in

The endomicrobiome and weed invasiveness in Mediterranean ecosystems worldwide


Abstract

Mediterranean ecosystems, one of the most significant global hotspots of biodiversity, are threatened by invasive weeds. Although endomicrobiomes – the vast array of microbes colonising living plant tissues – are known to affect plant fitness, their contribution to weed invasiveness remains virtually unknown. Here, we experimentally assess the role of the endomicrobiome in the invasiveness of Taraxacum officinale (common dandelion), a widespread weed in Mediterranean ecosystems worldwide. In a culling experiment across five generations, we compare the fitness of T. officinale from these ecosystems on five continents grown with intact or reduced native seed-borne endomicrobiomes. Additionally, we report a competition experiment with F1 and F5 individuals assessing their impacts on native local Asteraceae species. We found that T. officinale individuals harboring intact endomicrobiomes show faster and more favorable trait development compared with individuals with reduced endomicrobiomes. Enhanced competitiveness of endomicrobiome-colonised T. officinale plants with local Asteraceae species is apparently caused by increased synthesis of allelochemicals in shoots and rhizosphere soil, with gene expression analyses also showing the endomicrobiome to affect the expression by T. officinale of stress response and RNA-directed DNA methylation genes. Our findings provide insights into the mechanisms underlying weed invasiveness in Mediterranean ecosystems.

Similar content being viewed by others

Single-nucleus transcriptomes reveal spatiotemporal symbiotic perception and early response in Medicago

Microbiome diversity and variations in industrial hemp genotypes

Historic transposon mobilisation waves create distinct pools of adaptive variants in a major crop pathogen

Data availability

Data tables used for the generation of the plots shown in Figs. 1–5, have been deposited in a publicly available Figshare repository (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28127108). The transcriptome assembly generated in this study, as well as the annotated sequences used as templates for qPCR primer design are available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.30707714. Supplementary Data 1-14 are also provided with this paper, in the Supplementary Information File.

References

  1. Myers, N. et al. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cardinale, B. et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Diagne, C. et al. High and rising economic costs of biological invasions worldwide. Nature 592, 571–576 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kourantidou, M. et al. Economic costs of invasive alien species in the Mediterranean basin. Neobiota 67, 427–458. 17 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kumar-Rai, P. & Singh, J. S. Invasive alien plant species: their impact on environment, ecosystem services and human health. Ecol. Indic. 111, 106020 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Moreira, F. et al. Wildfire management in Mediterranean-type regions: paradigm change needed. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 011001 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dawson, W. & Schrama, M. Identifying the role of soil microbes in plant invasions. J. Ecol. 104, 1211–1218 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Whitney, K. D. & Gabler, C. A. Rapid evolution in introduced species, ‘invasive traits’ and recipient communities: challenges for predicting invasive potential. Diversity Distrib. 14, 569–580 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Pyšek, P. & Richardson, D. M. Invasive species, environmental change and management, and health. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 35, 25–55 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Colautti, R. I. & Lau, J. A. Contemporary evolution during invasion: evidence for differentiation, natural selection, and local adaptation. Mol. Ecol. 24, 1999–2017 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Molina-Montenegro, M. A. et al. Is the success of plant invasions the result of rapid adaptive evolution in seed traits? Evidence from a latitudinal rainfall gradient. Front. Plant Sci. 9, 208 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gioria, M. et al. Why are invasive plants successful?. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 74, 635–670 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Robeck, P. et al. Invading plants remain undetected in a lag phase while they explore suitable climates. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 8, 477–488 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Atwater, D. Z. et al. Climate niche shifts are common in introduced plants. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 34–43 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Molina-Montenegro, M. A. et al. Ecophysiological plasticity and local differentiation help explain the invasion success of Taraxacum officinale (dandelion) in South America. Ecography 36, 718–730 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Liu, W. et al. Contrasting plant adaptation strategies to latitude in the native and invasive range of Spartina alterniflora. N. Phytol. 226, 623–634 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bossdorf, O. et al. Phenotypic and genetic differentiation between native and introduced plant populations. Oecologia 144, 1–11 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Vandenkoornhuyse, P. et al. The importance of the microbiome of the plant holobiont. N. Phytol. 206, 1196–1206 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Traveset A. & Richardson D. M. Plant Invasions: The Role Of Biotic Interactions – An Overview. CABI, Oxfordshire, 455 (2020).

  20. Shang, M. et al. Acquisition and evolution of enhanced mutualism—an underappreciated mechanism for invasive success?. ISME J. 16, 2467–2478 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Newsham, K. K. A meta-analysis of plant responses to dark septate root endophytes. N. Phytol. 190, 783–793 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Acuña-Rodríguez, I. S. et al. Functional roles of microbial symbionts in plant cold tolerance. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1034–1048 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Zhang, Z. et al. Soil-microorganism-mediated invasional meltdown in plants. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1612–1621 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Reinhart, K. O. & Callaway, R. M. Soil biota and invasive plants. N. Phytol. 170, 445–457 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bard N. W., et al. Fungal endophytes can modulate plant invasion. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 99, 13085 (2024).

  26. Cusaro, C. M. et al. Incidence of resistance to ALS and ACCase inhibitors in Echinochloa species and soil microbial composition in Northern Italy. Sci. Rep. 14, 10544 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hu, T. et al. Seed microbiome-mediated herbicide resistance evolution in weeds. N. Phytol. 242, 333–343 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Zhang, F. et al. Microbiome-conferred herbicides resistance. N. Phytol. 242, 327–330 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Morella, N. M. et al. Successive passaging of a plant-associated microbiome reveals robust habitat and host genotype-dependent selection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117, 1148–1159 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Global Invasive Species Database (2024). http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/search.php (2024).

  31. Gingerich, P. D. Quantification and comparison of evolutionary rates. Am. J. Sci. 293, 453–478 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  32. John, J. & Sarada, S. Role of phenolics in allelopathic interactions. Allelopath. J. 29, 215–230 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Van Allen, N. et al. Maternal effects and the outcome of interspecific competition. Ecol. Evol. 11, 7544–7556 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jiang, G. et al. Exploring rhizo-microbiome transplants as a tool for protective plant-microbiome manipulation. ISME Commun. 2, 10 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Grace, J. B. On the measurement of plant competition intensity. Ecology 76, 305–308 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Blossey, B. & Notzold, R. Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. J. Ecol. 83, 887–889 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Callaway, R. M. & Aschehoug, E. T. Invasive plants versus their new and old neighbors: a mechanism for exotic invasion. Science 290, 521–523 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hierro, J. L. & Callaway, R. M. Allelopathy and exotic plant invasion. Plant Soil 256, 25–39 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hassani, M. A. et al. Interactions and coadaptation in plant metaorganisms. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 57, 22.1–22.21 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Angulo, V. et al. Plant–microbe eco-evolutionary dynamics in a changing world. New Phytol. 234, 1919–1928 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Petipas, R. H. et al. Microbe-mediated adaptation in plants. Ecol. Lett. 24, 1302–1317 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Molina-Montenegro, M. A. et al. The “Trojan horse” strategy: Seed fungal endophyte symbiosis helps to explain the invasion success of the grass, Poa annua, in Maritime Antarctica. Diversity Distrib. 29, 1432–1444 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Mithöfer, A. & Boland, M. Plant defense against herbivores: chemical aspects. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 63, 431–450 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ballesteros, G. I. et al. Extreme environments as sources of fungal endophytes mitigating climate change impacts on crops in Mediterranean-type ecosystems. Plants, People, Planet 6, 148–161 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  45. He, X. et al. DNA methylation regulates biosynthesis of tanshinones and phenolic acids during growth of Salvia miltiorrhiza. Plant Physiol. 194, 2086–2100 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Li, J. et al. An endophytic Pseudonocardia species induces the production of artemisinin in Artemisia annua. PLoS ONE 7, e51410 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Brader, G. et al. Metabolic potential of endophytic bacteria. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 27, 30–37 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Li, Q. et al. Allelopathic effects of artemisinin on ectomycorrhizal fungal isolates in vitro. Pedobiologia 57, 271–276 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Busby, P. E. et al. Research priorities for harnessing plant microbiomes in sustainable agriculture. PLoS Biol. 15, e2001793 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Finger, R. et al. Glyphosate ban will have economic impacts on European agriculture but effects are heterogenous and uncertain. Commun. Earth Environ. 4, 286 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Walsh, C. M. et al. Variable influences of soil and seed-associated bacterial communities on the assembly of seedling microbiomes. ISME J. 15, 2748–2762 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Verduijn, M. H. et al. Distribution, phenology and demography of sympatric sexual and asexual dandelions (Taraxacum officinale s.l.): geographic parthenogenesis on a small scale. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 82, 205–218 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Gianoli, E. & Molina-Montenegro, M. A. Evolution of physiological performance in invasive plants under climate change. Evolution 75, 3181–3190 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Mueller, U. G. et al. Artificial selection on microbiomes to breed microbiomes that confer salt tolerance to plants. mSystems 6, e01125-21 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Strauss, S. Y. et al. Evolutionary responses of natives to introduced species: what do introductions tell us about natural communities?. Ecol. Lett. 9, 357–374 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Hereme, R. et al. Fungal endophytes exert positive effects on Colobanthus quitensis under water stress but neutral under projected climate change scenario in Antarctica. Front. Microbiol. 11, 264 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Campbell, E. A. et al. Structural mechanism for rifampicin inhibition of bacterial RNA polymerase. Cell 104, 901–912 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Garland T. & Rose M. R. Experimental Evolution. Concepts, Methods and Applications of Selection Experiments. University of California Press, (2009).

  59. Tas, I. C. & Van Dijk, P. J. Crosses between sexual and apomictic dandelions (Taraxacum). I. The inheritance of apomixis. Heredity 83, 707–714 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Ainsworth, E. A. & Gillespie, K. M. Estimation of total phenolic content and other oxidation substrates in plant tissues using Folin-Ciocalteu reagent. Nat. Protoc. 2, 875–877 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Li, B. & Dewey, C. N. RSEM: accurate transcript quantification from RNA-Seq data with or without a reference genome. BMC Bioinforma. 12, 323 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol. Evolution 2, 134–142 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Hendry, A. P. & Kinnison, M. T. The pace of modern life: measuring rates of contemporary microevolution. Evolution 53, 1637–1653 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodol). 57, 289–300 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  65. R-Core Team R: A Language And Environment For Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing (2023).

  66. Pinheiro J. & Bates D. Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS. Springer (2000).

  67. Lenth R. et al. emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1.8.5. (2023).

  68. Wickham, H. et al. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag (2016).

  69. Natural Earth. Free vector and raster map data. https://www.naturalearthdata.com/ (2025).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank S. Acuña, N. Morán, M. Oviedo, R. Munita, R. Berrios, C. Smith, R. Morris, D. Basterrica, M. Pastor, R. Nkos, M. Botha, A. Smith and S. Levi for their assistance in the field sampling, greenhouse experiments and the laboratory analyses. We also thank Alex Fajardo and Kari Saikkonen for their helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

M.A.M-M., I.S.A-R., C.T-D., and C.A. developed the original idea presented in the manuscript. The experiments were designed, and glasshouse data were collected, by M.A.M-M., F.C-U., V.M.E., R.H., F.F-P., P.E.G., A.U., and A.V. Lab analyses were done by G.B., E.C-N., S.G-L., and R.H. Bioinformatic analyses were done by G.B. and R.H. Statistical analyses were done by I.S.A-R. and V.M.E. The first manuscript was written by M.A.M-M. and K.K.N with inputs from co-authors. V.M.E, MD-B., L.Y.G., P.E.G., R.O-H., S.G-L., D.M.R., L.R.P. and A.E.Z. contributed to the writing of subsequent drafts. All co-authors contributed to the final draft.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to
Marco A. Molina-Montenegro.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Communications thanks Stéphane Compant, Maren Friesen and the other anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. A peer review file is available.”

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Infomation

Descriptions of Additional Supplementary Files

Supplementary Data 1-14

Reporting Summary

Transparent Peer Review file

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Molina-Montenegro, M.A., Acuña-Rodríguez, I.S., Atala, C. et al. The endomicrobiome and weed invasiveness in Mediterranean ecosystems worldwide.
Nat Commun (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-68826-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-68826-1


Source: Ecology - nature.com

Best practices for moving from correlation to causation in ecological research

Unmasking deforestation footprints across the global food system

Back to Top