Next Article in Journal
Vernalization of Winter Crops Increases Photosynthetic Energy Conversion Efficiency and Seed Yield
Previous Article in Journal
Multiplex CRISPR/Cas9 Editing of Rice Prolamin and GluA Glutelin Genes Reveals Subfamily-Specific Effects on Seed Protein Composition
Previous Article in Special Issue
Phosphorus Dynamics in Managed and Natural Soils: SEM-PLS Analysis of Vaccinium, Forest, and Grassland Ecosystems
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 14
Issue 15
10.3390/plants14152356
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Soil Phosphorus Availability Modulates Host Selectivity of Pedicularis kansuensis Between Legumes and Grasses

by
Xiaolin Sui
1,
Ruijuan Xue
1 and
Airong Li
1,2,*
1
Yunnan Key Laboratory for Wild Plant Resources, Department of Economic Plants and Biotechnology, Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming 650201, China
2
Key Laboratory of Phytochemistry and Natural Medicines, Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming 650201, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2025, 14(15), 2356; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14152356
Submission received: 26 May 2025 / Revised: 19 July 2025 / Accepted: 27 July 2025 / Published: 31 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Phosphorus and pH Management in Soil–Plant Systems)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Host selectivity or preference plays a critical role in enabling parasitic plants to identify suitable hosts and influence plant community dynamics. Phosphorus (P) is known to affect the growth of root hemiparasitic plants and their interaction with single host species, but its role in shaping host selectivity across multiple hosts is unclear. In a pot experiment, we used a grass–legume co-culture design and evaluated whether the root hemiparasitic plant Pedicularis kansuensis exhibits selective parasitism on legumes (Medicago sativa) versus grasses (Elymus nutans) and assessed the impact of soil P availability on this preference. The results showed that P. kansuensis inhibited the growth of both host species, but the magnitude of suppression varied with P availability. Under low P conditions, P. kansuensis preferentially parasitized the tender M. sativa, causing a greater biomass reduction in the legume. In contrast, at high P levels, P. kansuensis decreased its foraging on legumes, shifting its parasitism towards the dominant E. nutans, which potentially led to stronger suppression of grass growth. Our findings demonstrate that soil P availability modulates host selectivity in P. kansuensis, emphasizing the influence of soil nutrient conditions on parasite–host dynamics. This research provides insights into managing the impacts of parasitic plants on plant community structure through nutrient interventions.

1. Introduction

Root hemiparasitic plants account for more than half of all parasitic plant species and are commonly found in diverse natural and semi-natural environments [1]. These plants extract essential resources from host plants, including carbon (C), nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and water, via specialized structures called haustoria [2,3]. This parasitism significantly inhibits host growth and reduces overall plant productivity [4,5]. Additionally, root hemiparasites influence interactions between host and non-host plants, altering plant community composition and diversity [6,7]. While most root hemiparasitic plants are generalists capable of parasitizing a wide range of neighboring plant species, they exhibit clear preferences for certain hosts [5]. Foraging for preferred hosts (host selectivity) is crucial for successful parasitism and has profound implications for plant community dynamics. However, the mechanisms driving host selectivity in root hemiparasitic plants remain poorly understood.
Host selectivity in root hemiparasitic plants generally occurs in three stages: growth toward the host root (host tropism), attachment to the host root, and haustorium formation. Although research into these processes is still emerging, there is evidence that root hemiparasites exhibit host tropism. For instance, a recent study demonstrated that seedlings of the facultative root hemiparasite Rhinanthus minus preferentially grew toward legume roots rather than grass roots in an agar plate experiment [8]. However, while this short-term (3-week) study provided direct evidence of early-stage host selectivity, it did not examine whether such tropism results in the formation of more haustoria on legume hosts or leads to greater suppression of legume biomass compared to grasses in multi-species systems. A grass–legume co-culture pot experiment found that the obligate root hemiparasite Melampyrum arense had a more pronounced negative impact on the legume host Medicago sativa than on the grass Lolium perenne [9]. These findings suggest that root hemiparasites may preferentially target legumes over grasses, causing uneven effects between host species. However, as obligate root hemiparasites depend entirely on their hosts for survival from germination onward [2,10], host selectivity is more critical for their survival than for facultative hemiparasites. In contrast, facultative hemiparasites can grow independently for a portion of their lifecycle and may not exhibit the same degree of host specificity [2,3]. Whether facultative hemiparasites demonstrate host selectivity and impose unequal effects on coexisting host species remains largely unexplored.
Although root hemiparasitic plants have shown a preference for suppressing legume hosts over grass hosts in the aforementioned pot experiments, this phenomenon was not consistently observed in field experiments. For example, Rhinanthus species typically harmed grass biomass but had varying effects on legume biomass—positive [11,12], negative [13,14], or neutral [15]. Several reasons have been proposed to explain these contrasting effects of parasitism on legumes. Firstly, different plant species have been found to differ in their quality as hosts [16], so the species diversity of legumes in field conditions may be a factor. Secondly, the abundance of legumes in the plant community also plays a role in determining the parasite’s effect on legume biomass, as the most abundant host species are more likely to be encountered by a parasite than less abundant ones [17]. Additionally, environmental factors such as nutrient availability may significantly influence host selectivity for legumes in natural habitats.
Nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) are essential macronutrients that influence the growth of hemiparasitic plants, and meanwhile, the primary mineral nutrients the parasites extract from their hosts [18,19]. Previous studies found that soil N and P levels impacted the growth of hemiparasitic plants [20] and their interactions with host plants [21,22,23]. However, they were mainly conducted in single host–parasite pairs, limiting our understanding of how nutrients influence the interactions between hemiparasitic plants and their coexisting hosts in natural environments. While N has been a primary focus of studies examining nutrient effects on parasitic plants [24], the role of P remains underexplored [22]. Phosphorus not only affects the growth of hemiparasitic plants [25,26] but also influences grass–legume interactions [27,28] and the secretion of plant exudates, such as flavonoids and strigolactones [29,30,31], which may act as chemical signals for host tropism [8,32]. Therefore, we hypothesize that the host selectivity of root hemiparasitic plants between grass and legume hosts may be modulated by soil P levels.
Pedicularis kansuensis, a facultative root hemiparasitic plant, is widespread in subalpine regions of western China [33], including the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau and Tianshan Mountains [34]. This species has a significant ecological and economic impact, as it can reduce grassland productivity by up to 80%, thereby threatening the local livestock industry [35]. Previous research indicates that P. kansuensis parasitizes a wide range of hosts, with a preference for species in the Poaceae (grasses) and Fabaceae (legumes) [36]. However, the host selectivity of P. kansuensis between coexisting grass and legume hosts and the factors that influence its host selectivity in mixed-species systems remain poorly understood. This study investigates whether P. kansuensis selectively parasitizes a legume host (M. sativa) over a grass host (Elymus nutans) in a grass–legume co-culture pot experiment and whether soil P availability affects this selectivity. By clarifying the interactions between P. kansuensis and its hosts under varying P levels, this research aims to improve our understanding of how P availability modulates parasitic preference between phylogenetically distinct hosts and to provide insights for managing the impacts of parasitic plants in grassland ecosystems.

2. Results

2.1. Haustorium Formation of the Hemiparasite

Pedicularis kansuensis formed more PFH on the grass host compared to the legume host, especially under 1P (p < 0.05) and 2P (p < 0.05) treatments (Figure 1A). However, the number of PFH per gram of dry root was higher on legume roots than grass roots under low P conditions (particularly in 1P treatment, p < 0.05) but not under 2P conditions (p > 0.05, Figure 1B). P availability had no significant impact on the number of PFH on grass roots (p > 0.05) but did affect that in the legume host (p < 0.05) (Figure 1A). The total number of haustoria produced by P. kansuensis was not significantly affected by P availability (p > 0.05; Figure 1C). Conversely, the total number of haustoria per gram dry root of P. kansuensis was significantly decreased under 2P treatments compared to 0P (p < 0.01) and 1P (p < 0.01) conditions (Figure 1D).

2.2. Growth Performance and Biomass Allocation of Hosts and the Hemiparasite

The significant interaction effects between P availability and parasitism on the growth performance of host plants were only found on the root DW of M. sativa (F = 6.08, p < 0.01), as the damage induced by P. kansuensis decreased with P increment (Table 1). Parasitism exerted a strong negative effect on both hosts, while the effect of P availability was host- and tissue-specific (Table 1). The degree of growth suppression caused by P. kansuensis varied between E. nutans and M. sativa, which was influenced by P availability (Figure 2). At low P levels, M. sativa experienced significantly greater suppression of shoot (0P, 82.08%; 1P, 79.39%) and root DWs (0P, 77.39%; 1P, 81.38%) compared to E. nutans (0P, shoot 50.81%, root 47.20%; 1P, shoot 48.98%, root 27.02%). However, under high P conditions (2P), growth suppression of E. nutans increased substantially (shoot, 78.68%; root, 45.54%), while M. sativa (shoot, 64.41%; root, 36.65%) showed reduced inhibition (Figure 2).
P availability had no obvious effect on the root–shoot ratio of infected (p > 0.05) or uninfected (p > 0.05) E. nutans, despite the root–shoot ratio of infected E. nutans appeared to increase with higher levels of P (Table 1). The root–shoot ratios of uninfected M. sativa varied significantly among P treatments, while there were no apparent differences for infected M. sativa (p > 0.05; Table 1). Compared to uninfected controls, the root–shoot ratio of infected M. sativa (p < 0.05) and E. nutans (p < 0.05) was significantly higher under 2P conditions (Table 1).
For P. kansuensis, its shoot DW (p < 0.05), root DW (p < 0.01), and root–shoot ratio (p < 0.05) were significantly affected by P availability. Higher P availability (2P) significantly increased both shoot and root DWs compared to 1P, while P deficiency (0P) did not suppress its growth (Table 1). In addition, the root–shoot ratio of P. kansuensis was higher under 2P than other P levels (Table 1).

2.3. Biomass Proportions of Host and Hemiparasite per Pot

The shoot DW proportion of E. nutans consistently exceeded that of M. sativa across all treatments (Figure 3). Infection by P. kansuensis reduced the shoot DW proportions of E. nutans, which was more serious with 2P treatment (54.63%, p < 0.05) than in the 0P (16.98%, p < 0.05) and 1P (12.41%, p < 0.05) conditions. Conversely, the suppression of shoot DW proportion of M. sativa by P. kansuensis was lower at high P level (2P, 30.86%, p > 0.05) than at low P treatments (0P, 69.39%, p < 0.01; 1P, 66.00%, p < 0.01). Infection by P. kansuensis significantly suppressed the root DW proportion of E. nutans under 2P treatment (27.80%, p < 0.05) but obviously inhibited that of M. sativa under 0P (59.78%, p < 0.05) and 1P (73.50%, p < 0.05) treatments. The shoot and root DW proportion of P. kansuensis was highest under 2P conditions (shoot, 52.52%; root, 25.93%) and similar between 0P (shoot, 18.72%; root, 5.23%) and 1P (shoot, 17.53%; root, 4.11%) treatments. Total shoot biomass per pot decreased significantly in the presence of P. kansuensis (F = 83.74, p < 0.001), and the percentage suppression of total shoot biomass by P. kansuensis increased with P availability (Figure 3).

2.4. Shoot N and P Status of Hosts and Hemiparasite

The effects of P availability and parasitism on N concentrations of E. nutans and M. sativa, as well as the P concentration of E. nutans, were analyzed. It was found that no significant single and interactive effects were observed (Table 2; Figure 4A,C). P availability and parasitism had single effects on the N contents of E. nutans and M. sativa, and parasitism (owing to larger ηP2 values) played a more critical role in host N content than P levels (Table 2). The presence of P. kansuensis significantly reduced N contents in E. nutans and M. sativa (Figure 4B). Under low P conditions (0P and 1P), the N content of M. sativa was suppressed more severely than E. nutans (80.35% vs. 50.67% at 0P and 79.42% vs. 36.36% at 1P). However, under 2P, N suppression in M. sativa decreased (68.06%), while it intensified in E. nutans (77.35%). The increase in P availability significantly reduced the N content of E. nutans, particularly when parasitized by P. kansuensis (Figure 4B). On the other hand, the N contents of infected M. sativa and P. kansuensis increased with increasing P availability (Figure 4B).
According to the results of two-way ANOVA, parasitism had a significant effect on the P content of E. nutans (Table 2), while there was no notable decrease in the P content of E. nutans between treatments with or without P. kansuensis under the same P level (0P, 51.35%, p > 0.05; 1P, 27.12%, p > 0.05; 2P, 83.70%, p > 0.05; Figure 4D). In contrast, P availability did not have a noticeable effect on the P content of E. nutans (Table 2), but it significantly decreased with P increment when the grass host was infected by P. kansuensis (Figure 4D). The P contents of parasitized M. sativa and P. kansuensis could not be measured due to insufficient biomass.

3. Discussion

3.1. P Affected Host Selectivity of Root Hemiparasitic Plants Between Grass and Legume

To evaluate the host preference of P. kansuensis while controlling the “meeting chance” caused by differential root biomass, we compared the haustoria number per gram of dry weight between different host plants. The results showed a distinct foraging preference of P. kansuensis between grass and legume hosts, which was affected by P availability. Under 0P and 1P treatment, although M. sativa (legume) exhibited substantially lower root biomass than E. nutans (dominant grass) (Table 1), P. kansuensis developed significantly more haustoria on the legume host (Figure 1B), indicating that P. kansuensis preferred to forage legumes under low P conditions. Under high P conditions (2P), P. kansuensis decreased its preference for the legume host, shifting its parasitism towards the dominant E. nutans and forming more haustoria on its roots (Figure 1B). This study demonstrates that soil P availability influences the host selectivity of the root hemiparasitic plant P. kansuensis in a grass–legume co-culture.
The modulation of host selectivity by P in P. kansuensis altered their effects on the growth dynamics of grass and legume hosts, impacting their relationship in a grass–legume co-culture. When P levels were low, M. sativa was more strongly suppressed compared to E. nutans, whereas the opposite pattern was observed under high P conditions (Figure 2). These changes in host suppression suggest that hemiparasitic plants can alter interspecific competition in plant communities by affecting coexisting host species differently [37,38]. The suppression of dominant species like E. nutans by P. kansuensis under high P conditions (Figure 3) supports the hypothesis that parasitic plants reduce the competitive advantage of dominant species, facilitating coexistence and potentially increasing plant community diversity [1,17]. However, the overall productivity of the plant community was reduced in the presence of P. kansuensis, with the extent of suppression increasing at higher P levels (Figure 3). This suggests that the ecological benefits of hemiparasitic plants in promoting species coexistence may come at the cost of reduced ecosystem productivity.

3.2. Potential Mechanisms of P Affect Host Selectivity in Root Hemiparasitic Plants

Several studies have shown that root hemiparasitic plants can distinguish legumes from grasses [8], and they generally exhibit stronger suppression on legumes in a multispecies system [9,39]. However, the mechanisms behind this phenomenon still need to be further investigated. Our study confirmed the ability of root hemiparasitic plants to differentiate between legumes and grasses and also suggested that their host selectivity may vary with changes in P availability.
The P-mediated regulation of host–parasite interactions was initially established in a single host system, where high levels of P inhibited haustorium formation in Rhinanthus minor on Lolium perenne by causing root thickening that mechanically blocked haustoria penetration [40]. In our two-host experiment, despite not quantitatively assessing the root morphological parameters and haustoria structure, both hosts exhibited significantly suppressed growth performance (shoot DW, E. nutans 78.68%, M. sativa 64.41%; root DW, E. nutans 45.54%, M. sativa: 36.65%) and nutrient status (shoot N content, E. nutans 77.35%, M. sativa 68.06%) under high P conditions, indicating their susceptibility to parasitism by P. kansuensis. Therefore, the changes in the capacity of P. kansuensis to develop haustoria on different hosts under various P levels imply that the P-mediated host selection of the root hemiparasite operates through alternative mechanisms rather than purely physical barriers.
Recent studies show that strigolactones (SLs), such as orobanchol and 5-deoxystrigol, act as chemoattractants for host tropism (the initial step of host selectivity) in both the facultative root hemiparasite Phtheirospermum japonicum and the obligate root hemiparasite Striga hermonthica [32]. This suggests that host preference in root hemiparasitic plants is likely driven by host-derived chemical signals, whose production is influenced by P availability in growth media. In this study, P availability affected haustoria formation on legume roots (Figure 1A), implying that host-derived factors, like flavonoids, phenolics, or quinones [32,41], may also contribute to host selectivity. Since P deficiency elevates legume secretion of SLs [31], flavonoids [42,43,44], and phenolic acids [45], altered production of these signals likely drives P-dependent host preference shifts. This explains the preference of P. kansuensis to M. sativa under low P (likely due to elevated chemoattractants) but to grasses under high P conditions (where reduced legume signals enable grass dominance). Identifying specific chemical signals and their nutrient-regulated mechanisms is essential to understanding host selectivity in root hemiparasitic plants.

3.3. Impact of Soil P Availability on Growth Performance of Hemiparasites

The growth of P. kansuensis was positively influenced by high P availability, as evidenced by increased shoot and root biomass under 2P conditions (Table 1). These findings are consistent with previous studies showing that nutrient addition enhances hemiparasite growth [24,46], either through improved host resource availability [47] or direct nutrient uptake by hemiparasites [48]. While we did not quantify the nutrient transferred from host to hemiparasite or evaluate the photosynthesis capability of the root hemiparasite in this study, we found that the root–shoot ratio of P. kansuensis was higher in the 2P treatment than in the 1P treatment (Table 1), implying that root hemiparasitic plants invest more energy in root growth and improve their nutrient absorption capability in high P conditions.
On the other hand, some studies suggested that fertilization had a negative effect on the growth of root hemiparasitic plants because nutrient addition facilitated the growth of host plants, leading to increased competition from host plants for light [4,49]. For example, Liu et al. [35] found that adding P fertilizer suppressed the above-ground biomass of P. kansuensis in a field study, as the host plants outcompeted the hemiparasite under high nutrient conditions. The discrepancy in the effects of P on the growth of P. kansuensis between our study and Liu’s research may be partly explained by differences in plant growth conditions, as various factors such as nutrients, water, and soil microbes can influence the interaction between host and hemiparasitic plant [21,50].
Interestingly, the growth of P. kansuensis under P-deficient conditions (0P) was not significantly lower than 1P treatment (Table 1). This resilience can be attributed to its parasitic strategy, which allows it to obtain critical nutrients from host plants. This capacity to thrive in nutrient-poor environments likely explains the prevalence of root hemiparasitic plants in habitats with low soil fertility [48].

3.4. Implications for Management of Parasitic Plants

This study highlights the importance of soil P availability in influencing the dynamics of parasitic plant–host interactions. Manipulating soil nutrient levels, particularly P availability, could be a potential strategy for managing the impacts of parasitic plants like P. kansuensis on agricultural systems and natural plant communities. For example, in systems where legumes are the preferred hosts, increasing P availability could shift parasitism toward grasses, potentially reducing damage to economically important legume crops. Future research should focus on field-based experiments to validate the findings of this study and explore the broader ecological and practical implications of nutrient-mediated host selectivity in root hemiparasitic plants. Additionally, integrating chemical analyses of host root exudates could provide deeper insights into the mechanisms driving host preference and its modulation by soil nutrients.
It is worth noting that the cultivation medium in this study was sterilized to eliminate interference from soil microorganisms on the host selectivity of root hemiparasitic plants. However, in natural soil environments, soil microorganisms, particularly arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), are ubiquitous [51]. AMF generally form symbiotic relationships with grasses and legumes, influencing interactions between plant groups and being affected by soil P levels [52,53,54]. Therefore, future research should investigate the role of soil microorganisms, such as AMF and potentially other types, in mediating interactions between parasitic plants and a wider range of potential host plants under varying P availability, employing mixed-plant designs similar to the one used here.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Experimental Design

Elymus nutans (grass) and Medicago sativa (legume) were selected as host species due to their known preference by P. kansuensis (PK) and their common use in alpine grassland restoration efforts in China. A factorial pot experiment was conducted based on a grass–legume co-culture design, with the presence/absence of P. kansuensis (+PK and −PK) and three levels of P availability (0 mM/L Na2HPO4 [0P], 1.33 mM/L Na2HPO4 [1P], and 2.66 mM/L Na2HPO4 [2P]), based on the Long Ashton nutrient solution formula [20,55]. Each treatment combination was replicated with 6 pots for +PK (one grass, one legume, and one parasite) and 5 pots for −PK (one grass and one legume), resulting in a total of 33 pots.

4.2. Plant Materials

Seeds of P. kansuensis and E. nutans were collected from Bayanbulak Grassland (83°42′ E, 42°52′ N, 2472 m) in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, China, in late August 2016. M. sativa seeds were sourced commercially in 2010. All seeds were stored at 4 °C until use. Seeds were surface-sterilized with 4.5% sodium hypochlorite for 5 min and rinsed 5 times with distilled water. Seeds were germinated on moistened filter paper in Petri dishes and incubated at 18/25 °C (day/night) with a 12 h photoperiod and a light intensity of 22.2 μmol photons m−2s−1.

4.3. Planting and Growth Conditions

Based on our grass–legume co-culture design, germinated E. nutans and M. sativa seedlings were planted in pairs in the center of each pot, spaced 2 cm apart. After one week, a single germinated P. kansuensis seedling was added to +PK pots, forming an equilateral triangle with the host seedlings. Each pot contained 3.2 kg of growth substrate, a mixture of 10% soil material from Kunming Botanical Garden and 90% river sand. The soil and sand were sieved through a 1 mm sieve before use. Available N, P, and K concentrations of the growth substrate were around 14.3, 2.7, and 62.4 mg kg−1 dry substrate. To eliminate the influence of soil microbes on the host selection of root hemiparasitic plants, we utilized autoclaved substrate (121 °C for 2 h).
Pots were maintained in a greenhouse at Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, under natural light conditions with temperatures ranging from 15 to 35 °C. The experiment ran from 23 June to 30 October 2017, 129 days. P fertilizer solutions were applied weekly (20 mL per pot) two weeks after planting, corresponding to the specified P levels for each treatment. Pots were randomized weekly to minimize positional effects.

4.4. Harvest and Sampling

Only pots where all plants survived until the end of the experiment were included in the analysis (three pots under 0P conditions with PK, five pots under 0P and 1P conditions without PK, four pots under other conditions). At harvest, shoots and roots were separated. The roots of each plant species were identified morphologically and separated before being stored in 50% alcohol for later measurement. Three replicates for each +PK treatment were randomly selected to analyze the number of haustoria (HN) produced by P. kansuensis. Haustoria were categorized into two types: (1) presumably functional haustoria (PFH) that attach to host roots with distinct xylem bridges [56], and (2) non-functional haustoria (NFH) without distinct xylem bridges. The number of PFH attached to each host was counted separately. The total number of haustoria produced by P. kansuensis was the sum of the number of PFH attached to each host and the number of NFH. The incidence of haustorium formation was recorded as the number of haustoria per gram of dry root samples [57]. Plant shoot and root dry weights (DWs) were determined after oven drying at 75 °C for 48 h.

4.5. Measurement of Shoot N and P Concentrations

For nutrient analysis, shoot N and P concentrations were measured from the three replicates per treatment that were used for examining haustoria numbers. N concentration was determined using an elemental analyzer (Vario Macro Cube, Elementar, Germany), while P concentration was measured with the phosphovanado-molybdate method on a spectrophotometer (L6S, Shanghai Yidian Analytical Instrument Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China). Due to limited biomass in certain pots, shoot P concentration for M. sativa and P. kansuensis was not analyzed. Shoot N or P contents were calculated by multiplying the element concentration and shoot DW.

4.6. Statistical Analyses

Two-way ANOVA was used to evaluate the effects of P availability and parasitism on shoot dry weight (DW), root DW, shoot N, and P status (concentration and content) of E. nutans and M. sativa, as well as total shoot biomass per pot. One-way ANOVA followed by the LSD test assessed the influence of P availability on growth performance, nutrient status, and haustorium formation. Independent sample t-tests were used to analyze the effects of parasitism on host growth and nutrient status, as well as differences in haustorium formation by P. kansuensis between host species. Before analysis, data were assessed for normality and homogeneity. For specific datasets, data were transformed by log10 to meet assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variances. Mann–Whitney U tests were employed for datasets with non-normal distributions. Statistical analyses and visualization were conducted in R (version 4.4.2) and R-Studio using packages dplyr [58], emmeans [59], effectsize [60], car [61], ggpubr [62], and ggplot2 [63].

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrates that host selectivity of the root hemiparasitic plant P. kansuensis is influenced by soil P availability. Under low P conditions, P. kansuensis preferentially parasitized the legume host M. sativa, forming more haustoria and causing significant biomass reduction in the legume host despite much higher grass biomass in the host mixture. In contrast, under higher P levels, P. kansuensis shifted its parasitism toward the grass host E. nutans, leading to more severe suppression of grass growth. These findings emphasize the significance of soil P status in shaping the interactions between parasitic plants and their hosts. They also have practical implications for mitigating the damage caused by parasitic weeds in agricultural and natural ecosystems via adjusting nutrient supply. Future research should explore these interactions in field settings and investigate the chemical and physiological mechanisms underlying host preference. Such studies will deepen our understanding of parasitic plant ecology and help develop strategies for managing their impact on plant communities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.S. and A.L.; methodology, X.S.; software, X.S.; validation, X.S. and A.L.; formal analysis, X.S.; investigation, X.S. and R.X.; writing—original draft preparation, X.S.; writing—review and editing, X.S., R.X. and A.L.; visualization, X.S.; supervision, A.L.; funding acquisition, X.S. and A.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by Yunnan Ten Thousand Talents Program Plan Young & Elite Talents Project [YNWR-QNBJ-2020-290 for Xiaolin Sui] and the National Natural Science Foundation of China [No. 31872686], as well as partly supported by Yunnan Fundamental Research Project [No. 202401AT070237 and Grant No. 202201AS070046] and Yunnan Revitalization Talent Support Program “Innovation Team” Project [202505AS350017].

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the first author.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Ning Yan and her team for their help with greenhouse management, as well as to Qiuping Chen for her advice on utilizing R software for data analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Těšitel, J. Functional biology of parasitic plants: A review. Plant Ecol. Evol. 2016, 149, 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Westwood, J.H.; Yoder, J.I.; Timko, M.P.; dePamphilis, C.W. The evolution of parasitism in plants. Trends Plant Sci. 2010, 15, 227–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Irving, L.J.; Cameron, D.D. You are what you eat: Interactions between root parasitic plants and their hosts. Adv. Bot. Res. 2009, 50, 87–138. [Google Scholar]
  4. Matthies, D. Parasitic and competitive interactions between the hemiparasites Rhinanthus serotinus and Odontites rubra and their host Medicago sativa. J. Ecol. 1995, 83, 245–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Press, M.C.; Phoenix, G.K. Impacts of parasitic plants on natural communities. New Phytol. 2005, 166, 737–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Fibich, P.; Leps, J.; Chytry, M.; Tesitel, J. Root hemiparasitic plants are associated with high diversity in temperate grasslands. J. Veg. Sci. 2017, 28, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Těšitel, J.; Li, A.R.; Knotkova, K.; McLellan, R.; Bandaranayake, P.C.G.; Watson, D.M. The bright side of parasitic plants: What are they good for? Plant Physiol. 2021, 185, 1309–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sandner, T.M.; Schoppan, L.; Matthies, D. Seedlings of a hemiparasite recognize legumes, but do not distinguish good from poor host species. Folia Geobot. 2022, 57, 117–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Matthies, D. Interactions between the root hemiparasite Melampyrum arvense and mixtures of host plants: Heterotrophic benefit and parasite-mediated competition. Oikos 1996, 75, 118–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cechin, I.; Press, M.C. Nitrogen relations of the sorghum-Striga hermonthica host-parasite association: Germination, attachment and early growth. New Phytol. 1993, 124, 681–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Rowntree, J.K.; Craig, H. The contrasting roles of host species diversity and parasite population genetic diversity in the infection dynamics of a keystone parasitic plant. J. Ecol. 2019, 107, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Westbury, D.B.; Dunnett, N.P. The promotion of grassland forb abundance: A chemical or biological solution? Basic Appl. Ecol. 2008, 9, 653–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ameloot, E.; Verheyen, K.; Hermy, M. Meta-analysis of standing crop reduction by Rhinanthus spp. and its effect on vegetation structure. Folia Geobot. 2005, 40, 289–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fisher, J.P.; Phoenix, G.K.; Childs, D.Z.; Press, M.C.; Smith, S.W.; Pilkington, M.G.; Cameron, D.D. Parasitic plant litter input: A novel indirect mechanism influencing plant community structure. New Phytol. 2013, 198, 222–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ameloot, E.; Verlinden, G.; Boeckx, P.; Verheyen, K.; Hermy, M. Impact of hemiparasitic Rhinanthus angustifolius and R. minor on nitrogen availability in grasslands. Plant Soil 2008, 311, 255–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Matthies, D. Interactions between a root hemiparasite and 27 different hosts: Growth, biomass allocation and plant architecture. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2017, 24, 118–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chaudron, C.; Mazalova, M.; Kuras, T.; Malenovsky, I.; Mladek, J. Introducing ecosystem engineers for grassland biodiversity conservation: A review of the effects of hemiparasitic Rhinanthus species on plant and animal communities at multiple trophic levels. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2021, 52, 125633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Irving, L.J.; Kim, D.; Schwier, N.; Vaughan, J.K.E.; Ong, G.; Hama, T. Host nutrient supply affects the interaction between the hemiparasite Phtheirospermum japonicum and its host Medicago sativa. Environ. Expe. Bot. 2019, 162, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Jiang, F.; Jeschke, W.D.; Hartung, W.; Cameron, D.D. Interactions between Rhinanthus minor and its hosts: A review of water, mineral nutrient and hormone flows and exchanges in the hemiparasitic association. Folia Geobot. 2010, 45, 369–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Li, A.R.; Li, Y.J.; Smith, S.E.; Smith, F.A.; Guan, K.Y. Nutrient requirements differ in two Pedicularis species in the absence of a host plant: Implication for driving forces in the evolution of host preference of root hemiparasitic plants. Ann. Bot. 2013, 112, 1099–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Těšitel, J.; Těšitelová, T.; Fisher, J.P.; Lepš, J.; Cameron, D.D. Integrating ecology and physiology of root-hemiparasitic interaction: Interactive effects of abiotic resources shape the interplay between parasitism and autotrophy. New Phytol. 2015, 205, 350–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Cirocco, R.M.; Facelli, E.; Delean, S.; Facelli, J.M. Does phosphorus influence performance of a native hemiparasite and its impact on a native legume? Physiol. Plant 2021, 173, 1889–1900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Cirocco, R.M.; Watling, J.R.; Facelli, J.M. The combined effects of water and nitrogen on the relationship between a native hemiparasite and its invasive host. New Phytol. 2021, 229, 1728–1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Korell, L.; Sandner, T.M.; Matthies, D.; Ludewig, K. Effects of drought and N level on the interactions of the root hemiparasite Rhinanthus alectorolophus with a combination of three host species. Plant Biol. 2020, 22, 84–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jiang, F.; Jeschke, W.D.; Hartung, W. Solute flows from Hordeum vulgare to the hemiparasite Rhinanthus minor and the influence of infection on host and parasite nutrient relations. Funct. Plant Biol. 2004, 31, 633–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Seel, W.E.; Parsons, A.N.; Press, M.C. Do inorganic solutes limit growth of the facultative hemiparasite Rhinanthus minor L in the absence of a host. New Phytol. 1993, 124, 283–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. He, Y.; Bi, Y.; Yu, H.; Zhang, Y.; Struik, P.C.; Jing, J. Positive legacy effects of grass-legume mixture leys on phosphorus uptake and yield of maize weaken over the growing season. Field Crop Res. 2024, 314, 109434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhu, S.G.; Tao, H.Y.; Li, W.B.; Zhou, R.; Gui, Y.W.; Zhu, L.; Zhang, X.L.; Wang, W.; Wang, B.Z.; Mei, F.J.; et al. Phosphorus availability mediates plant-plant interaction and field productivity in maize-grass pea intercropping system: Field experiment and its global validation. Agric. Syst. 2023, 205, 103584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tawaraya, K.; Horie, R.; Shinano, T.; Wagatsuma, T.; Saito, K.; Oikawa, A. Metabolite profiling of soybean root exudates under phosphorus deficiency. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2014, 60, 679–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Xiong, C.; Li, X.; Wang, X.; Wang, J.; Lambers, H.; Vance, C.P.; Shen, J.; Cheng, L. Flavonoids are involved in phosphorus-deficiency-induced cluster-root formation in white lupin. Ann. Bot. 2022, 129, 101–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yoneyama, K.; Yoneyama, K.; Takeuchi, Y.; Sekimoto, H. Phosphorus deficiency in red clover promotes exudation of orobanchol, the signal for mycorrhizal symbionts and germination stimulant for root parasites. Planta 2007, 225, 1031–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ogawa, S.; Cui, S.K.; White, A.R.F.; Nelson, D.C.; Yoshida, S.; Shirasu, K. Strigolactones are chemoattractants for host tropism in Orobanchaceae parasitic plants. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 4653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sui, X.L.; Kuss, P.; Li, W.J.; Yang, M.Q.; Guan, K.Y.; Li, A.R. Identity and distribution of weedy Pedicularis kansuensis Maxim. (Orobanchaceae) in Tianshan Mountains of Xinjiang: Morphological, anatomical and molecular evidence. J. Arid Land 2016, 8, 453–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Li, W.J.; Sui, X.L.; Kuss, P.; Liu, Y.Y.; Li, A.R.; Guan, K.Y. Long-Distance Dispersal after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) led to the disjunctive distribution of Pedicularis kansuensis (Orobanchaceae) between the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau and Tianshan Region. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0165700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Liu, Y.Y.; Taxipulati, T.; Gong, Y.M.; Sui, X.L.; Wang, X.Z.; Parent, S.E.; Hu, Y.K.; Guan, K.Y.; Li, A.R. N-P fertilization inhibits growth of root hemiparasite Pedicularis kansuensis in natural grassland. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 2088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bao, G.S.; Suetsugu, K.; Wang, H.S.; Yao, X.; Liu, L.; Ou, J.; Li, C.J. Effects of the hemiparasitic plant Pedicularis kansuensis on plant community structure in a degraded grassland. Ecol. Res. 2015, 30, 507–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Tesitel, J.; Mladek, J.; Hornik, J.; Tesitelova, T.; Adamec, V.; Tichy, L. Suppressing competitive dominants and community restoration with native parasitic plants using the hemiparasitic Rhinanthus alectorolophus and the dominant grass Calamagrostis epigejos. J. Appl. Ecol. 2017, 54, 1487–1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Těšitel, J.; Mladek, J.; Fajmon, K.; Blazek, P.; Mudrak, O. Reversing expansion of Calamagrostis epigejos in a grassland biodiversity hotspot: Hemiparasitic Rhinanthus major does a better job than increased mowing intensity. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2018, 21, 104–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sandner, T.M.; Matthies, D. Multiple choice: Hemiparasite performance in multi-species mixtures. Oikos 2018, 127, 1291–1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Davies, D.M.; Graves, J.D. The impact of phosphorus on interactions of the hemiparasitic angiosperm Rhinanthus minor and its host Lolium perenne. Oecologia 2000, 124, 100–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Goyet, V.; Wada, S.; Cui, S.; Wakatake, T.; Shirasu, K.; Montiel, G.; Simier, P.; Yoshida, S. Haustorium inducing factors for parasitic Orobanchaceae. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Luo, J.J.; Liu, Y.X.; Zhang, H.K.; Wang, J.P.; Chen, Z.J.; Luo, L.J.; Liu, G.D.; Liu, P.D. Metabolic alterations provide insights into Stylosanthes roots responding to phosphorus deficiency. BMC Plant Biol. 2020, 20, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Malusà, E.; Russo, M.; Mozzetti, C.; Belligno, A. Modification of secondary metabolism and flavonoid biosynthesis under phosphate deficiency in bean roots. J. Plant Nutr. 2006, 29, 245–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mo, X.H.; Zhang, M.K.; Liang, C.Y.; Cai, L.Y.; Tian, J. Integration of metabolome and transcriptome analyses highlights soybean roots responding to phosphorus deficiency by modulating phosphorylated metabolite processes. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2019, 139, 697–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dakora, F.D.; Phillips, D.A. Root exudates as mediators of mineral acquisition in low-nutrient environments. Plant Soil 2002, 245, 35–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Borowicz, V.A.; Armstrong, J.E. Resource limitation and the role of a hemiparasite on a restored prairie. Oecologia 2012, 169, 783–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hautier, Y.; Hector, A.; Vojtech, E.; Purves, D.; Turnbull, L.A. Modelling the growth of parasitic plants. J. Ecol. 2010, 98, 857–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Těšitel, J.; Fibich, P.; de Bello, F.; Chytry, M.; Leps, J. Habitats and ecological niches of root-hemiparasitic plants: An assessment based on a large database of vegetation plots. Preslia 2015, 87, 87–108. [Google Scholar]
  49. Fibich, P.; Leps, J.; Berec, L. Modelling the population dynamics of root hemiparasitic plants along a productivity gradient. Folia Geobot. 2010, 45, 425–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sui, X.L.; Zhang, T.; Tian, Y.T.; Xue, R.J.; Li, A.R. A neglected alliance in battles against parasitic plants: Arbuscular mycorrhizal and rhizobial symbioses alleviate damage to a legume host by root hemiparasitic Pedicularis species. New Phytol. 2019, 221, 470–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Smith, S.; Read, D. Mycorrhizal Symbiosis; Academic Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Boston, MA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  52. Wang, X.R.; Zhao, S.P.; Bucking, H. Arbuscular mycorrhizal growth responses are fungal specific but do not differ between soybean genotypes with different phosphate efficiency. Ann. Bot. 2016, 118, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wang, G.; Sheng, L.; Zhao, D.; Sheng, J.; Wang, X.; Liao, H. Allocation of nitrogen and carbon is regulated by nodulation and mycorrhizal networks in soybean/maize intercropping system. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 1901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lekberg, Y.; Arnillas, C.A.; Borer, E.T.; Bullington, L.S.; Fierer, N.; Kennedy, P.G.; Leff, J.W.; Luis, A.D.; Seabloom, E.W.; Henning, J.A. Nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization consistently favor pathogenic over mutualistic fungi in grassland soils. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 3484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hewitt, E.J. Sand and Water Culture Methods Used in the Study of Plant Nutrition; Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux: Farnham Royal, UK, 1966. [Google Scholar]
  56. Li, A.R.; Guan, K.Y. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi may serve as another nutrient strategy for some hemiparasitic species of Pedicularis (Orobanchaceae). Mycorrhiza 2008, 18, 429–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Li, A.R.; Smith, S.E.; Smith, F.A.; Guan, K.Y. Inoculation with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi suppresses initiation of haustoria in the root hemiparasite Pedicularis tricolor. Ann. Bot. 2012, 109, 1075–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wickham, H.; François, R.; Henry, L.; Müller, K.; Vaughan, D. dplyr: A Grammar of data Manipulation. R package Version 1.1.4. 2023. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr (accessed on 31 October 2024).
  59. Lenth, R. emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, Aka Least-Squares Means. R Package Version 1.10.6. 2024. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans (accessed on 12 December 2024).
  60. Ben-Shachar, M.S.; Lüdecke, D.; Makowski, D. Effectsize: Estimation of effect size indices and standardized parameters. J. Open Source Softw. 2020, 5, 2815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Fox, J.; Weisberg, S. An R Companion to Applied Regression, 3rd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  62. Kassambara, A. gpubr: ‘ggplot2’ Based Publication Ready Plots. R Package Version 0.6.0. 2023. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggpubr (accessed on 31 October 2024).
  63. Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
Plants 14 02356 g001
Figure 1. Haustoria formation capability of Pedicularis kansuensis under various P levels. (A) Number of presumably functional haustoria (PFH) produced by P. kansuensis on EN and MS; (B) number of PFH per gram dry root of EN and MS; (C) total number of haustoria (H) formed by PK (sum of functional/non-functional haustoria on both hosts); and (D) number of H per gram dry root of PK (haustoria incidence). Data are presented as mean ± 1SE. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences among P availability at a p < 0.05 level. Asterisks denote significant differences between EN and MS under the same P level (* p < 0.05). Species: Elymus nutans (EN), Medicago sativa (MS), P. kansuensis (PK). P treatments: 0P, 0 mM/L Na2HPO4; 1P, 1.33 mM/L Na2HPO4; 2P, 2.66 mM/L Na2HPO4.
Figure 1. Haustoria formation capability of Pedicularis kansuensis under various P levels. (A) Number of presumably functional haustoria (PFH) produced by P. kansuensis on EN and MS; (B) number of PFH per gram dry root of EN and MS; (C) total number of haustoria (H) formed by PK (sum of functional/non-functional haustoria on both hosts); and (D) number of H per gram dry root of PK (haustoria incidence). Data are presented as mean ± 1SE. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences among P availability at a p < 0.05 level. Asterisks denote significant differences between EN and MS under the same P level (* p < 0.05). Species: Elymus nutans (EN), Medicago sativa (MS), P. kansuensis (PK). P treatments: 0P, 0 mM/L Na2HPO4; 1P, 1.33 mM/L Na2HPO4; 2P, 2.66 mM/L Na2HPO4.
Plants 14 02356 g001
Plants 14 02356 g002
Figure 2. The degree of suppression of host growth by Pedicularis kansuensis under different P levels. (A) The suppression of shoot dry weight (DW); (B) the suppression of root DW. Data are mean ± 1 SE. Asterisks denote significant differences between species under the same P level (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001). Species: Elymus nutans (EN), Medicago sativa (MS). P treatments: 0P, 0 mM/L Na2HPO4; 1P, 1.33 mM/L Na2HPO4; 2P, 2.66 mM/L Na2HPO4.
Figure 2. The degree of suppression of host growth by Pedicularis kansuensis under different P levels. (A) The suppression of shoot dry weight (DW); (B) the suppression of root DW. Data are mean ± 1 SE. Asterisks denote significant differences between species under the same P level (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001). Species: Elymus nutans (EN), Medicago sativa (MS). P treatments: 0P, 0 mM/L Na2HPO4; 1P, 1.33 mM/L Na2HPO4; 2P, 2.66 mM/L Na2HPO4.
Plants 14 02356 g002
Plants 14 02356 g003
Figure 3. Total shoot biomass in each pot with or without Pedicularis kansuensis under different P levels. Data are presented as means of replicate pots under different P and parasitism conditions, with stacked bars showing the mean values of Elymus nutans (EN), Medicago sativa (MS), and P. kansuensis (PK) separately. In addition, the percentage of total shoot biomass per pot (including PK, outside bracket) and the percentage of total shoot biomass of both host plants suppressed by PK (inside bracket) are displayed for each P treatment. Parasitism: −PK, without PK; +PK, with PK. P treatments: 0P, 0 mM/L Na2HPO4; 1P, 1.33 mM/L Na2HPO4; 2P, 2.66 mM/L Na2HPO4.
Figure 3. Total shoot biomass in each pot with or without Pedicularis kansuensis under different P levels. Data are presented as means of replicate pots under different P and parasitism conditions, with stacked bars showing the mean values of Elymus nutans (EN), Medicago sativa (MS), and P. kansuensis (PK) separately. In addition, the percentage of total shoot biomass per pot (including PK, outside bracket) and the percentage of total shoot biomass of both host plants suppressed by PK (inside bracket) are displayed for each P treatment. Parasitism: −PK, without PK; +PK, with PK. P treatments: 0P, 0 mM/L Na2HPO4; 1P, 1.33 mM/L Na2HPO4; 2P, 2.66 mM/L Na2HPO4.
Plants 14 02356 g003
Plants 14 02356 g004
Figure 4. Shoot N and P status of hosts and hemiparasite in pots with or without Pedicularis kansuensis under different P conditions. (A) Shoot N concentration (mg/g of dry weight, mg/g); (B) shoot N concentration (mg per plant, mg/plant); (C) shoot P concentration (mg/g of dry weight, mg/g); (D) shoot P content (mg per plant, mg/plant). Data are mean ± 1 SE. Different uppercase letters indicate significant effects of P availability on host plants in pots without PK (−PK); different lowercase letters indicate significant effects of P availability on host and hemiparasite in pots with PK (+PK) (p < 0.05, LSD tests). Asterisks denote significant differences between treatments with or without PK under the same P level (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001, two independent samples’ t test). Species: Elymus nutans (EN), Medicago sativa (MS), P. kansuensis (PK). P treatments: 0P, 0 mM/L Na2HPO4; 1P, 1.33 mM/L Na2HPO4; 2P, 2.66 mM/L Na2HPO4.
Figure 4. Shoot N and P status of hosts and hemiparasite in pots with or without Pedicularis kansuensis under different P conditions. (A) Shoot N concentration (mg/g of dry weight, mg/g); (B) shoot N concentration (mg per plant, mg/plant); (C) shoot P concentration (mg/g of dry weight, mg/g); (D) shoot P content (mg per plant, mg/plant). Data are mean ± 1 SE. Different uppercase letters indicate significant effects of P availability on host plants in pots without PK (−PK); different lowercase letters indicate significant effects of P availability on host and hemiparasite in pots with PK (+PK) (p < 0.05, LSD tests). Asterisks denote significant differences between treatments with or without PK under the same P level (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001, two independent samples’ t test). Species: Elymus nutans (EN), Medicago sativa (MS), P. kansuensis (PK). P treatments: 0P, 0 mM/L Na2HPO4; 1P, 1.33 mM/L Na2HPO4; 2P, 2.66 mM/L Na2HPO4.
Plants 14 02356 g004
Table 1. Comparisons of growth performance of Elymus nutans, Medicago sativa, and Pedicularis kansuensis under different parasitism or P conditions.
Table 1. Comparisons of growth performance of Elymus nutans, Medicago sativa, and Pedicularis kansuensis under different parasitism or P conditions.
SpeciesP LevelShoot Dry Weight (g)Root Dry Weight (g)Root–Shoot Ratio
−PK+PK−PK+PK−PK+PK
E. nutans0P1.35 ± 0.07 Aa0.66 ± 0.11 Ab0.89 ± 0.06 Aa0.46 ± 0.09 Ab0.66 ± 0.04 Aa0.73 ± 0.16 Aa
1P1.13 ± 0.11 Aa0.56 ± 0.08 ABb0.71 ± 0.08 Aa0.49 ± 0.08 Aa0.62 ± 0.02 Aa0.88 ± 0.06 Aa
2P1.25 ± 0.08 Aa0.26 ± 0.04 Bb0.74 ± 0.06 Aa0.39 ± 0.12 Aa0.60 ± 0.05 Ab1.46 ± 0.42 Aa
M. sativa0P0.05 ± 0.01 Ba0.01 ± 0.00 Bb0.05 ± 0.01 Ba0.01 ± 0.00 Bb1.02 ± 0.08 Aa1.26 ± 0.58 Aa
1P0.12 ± 0.02 Aa0.02 ± 0.00 Bb0.10 ± 0.01 Aa0.02 ± 0.00 Bb0.89 ± 0.10 ABa0.77 ± 0.08 Aa
2P0.12 ± 0.02 Aa0.04 ± 0.01 Ab0.08 ± 0.01 ABa0.05 ± 0.01 Aa0.72 ± 0.05 Bb1.31 ± 0.12 Aa
P. kansuensis0P--0.15 ± 0.07 AB--0.03 ± 0.01 B--0.18 ± 0.02 B
1P--0.12 ± 0.01 B--0.02 ± 0.00 B--0.17 ± 0.02 B
2P--0.35 ± 0.08 A--0.13 ± 0.02 A--0.38 ± 0.07 A
Data are presented as mean ± 1 SE. Different uppercase letters in the same column indicate a statistically significant difference at p < 0.05 levels between three P availability based on one-way ANOVA followed by LSD post hoc tests; different lowercase letters in the same row indicate a statistically significant difference at p < 0.05 levels between −PK (without parasite) and +PK (with parasite) treatment based on two independent samples’ t test. -- indicates data for P. kansuensis was not collected in the -PK treatment due to their absence.
Table 2. Two-way ANOVA results (F and ηP2 values) for the effects of phosphorus availability (P) and parasitism (Pa) on shoot N and P status of Elymus nutans (EN) and Medicago sativa (MS).
Table 2. Two-way ANOVA results (F and ηP2 values) for the effects of phosphorus availability (P) and parasitism (Pa) on shoot N and P status of Elymus nutans (EN) and Medicago sativa (MS).
N ConcentrationP ConcentrationN ContentP Content
ENMSENMSENMS †ENMS
dfFηP2FηP2FηP2 FηP2FηP2FηP2
P2, 121.0910.150.1170.020.0630.01--7.717 **0.5630.153 ***0.830.3580.06--
Pa1, 120.0100.002.4840.170.0280.00--63.166 **0.84101.813 ***0.8921.840 **0.65--
P * Pa2, 120.3340.050.2390.041.4400.19--3.4790.371.0570.153.1690.35--
Values suggesting significant effects were given in bold (** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001). – indicates that data were unanalyzed because samples in some pots were insufficient for P measurement. † indicates that data were log 10 transformed before analyses. -- indicates that data could not be collected and analyzed because of insufficient biomass from parasitized M. sativa and Pedicularis kansuensis plants.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sui, X.; Xue, R.; Li, A. Soil Phosphorus Availability Modulates Host Selectivity of Pedicularis kansuensis Between Legumes and Grasses. Plants 2025, 14, 2356. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14152356

AMA Style

Sui X, Xue R, Li A. Soil Phosphorus Availability Modulates Host Selectivity of Pedicularis kansuensis Between Legumes and Grasses. Plants. 2025; 14(15):2356. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14152356

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sui, Xiaolin, Ruijuan Xue, and Airong Li. 2025. "Soil Phosphorus Availability Modulates Host Selectivity of Pedicularis kansuensis Between Legumes and Grasses" Plants 14, no. 15: 2356. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14152356

APA Style

Sui, X., Xue, R., & Li, A. (2025). Soil Phosphorus Availability Modulates Host Selectivity of Pedicularis kansuensis Between Legumes and Grasses. Plants, 14(15), 2356. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14152356

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop