plants with the highest microbial densities when inoculated did not have the highest microbial densities when openly visited. Instead, plants predictably varied in the presence of bacteria, which was correlated with pollen receipt and floral traits, suggesting a role for deterministic dispersal.These findings suggest that host filtering could drive plant microbiome assembly in tissues where species pools are large and dispersal is high. However, deterministic differences in microbial dispersal to hosts may be equally or more important when microbes rely on an animal vector, dispersal is low, or arrival order is important. 

Abstract Floral nectar is frequently colonised by microbes. However, nectar microbial communities are typically species‐poor and dominated by few cosmopolitan genera. One hypothesis is that nectar constituents may act as environmental filters. We tested how five non‐sugar nectar compounds as well as elevated sugar impacted the growth of 12 fungal and bacterial species isolated from nectar, pollinators, and the environment. We hypothesised that nectar isolated microbes would have the least growth suppression. Additionally, to test if nectar compounds could affect the outcome of competition between microbes, we grew a subset of microbes in co‐culture across a subset of treatments. We found that some compounds such as H₂O₂suppressed microbial growth across many but not all microbes tested. Other compounds were more specialised in the microbes they impacted. As hypothesised, the nectar specialist yeastMetschnikowia reukaufiiwas unaffected by most nectar compounds assayed. However, many non‐nectar specialist microbes remained unaffected by nectar compounds thought to reduce microbial growth. Our results show that nectar chemistry can influence microbial communities but that microbe‐specific responses to nectar compounds are common. Nectar chemistry also affected the outcome of species interactions among microbial taxa, suggesting that non‐sugar compounds can affect microbial community assembly in flowers.