Artificial particles and soil communities interactively change heterospecific plant-soil feedbacks

Artificial particles and soil communities interactively change heterospecific plant-soil feedbacks | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Artificial particles and soil communities interactively change heterospecific plant-soil feedbacks Benedikt Speißer, Stephanie Gurres, Rutger Wilschut, Mark van Kleunen This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4918961/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 23 Jan, 2025 Read the published version in Plant and Soil → Version 1 posted 6 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background and aims Microplastics affect plant growth and change abiotic and biotic soil properties, such as soil structure or soil-community composition. However, how microplastics affect plant-soil interactions, such as plant-soil feedbacks (PSFs), is still poorly understood. Here, we tested how artificial particles affect heterospecific PSFs, depending on an intact or depleted soil community. Methods We conducted a two-phase-greenhouse experiment using Centaurea jacea to condition soil containing an intact or initially depleted soil community in the first phase. Subsequently, we grew individuals of Crepis biennis and Eragrostis minor in all combinations of soil conditioning, soil-community status, and different material treatments including no particle addition, glass particles, or three microplastics individually and mixed. Effects of soil community, material treatment and their interaction on PSFs were assessed based on plant biomass and rootmorphology traits. Results Particles in general, microplastics and glass, increased PSF strength based on plant biomass. PSFs tended to be negative with the intact but positive with the initially depleted soil community. Overall, particle-addition effects on PSFs were stronger in the initially depleted community, indicating interactive effects of artificial particles in the soil and soil biota. Interactive particle and soil-community effects generally depended on material type and concentration. Conclusion Our findings indicate that artificial particles can affect heterospecific PSFs, and that these effects are likely to be partly mediated by the soil community. Further, they highlight the need for studies assessing potential ecological implications of microplastics modifying plant-soil interactions. Microplastic plant-soil feedback plastic pollution plant-soil interactions Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Introduction Plastic pollution is a global issue receiving increasing social, political, and scientific attention (Bank et al., 2021 ; MacLeod et al., 2021 ; Rochman et al., 2013 ). The potential scale of this problem is obvious when considering that in 2021 almost 400 million tons of new plastics were produced, in Europe alone (Plastics Europe, 2022 ). Due to insufficient recycling strategies and improper disposal, ever increasing quantities of plastic waste are accumulating in the environment (Geyer et al., 2017 ; Jambeck et al., 2015 ). Plastic waste is slowly fragmented into smaller particles called microplastics, generally defined as particles < 5 mm (Thompson et al., 2009 ). Microplastics might be particularly problematic for the environment, but also for humans (MacLeod et al., 2021 ; Vethaak & Legler, 2021 ). Although research on microplastics was mainly limited to marine environments before (Andrady, 2011 ; Cole et al., 2011 ), research focusing on terrestrial ecosystems is increasing (Baho et al., 2021 ; Rillig, 2012 ; Rochman, 2018 ). Soils are the major sink for microplastics, making the plant-soil system especially prone to potential microplastic effects (Chia et al., 2021 ; Helmberger et al., 2020 ; Rillig & Lehmann, 2020 ; Zhou et al., 2021 ). Microplastics can affect plant functioning and alter soil communities (Speißer & van Kleunen, 2023 ; Sun et al., 2022 ), but impacts on plant-soil interactions are still poorly understood. Plants change abiotic and biotic components of the soil they grow in, in turn affecting current plants but also subsequent ones, a process known as plant-soil feedback (PSF) (Bever, 1994 ; Ehrenfeld et al., 2005 ; Wardle, 2002 ). Such PSFs can either be conspecific, if the conditioning and the affected plants belong to the same species, or heterospecific, if the plants belong to different species (van der Putten et al., 2013 ). Generally, PSFs are driven by plants changing abiotic conditions, including nutrient availability and other soil properties, and biotic soil conditions, including the abundance of mutualists and antagonists (Bennett & Klironomos, 2019 ). As effects of such changes range from positive (improved plant performance) to negative (reduced plant performance), PSFs play important roles in ecological processes such as community assembly and succession, and plant invasion (Bennett et al., 2017 ; Chapin et al., 1994 ; Chen & van Kleunen, 2022 ; Klironomos, 2002 ; Van der Putten et al., 1993 ). However, human-driven global change is likely to affect PSFs (van der Putten et al., 2016 ), and microplastics in particular, due to effects on plant functioning, physical soil properties and soil communities are likely to interact with PSFs, but this interaction remains to be tested. By now, it has become clear that microplastics can affect both plant and soil properties. Microplastics change the soil structure, which can result in reduced water availability and increased nutrient leaching (Ingraffia et al., 2022a ; Ingraffia et al., 2022b ; Kim et al., 2021b ; Speißer & van Kleunen, 2023 ; Wan et al., 2019 ). Regarding possible alterations of PSFs, microplastic effects on soil communities might be of particular importance. Plastic particles in the soil can create a new type of habitat for microorganisms called the plastisphere, which is the environment and microbial community under direct influence of microplastics (Rillig et al., 2023 ). Microbial communities associated with microplastics might contain more pathogenic bacteria and fungi (Gkoutselis et al., 2021 ; Zhu et al., 2021 ), which could lead to more negative PSFs. On the other hand, there could be positive effects on mutualistic arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), reducing negative PSF effects (Lehmann et al., 2020 ). Overall, experimental evidence for microplastic effects on AMF is very limited and effects are likely to be highly context dependent (Wang et al., 2020 ). However, although main biotic drivers of PSF, pathogenic bacteria and fungi and mutualistic AMF, are likely to, or have been shown to be affected by microplastics, studies directly testing microplastic effects on PSFs are missing, so far (but see Lozano & Rillig, 2022 ). Microplastics can affect plants both directly, due to phytotoxic effects (Maity & Pramanick, 2020 ; Pignattelli et al., 2020 ) and indirectly, by changing soil characteristics, including biogeochemical cycling and nutrient availability (Ingraffia et al., 2022b ; Leifheit et al., 2021a ). Most likely, both direct and indirect mechanisms are responsible for observed effects of microplastics on plant performance and root growth (Lozano et al., 2021 ; Speißer & van Kleunen, 2023 ; van Kleunen et al., 2020 ). Moreover, effects of microplastics on plants could feed back to plant interactions with soils. For example, microplastics can change plant secondary metabolites, in turn affecting soil nematodes (Kim et al., 2021a ). A first study looking at effects of microplastics on PSFs found that soils previously exposed to microplastics exhibited more positive or negative PSFs compared to soils without microplastic ancestry, depending on microplastic characteristics (Lozano & Rillig, 2022 ), emphasizing the need for more studies investigating microplastic effects on PSFs. Microplastics affect key drivers of PSFs (plants conditioning the soil and soil communities) in various ways, making predictions about microplastic effects on PSFs difficult. To gain a better understanding of how microplastics affect heterospecific PSFs, we tested the hypothesis that microplastics affect PSFs depending on the plastic type and particle concentrations, by assessing how different microplastics affected soil-conditioning effects of Centaurea jacea on the growth of the forb Crepis biennis and the grass Eragrostis minor . Next to a control treatment without added particles and a chemically inert control using glass granules, we included three plastic types, i.e. low-density polyethylene (PE), ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM), and polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA). We applied the different plastics individually and mixed in a low (0.5% vol) and a high (5% vol) concentration. We expected the effects of microplastics on PSFs to be mediated by both abiotic (e.g. soil structure, nutrient availability) and biotic (soil community) factors. Therefore, to disentangle biotic from abiotic effects, we grew C. jacea in substrate containing either an intact or depleted (sterilized) soil community. In the feedback phase, we grew individuals of C. biennis and E. minor in all possible combinations of conditioning, soil community, material type, and material concentration. Finally, due to the closer relatedness to C. jacea , we expected PSF effects and microplastic-induced changes to be stronger for C. biennis , especially with the intact soil community. Methods Study species and precultivation: We used the perennial forb Centaurea jacea L. (Asteraceae) to condition the substrate in the first phase of the experiment (conditioning phase; Fig. 1 ). Centaurea jacea is native to Europe and is naturalized in other parts of the world, including North America and Australia (POWO, 2024 ). We chose this species because it has been shown to induce detectable PSF effects on conspecifics and heterospecifics (Xue et al., 2018a ; Xue et al., 2018b ). To examine heterospecific PSFs of C. jacea , and assess whether these are modified by microplastics, we used the distantly related Eragrostis minor Host (Poaceae) and the more closely related Crepis biennis L. (Asteraceae) as test species in the second phase of the experiment (feedback phase). Eragrostis minor is an annual grass that is native to large parts of Asia, the Mediterranean and parts of Africa, and is naturalized in Central Europe, Australia, and parts of North and South America (POWO, 2024 ). Crepis biennis is a biennial forb native to large parts of Europe and occurs in parts of North America as naturalized species (POWO, 2024 ). Seeds were sown separately by species into plastic trays (13.4 cm × 12.2 cm × 4.9 cm; TEKU® TK 1214, Pöppelmann GmbH & Co. KG, Lohne, Germany) filled with unsterilized potting soil (Einheitserde® CL P, Einheitserdewerke Werkverband e.V., Sinntal-Altengronau, Germany) and placed in a climatized greenhouse for germination two weeks before the beginning of the respective phase. That is, seeds of C. jacea were sown on 15 August 2022, and seeds of E. minor and C. biennis were sown on 10 October 2022. Seeds of C. jacea and C. biennis were obtained from a commercial seed company (Rieger-Hofmann GmbH, Blaufelden-Raboldshausen, Germany), and E. minor seeds were obtained from the botanical garden of the University of Konstanz. Microplastics: To test how different plastic types affect PSFs, we selected three plastic types differing in major characteristics, such as polymer type, surface structure and degradability. Polyethylene (PE) is the most commonly used plastic type (Geyer et al., 2017 ), and is characterized by a smooth surface and high resistance to biotic and abiotic degradation. In our experiment, we used granules (2.5–4 mm) of a non-additivated low-density PE (Lupolen 3020H, LyondellBasell Industries, Rotterdam, Netherlands), which is used to produce, amongst others, plastic bags, and food packaging. As second conventional plastic type, we selected ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM). EPDM is an elastomer that is often used for outdoor applications, due to its high resistance against UV-degradation and abrasion. For example, EPDM granules are frequently used in artificial turfs (e.g. soccer pitches), from which they can easily spread into the surroundings (van Kleunen et al., 2020 ). These EPDM granules are a good example of primary microplastics. Here, we used such EPDM granules (0.5–2.5 mm; Resedagrün RAL 6011, GranuElastic Höfer & Stankowska GbR, Frankfurt (Oder), Germany). As the usage of biodegradable plastic types is increasing continuously (Kumar et al., 2023 ), we also included the biodegradable polymer polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) in our experiment (PHI 002, NaturePlast, Mondeville, France). The PHA granules (2–4 mm) were similar to the PE granules in terms of their appearance. However, PHA is considered to degrade relatively quickly (Dilkes-Hoffman et al., 2019 ), and hence stronger short-term effects can be expected compared to conventional plastics (Qi et al., 2018 ). In addition to the different microplastics, to account for purely physical effects of adding particles to the substrate, we included glass granules (2–4 mm, Glasgranulat klar, Deco Stones, Vechelde, Germany) as a chemically inert control. To remove glass dust and other impurities, the glass granules were thoroughly washed prior to usage. Conditioning phase: For the conditioning phase, we created a substrate consisting of sand-vermiculite (1:1, v:v) mixed with field soil in a 1:1 volume-ratio, to include a natural soil community. The field soil was collected from the topsoil layer of a grassland community close to the botanical garden of the University of Konstanz (N: 47°69′19.56″, E: 9°17′78.42″) and was sieved (mesh size 15 mm × 15 mm) to remove stones and break up large soil aggregates. To be able to investigate the interactive effects of the soil community and our other treatments (soil conditioning, microplastics), we sterilized half of the substrate twice using a steam sterilizer, heating the substrate to 80°C for approximately three hours (Erddämpfer Sterilo, Harter Elektrotechnik, Schenkenzell, Germany). Subsequently, we filled 3-L square pots with the respective substrates, i.e. either with pure sterilized or non-sterilized substrate for the control pots or with sterilized or non-sterilized substrate containing a low (0.5%, v:v) or high (5%, v:v) concentration of PE, EPDM, PHA, a mix of all three plastics (equal volumetric proportions), or glass. To ensure accurate concentrations of the microplastic and glass particles, we prepared the substrate for each pot individually. As soils are recolonized after sterilization (Baweja, 1939 ; Li et al., 2019 ; Marschner & Rumberger, 2004 ), we refer to an initially depleted vs intact soil community, rather than sterilized vs intact. On 29 August 2022, to condition the substrate, we planted four similar sized seedlings of C. jacea per pot into half of the pots, keeping the other half of the pots as unconditioned control. Subsequently, we placed the 220 pots (2 conditioning × 2 soil communities × (((4 plastics + glass) × 2 concentrations) + 1 control) × 5 replicates) in the same greenhouse compartment described above in a randomized block design. Within the five blocks, the pots were randomly assigned to fixed positions. On 24 October 2022, after a growth period of eight weeks, we harvested the plants by first cutting the shoots and subsequently carefully removing the roots from the substrate. We collected the shoots and roots from each pot individually, dried them at 70°C for at least 72 hours and weighed them using a digital scale. We report the effects of microplastics and soil community (depleted vs. intact) on C. jacea in the supplement (Supplementary Tables 1 & 2; Supplementary Fig. 1) Feedback phase: We thoroughly homogenized the substrate of each individual conditioning-phase 3-L pot, and subsequently redistributed it into two new 1-L pots. Into one of these two pots, we planted one seedling of C. biennis , and, into the other one, we planted a seedling of E. minor . This resulted in a total of 440 pots for the feedback phase (i.e., 220 pots per test species; Fig. 1 ), which again were arranged in the same greenhouse into five randomized replicate blocks. To be able to account for differences in initial size of the seedlings in the statistical analysis, for each seedling, we measured the length and width of the largest leaf, counted the number of leaves, and calculated a proxy of initial leaf area by multiplying the leaf length by the width of the largest leaf and by the number of leaves. After a growth period of ten weeks, we harvested both the aboveground and belowground parts of the plants, individually. The shoots of both species, as well as the roots of E. minor were directly dried at 70°C for at least 72 hours and subsequently weighed using a digital scale. For C. biennis , we stored the fresh roots in water-filled tubes at 8°C for a maximum of 72 hours prior to root-morphology analysis. For the root-morphology analysis of C. biennis , we scanned the individual root systems using a root scanner (modified Epson Expression 1100 XL and Epson Expression 1200 XL flatbed scanners) and analyzed the total root length, average root diameter, average link length (as a proxy for root ramification) and root volume (to calculate root-tissue density), using the WinRhizo™ Pro imaging software (Regent Instruments Inc., Canada). After scanning, the roots were dried and weighed as described above. As the root systems of E. minor were very dense and convoluted, we analyzed root-morphology traits only for C. biennis . Statistical analysis: All statistical analyses were performed in R 4.2.2 (R Core Team, 2022 ). PSFs: To test how the three different types of microplastics in different concentrations affect heterospecific plant-soil feedbacks (PSF), and how potential effects might be influenced by soil-community depletion, we first calculated PSF values as log-response ratios: $$\:{PSF}_{X}=\text{l}\text{n}\left(\frac{{X}_{conditioned}}{\stackrel{-}{{X}_{unconditioned}}}\right)$$ That is, the PSF value for a given trait (X) was calculated as the natural logarithm of the quotient of the individual sample trait value from the conditioned soil and the mean of the control samples from the unconditioned soil (grouped by material treatment and soil community). For both response species, C. biennis and E. minor , we calculated PSFs for total biomass (PSF biomass ) and the proportion of root biomass to total biomass, i.e. root-weight ratio (PSF RWR ). For C. biennis , we also calculated PSFs for the root-morphology traits average root diameter (PSF RD ), specific root length (PSF SRL ), average link length (PSF LL ), and root-tissue density (PSF RTD ). We then fitted linear mixed-effects models using the lme function of the “nlme” package (Pinheiro et al., 2021 ), including PSF as response variable. We included material treatment (the one control and 10 combinations of material type and concentration), soil community (intact vs. initially depleted) and their interaction as fixed effects, and block as random effect. To improve homoscedasticity, we added variance structures for soil community for the PSF biomass model of E. minor and for all C. biennis models except for the PSF LL and PSF RTD models, using the varIdent fuction in the “nlme” package. For the PSF RWR model of E. minor , adding variance structures for material treatment resulted in the best model fit (based on AIC). Significance of fixed effects was assessed using log-likelihood-ratio tests (Zuur et al., 2009 ). Contrast models: To obtain more detailed information about differences in effects of the different material types and concentrations, we created orthogonal contrasts comparing specific material-treatment combinations (Supplementary Table 3). The first contrast tested the effect of particle addition by comparing the average of the grouped material treatments (low and high concentrations of glass and microplastics) to the control (no added material). The second contrast tested the overall effects of plastics by comparing the average of the grouped microplastics to the average of low and high glass. The third contrast tested the effect of mixing the plastic types by comparing the average of the low and high microplastic mix to the average of the grouped individual microplastics. The fourth contrast tested the effect of the biodegradable plastic by comparing the average of the low and high biodegradable PHA to the average of the grouped conventional plastics (EPDM and PE). The fifth contrast tested whether the two conventional plastics had different effects by comparing the average of the low and high EPDM to the average of the low and high PE. The sixth to tenth contrasts compared the high vs. low concentration of each individual material type. We then replaced the material treatment with the ten a priori chosen contrasts as explanatory variables in the linear mixed-effects models, together with soil community and the specific two-way interactions between soil community and each contrast. Results Given the long-standing discussion about strictly binary decisions based on arbitrary p-value thresholds, we followed the recommendations of Muff et al. (2021), and wrote the results in a gradual evidence language. All results refer to effects on the calculated plant-soil feedback (PSF) values for the respective traits. Heterospecific PSF effects on Crepis biennis : Biomass responses: PSF biomass and PSF RWR of C. biennis ranged from negative to positive values, and there was very strong evidence that both were interactively affected by the material treatment (combinations of different material types and concentrations) and the soil-community treatment (intact vs. initially depleted) (p < 0.001, respectively; Table 1, Figure 2). Overall, PSF biomass tended to be positive for the initially depleted soil community, but negative for the intact soil community, and the material treatment further modified this pattern (Figure 2A). Based on the a priori chosen contrasts comparing specific material-treatment combinations, we identified different combinations driving these interactions (Table 2). For the initially depleted soil community, there was very strong evidence that particle addition generally resulted in a shift from a negative to a positive PSF biomass (C1 × soil community: p < 0.001; particles absent: -0.67 ± 0.6, particles present: 1.14 ± 0.18). In contrast, for the intact soil community, PSF biomass was generally negative, but more so if particles were added (particles absent: -0.30 ± 0.13, particles present: -0.49 ± 0.05; Figure 2A). Further, there was very strong evidence that the biodegradable microplastics led to a weaker positive PSF biomass for the initially depleted community (C4 × soil community: p < 0.001; conventional: 1.44 ± 0.28, degradable: 0.16 ± 0.19), and a weaker negative PSF biomass for the intact community (conventional: -0.52 ± 0.08, degradable: -0.37 ± 0.08). There was also strong evidence for concentration effects for glass and EPDM. For the initially depleted community, PSF biomass was generally positive but less so for the high concentrations (C6 × soil community: p < 0.001; glass low: 2.1 ± 0.18, glass high: 0.29 ± 0.76; C7 × soil community: p = 0.002; EPDM low: 2.75 ± 0.16, EPDM high: 0.89 ± 0.68). For the intact community, PSF biomass was generally negative but weaker for the high concentration (glass low: -0.46 ± 0.08, glass high: -0.4 ± 0.11; EPDM low: -0.71 ± 0.14, EPDM high: -0.31 ± 0.11). In addition, there was strong evidence for a concentration dependency in the plastic mix, with a negative PSF biomass for the low concentration but a positive PSF biomass for the high concentration (C10: p < 0.01; low: -0.24 ± 0.34, high: 0.84 ± 0.45), irrespective of the soil community. Similar to the results for PSF biomass , there was very strong evidence that particle addition led to a shift from negative to positive PSF RWR (i.e. from a negative to a positive conditioning effect on biomass allocation to roots) for the initially depleted community (C1 × soil community: p < 0.001; particles absent: -0.45 ± 0.19, particles present: 0.15 ± 0.05). For the intact community, PSF RWR was generally weak, but tended to be slightly positive without added particles (particles absent: 0.05 ± 0.09) and slightly negative with added particles (particles present: -0.07 ± 0.03; Figure 2B). In addition, there was very strong evidence that microplastics, compared to glass, led to a weaker positive PSF RWR for the initially depleted community (C2 × soil community: p < 0.001; glass: 0.39 ± 0.05, microplastics: 0.08 ± 0.05), and a weaker negative PSF RWR for the intact community (glass: -0.12 ± 0.07, microplastics: -0.06 ± 0.03). Further there was moderate evidence that the high EPDM concentration reduced PSF RWR strength (from positive to neutral) for the initially depleted community (C7 × soil community: p = 0.03; low: 0.35 ± 0.04, high: 0.004 ± 0.22), and for the intact community (low: -0.07 ± 0.15, high: -0.03 ± 0.08). There was also moderate evidence that the high glass concentration led to a more positive PSF RWR compared to the low concentration (C6: p = 0.02; low: 0.02 ± 0.10, high: 0.26 ± 0.09), irrespective of the soil community. Root-morphology responses: For all root traits of C. biennis , except for average link length, we found very strong evidence that PSF responses were interactively affected by material and soil-community treatments (Table 1, Supplementary Table 4). Overall, PSF SRL tended to be negative when the soil community had initially been depleted, whereas it was frequently neutral or positive when the soil community was intact, although there were some exceptions to this (Figure 3A). Again, based on the contrast models, we found different specific combinations driving those interactions (Table 2). For the initially depleted community, we found very strong evidence that microplastic particles in the soil led to a less negative PSF SRL compared to glass particles (C2 × soil community: p < 0.001; glass: ‑1.04 ± 0.14, microplastics: ‑0.54 ± 0.08). For the intact community, PSF SRL tended to be positive in general, but less so in the presence of microplastics (glass: 0.19 ± 0.09; microplastics: 0.08 ± 0.05). Further, we found very strong evidence for EPDM (C7 × soil community: p < 0.001) and moderate evidence for PHA (C9 × soil community: p = 0.01) that low and high concentrations differed in their effects on PSF SRL in interaction with the soil community. For the combination of EPDM and the initially depleted community, PSF SRL was negative for the low concentration (-0.97 ± 0.11) but turned positive for the high concentration (0.18 ± 0.25). In contrast, in combination with the intact community, PSF SRL was positive for the low EPDM concentration (0.41 ± 0.17) but rather neutral for the high concentration (0.03 ± 0.07). For PHA, the pattern was the other way around. Although PSF SRL tended to be generally negative, for the initially depleted community, the high PHA concentration resulted in a more negative PSF SRL (low: -0.32 ± 0.09, high: -0.90 ± 0.25). For the intact community, PSF SRL tended to be negative for the low but rather neutral for the high concentration (low: -0.17 ± 0.06, high: -0.02 ± 0.15). In addition, we found strong evidence that, irrespective of the soil community, the biodegradable PHA led to a stronger negative PSF SRL compared to the conventional plastics (C4: p < 0.01; conventional: -0.11 ± 0.09, degradable: -0.35 ± 0.10). As effects on SRL were generally inversely related to root thickness and root-tissue density, detailed results for PSF RD and PSF RTD are provided in the supplement (Supplementary Results, Supplementary Tables 4 & 5, Supplementary Figure 2). We found moderate evidence that material treatment (p < 0.05), and very strong evidence that soil community (p < 0.001) independently affected PSF LL (Table 1). Overall, PSF LL tended to be slightly positive for the intact soil community (0.07 ± 0.03) but negative for the initially depleted community (-2.1 ± 0.03). Regarding the material effects, we found strong evidence that PSF LL was negative for EPDM (‑0.16 ± 0.07) but neutral for PE (0.001 ± 0.05; C5: p < 0.01). In addition, there was moderate evidence that the high concentration of the mixed microplastics led to a shift from a slightly positive to a negative PSF LL (C10: p < 0.05; low: 0.09 ± 0.08, high: -0.17 ± 0.06; Figure 3B). Heterospecific PSF-effects on Eragrostis minor : Biomass responses: We found strong evidence that the material treatment affected PSF biomass of E. minor (p < 0.01), but no evidence for soil-community effects (p = 0.4; Table 3). Based on the a priori chosen contrasts (Table 4), we found strong evidence that particles in general led to a more negative PSF biomass (C1: p < 0.01; particles absent: -0.1 ± 0.1, particles present: -0.42 ± 0.04), and that the high PHA concentration led to a less negative PSF biomass than the low PHA concentration (C9: p < 0.001; low: -0.71 ± 0.18, high: ­‑0.17 ± 0.06; Figure 4A). We found strong evidence that the material treatment and the soil community interactively affected PSF RWR of E. minor (p = 0.01; Table 3). Overall, PSF RWR tended to be weaker for the intact community treatment compared to the depleted one, but this was not true for all material-treatment combinations (Figure 4B). Based on the contrast models, we found very strong evidence that microplastics led to a less negative PSF RWR with the initially depleted community (C2 × soil community: p < 0.001; glass: -0.26 ± 0.08, microplastic: -0.04 ± 0.05), and a weaker PSF RWR with the intact community, compared to glass (glass: 0.12 ± 0.06, microplastic: -0.01 ± 0.05). In addition, there was moderate evidence that the high PHA concentration led to a weaker positive PSF RWR with the initially depleted community (C9 × soil community: p < 0.05; low: 0.19 ± 0.16, high: 0.03 ± 0.09), and a shift from negative to positive PSF RWR for the intact community (low: ‑0.18 ± 0.07, high: 0.16 ± 0.13; Figure 4B), compared to the low concentration. Further, there was moderate to strong evidence that different material-treatment groups differed from each other, irrespective of the initial state of the soil community. Particle addition in general tended to shift the direction of PSF RWR from positive to slightly negative (C1: p < 0.05; particles absent: 0.09 ± 0.06, particles present: -0.04 ± 0.03). Also, PSF RWR was negative with EPDM (-1.16 ± 0.06) but positive and overall weaker with PE (0.09 ± 0.07; C5: p < 0.01). In addition, PSF RWR tended to be slightly positive with the low glass concentration (0.04 ± 0.08) but turned negative for the high concentration (-0.18 ± 0.09; C6: p < 0.05). Discussion We tested how different types of microplastics, in combination with an intact or initially depleted soil community, affect heterospecific plant-soil feedbacks (PSFs; Fig. 1 ). We show that, for Crepis biennis , the direction of PSF strongly depended on the status of the soil community, with an intact community generally resulting in negative PSF and the initially depleted community rather leading to positive PSF (Fig. 2 ), indicating a positive effect of soil recolonization (Li et al., 2019 ). However, soil-community status during the conditioning phase was less influential regarding PSF on Eragrostis minor (Table 3 ). Interestingly, we found that particle addition in general (glass and microplastics) intensified PSFs based on total biomass for both species, although the overall direction was generally positive for C. biennis and negative for E. minor . Compared to glass particles, microplastics led to weaker PSFs based on root-weight ratio (RWR) and root-morphological traits, although there were some exceptions (Figs. 2 , 3 , 4 ). In most cases, particle addition and soil-community effects depended on each other, suggesting that artificial particles in the soil are likely to change heterospecific PSFs interactively with the soil community. Despite effects on PSF, there was no evidence for overall particle-addition effects on plant productivity independent of soil conditioning or initial state of the soil community, neither for C. biennis nor E. minor (Supplementary Fig. 3). This indicates that particle-addition effects are generally highly context dependent (Krehl et al., 2022 ). In contrast, there was very strong evidence for material-treatment effects, in addition to but irrespective of soil-community effects, on both productivity and RWR of C. jacea in the conditioning phase (Supplementary Table 1, Supplementary Fig. 1). This suggests that particle addition could modify PSFs by changing the growth of conditioning plants. Regarding the PSF responses, when looking at the treatment combination most closely resembling natural conditions without pollution, i.e. no added particles and intact soil community, we found only moderate evidence for heterospecific PSF effects on C. biennis biomass (-0.33 ± 0.16, p = 0.049) and on RWR of E. minor (0.19 ± 0.09, p = 0.038), indicating that PSF effects were rather weak, overall. However, PSF effects changed with particle addition, and depended on whether the soil community was intact or initially depleted (Tables 1 & 3 ). In line with our expectation, we found clear evidence that microplastics affected heterospecific PSFs, depending on plastic type and concentration. Moreover, this was true for particle presence in general. Glass and microplastic particles strengthened PSF biomass of both response species, inducing a positive feedback in C. biennis but a negative one in E. minor . The similar pattern for PSF RWR (see C1 in Figs. 2 , 4 A) suggests that effects on PSF biomass might be strongly driven by changes in root biomass. That is, root biomass increased for C. biennis and decreased for E. minor , when grown in conditioned soil with artificial particles. The changed PSFs indicate that artificial particles in the soil in general, and not just microplastics, can affect PSFs. Such effects might arise because artificial particles change physical soil properties, affecting both plants and soil communities and, in turn, PSFs. For example, microplastics affect soil structure, bulk density, water flow and water holding capacity (de Souza Machado et al., 2019 ; de Souza Machado et al., 2018 ; Kim et al., 2021b ). Such changes can result in a higher water evaporation and reduced soil moisture (Speißer & van Kleunen, 2023 ; Wan et al., 2019 ). Consequently, changed physical soil properties might affect plants and soil organisms directly (Krehl et al., 2022 ; Leifheit et al., 2021b ), but also their interactions by, for example, changing root morphology or rhizosphere properties (de Souza Machado et al., 2019 ; Speißer & van Kleunen, 2023 ). Both root morphology and rhizosphere properties are key determinants of PSFs (Kuzyakov & Blagodatskaya, 2015 ; Kuzyakov & Razavi, 2019 ; Wilschut et al., 2019 ), so changing those properties could be one way in which artificial particles alter PSFs. The different effects of glass and microplastics (see C2 in Fig. 2 B, 3 A, 4 B) indicate that chemical components are also likely to be involved in how artificial particles affect PSFs. Considering the high number and variety of additives in many plastics (Jones, 2024 ; Wagner et al., 2024 ), this appears to be a plausible factor. In our study, however, EPDM was the only plastic type containing additives, and previous studies showed that its effects are dose-dependent and can affect root morphology (Speißer & van Kleunen, 2023 ; van Kleunen et al., 2020 ). At the same time, it was the plastic type showing the strongest concentration dependent effects for PSFs based on biomass and root traits (see C7 in Fig. 2 , 3 A, Supplementary Fig. 2), supporting the assumption that additives could be one factor of how microplastics change PSFs. However, considering the clear differences in effects between glass and all grouped microplastics, it seems unlikely that EPDM was the only driver of these different effects. The difference between conventional and biodegradable microplastics on PSF biomass of C. biennis (see C4 in Fig. 2 A) and PSF RWR for both C. biennis and E. minor (Tables 2 & 4 ), and the concentration effects of PHA on PSF SRL of C. biennis and PSF biomass and PSF RWR of E. minor (see C9 in Figs. 3 A, 4 ) point towards another potential component. Plastics consist mainly of carbon chains, which might serve as additional carbon source for microorganisms, and can change soil microbial composition and activity (Cao et al., 2023 ; Fei et al., 2020 ; Rong et al., 2021 ; Zheng et al., 2005 ). Altered microbial composition or activity could affect PSFs directly, but also indirectly by influencing plants, leading to follow-up effects on PSFs. Generally, the accessibility of carbon from plastics strongly depends on the plastic type (Zheng et al., 2005 ). PHA, as biodegradable plastic, can be degraded relatively quickly, up to approximately 0.1 mg×day − 1 ×cm − 2 (Dilkes-Hoffman et al., 2019 ), and many bacteria and fungi are able to degrade PHA (Jendrossek & Handrick, 2002 ). Additionally, despite the initial inertness of many plastics, aging due to environmental factors (e.g. UV, heat, mechanical abrasion) can induce physical and chemical changes making plastics more prone to further degradation (Shah et al., 2008 ). So, more carbon (and other compounds) could be released from plastics, in the long term. Consequently, aging might lead to stronger microplastic effects in the environment (Lozano et al., 2023 ; Speißer, 2023 ), which should also be considered for future investigations regarding PSFs. Importantly, in most cases, particle effects on PSFs depended on whether the soil in the conditioning phase contained an intact or depleted soil community, which is in line with our second expectation that biotic factors can mediate particle effects. Interactive effects of microplastics and soil organisms are in line with previous findings that microplastics can affect soil microbial composition and activity (Fei et al., 2020 ; Rong et al., 2021 ). For C. biennis , with the initially depleted soil community, adding particles led to a shift from negative to positive PSF biomass . In contrast, with the intact community, PSF biomass was generally negative, but more so if particles were added to the soil (see C1 in Fig. 2 A). The positive PSF biomass for the combination of initially depleted community and particle addition is likely to be mainly driven by changes in root properties of C. biennis . The positive PSF RWR (Fig. 2 B) together with the positive PSF RTD and negative PSF SRL (Supplementary Fig. 2B, Fig. 3 A) indicate that the plants did not just produce proportionally more roots, but also denser and heavier roots in conditioned soil with the initially depleted community and added particles (Supplementary Figs. 4, 5). Moreover, compared to glass, microplastics led to weaker PSF RWR (see C2 in Fig. 2 B), PSF SRL and PSF RTD (see C2 in Fig. 3 A and Supplementary Fig. 2B), especially with the depleted community. So, overall, the plants invested more in roots in the conditioned soil with initially depleted soil community, but less so when microplastics were present instead of glass (Supplementary Figs. 6, 7). The differences between glass and microplastics could be explained by differing effects on soil communities due to distinct material properties. Indeed, microplastics can be associated with less diverse microbial communities, of specific taxonomical and functional composition (Luo et al., 2022 ; Shi et al., 2022 ; Sun et al., 2022 ; Zhang et al., 2019 ; Zhu et al., 2021 ). A potential explanation why these effects were stronger for the depleted soil community could be that the community structure in the intact community was more stable, so changes in composition and the resulting effects were less pronounced. However, as we did not analyze the community composition, future studies should clarify this. When comparing the PSF responses of C. biennis and E. minor , mediating effects of the soil community were less pronounced for E. minor . There was no evidence that the initial state of the community affected PSF biomass of E. minor directly or via modifying microplastic effects (Table 3 , Fig. 4 A), matching our third expectation that interactive effects between particle addition and soil community are stronger for C. biennis . However, PSF responses of both species generally differed, and E. minor experienced more negative PSF biomass than C. biennis (-0.26 ± 0.16, -0.08 ± 0.41, respectively). This is in line with previous findings that short-lived species are more prone to negative PSFs (Kardol et al., 2006 ; Lemmermeyer et al., 2015 ; Xi et al., 2021 ). Accordingly, C. biennis , although just being biennial, had a clearly higher RWR than the annual E. minor (0.46 ± 0.01, 0.09 ± 0.002), matching previous findings that species with low relative root weight experience more negative PSFs (Wilschut et al., 2023 ). So, while the generally negative PSF biomass of E. minor could probably be explained by the low RWR and other root traits associated with fast-growing plants (Wilschut et al., 2023 ; Xi et al., 2021 ), the pattern for C. biennis was more complex as PSF biomass also depended on the initial state of the soil community (Fig. 2 A). With the intact soil community, PSF biomass of C. biennis was overall negative but was positive for the initially depleted community (-0.39 ± 0.09, 0.23 ± 0.91, respectively). This pattern could reflect that generalists are responsible for the negative PSFs (Semchenko et al., 2022 ; Wilschut et al., 2023 ; Wilschut et al., 2019 ), which might have dominated the intact community. In contrast, with the initially depleted community, conditioning by C. jacea could have led to a less diverse community with perhaps less total, or mainly specialist pathogens. Taken on its own, this does not explain the shift to a positive PSF biomass or why PSF responses generally tended to be stronger with the depleted community. However, soil sterilization itself can have positive effects on plant performance, when followed by recolonization of beneficial soil organisms (Li et al., 2019 ), although such effects might change over time (Marschner & Rumberger, 2004 ). Further, our analysis showed that soil-community effects also depended on particle addition, suggesting that artificial particles in the soil might further modify effects of differing soil communities on PSFs. In conclusion, our study showed that artificial particles in the soil can affect heterospecific PSFs, and that these effects are likely to be partly mediated by soil-community composition. However, as we did not analyze the soil-community composition, further investigations are needed to gain a better understanding of the interplay of artificial particles and soil biota on PSFs. Our results also suggest that changes in PSFs are shaped by both physical and chemical mechanisms. In this context, future studies should also consider that effects of microplastics might change over time, which could have further implications for the plant-soil system. Our findings add evidence to first findings that microplastics could change plant-soil feedbacks (Lozano & Rillig, 2022 ) but also highlight the complexity of the mechanisms involved and the need for further studies assessing potential ecological implications of microplastics modifying plant-soil interactions. Abbreviations AMF: Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi EPDM: Ethylene propylene diene monomer LL: Average link length PE: Polyethylene PHA: Polyhydroxyalkanoate PSF(s): Plant-soil feedback(s): RD: Average root diameter RTD: Root-tissue density RWR: Root-weight ratio SRL: Specific root length Declarations Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Author contributions BS conceived the idea. BS, MvK and RAW designed the experiment. SG performed the experiment. BS analyzed the data with additional inputs by MvK and RAW. BS wrote the manuscript with considerable contributions from MvK, RAW and SG. Acknowledgements We thank Kristina Schlötter, Otmar Ficht and Heinz Vahlenkamp for practical assistance and Rhea DeStefano and Sven Egger for their help during the experiment. We thank Yanjie Liu for reviewing the manuscript prior to submission. Data availability Upon acceptance, the data will be archived in a public repository and the associated DOI will be included in this article. References Andrady, A. L. (2011). Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin , 62 (8), 1596-1605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.030 Baho, D. L., Bundschuh, M., & Futter, M. N. (2021). Microplastics in terrestrial ecosystems: Moving beyond the state of the art to minimize the risk of ecological surprise. Global Change Biology , 27 (17), 3969-3986. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15724 Bank, M. S., Swarzenski, P. W., Duarte, C. M., Rillig, M. C., Koelmans, A. A., Metian, M., et al. (2021). Global Plastic Pollution Observation System to Aid Policy. Environmental Science & Technology , 55 (12), 7770-7775. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c00818 Baweja, K. D. (1939). Studies of the Soil Fauna, with Special Reference to the Recolonization of Sterilized Soil. Journal of Animal Ecology , 8 (1), 120-161. https://doi.org/10.2307/1257 Bennett, J. A., & Klironomos, J. (2019). Mechanisms of plant–soil feedback: interactions among biotic and abiotic drivers. New Phytologist , 222 (1), 91-96. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15603 Bennett, J. A., Maherali, H., Reinhart, K. O., Lekberg, Y., Hart, M. M., & Klironomos, J. (2017). Plant-soil feedbacks and mycorrhizal type influence temperate forest population dynamics. Science , 355 (6321), 181-184. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.aai8212 Bever, J. D. (1994). Feeback between Plants and Their Soil Communities in an Old Field Community. Ecology , 75 (7), 1965-1977. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/1941601 Cao, J., Li, C., Gao, X., Cai, Y., Song, X., Siddique, K. H. M., et al. (2023). Agricultural soil plastic as a hidden carbon source stimulates microbial activity and increases carbon dioxide emissions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling , 198 , 107151. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107151 Chapin, F. S., Walker, L. R., Fastie, C. L., & Sharman, L. C. (1994). Mechanisms of Primary Succession Following Deglaciation at Glacier Bay, Alaska. Ecological Monographs , 64 (2), 149-175. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/2937039 Chen, D., & van Kleunen, M. (2022). Invasional meltdown mediated by plant–soil feedbacks may depend on community diversity. New Phytologist , 235 (4), 1589-1598. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18218 Chia, R. W., Lee, J.-Y., Kim, H., & Jang, J. (2021). Microplastic pollution in soil and groundwater: a review. Environmental Chemistry Letters . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-021-01297-6 Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., & Galloway, T. S. (2011). Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin , 62 (12), 2588-2597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.09.025 de Souza Machado, A. A., Lau, C. W., Kloas, W., Bergmann, J., Bachelier, J. B., Faltin, E., et al. (2019). Microplastics can change soil properties and affect plant performance. Environmental Science & Technology , 53 (10), 6044-6052. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b01339 de Souza Machado, A. A., Lau, C. W., Till, J., Kloas, W., Lehmann, A., Becker, R., et al. (2018). Impacts of microplastics on the soil biophysical environment. Environmental Science & Technology , 52 (17), 9656-9665. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02212 Dilkes-Hoffman, L. S., Lant, P. A., Laycock, B., & Pratt, S. (2019). The rate of biodegradation of PHA bioplastics in the marine environment: A meta-study. Marine Pollution Bulletin , 142 , 15-24. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.03.020 Ehrenfeld, J. G., Ravit, B., & Elgersma, K. (2005). Feedback in the plant-soil system. Annual Review of Environment and Resources , 30 (1), 75-115. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144212 Fei, Y., Huang, S., Zhang, H., Tong, Y., Wen, D., Xia, X., et al. (2020). Response of soil enzyme activities and bacterial communities to the accumulation of microplastics in an acid cropped soil. Science of The Total Environment , 707 , 135634. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135634 Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R., & Law, K. L. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances , 3 (7), e1700782. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/sciadv.1700782 Gkoutselis, G., Rohrbach, S., Harjes, J., Obst, M., Brachmann, A., Horn, M. A., et al. (2021). Microplastics accumulate fungal pathogens in terrestrial ecosystems. Scientific Reports , 11 (1), 13214. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92405-7 Helmberger, M. S., Tiemann, L. K., & Grieshop, M. J. (2020). Towards an ecology of soil microplastics. Functional Ecology , 34 (3), 550-560. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13495 Ingraffia, R., Amato, G., Bagarello, V., Carollo, F. G., Giambalvo, D., Iovino, M., et al. (2022a). Polyester microplastic fibers affect soil physical properties and erosion as a function of soil type. SOIL , 8 (1), 421-435. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-8-421-2022 Ingraffia, R., Amato, G., Iovino, M., Rillig, M., Giambalvo, D., & Frenda, A. S. (2022b). Polyester microplastic fibers in soil increase nitrogen loss via leaching and decrease plant biomass production and N uptake. Environmental Research Letters . https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac652d Jambeck, J. R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T. R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., et al. (2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science , 347 (6223), 768-771. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.1260352 Jendrossek, D., & Handrick, R. (2002). Microbial Degradation of Polyhydroxyalkanoates. Annual Review of Microbiology , 56 (Volume 56, 2002), 403-432. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.micro.56.012302.160838 Jones, N. (2024). More than 4,000 plastic chemicals are hazardous, report finds Year-long effort compiles comprehensive database of chemicals in plastics. Nature . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00805-2 Kardol, P., Martijn Bezemer, T., & van der Putten, W. H. (2006). Temporal variation in plant–soil feedback controls succession. Ecology Letters , 9 (9), 1080-1088. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00953.x Kim, S. W., Liang, Y., Lozano, Y. M., & Rillig, M. C. (2021a). Microplastics Reduce the Negative Effects of Litter-Derived Plant Secondary Metabolites on Nematodes in Soil [Original Research]. Frontiers in Environmental Science , 9 (560). https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.790560 Kim, S. W., Liang, Y., Zhao, T., & Rillig, M. C. (2021b). Indirect Effects of Microplastic-Contaminated Soils on Adjacent Soil Layers: Vertical Changes in Soil Physical Structure and Water Flow. Frontiers in Environmental Science , 9 (152). https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.681934 Klironomos, J. N. (2002). Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities. Nature , 417 (6884), 67-70. https://doi.org/10.1038/417067a Krehl, A., Schöllkopf, U., Májeková, M., Tielbörger, K., & Tomiolo, S. (2022). Effects of plastic fragments on plant performance are mediated by soil properties and drought. Scientific Reports , 12 (1), 17771. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-22270-5 Kumar, R., Sadeghi, K., Jang, J., & Seo, J. (2023). Mechanical, chemical, and bio-recycling of biodegradable plastics: A review. Science of The Total Environment , 882 , 163446. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163446 Kuzyakov, Y., & Blagodatskaya, E. (2015). Microbial hotspots and hot moments in soil: Concept & review. Soil Biology and Biochemistry , 83 , 184-199. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.01.025 Kuzyakov, Y., & Razavi, B. S. (2019). Rhizosphere size and shape: Temporal dynamics and spatial stationarity. Soil Biology and Biochemistry , 135 , 343-360. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2019.05.011 Lehmann, A., Leifheit, E. F., Feng, L., Bergmann, J., Wulf, A., & Rillig, M. C. (2020). Microplastic fiber and drought effects on plants and soil are only slightly modified by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Soil Ecology Letters . https://doi.org/10.1007/s42832-020-0060-4 Leifheit, E. F., Kissener, H. L., Faltin, E., Ryo, M., & Rillig, M. C. (2021a). Tire abrasion particles negatively affect plant growth even at low concentrations and alter soil biogeochemical cycling. Soil Ecology Letters . https://doi.org/10.1007/s42832-021-0114-2 Leifheit, E. F., Lehmann, A., & Rillig, M. C. (2021b). Potential Effects of Microplastic on Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi. Frontiers in Plant Science , 12 , Article 626709. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.626709 Lemmermeyer, S., Lörcher, L., Kleunen, M. v., & Dawson, W. (2015). Testing the Plant Growth-Defense Hypothesis Belowground: Do Faster-Growing Herbaceous Plant Species Suffer More Negative Effects from Soil Biota than Slower-Growing Ones? The American Naturalist , 186 (2), 264-271. https://doi.org/10.1086/682005 Li, K., DiLegge, M. J., Minas, I. S., Hamm, A., Manter, D., & Vivanco, J. M. (2019). Soil sterilization leads to re-colonization of a healthier rhizosphere microbiome. Rhizosphere , 12 , 100176. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhisph.2019.100176 López-Angulo, J., de la Cruz, M., Chacón-Labella, J., Illuminati, A., Matesanz, S., Pescador, D. S., et al. (2020). The role of root community attributes in predicting soil fungal and bacterial community patterns. New Phytologist , 228 (3), 1070-1082. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16754 Lozano, Y. M., Gordillo, H., Waldmann, W., & Rillig, M. C. (2023). Photodegradation modifies microplastic effects on soil properties and plant performance. Journal of Applied Ecology . Lozano, Y. M., Lehnert, T., Linck, L. T., Lehmann, A., & Rillig, M. C. (2021). Microplastic Shape, Polymer Type, and Concentration Affect Soil Properties and Plant Biomass [Original Research]. Frontiers in Plant Science , 12 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.616645 Lozano, Y. M., & Rillig, M. C. (2022). Legacy effect of microplastics on plant–soil feedbacks [Original Research]. Frontiers in Plant Science , 13 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.965576 Luo, G., Jin, T., Zhang, H., Peng, J., Zuo, N., Huang, Y., et al. (2022). Deciphering the diversity and functions of plastisphere bacterial communities in plastic-mulching croplands of subtropical China. Journal of Hazardous Materials , 422 , 126865. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126865 MacLeod, M., Arp, H. P. H., Tekman, M. B., & Jahnke, A. (2021). The global threat from plastic pollution. Science , 373 (6550), 61-65. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abg5433 Maity, S., & Pramanick, K. (2020). Perspectives and challenges of micro/nanoplastics-induced toxicity with special reference to phytotoxicity. Global Change Biology , 26 (6), 3241-3250. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15074 Marschner, P., & Rumberger, A. (2004). Rapid changes in the rhizosphere bacterial community structure during re-colonization of sterilized soil. Biology and Fertility of Soils , 40 (1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-004-0736-4 Muff, S., Nilsen, E. B., O’Hara, R. B., & Nater, C. R. (2021). Rewriting results sections in the language of evidence. Trends in Ecology & Evolution . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.10.009 Pignattelli, S., Broccoli, A., & Renzi, M. (2020). Physiological responses of garden cress (L. sativum) to different types of microplastics. Science of The Total Environment , 727 , 138609. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138609 Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D., & R Core Team. (2021). nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 3.1-153. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme Plastics Europe (2022). Plastics - the Facts 2022 . PlasticsEurope AISBL. Retrieved 5th October 2023 https://plasticseurope.org/knowledge-hub/plastics-the-facts-2022/ POWO (2024). Plants of the World Online. Facilitated by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Published on the Internet . Retrieved 05 April 2024 from http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/ Qi, Y., Yang, X., Pelaez, A. M., Lwanga, E. H., Beriot, N., Gertsen, H., et al. (2018). Macro- and micro- plastics in soil-plant system: Effects of plastic mulch film residues on wheat ( Triticum aestivum ) growth. Science of The Total Environment , 645 , 1048-1056. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.229 R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing . In R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/ Rillig, M. C. (2012). Microplastic in Terrestrial Ecosystems and the Soil? Environmental Science & Technology , 46 (12), 6453-6454. https://doi.org/10.1021/es302011r Rillig, M. C., Kim, S. W., & Zhu, Y.-G. (2023). The soil plastisphere. Nature Reviews Microbiology . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-023-00967-2 Rillig, M. C., & Lehmann, A. (2020). Microplastic in terrestrial ecosystems. Science , 368 (6498), 1430-1431. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb5979 Rochman, C. M. (2018). Microplastics research - from sink to source. Science , 360 (6384), 28-29. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.aar7734 Rochman, C. M., Browne, M. A., Halpern, B. S., Hentschel, B. T., Hoh, E., Karapanagioti, H. K., et al. (2013). Classify plastic waste as hazardous. Nature , 494 (7436), 169-171. https://doi.org/10.1038/494169a Rong, L., Zhao, L., Zhao, L., Cheng, Z., Yao, Y., Yuan, C., et al. (2021). LDPE microplastics affect soil microbial communities and nitrogen cycling. Science of The Total Environment , 773 , 145640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145640 Semchenko, M., Barry, K. E., de Vries, F. T., Mommer, L., Moora, M., & Maciá-Vicente, J. G. (2022). Deciphering the role of specialist and generalist plant–microbial interactions as drivers of plant–soil feedback. New Phytologist , 234 (6), 1929-1944. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18118 Shah, A. A., Hasan, F., Hameed, A., & Ahmed, S. (2008). Biological degradation of plastics: A comprehensive review. Biotechnology Advances , 26 (3), 246-265. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2007.12.005 Shi, Z., Xiong, L., Liu, T., & Wu, W. (2022). Alteration of bacterial communities and co-occurrence networks as a legacy effect upon exposure to polyethylene residues under field environment. Journal of Hazardous Materials , 426 , 128126. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.128126 Speißer, B. (2023). Time matters: Why ecological effects of microplastics might change over time. Journal of Applied Ecology , 61 (1), 4-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14542 Speißer, B., & van Kleunen, M. (2023). Plants forage for soil patches free of plastic pollution but cannot bag the profits. Scientific Reports , 13 (1), 18506. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45662-7 Sun, Y., Shi, J., Wang, X., Ding, C., & Wang, J. (2022). Deciphering the Mechanisms Shaping the Plastisphere Microbiota in Soil. mSystems , 7 (4), e00352-00322. https://doi.org/doi:10.1128/msystems.00352-22 Thompson, R. C., Moore, C. J., vom Saal, F. S., & Swan, S. H. (2009). Plastics, the environment and human health: current consensus and future trends. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 364 (1526), 2153-2166. https://doi.org/doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0053 van der Putten, W. H., Bardgett, R. D., Bever, J. D., Bezemer, T. M., Casper, B. B., Fukami, T., et al. (2013). Plant–soil feedbacks: the past, the present and future challenges. Journal of Ecology , 101 (2), 265-276. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12054 van der Putten, W. H., Bradford, M. A., Pernilla Brinkman, E., van de Voorde, T. F. J., & Veen, G. F. (2016). Where, when and how plant–soil feedback matters in a changing world. Functional Ecology , 30 (7), 1109-1121. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12657 Van der Putten, W. H., Van Dijk, C., & Peters, B. A. M. (1993). Plant-specific soil-borne diseases contribute to succession in foredune vegetation. Nature , 362 (6415), 53-56. https://doi.org/10.1038/362053a0 van Kleunen, M., Brumer, A., Gutbrod, L., & Zhang, Z. (2020). A microplastic used as infill material in artificial sport turfs reduces plant growth. PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET , 2 (2), 157-166. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10071 Vethaak, A. D., & Legler, J. (2021). Microplastics and human health. Science , 371 (6530), 672-674. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.abe5041 Wagner, M., Monclús, L., Arp, H. P. H., Groh, K. J., Løseth, M. E., Muncke, J., et al. (2024). State of the science on plastic chemicals - Identifying and addressing chemicals and polymers of concern . Wan, Y., Wu, C., Xue, Q., & Hui, X. (2019). Effects of plastic contamination on water evaporation and desiccation cracking in soil. Science of The Total Environment , 654 , 576-582. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.123 Wang, F., Zhang, X., Zhang, S., Zhang, S., & Sun, Y. (2020). Interactions of microplastics and cadmium on plant growth and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities in an agricultural soil. Chemosphere , 254 , 126791. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126791 Wardle, D. A. (2002). Communities and Ecosystems Linking the Aboveground and Belowground components . Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/doi:10.1515/9781400847297 Wilschut, R. A., Hume, B. C. C., Mamonova, E., & van Kleunen, M. (2023). Plant–soil feedback effects on conspecific and heterospecific successors of annual and perennial Central European grassland plants are correlated. Nature Plants . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-023-01433-w Wilschut, R. A., van der Putten, W. H., Garbeva, P., Harkes, P., Konings, W., Kulkarni, P., et al. (2019). Root traits and belowground herbivores relate to plant–soil feedback variation among congeners. Nature Communications , 10 (1), 1564. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09615-x Xi, N., Adler, P. B., Chen, D., Wu, H., Catford, J. A., van Bodegom, P. M., et al. (2021). Relationships between plant–soil feedbacks and functional traits. Journal of Ecology , 109 (9), 3411-3423. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13731 Xue, W., Berendse, F., & Bezemer, T. M. (2018a). Spatial heterogeneity in plant–soil feedbacks alters competitive interactions between two grassland plant species. Functional Ecology , 32 (8), 2085-2094. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13124 Xue, W., Bezemer, T. M., & Berendse, F. (2018b). Density-dependency and plant-soil feedback: former plant abundance influences competitive interactions between two grassland plant species through plant-soil feedbacks. Plant and Soil , 428 (1), 441-452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-018-3690-x Zhang, M., Zhao, Y., Qin, X., Jia, W., Chai, L., Huang, M., et al. (2019). Microplastics from mulching film is a distinct habitat for bacteria in farmland soil. Science of The Total Environment , 688 , 470-478. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.108 Zhang, Y., Ma, J., O'Connor, P., & Zhu, Y.-G. (2022). Microbial communities on biodegradable plastics under different fertilization practices in farmland soil microcosms. Science of The Total Environment , 809 , 152184. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152184 Zheng, Y., Yanful, E. K., & Bassi, A. S. (2005). A Review of Plastic Waste Biodegradation. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology , 25 (4), 243-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/07388550500346359 Zhou, Y., He, G., Jiang, X., Yao, L., Ouyang, L., Liu, X., et al. (2021). Microplastic contamination is ubiquitous in riparian soils and strongly related to elevation, precipitation and population density. Journal of Hazardous Materials , 411 , 125178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125178 Zhu, D., Ma, J., Li, G., Rillig, M. C., & Zhu, Y.-G. (2021). Soil plastispheres as hotspots of antibiotic resistance genes and potential pathogens. The ISME Journal , 16 (2), 521-532. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-021-01103-9 Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N. J., Saveliev, A. A., & Smith, G. M. (2009). Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-87458-6 Tables Table 1 Results of linear mixed-effects models testing the effects of soil community (intact vs. initially depleted), material treatment (glass and different microplastics in low and high concentrations), and the interaction of both factors on PSF effects on Crepis biennis . Effects were assessed for the calculated PSF values based on total plant biomass (PSF biomass ), root-weight ratio (PSF RWR ), specific root length (PSF SRL ), and average link length (PSF LL ). Fixed effects were assessed using log-likelihood ratio tests (Zuur et al., 2009). Log-likelihood ratios (LLR) are approximately χ 2 -distributed. P values < 0.05 are indicated in bold, p values < 0.1 are indicated in italics. PSF biomass PSF RWR PSF SRL PSF LL Fixed effects df LLR p LLR p LLR p LLR p Initial leaf area 1 0.87 0.35 6.05 0.014 1.41 0.23 0.23 0.64 Material treatment (M) 10 12.81 0.23 14.16 0.166 13.79 0.18 18.43 0.048 Soil community (S) 1 37.59 < 0.001 6.25 0.012 48.43 < 0.001 47.73 < 0.001 M×S 10 45.69 < 0.001 34.58 < 0.001 48.61 < 0.001 13.89 0.18 Random effects SD SD SD SD Block 0.0024 0.0772 0.0024 0.0286 Residual 0.3219 0.1567 0.2826 0.1936 Table 2 Results of linear mixed-effects models testing the effects of soil community (intact vs. initially depleted), orthogonal contrasts comparing specific material treatment combinations (material type, i.e. glass and different microplastics, and low vs. high concentrations; Supplementary Table 3), and the interaction of both factors on PSF effects on Crepis biennis . Effects were assessed for the calculated PSF values based on total plant biomass (PSF biomass ), root-weight ratio (PSF RWR ), specific root length (PSF SRL ), and average link length (PSF LL ). Fixed effects were assessed using log-likelihood ratio tests (Zuur et al., 2009). Log-likelihood ratios (LLR) are approximately χ 2 -distributed. P values < 0.05 are indicated in bold, p values < 0.1 are indicated in italics. PSF biomass PSF RWR PSF SRL PSF LL Fixed effects df LLR p LLR p LLR p LLR p Initial leaf area 1 0.87 0.35 6.05 0.014 1.41 0.23 0.23 0.64 C1 (particles vs no particles) 1 0.12 0.73 0.40 0.53 1.10 0.29 0.10 0.75 C2 (glass vs plastics) 1 0.43 0.51 0.13 0.72 0.00 0.95 0.24 0.62 C3 (individual vs mixed plastics) 1 0.87 0.35 0.53 0.46 1.24 0.27 0.07 0.79 C4 (degradable vs conventional) 1 0.76 0.38 0.18 0.67 7.51 0.006 0.73 0.39 C5 (PE vs EPDM) 1 0.14 0.71 0.78 0.38 0.48 0.49 6.94 0.008 C6 (low vs high glass) 1 0.02 0.88 9.19 0.002 3.02 0.08 1.90 0.17 C7 (low vs high EPDM) 1 2.86 0.091 0.00 0.98 0.11 0.74 0.25 0.61 C8 (low vs high PE) 1 0.04 0.85 2.54 0.11 0.35 0.56 1.16 0.28 C9 (low vs high PHA) 1 0.68 0.41 1.66 0.20 0.00 0.98 2.17 0.14 C10 (low vs high mix) 1 8.26 0.004 0.09 0.77 0.70 0.40 6.17 0.013 Soil community (S) 1 37.60 < 0.001 6.25 0.012 48.43 < 0.001 47.73 < 0.001 C1×S 1 16.94 < 0.001 16.67 < 0.001 3.62 0.057 0.16 0.69 C2×S 1 0.01 0.91 11.14 < 0.001 15.33 < 0.001 2.12 0.15 C3×S 1 1.99 0.16 0.04 0.84 1.36 0.24 1.73 0.19 C4×S 1 13.65 < 0.001 3.00 0.08 0.47 0.49 1.92 0.17 C5×S 1 3.27 0.071 0.04 0.85 0.00 0.98 2.50 0.11 C6×S 1 9.20 0.002 0.14 0.70 0.78 0.38 0.19 0.66 C7×S 1 13.64 < 0.001 4.61 0.031 28.17 < 0.001 1.39 0.24 C8×S 1 0.46 0.50 3.22 0.073 0.11 0.74 2.05 0.15 C9×S 1 0.00 0.98 0.83 0.36 6.22 0.013 2.09 0.15 C10×S 1 1.49 0.22 1.34 0.25 1.80 0.18 0.10 0.76 Random effects SD SD SD SD Block 0.0024 0.0772 0.0024 0.0286 Residual 0.3219 0.1567 0.2826 0.1936 Table 3 Results of linear mixed-effects models testing the effects of soil community (intact vs. initially depleted), material treatment (glass and different microplastics in low and high concentrations), and the interaction of both factors on PSF effects on Eragrostis minor . Effects were assessed for the calculated PSF values based on total plant biomass (PSF biomass ) and root-weight ratio (PSF RWR ). Fixed effects were assessed using log-likelihood ratio tests (Zuur et al., 2009). Log-likelihood ratios (LLR) are approximately χ 2 -distributed. P values < 0.05 are indicated in bold. PSF biomass PSF RWR Fixed effects df LLR p LLR p Initial leaf area 1 0.15 0.7 6.92 0.009 Material treatment (M) 10 24.83 0.006 33.78 < 0.001 Soil community (S) 1 0.78 0.38 20.52 < 0.001 M×S 10 13.54 0.19 22.96 0.01 Random effects SD SD Block 0.0056 0.1077 Residual 0.2673 0.1771 Table 4 Results of linear mixed-effects models testing the effects of soil community (intact vs. initially depleted), orthogonal contrasts comparing specific material treatment combinations (material type, i.e. glass and different microplastics, and low vs. high concentrations; Supplementary Table 3), and the interaction of both factors on PSF effects on Eragrostis minor . Effects were assessed for the calculated PSF values based on total plant biomass (PSF biomass ) and root-weight ratio (PSF RWR ). Fixed effects were assessed using log-likelihood ratio tests (Zuur et al., 2009). Log-likelihood ratios (LLR) are approximately χ 2 -distributed. P values < 0.05 are indicated in bold, p values < 0.1 are indicated in italics. PSF biomass PSF RWR Fixed effects df LLR p LLR p Initial leaf area 1 0.15 0.70 6.92 0.009 C1 (particles vs no particles) 1 7.78 0.005 3.95 0.047 C2 (glass vs plastics) 1 0.01 0.92 0.32 0.57 C3 (individual vs mixed plastics) 1 0.62 0.43 0.59 0.44 C4 (degradable vs conventional) 1 0.33 0.57 0.54 0.46 C5 (PE vs EPDM) 1 1.24 0.27 8.20 0.004 C6 (low vs high glass) 1 1.37 0.24 6.42 0.011 C7 (low vs high EPDM) 1 0.56 0.46 0.36 0.55 C8 (low vs high PE) 1 1.08 0.30 0.21 0.64 C9 (low vs high PHA) 1 14.25 < 0.001 0.53 0.47 C10 (low vs high mix) 1 0.56 0.46 0.99 0.32 Soil community (S) 1 0.78 0.38 20.52 < 0.001 C1×S 1 0.38 0.54 1.35 0.25 C2×S 1 6.84 0.008 16.26 < 0.001 C3×S 1 0.20 0.65 0.02 0.88 C4×S 1 0.02 0.88 3.62 0.057 C5×S 1 1.74 0.19 1.65 0.20 C6×S 1 1.27 0.26 1.83 0.18 C7×S 1 1.55 0.21 0.35 0.55 C8×S 1 1.80 0.18 2.30 0.13 C9×S 1 0.17 0.68 4.89 0.027 C10×S 1 0.39 0.53 0.22 0.64 Random effects SD SD Block 0.0056 0.1077 Residual 0.2673 0.1771 Supplementary Files mppsfSI.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 23 Jan, 2025 Read the published version in Plant and Soil → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Major revisions 14 Oct, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 17 Sep, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 29 Aug, 2024 Editor invited by journal 21 Aug, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 21 Aug, 2024 First submitted to journal 20 Aug, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4918961","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":346681145,"identity":"4070de73-3280-4522-be2b-d29aff80f252","order_by":0,"name":"Benedikt Speißer","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0459-4304","institution":"University of Konstanz: Universitat Konstanz","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Benedikt","middleName":"","lastName":"Speißer","suffix":""},{"id":346681146,"identity":"c371d026-5bb0-4062-a26d-bcd8501a8d19","order_by":1,"name":"Stephanie Gurres","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Stephanie","middleName":"","lastName":"Gurres","suffix":""},{"id":346681147,"identity":"38493509-913c-447a-a9bb-973dd64f64b6","order_by":2,"name":"Rutger Wilschut","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rutger","middleName":"","lastName":"Wilschut","suffix":""},{"id":346681148,"identity":"6d205d3c-83b1-4464-9c36-c5143e5cd978","order_by":3,"name":"Mark van Kleunen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mark","middleName":"van","lastName":"Kleunen","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-08-15 11:20:16","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4918961/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4918961/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-025-07223-x","type":"published","date":"2025-01-23T15:58:24+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":65406900,"identity":"e1679411-fd16-4ab5-bea4-46a5f042331f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-27 05:03:24","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":307284,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSchematic overview of the experimental set-up. We used four individuals of \u003cem\u003eCentaurea jacea\u003c/em\u003eto condition one half of the pots (120 pots) used in the conditioning phase. The other half remained as unconditioned control. We established different treatment combinations including an intact or initially depleted soil community (live or sterilized field soil) and different material treatments including a control without added material, a chemically inert glass control, accounting for physical effects of particles added to the soil, and different microplastics (EPDM, PE, PHA, mix of all microplastics). In addition, each material was applied in a low (0.5% vol) and high concentration (5% vol). For the feedback phase, the substrate of each conditioning-phase pot was split into two new pots, into one of which one seedling of \u003cem\u003eCrepis biennis\u003c/em\u003e, and in the other one seedling of \u003cem\u003eEragrostis minor\u003c/em\u003e was planted. Each treatment combination was replicated five times for each species.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4918961/v1/78000c851e2e91a62a24e43a.png"},{"id":65406776,"identity":"45cc5b2c-e1e1-4538-b4c2-3c7181b5c35d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-27 04:55:24","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":186426,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePSF biomass responses of \u003cem\u003eCrepis biennis\u003c/em\u003e. Effects of different materials (indicated by different colors) in low (light colors) or high (dark colors) concentrations and intact (triangles) or initially depleted (circles) soil community on plant-soil feedbacks based on total plant biomass (PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e; A) and root-weight ratio (PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e; B). Large symbols represent mean values of the specific treatment group, error bars show the respective standard error. Small symbols represent individual replicates. P values refer to basic models (Table 1). Horizontal lines indicate significant results based on the contrast models (specific contrast: significance main contrast/significance contrast-soil-community interaction) and asterisks indicate which groups differ significantly from each other (Table 2; *** p \u0026lt; 0.001, ** p \u0026lt; 0.01, * p \u0026lt; 0.05, ms (marginally significant) p \u0026lt; 0.1, ns (not significant) p \u0026gt; 0.1).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4918961/v1/cb0f00d9ceca0789cc80ce5a.png"},{"id":65406901,"identity":"61ee49ba-3951-479f-9b62-7df446c7fb97","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-27 05:03:24","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":186800,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePSF root-morphology responses of \u003cem\u003eCrepis biennis\u003c/em\u003e. Effects of different materials (different colors) in low (light colors) or high (dark colors) concentrations and intact (triangles) or initially depleted (circles) soil community on plant-soil feedbacks based on specific root length (PSF\u003csub\u003eSRL\u003c/sub\u003e; A) and average link length (PSF\u003csub\u003eLL\u003c/sub\u003e; B). Large symbols represent mean values of the specific treatment group, error bars show the respective standard error. Small symbols represent individual replicates. P values refer to basic models (Table 1). Horizontal lines indicate significant results based on the contrast models (specific contrast: significance main contrast/significance contrast-soil-community interaction) and asterisks indicate which groups differ significantly from each other (Table 2; *** p \u0026lt; 0.001, ** p \u0026lt; 0.01, * p \u0026lt; 0.05).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4918961/v1/1a6f3a727434e7722f98a3fd.png"},{"id":65406899,"identity":"13b06502-2f26-4c1b-af6e-5a33350468f6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-27 05:03:24","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":174152,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePSF biomass responses of \u003cem\u003eEragrostis minor\u003c/em\u003e. Effects of different materials (different colors) in low (light colors) or high (dark colors) concentrations alone on plant-soil feedbacks based on total plant biomass (PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e; A) and in combination with intact (triangles) or initially depleted (circles) soil community on PSF based on root-weight ratio (PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e; B). Large symbols represent mean values of the specific treatment group, error bars show the respective standard error. Small symbols represent individual replicates. P values refer to basic models (Table 3). Horizontal lines indicate significant results based on the contrast models (specific contrast: significance main contrast/significance contrast-soil-community interaction) and asterisks indicate which groups differ significantly from each other (Table 4; *** p \u0026lt; 0.001, ** p \u0026lt; 0.01, * p \u0026lt; 0.05).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4918961/v1/bd94684095217934fd5d47f6.png"},{"id":74858645,"identity":"6db6cdab-f4af-4443-bd4d-f6d21eec7dd0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-27 16:12:33","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2024350,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4918961/v1/9b1aace5-3c67-4dcb-9fb9-db2d8dc43dcf.pdf"},{"id":65406780,"identity":"23a3216e-dcc5-413c-bb13-093270f6d2a7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-27 04:55:25","extension":"docx","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":698076,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"mppsfSI.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4918961/v1/2633a71ad5a7f7f429c8ef2b.docx"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"Artificial particles and soil communities interactively change heterospecific plant-soil feedbacks","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003ePlastic pollution is a global issue receiving increasing social, political, and scientific attention (Bank et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; MacLeod et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Rochman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). The potential scale of this problem is obvious when considering that in 2021 almost 400\u0026nbsp;million tons of new plastics were produced, in Europe alone (Plastics Europe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Due to insufficient recycling strategies and improper disposal, ever increasing quantities of plastic waste are accumulating in the environment (Geyer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Jambeck et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Plastic waste is slowly fragmented into smaller particles called microplastics, generally defined as particles\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;5 mm (Thompson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Microplastics might be particularly problematic for the environment, but also for humans (MacLeod et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Vethaak \u0026amp; Legler, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Although research on microplastics was mainly limited to marine environments before (Andrady, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Cole et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), research focusing on terrestrial ecosystems is increasing (Baho et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Rillig, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Rochman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Soils are the major sink for microplastics, making the plant-soil system especially prone to potential microplastic effects (Chia et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Helmberger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Rillig \u0026amp; Lehmann, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Zhou et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Microplastics can affect plant functioning and alter soil communities (Spei\u0026szlig;er \u0026amp; van Kleunen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Sun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), but impacts on plant-soil interactions are still poorly understood.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlants change abiotic and biotic components of the soil they grow in, in turn affecting current plants but also subsequent ones, a process known as plant-soil feedback (PSF) (Bever, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e; Ehrenfeld et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Wardle, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). Such PSFs can either be conspecific, if the conditioning and the affected plants belong to the same species, or heterospecific, if the plants belong to different species (van der Putten et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Generally, PSFs are driven by plants changing abiotic conditions, including nutrient availability and other soil properties, and biotic soil conditions, including the abundance of mutualists and antagonists (Bennett \u0026amp; Klironomos, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). As effects of such changes range from positive (improved plant performance) to negative (reduced plant performance), PSFs play important roles in ecological processes such as community assembly and succession, and plant invasion (Bennett et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Chapin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e; Chen \u0026amp; van Kleunen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Klironomos, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Van der Putten et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). However, human-driven global change is likely to affect PSFs (van der Putten et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), and microplastics in particular, due to effects on plant functioning, physical soil properties and soil communities are likely to interact with PSFs, but this interaction remains to be tested.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy now, it has become clear that microplastics can affect both plant and soil properties. Microplastics change the soil structure, which can result in reduced water availability and increased nutrient leaching (Ingraffia et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022a\u003c/span\u003e; Ingraffia et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022b\u003c/span\u003e; Kim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021b\u003c/span\u003e; Spei\u0026szlig;er \u0026amp; van Kleunen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Wan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Regarding possible alterations of PSFs, microplastic effects on soil communities might be of particular importance. Plastic particles in the soil can create a new type of habitat for microorganisms called the plastisphere, which is the environment and microbial community under direct influence of microplastics (Rillig et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Microbial communities associated with microplastics might contain more pathogenic bacteria and fungi (Gkoutselis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Zhu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), which could lead to more negative PSFs. On the other hand, there could be positive effects on mutualistic arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), reducing negative PSF effects (Lehmann et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Overall, experimental evidence for microplastic effects on AMF is very limited and effects are likely to be highly context dependent (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). However, although main biotic drivers of PSF, pathogenic bacteria and fungi and mutualistic AMF, are likely to, or have been shown to be affected by microplastics, studies directly testing microplastic effects on PSFs are missing, so far (but see Lozano \u0026amp; Rillig, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMicroplastics can affect plants both directly, due to phytotoxic effects (Maity \u0026amp; Pramanick, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Pignattelli et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) and indirectly, by changing soil characteristics, including biogeochemical cycling and nutrient availability (Ingraffia et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022b\u003c/span\u003e; Leifheit et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021a\u003c/span\u003e). Most likely, both direct and indirect mechanisms are responsible for observed effects of microplastics on plant performance and root growth (Lozano et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Spei\u0026szlig;er \u0026amp; van Kleunen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; van Kleunen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, effects of microplastics on plants could feed back to plant interactions with soils. For example, microplastics can change plant secondary metabolites, in turn affecting soil nematodes (Kim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021a\u003c/span\u003e). A first study looking at effects of microplastics on PSFs found that soils previously exposed to microplastics exhibited more positive or negative PSFs compared to soils without microplastic ancestry, depending on microplastic characteristics (Lozano \u0026amp; Rillig, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), emphasizing the need for more studies investigating microplastic effects on PSFs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMicroplastics affect key drivers of PSFs (plants conditioning the soil and soil communities) in various ways, making predictions about microplastic effects on PSFs difficult. To gain a better understanding of how microplastics affect heterospecific PSFs, we tested the hypothesis that microplastics affect PSFs depending on the plastic type and particle concentrations, by assessing how different microplastics affected soil-conditioning effects of \u003cem\u003eCentaurea jacea\u003c/em\u003e on the growth of the forb \u003cem\u003eCrepis biennis\u003c/em\u003e and the grass \u003cem\u003eEragrostis minor\u003c/em\u003e. Next to a control treatment without added particles and a chemically inert control using glass granules, we included three plastic types, i.e. low-density polyethylene (PE), ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM), and polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA). We applied the different plastics individually and mixed in a low (0.5% vol) and a high (5% vol) concentration. We expected the effects of microplastics on PSFs to be mediated by both abiotic (e.g. soil structure, nutrient availability) and biotic (soil community) factors. Therefore, to disentangle biotic from abiotic effects, we grew \u003cem\u003eC. jacea\u003c/em\u003e in substrate containing either an intact or depleted (sterilized) soil community. In the feedback phase, we grew individuals of \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eE. minor\u003c/em\u003e in all possible combinations of conditioning, soil community, material type, and material concentration. Finally, due to the closer relatedness to \u003cem\u003eC. jacea\u003c/em\u003e, we expected PSF effects and microplastic-induced changes to be stronger for \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e, especially with the intact soil community.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStudy species and precultivation:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe used the perennial forb \u003cem\u003eCentaurea jacea\u003c/em\u003e L. (Asteraceae) to condition the substrate in the first phase of the experiment (conditioning phase; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). \u003cem\u003eCentaurea jacea\u003c/em\u003e is native to Europe and is naturalized in other parts of the world, including North America and Australia (POWO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). We chose this species because it has been shown to induce detectable PSF effects on conspecifics and heterospecifics (Xue et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018a\u003c/span\u003e; Xue et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018b\u003c/span\u003e). To examine heterospecific PSFs of \u003cem\u003eC. jacea\u003c/em\u003e, and assess whether these are modified by microplastics, we used the distantly related \u003cem\u003eEragrostis minor\u003c/em\u003e Host (Poaceae) and the more closely related \u003cem\u003eCrepis biennis\u003c/em\u003e L. (Asteraceae) as test species in the second phase of the experiment (feedback phase). \u003cem\u003eEragrostis minor\u003c/em\u003e is an annual grass that is native to large parts of Asia, the Mediterranean and parts of Africa, and is naturalized in Central Europe, Australia, and parts of North and South America (POWO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). \u003cem\u003eCrepis biennis\u003c/em\u003e is a biennial forb native to large parts of Europe and occurs in parts of North America as naturalized species (POWO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Seeds were sown separately by species into plastic trays (13.4 cm \u0026times; 12.2 cm \u0026times; 4.9 cm; TEKU\u0026reg; TK 1214, P\u0026ouml;ppelmann GmbH \u0026amp; Co. KG, Lohne, Germany) filled with unsterilized potting soil (Einheitserde\u0026reg; CL P, Einheitserdewerke Werkverband e.V., Sinntal-Altengronau, Germany) and placed in a climatized greenhouse for germination two weeks before the beginning of the respective phase. That is, seeds of \u003cem\u003eC. jacea\u003c/em\u003e were sown on 15 August 2022, and seeds of \u003cem\u003eE. minor\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e were sown on 10 October 2022. Seeds of \u003cem\u003eC. jacea\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e were obtained from a commercial seed company (Rieger-Hofmann GmbH, Blaufelden-Raboldshausen, Germany), and \u003cem\u003eE. minor\u003c/em\u003e seeds were obtained from the botanical garden of the University of Konstanz.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMicroplastics:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo test how different plastic types affect PSFs, we selected three plastic types differing in major characteristics, such as polymer type, surface structure and degradability. Polyethylene (PE) is the most commonly used plastic type (Geyer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), and is characterized by a smooth surface and high resistance to biotic and abiotic degradation. In our experiment, we used granules (2.5\u0026ndash;4 mm) of a non-additivated low-density PE (Lupolen 3020H, LyondellBasell Industries, Rotterdam, Netherlands), which is used to produce, amongst others, plastic bags, and food packaging. As second conventional plastic type, we selected ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM). EPDM is an elastomer that is often used for outdoor applications, due to its high resistance against UV-degradation and abrasion. For example, EPDM granules are frequently used in artificial turfs (e.g. soccer pitches), from which they can easily spread into the surroundings (van Kleunen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). These EPDM granules are a good example of primary microplastics. Here, we used such EPDM granules (0.5\u0026ndash;2.5 mm; Resedagr\u0026uuml;n RAL 6011, GranuElastic H\u0026ouml;fer \u0026amp; Stankowska GbR, Frankfurt (Oder), Germany). As the usage of biodegradable plastic types is increasing continuously (Kumar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), we also included the biodegradable polymer polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) in our experiment (PHI 002, NaturePlast, Mondeville, France). The PHA granules (2\u0026ndash;4 mm) were similar to the PE granules in terms of their appearance. However, PHA is considered to degrade relatively quickly (Dilkes-Hoffman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), and hence stronger short-term effects can be expected compared to conventional plastics (Qi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). In addition to the different microplastics, to account for purely physical effects of adding particles to the substrate, we included glass granules (2\u0026ndash;4 mm, Glasgranulat klar, Deco Stones, Vechelde, Germany) as a chemically inert control. To remove glass dust and other impurities, the glass granules were thoroughly washed prior to usage.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eConditioning phase:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the conditioning phase, we created a substrate consisting of sand-vermiculite (1:1, v:v) mixed with field soil in a 1:1 volume-ratio, to include a natural soil community. The field soil was collected from the topsoil layer of a grassland community close to the botanical garden of the University of Konstanz (N: 47\u0026deg;69\u0026prime;19.56\u0026Prime;, E: 9\u0026deg;17\u0026prime;78.42\u0026Prime;) and was sieved (mesh size 15 mm \u0026times; 15 mm) to remove stones and break up large soil aggregates. To be able to investigate the interactive effects of the soil community and our other treatments (soil conditioning, microplastics), we sterilized half of the substrate twice using a steam sterilizer, heating the substrate to 80\u0026deg;C for approximately three hours (Erdd\u0026auml;mpfer Sterilo, Harter Elektrotechnik, Schenkenzell, Germany). Subsequently, we filled 3-L square pots with the respective substrates, i.e. either with pure sterilized or non-sterilized substrate for the control pots or with sterilized or non-sterilized substrate containing a low (0.5%, v:v) or high (5%, v:v) concentration of PE, EPDM, PHA, a mix of all three plastics (equal volumetric proportions), or glass. To ensure accurate concentrations of the microplastic and glass particles, we prepared the substrate for each pot individually. As soils are recolonized after sterilization (Baweja, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1939\u003c/span\u003e; Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Marschner \u0026amp; Rumberger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e), we refer to an initially depleted vs intact soil community, rather than sterilized vs intact.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn 29 August 2022, to condition the substrate, we planted four similar sized seedlings of \u003cem\u003eC. jacea\u003c/em\u003e per pot into half of the pots, keeping the other half of the pots as unconditioned control. Subsequently, we placed the 220 pots (2 conditioning \u0026times; 2 soil communities \u0026times; (((4 plastics\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;glass) \u0026times; 2 concentrations)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;1 control) \u0026times; 5 replicates) in the same greenhouse compartment described above in a randomized block design. Within the five blocks, the pots were randomly assigned to fixed positions. On 24 October 2022, after a growth period of eight weeks, we harvested the plants by first cutting the shoots and subsequently carefully removing the roots from the substrate. We collected the shoots and roots from each pot individually, dried them at 70\u0026deg;C for at least 72 hours and weighed them using a digital scale. We report the effects of microplastics and soil community (depleted vs. intact) on \u003cem\u003eC. jacea\u003c/em\u003e in the supplement (Supplementary Tables\u0026nbsp;1 \u0026amp; 2; Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFeedback phase:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe thoroughly homogenized the substrate of each individual conditioning-phase 3-L pot, and subsequently redistributed it into two new 1-L pots. Into one of these two pots, we planted one seedling of \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e, and, into the other one, we planted a seedling of \u003cem\u003eE. minor\u003c/em\u003e. This resulted in a total of 440 pots for the feedback phase (i.e., 220 pots per test species; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), which again were arranged in the same greenhouse into five randomized replicate blocks. To be able to account for differences in initial size of the seedlings in the statistical analysis, for each seedling, we measured the length and width of the largest leaf, counted the number of leaves, and calculated a proxy of initial leaf area by multiplying the leaf length by the width of the largest leaf and by the number of leaves. After a growth period of ten weeks, we harvested both the aboveground and belowground parts of the plants, individually. The shoots of both species, as well as the roots of \u003cem\u003eE. minor\u003c/em\u003e were directly dried at 70\u0026deg;C for at least 72 hours and subsequently weighed using a digital scale. For \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e, we stored the fresh roots in water-filled tubes at 8\u0026deg;C for a maximum of 72 hours prior to root-morphology analysis. For the root-morphology analysis of \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e, we scanned the individual root systems using a root scanner (modified Epson Expression 1100 XL and Epson Expression 1200 XL flatbed scanners) and analyzed the total root length, average root diameter, average link length (as a proxy for root ramification) and root volume (to calculate root-tissue density), using the WinRhizo\u0026trade; Pro imaging software (Regent Instruments Inc., Canada). After scanning, the roots were dried and weighed as described above. As the root systems of \u003cem\u003eE. minor\u003c/em\u003e were very dense and convoluted, we analyzed root-morphology traits only for \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStatistical analysis:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll statistical analyses were performed in R 4.2.2 (R Core Team, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePSFs:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo test how the three different types of microplastics in different concentrations affect heterospecific plant-soil feedbacks (PSF), and how potential effects might be influenced by soil-community depletion, we first calculated PSF values as log-response ratios:\u003cdiv id=\"Equa\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equa\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\:{PSF}_{X}=\\text{l}\\text{n}\\left(\\frac{{X}_{conditioned}}{\\stackrel{-}{{X}_{unconditioned}}}\\right)$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThat is, the PSF value for a given trait (X) was calculated as the natural logarithm of the quotient of the individual sample trait value from the conditioned soil and the mean of the control samples from the unconditioned soil (grouped by material treatment and soil community). For both response species, \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eE. minor\u003c/em\u003e, we calculated PSFs for total biomass (PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e) and the proportion of root biomass to total biomass, i.e. root-weight ratio (PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e). For \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e, we also calculated PSFs for the root-morphology traits average root diameter (PSF\u003csub\u003eRD\u003c/sub\u003e), specific root length (PSF\u003csub\u003eSRL\u003c/sub\u003e), average link length (PSF\u003csub\u003eLL\u003c/sub\u003e), and root-tissue density (PSF\u003csub\u003eRTD\u003c/sub\u003e). We then fitted linear mixed-effects models using the \u003cem\u003elme\u003c/em\u003e function of the \u0026ldquo;nlme\u0026rdquo; package (Pinheiro et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), including PSF as response variable. We included material treatment (the one control and 10 combinations of material type and concentration), soil community (intact vs. initially depleted) and their interaction as fixed effects, and block as random effect. To improve homoscedasticity, we added variance structures for soil community for the PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e model of \u003cem\u003eE. minor\u003c/em\u003e and for all \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e models except for the PSF\u003csub\u003eLL\u003c/sub\u003e and PSF\u003csub\u003eRTD\u003c/sub\u003e models, using the \u003cem\u003evarIdent\u003c/em\u003e fuction in the \u0026ldquo;nlme\u0026rdquo; package. For the PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e model of \u003cem\u003eE. minor\u003c/em\u003e, adding variance structures for material treatment resulted in the best model fit (based on AIC). Significance of fixed effects was assessed using log-likelihood-ratio tests (Zuur et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eContrast models:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo obtain more detailed information about differences in effects of the different material types and concentrations, we created orthogonal contrasts comparing specific material-treatment combinations (Supplementary Table\u0026nbsp;3). The first contrast tested the effect of particle addition by comparing the average of the grouped material treatments (low and high concentrations of glass and microplastics) to the control (no added material). The second contrast tested the overall effects of plastics by comparing the average of the grouped microplastics to the average of low and high glass. The third contrast tested the effect of mixing the plastic types by comparing the average of the low and high microplastic mix to the average of the grouped individual microplastics. The fourth contrast tested the effect of the biodegradable plastic by comparing the average of the low and high biodegradable PHA to the average of the grouped conventional plastics (EPDM and PE). The fifth contrast tested whether the two conventional plastics had different effects by comparing the average of the low and high EPDM to the average of the low and high PE. The sixth to tenth contrasts compared the high vs. low concentration of each individual material type. We then replaced the material treatment with the ten \u003cem\u003ea priori\u003c/em\u003e chosen contrasts as explanatory variables in the linear mixed-effects models, together with soil community and the specific two-way interactions between soil community and each contrast.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eGiven the long-standing discussion about strictly binary decisions based on arbitrary p-value thresholds, we followed the recommendations of\u0026nbsp;Muff et al. (2021), and wrote the results in a gradual evidence language. All results refer to effects on the calculated plant-soil feedback (PSF) values for the respective traits.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHeterospecific PSF effects on \u003cem\u003eCrepis biennis\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBiomass responses:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e and PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e of \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eranged from negative to positive values, and there was very strong evidence that both were interactively affected by the material treatment (combinations of different material types and concentrations) and the soil-community treatment (intact vs. initially depleted) (p \u0026lt; 0.001, respectively; Table 1, Figure 2). Overall, PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e tended to be positive for the initially depleted soil community, but negative for the intact soil community, and the material treatment further modified this pattern (Figure 2A). Based on the \u003cem\u003ea priori\u003c/em\u003e chosen contrasts comparing specific material-treatment combinations, we identified different combinations driving these interactions (Table 2). For the initially depleted soil community, there was very strong evidence that particle addition generally resulted in a shift from a negative to a positive PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e (C1\u0026nbsp;\u0026times;\u0026nbsp;soil community: p \u0026lt; 0.001; particles absent: -0.67\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.6, particles present: 1.14\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.18). In contrast, for the intact soil community, PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e was generally negative, but more so if particles were added (particles absent: -0.30\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.13, particles present: -0.49\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.05; Figure 2A). Further, there was very strong evidence that the biodegradable microplastics led to a weaker positive PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e for the initially depleted community (C4 \u0026times; soil community: p \u0026lt; 0.001; conventional: 1.44 \u0026plusmn; 0.28, degradable: 0.16 \u0026plusmn; 0.19), and a weaker negative PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e for the intact community (conventional: -0.52 \u0026plusmn; 0.08, degradable: -0.37 \u0026plusmn; 0.08). There was also strong evidence for concentration effects for glass and EPDM.\u0026nbsp;For the initially depleted community, PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e was generally positive but less so for the high concentrations (C6 \u0026times; soil community: p \u0026lt; 0.001;\u0026nbsp;glass low: 2.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.18, glass high: 0.29\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.76;\u0026nbsp;C7 \u0026times; soil community: p = 0.002;\u0026nbsp;EPDM low: 2.75\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.16, EPDM high: 0.89\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.68). For the intact community, PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e was generally negative but weaker for the high concentration (glass low: -0.46\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.08, glass high: -0.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.11; EPDM low: -0.71\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.14, EPDM high: -0.31\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.11). In addition, there was strong evidence for a concentration dependency in the plastic mix, with a negative PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e for the low concentration but a positive PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e for the high concentration (C10: p \u0026lt; 0.01; low: -0.24\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.34, high: 0.84\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.45), irrespective of the soil community.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSimilar to the results for PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e, there was very strong evidence that particle addition led to a shift from negative to positive PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e (i.e. from a negative to a positive conditioning effect on biomass allocation to roots) for the initially depleted community (C1 \u0026times; soil community: p \u0026lt; 0.001; particles absent: -0.45\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.19, particles present: 0.15\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.05). For the intact community, PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e was generally weak, but tended to be slightly positive without added particles (particles absent: 0.05\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.09) and slightly negative with added particles (particles present: -0.07\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.03; Figure 2B). In addition, there was very strong evidence that microplastics, compared to glass, led to a weaker positive PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e for the initially depleted community (C2 \u0026times; soil community: p \u0026lt; 0.001; glass: 0.39\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.05, microplastics: 0.08\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.05), and a weaker negative PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e for the intact community (glass: -0.12\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.07, microplastics: -0.06\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.03). Further there was moderate evidence that the high EPDM concentration reduced PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e strength (from positive to neutral) for the initially depleted community (C7 \u0026times; soil community: p = 0.03; low: 0.35\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.04, high: 0.004\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.22), and for the intact community (low: -0.07\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.15, high: -0.03\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.08). There was also moderate evidence that the high glass concentration led to a more positive PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e compared to the low concentration (C6: p = 0.02; low: 0.02\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.10, high: 0.26\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.09), irrespective of the soil community.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoot-morphology responses:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor all root traits of \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e, except for average link length, we found very strong evidence that PSF responses were interactively affected by material and soil-community treatments (Table 1, Supplementary Table 4). Overall, PSF\u003csub\u003eSRL\u003c/sub\u003e tended to be negative when the soil community had initially been depleted, whereas it was frequently neutral or positive when the soil community was intact, although there were some exceptions to this (Figure 3A). Again, based on the contrast models, we found different specific combinations driving those interactions (Table 2). For the initially depleted community, we found very strong evidence that microplastic particles in the soil led to a less negative PSF\u003csub\u003eSRL\u003c/sub\u003e compared to glass particles (C2 \u0026times; soil community: p \u0026lt; 0.001; glass: ‑1.04\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.14, microplastics: ‑0.54\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.08). For the intact community, PSF\u003csub\u003eSRL\u003c/sub\u003e tended to be positive in general, but less so in the presence of microplastics (glass: 0.19\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.09; microplastics: 0.08\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn; 0.05). Further, we found very strong evidence for EPDM (C7 \u0026times; soil community: p \u0026lt; 0.001) and moderate evidence for PHA (C9 \u0026times; soil community: p = 0.01) that low and high concentrations differed in their effects on PSF\u003csub\u003eSRL\u003c/sub\u003e in interaction with the soil community. For the combination of EPDM and the initially depleted community, PSF\u003csub\u003eSRL\u003c/sub\u003e was negative for the low concentration (-0.97 \u0026plusmn; 0.11) but turned positive for the high concentration (0.18 \u0026plusmn; 0.25). In contrast, in combination with the intact community, PSF\u003csub\u003eSRL\u003c/sub\u003e was positive for the low EPDM concentration (0.41 \u0026plusmn; 0.17) but rather neutral for the high concentration (0.03 \u0026plusmn; 0.07). For PHA, the pattern was the other way around. Although PSF\u003csub\u003eSRL\u003c/sub\u003e tended to be generally negative, for the initially depleted community, the high PHA concentration resulted in a more negative PSF\u003csub\u003eSRL\u003c/sub\u003e (low: -0.32 \u0026plusmn; 0.09, high: -0.90 \u0026plusmn; 0.25). For the intact community, PSF\u003csub\u003eSRL\u003c/sub\u003e tended to be negative for the low but rather neutral for the high concentration (low: -0.17 \u0026plusmn; 0.06, high: -0.02 \u0026plusmn; 0.15). In addition, we found strong evidence that, irrespective of the soil community, the biodegradable PHA led to a stronger negative PSF\u003csub\u003eSRL\u003c/sub\u003e compared to the conventional plastics (C4: p \u0026lt; 0.01; conventional: -0.11 \u0026plusmn; 0.09, degradable: -0.35 \u0026plusmn; 0.10). As effects on SRL were generally inversely related to root thickness and root-tissue density, detailed results for PSF\u003csub\u003eRD\u003c/sub\u003e and PSF\u003csub\u003eRTD\u003c/sub\u003e are provided in the supplement (Supplementary Results, Supplementary Tables 4 \u0026amp; 5, Supplementary Figure 2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe found moderate evidence that material treatment (p \u0026lt; 0.05), and very strong evidence that soil community (p \u0026lt; 0.001) independently affected PSF\u003csub\u003eLL\u003c/sub\u003e (Table 1). Overall, PSF\u003csub\u003eLL\u003c/sub\u003e tended to be slightly positive for the intact soil community (0.07\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.03) but negative for the initially depleted community (-2.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.03). Regarding the material effects, we found strong evidence that PSF\u003csub\u003eLL\u003c/sub\u003e was negative for EPDM (‑0.16\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.07) but neutral for PE (0.001\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.05; C5: p \u0026lt; 0.01). In addition, there was moderate evidence that the high concentration of the mixed microplastics led to a shift from a slightly positive to a negative PSF\u003csub\u003eLL\u003c/sub\u003e (C10: p \u0026lt; 0.05; low: 0.09\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.08, high: -0.17\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.06; Figure 3B).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHeterospecific PSF-effects on \u003cem\u003eEragrostis minor\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBiomass responses:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe found strong evidence that the material treatment affected PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e of \u003cem\u003eE. minor\u003c/em\u003e (p \u0026lt; 0.01), but no evidence for soil-community effects (p = 0.4; Table 3). Based on the \u003cem\u003ea priori\u003c/em\u003e chosen contrasts (Table 4), we found strong evidence that particles in general led to a more negative PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e (C1: p \u0026lt; 0.01; particles absent: -0.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.1, particles present: -0.42\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.04), and that the high PHA concentration led to a less negative PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e than the low PHA concentration (C9: p \u0026lt; 0.001; low: -0.71\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.18, high: \u0026shy;‑0.17\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.06; Figure 4A).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe found strong evidence that the material treatment and the soil community interactively affected PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e of \u003cem\u003eE. minor\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(p = 0.01; Table 3). Overall, PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e tended to be weaker for the intact community treatment compared to the depleted one, but this was not true for all material-treatment combinations (Figure 4B). Based on the contrast models, we found very strong evidence that microplastics led to a less negative PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e with the initially depleted community (C2 \u0026times; soil community: p \u0026lt; 0.001; glass: -0.26\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.08, microplastic: -0.04\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.05), and a weaker PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e with the intact community, compared to glass (glass: 0.12\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.06, microplastic: -0.01\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.05). In addition, there was moderate evidence that the high PHA concentration led to a weaker positive PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e with the initially depleted community (C9 \u0026times; soil community: p \u0026lt; 0.05; low: 0.19\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.16, high: 0.03\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.09), and a shift from negative to positive PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e for the intact community (low: ‑0.18\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.07, high: 0.16\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.13; Figure 4B), compared to the low concentration. Further, there was moderate to strong evidence that different material-treatment groups differed from each other, irrespective of the initial state of the soil community. Particle addition in general tended to shift the direction of PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e from positive to slightly negative (C1: p \u0026lt; 0.05; particles absent: 0.09\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.06, particles present: -0.04\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.03). Also, PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e was negative with EPDM (-1.16\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.06) but positive and overall weaker with PE (0.09\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.07; C5: p \u0026lt; 0.01). In addition, PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e tended to be slightly positive with the low glass concentration (0.04 \u0026plusmn; 0.08) but turned negative for the high concentration (-0.18 \u0026plusmn; 0.09; C6: p \u0026lt; 0.05).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eWe tested how different types of microplastics, in combination with an intact or initially depleted soil community, affect heterospecific plant-soil feedbacks (PSFs; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). We show that, for \u003cem\u003eCrepis biennis\u003c/em\u003e, the direction of PSF strongly depended on the status of the soil community, with an intact community generally resulting in negative PSF and the initially depleted community rather leading to positive PSF (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e), indicating a positive effect of soil recolonization (Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). However, soil-community status during the conditioning phase was less influential regarding PSF on \u003cem\u003eEragrostis minor\u003c/em\u003e (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Interestingly, we found that particle addition in general (glass and microplastics) intensified PSFs based on total biomass for both species, although the overall direction was generally positive for \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e and negative for \u003cem\u003eE. minor\u003c/em\u003e. Compared to glass particles, microplastics led to weaker PSFs based on root-weight ratio (RWR) and root-morphological traits, although there were some exceptions (Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). In most cases, particle addition and soil-community effects depended on each other, suggesting that artificial particles in the soil are likely to change heterospecific PSFs interactively with the soil community.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite effects on PSF, there was no evidence for overall particle-addition effects on plant productivity independent of soil conditioning or initial state of the soil community, neither for \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e nor \u003cem\u003eE. minor\u003c/em\u003e (Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;3). This indicates that particle-addition effects are generally highly context dependent (Krehl et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, there was very strong evidence for material-treatment effects, in addition to but irrespective of soil-community effects, on both productivity and RWR of \u003cem\u003eC. jacea\u003c/em\u003e in the conditioning phase (Supplementary Table\u0026nbsp;1, Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;1). This suggests that particle addition could modify PSFs by changing the growth of conditioning plants. Regarding the PSF responses, when looking at the treatment combination most closely resembling natural conditions without pollution, i.e. no added particles and intact soil community, we found only moderate evidence for heterospecific PSF effects on \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e biomass (-0.33\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.16, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.049) and on RWR of \u003cem\u003eE. minor\u003c/em\u003e (0.19\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.09, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.038), indicating that PSF effects were rather weak, overall. However, PSF effects changed with particle addition, and depended on whether the soil community was intact or initially depleted (Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e \u0026amp; \u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn line with our expectation, we found clear evidence that microplastics affected heterospecific PSFs, depending on plastic type and concentration. Moreover, this was true for particle presence in general. Glass and microplastic particles strengthened PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e of both response species, inducing a positive feedback in \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e but a negative one in \u003cem\u003eE. minor\u003c/em\u003e. The similar pattern for PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e (see C1 in Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eA) suggests that effects on PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e might be strongly driven by changes in root biomass. That is, root biomass increased for \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e and decreased for \u003cem\u003eE. minor\u003c/em\u003e, when grown in conditioned soil with artificial particles. The changed PSFs indicate that artificial particles in the soil in general, and not just microplastics, can affect PSFs. Such effects might arise because artificial particles change physical soil properties, affecting both plants and soil communities and, in turn, PSFs. For example, microplastics affect soil structure, bulk density, water flow and water holding capacity (de Souza Machado et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; de Souza Machado et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Kim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021b\u003c/span\u003e). Such changes can result in a higher water evaporation and reduced soil moisture (Spei\u0026szlig;er \u0026amp; van Kleunen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Wan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, changed physical soil properties might affect plants and soil organisms directly (Krehl et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Leifheit et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021b\u003c/span\u003e), but also their interactions by, for example, changing root morphology or rhizosphere properties (de Souza Machado et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Spei\u0026szlig;er \u0026amp; van Kleunen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Both root morphology and rhizosphere properties are key determinants of PSFs (Kuzyakov \u0026amp; Blagodatskaya, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Kuzyakov \u0026amp; Razavi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Wilschut et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), so changing those properties could be one way in which artificial particles alter PSFs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe different effects of glass and microplastics (see C2 in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eB, \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA, \u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eB) indicate that chemical components are also likely to be involved in how artificial particles affect PSFs. Considering the high number and variety of additives in many plastics (Jones, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Wagner et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), this appears to be a plausible factor. In our study, however, EPDM was the only plastic type containing additives, and previous studies showed that its effects are dose-dependent and can affect root morphology (Spei\u0026szlig;er \u0026amp; van Kleunen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; van Kleunen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). At the same time, it was the plastic type showing the strongest concentration dependent effects for PSFs based on biomass and root traits (see C7 in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA, Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;2), supporting the assumption that additives could be one factor of how microplastics change PSFs. However, considering the clear differences in effects between glass and all grouped microplastics, it seems unlikely that EPDM was the only driver of these different effects. The difference between conventional and biodegradable microplastics on PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e of \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e (see C4 in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eA) and PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e for both \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eE. minor\u003c/em\u003e (Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e \u0026amp; \u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e), and the concentration effects of PHA on PSF\u003csub\u003eSRL\u003c/sub\u003e of \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e and PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e and PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e of \u003cem\u003eE. minor\u003c/em\u003e (see C9 in Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA, \u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e) point towards another potential component.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlastics consist mainly of carbon chains, which might serve as additional carbon source for microorganisms, and can change soil microbial composition and activity (Cao et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Fei et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Rong et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Zheng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Altered microbial composition or activity could affect PSFs directly, but also indirectly by influencing plants, leading to follow-up effects on PSFs. Generally, the accessibility of carbon from plastics strongly depends on the plastic type (Zheng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). PHA, as biodegradable plastic, can be degraded relatively quickly, up to approximately 0.1 mg\u0026times;day\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026times;cm\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/sup\u003e (Dilkes-Hoffman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), and many bacteria and fungi are able to degrade PHA (Jendrossek \u0026amp; Handrick, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, despite the initial inertness of many plastics, aging due to environmental factors (e.g. UV, heat, mechanical abrasion) can induce physical and chemical changes making plastics more prone to further degradation (Shah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). So, more carbon (and other compounds) could be released from plastics, in the long term. Consequently, aging might lead to stronger microplastic effects in the environment (Lozano et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Spei\u0026szlig;er, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), which should also be considered for future investigations regarding PSFs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImportantly, in most cases, particle effects on PSFs depended on whether the soil in the conditioning phase contained an intact or depleted soil community, which is in line with our second expectation that biotic factors can mediate particle effects. Interactive effects of microplastics and soil organisms are in line with previous findings that microplastics can affect soil microbial composition and activity (Fei et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Rong et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). For \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e, with the initially depleted soil community, adding particles led to a shift from negative to positive PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e. In contrast, with the intact community, PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e was generally negative, but more so if particles were added to the soil (see C1 in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eA). The positive PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e for the combination of initially depleted community and particle addition is likely to be mainly driven by changes in root properties of \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e. The positive PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eB) together with the positive PSF\u003csub\u003eRTD\u003c/sub\u003e and negative PSF\u003csub\u003eSRL\u003c/sub\u003e (Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;2B, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA) indicate that the plants did not just produce proportionally more roots, but also denser and heavier roots in conditioned soil with the initially depleted community and added particles (Supplementary Figs.\u0026nbsp;4, 5). Moreover, compared to glass, microplastics led to weaker PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e (see C2 in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eB), PSF\u003csub\u003eSRL\u003c/sub\u003e and PSF\u003csub\u003eRTD\u003c/sub\u003e (see C2 in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA and Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;2B), especially with the depleted community. So, overall, the plants invested more in roots in the conditioned soil with initially depleted soil community, but less so when microplastics were present instead of glass (Supplementary Figs.\u0026nbsp;6, 7). The differences between glass and microplastics could be explained by differing effects on soil communities due to distinct material properties. Indeed, microplastics can be associated with less diverse microbial communities, of specific taxonomical and functional composition (Luo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Shi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Sun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Zhu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). A potential explanation why these effects were stronger for the depleted soil community could be that the community structure in the intact community was more stable, so changes in composition and the resulting effects were less pronounced. However, as we did not analyze the community composition, future studies should clarify this.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen comparing the PSF responses of \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eE. minor\u003c/em\u003e, mediating effects of the soil community were less pronounced for \u003cem\u003eE. minor\u003c/em\u003e. There was no evidence that the initial state of the community affected PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e of \u003cem\u003eE. minor\u003c/em\u003e directly or via modifying microplastic effects (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eA), matching our third expectation that interactive effects between particle addition and soil community are stronger for \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e. However, PSF responses of both species generally differed, and \u003cem\u003eE. minor\u003c/em\u003e experienced more negative PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e than \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e (-0.26\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.16, -0.08\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.41, respectively). This is in line with previous findings that short-lived species are more prone to negative PSFs (Kardol et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Lemmermeyer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Xi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Accordingly, \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e, although just being biennial, had a clearly higher RWR than the annual \u003cem\u003eE. minor\u003c/em\u003e (0.46\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.01, 0.09\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.002), matching previous findings that species with low relative root weight experience more negative PSFs (Wilschut et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). So, while the generally negative PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e of \u003cem\u003eE. minor\u003c/em\u003e could probably be explained by the low RWR and other root traits associated with fast-growing plants (Wilschut et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Xi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), the pattern for \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e was more complex as PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e also depended on the initial state of the soil community (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eA).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWith the intact soil community, PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e of \u003cem\u003eC. biennis\u003c/em\u003e was overall negative but was positive for the initially depleted community (-0.39\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.09, 0.23\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.91, respectively). This pattern could reflect that generalists are responsible for the negative PSFs (Semchenko et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Wilschut et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Wilschut et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), which might have dominated the intact community. In contrast, with the initially depleted community, conditioning by \u003cem\u003eC. jacea\u003c/em\u003e could have led to a less diverse community with perhaps less total, or mainly specialist pathogens. Taken on its own, this does not explain the shift to a positive PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e or why PSF responses generally tended to be stronger with the depleted community. However, soil sterilization itself can have positive effects on plant performance, when followed by recolonization of beneficial soil organisms (Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), although such effects might change over time (Marschner \u0026amp; Rumberger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Further, our analysis showed that soil-community effects also depended on particle addition, suggesting that artificial particles in the soil might further modify effects of differing soil communities on PSFs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, our study showed that artificial particles in the soil can affect heterospecific PSFs, and that these effects are likely to be partly mediated by soil-community composition. However, as we did not analyze the soil-community composition, further investigations are needed to gain a better understanding of the interplay of artificial particles and soil biota on PSFs. Our results also suggest that changes in PSFs are shaped by both physical and chemical mechanisms. In this context, future studies should also consider that effects of microplastics might change over time, which could have further implications for the plant-soil system. Our findings add evidence to first findings that microplastics could change plant-soil feedbacks (Lozano \u0026amp; Rillig, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) but also highlight the complexity of the mechanisms involved and the need for further studies assessing potential ecological implications of microplastics modifying plant-soil interactions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eAMF: Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEPDM: Ethylene propylene diene monomer\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLL: Average link length\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePE: Polyethylene\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePHA: Polyhydroxyalkanoate\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePSF(s): Plant-soil feedback(s):\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRD: Average root diameter\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRTD: Root-tissue density\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRWR: Root-weight ratio\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSRL: Specific root length\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBS conceived the idea. BS, MvK and RAW designed the experiment. SG performed the experiment. BS analyzed the data with additional inputs by MvK and RAW. BS wrote the manuscript with considerable contributions from MvK, RAW and SG.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe thank Kristina Schl\u0026ouml;tter, Otmar Ficht and Heinz Vahlenkamp for practical assistance and Rhea DeStefano and Sven Egger for their help during the experiment. We thank Yanjie Liu for reviewing the manuscript prior to submission.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData availability\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eUpon acceptance, the data will be archived in a public repository and the associated DOI will be included in this article.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAndrady, A. L. (2011). Microplastics in the marine environment. \u003cem\u003eMarine Pollution Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 62\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1596-1605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.030 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaho, D. L., Bundschuh, M., \u0026amp; Futter, M. N. (2021). Microplastics in terrestrial ecosystems: Moving beyond the state of the art to minimize the risk of ecological surprise. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Change Biology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 27\u003c/em\u003e(17), 3969-3986. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15724 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBank, M. S., Swarzenski, P. W., Duarte, C. M., Rillig, M. C., Koelmans, A. A., Metian, M., et al. (2021). Global Plastic Pollution Observation System to Aid Policy. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science \u0026amp; Technology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 55\u003c/em\u003e(12), 7770-7775. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c00818 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaweja, K. D. (1939). Studies of the Soil Fauna, with Special Reference to the Recolonization of Sterilized Soil. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Animal Ecology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 8\u003c/em\u003e(1), 120-161. https://doi.org/10.2307/1257 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBennett, J. A., \u0026amp; Klironomos, J. (2019). Mechanisms of plant\u0026ndash;soil feedback: interactions among biotic and abiotic drivers. \u003cem\u003eNew Phytologist\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 222\u003c/em\u003e(1), 91-96. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15603 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBennett, J. A., Maherali, H., Reinhart, K. O., Lekberg, Y., Hart, M. M., \u0026amp; Klironomos, J. (2017). Plant-soil feedbacks and mycorrhizal type influence temperate forest population dynamics. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 355\u003c/em\u003e(6321), 181-184. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.aai8212 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBever, J. D. (1994). Feeback between Plants and Their Soil Communities in an Old Field Community. \u003cem\u003eEcology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 75\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1965-1977. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/1941601 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCao, J., Li, C., Gao, X., Cai, Y., Song, X., Siddique, K. H. M., et al. (2023). Agricultural soil plastic as a hidden carbon source stimulates microbial activity and increases carbon dioxide emissions. \u003cem\u003eResources, Conservation and Recycling\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 198\u003c/em\u003e, 107151. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107151 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChapin, F. S., Walker, L. R., Fastie, C. L., \u0026amp; Sharman, L. C. (1994). Mechanisms of Primary Succession Following Deglaciation at Glacier Bay, Alaska. \u003cem\u003eEcological Monographs\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 64\u003c/em\u003e(2), 149-175. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/2937039 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, D., \u0026amp; van Kleunen, M. (2022). Invasional meltdown mediated by plant\u0026ndash;soil feedbacks may depend on community diversity. \u003cem\u003eNew Phytologist\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 235\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1589-1598. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18218 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChia, R. W., Lee, J.-Y., Kim, H., \u0026amp; Jang, J. (2021). Microplastic pollution in soil and groundwater: a review. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Chemistry Letters\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-021-01297-6 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., \u0026amp; Galloway, T. S. (2011). Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: A review. \u003cem\u003eMarine Pollution Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 62\u003c/em\u003e(12), 2588-2597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.09.025 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ede Souza Machado, A. A., Lau, C. W., Kloas, W., Bergmann, J., Bachelier, J. B., Faltin, E., et al. (2019). Microplastics can change soil properties and affect plant performance. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science \u0026amp; Technology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 53\u003c/em\u003e(10), 6044-6052. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b01339 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ede Souza Machado, A. A., Lau, C. W., Till, J., Kloas, W., Lehmann, A., Becker, R., et al. (2018). Impacts of microplastics on the soil biophysical environment. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science \u0026amp; Technology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 52\u003c/em\u003e(17), 9656-9665. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02212 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDilkes-Hoffman, L. S., Lant, P. A., Laycock, B., \u0026amp; Pratt, S. (2019). The rate of biodegradation of PHA bioplastics in the marine environment: A meta-study. \u003cem\u003eMarine Pollution Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 142\u003c/em\u003e, 15-24. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.03.020 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEhrenfeld, J. G., Ravit, B., \u0026amp; Elgersma, K. (2005). Feedback in the plant-soil system. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Environment and Resources\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 30\u003c/em\u003e(1), 75-115. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144212 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFei, Y., Huang, S., Zhang, H., Tong, Y., Wen, D., Xia, X., et al. (2020). Response of soil enzyme activities and bacterial communities to the accumulation of microplastics in an acid cropped soil. \u003cem\u003eScience of The Total Environment\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 707\u003c/em\u003e, 135634. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135634 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeyer, R., Jambeck, J. R., \u0026amp; Law, K. L. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. \u003cem\u003eScience Advances\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 3\u003c/em\u003e(7), e1700782. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/sciadv.1700782 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGkoutselis, G., Rohrbach, S., Harjes, J., Obst, M., Brachmann, A., Horn, M. A., et al. (2021). Microplastics accumulate fungal pathogens in terrestrial ecosystems. \u003cem\u003eScientific Reports\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 13214. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92405-7 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelmberger, M. S., Tiemann, L. K., \u0026amp; Grieshop, M. J. (2020). Towards an ecology of soil microplastics. \u003cem\u003eFunctional Ecology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 34\u003c/em\u003e(3), 550-560. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13495 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIngraffia, R., Amato, G., Bagarello, V., Carollo, F. G., Giambalvo, D., Iovino, M., et al. (2022a). Polyester microplastic fibers affect soil physical properties and erosion as a function of soil type. \u003cem\u003eSOIL\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 8\u003c/em\u003e(1), 421-435. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-8-421-2022 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIngraffia, R., Amato, G., Iovino, M., Rillig, M., Giambalvo, D., \u0026amp; Frenda, A. S. (2022b). Polyester microplastic fibers in soil increase nitrogen loss via leaching and decrease plant biomass production and N uptake. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Research Letters\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac652d \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJambeck, J. R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T. R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., et al. (2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 347\u003c/em\u003e(6223), 768-771. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.1260352 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJendrossek, D., \u0026amp; Handrick, R. (2002). Microbial Degradation of Polyhydroxyalkanoates. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Microbiology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 56\u003c/em\u003e(Volume 56, 2002), 403-432. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.micro.56.012302.160838 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJones, N. (2024). More than 4,000 plastic chemicals are hazardous, report finds\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYear-long effort compiles comprehensive database of chemicals in plastics. \u003cem\u003eNature\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00805-2 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKardol, P., Martijn Bezemer, T., \u0026amp; van der Putten, W. H. (2006). Temporal variation in plant\u0026ndash;soil feedback controls succession. \u003cem\u003eEcology Letters\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 9\u003c/em\u003e(9), 1080-1088. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00953.x \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim, S. W., Liang, Y., Lozano, Y. M., \u0026amp; Rillig, M. C. (2021a). Microplastics Reduce the Negative Effects of Litter-Derived Plant Secondary Metabolites on Nematodes in Soil [Original Research]. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Environmental Science\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 9\u003c/em\u003e(560). https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.790560 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim, S. W., Liang, Y., Zhao, T., \u0026amp; Rillig, M. C. (2021b). Indirect Effects of Microplastic-Contaminated Soils on Adjacent Soil Layers: Vertical Changes in Soil Physical Structure and Water Flow. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Environmental Science\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 9\u003c/em\u003e(152). https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.681934 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKlironomos, J. N. (2002). Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities. \u003cem\u003eNature\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 417\u003c/em\u003e(6884), 67-70. https://doi.org/10.1038/417067a \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKrehl, A., Sch\u0026ouml;llkopf, U., M\u0026aacute;jekov\u0026aacute;, M., Tielb\u0026ouml;rger, K., \u0026amp; Tomiolo, S. (2022). Effects of plastic fragments on plant performance are mediated by soil properties and drought. \u003cem\u003eScientific Reports\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 17771. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-22270-5 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKumar, R., Sadeghi, K., Jang, J., \u0026amp; Seo, J. (2023). Mechanical, chemical, and bio-recycling of biodegradable plastics: A review. \u003cem\u003eScience of The Total Environment\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 882\u003c/em\u003e, 163446. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163446 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKuzyakov, Y., \u0026amp; Blagodatskaya, E. (2015). Microbial hotspots and hot moments in soil: Concept \u0026amp; review. \u003cem\u003eSoil Biology and Biochemistry\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 83\u003c/em\u003e, 184-199. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.01.025 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKuzyakov, Y., \u0026amp; Razavi, B. S. (2019). Rhizosphere size and shape: Temporal dynamics and spatial stationarity. \u003cem\u003eSoil Biology and Biochemistry\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 135\u003c/em\u003e, 343-360. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2019.05.011 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLehmann, A., Leifheit, E. F., Feng, L., Bergmann, J., Wulf, A., \u0026amp; Rillig, M. C. (2020). Microplastic fiber and drought effects on plants and soil are only slightly modified by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. \u003cem\u003eSoil Ecology Letters\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42832-020-0060-4 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeifheit, E. F., Kissener, H. L., Faltin, E., Ryo, M., \u0026amp; Rillig, M. C. (2021a). Tire abrasion particles negatively affect plant growth even at low concentrations and alter soil biogeochemical cycling. \u003cem\u003eSoil Ecology Letters\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42832-021-0114-2 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeifheit, E. F., Lehmann, A., \u0026amp; Rillig, M. C. (2021b). Potential Effects of Microplastic on Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Plant Science\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 12\u003c/em\u003e, Article 626709. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.626709 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLemmermeyer, S., L\u0026ouml;rcher, L., Kleunen, M. v., \u0026amp; Dawson, W. (2015). Testing the Plant Growth-Defense Hypothesis Belowground: Do Faster-Growing Herbaceous Plant Species Suffer More Negative Effects from Soil Biota than Slower-Growing Ones? \u003cem\u003eThe American Naturalist\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 186\u003c/em\u003e(2), 264-271. https://doi.org/10.1086/682005 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi, K., DiLegge, M. J., Minas, I. S., Hamm, A., Manter, D., \u0026amp; Vivanco, J. M. (2019). Soil sterilization leads to re-colonization of a healthier rhizosphere microbiome. \u003cem\u003eRhizosphere\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 12\u003c/em\u003e, 100176. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhisph.2019.100176 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eL\u0026oacute;pez-Angulo, J., de la Cruz, M., Chac\u0026oacute;n-Labella, J., Illuminati, A., Matesanz, S., Pescador, D. S., et al. (2020). The role of root community attributes in predicting soil fungal and bacterial community patterns. \u003cem\u003eNew Phytologist\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 228\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1070-1082. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16754 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLozano, Y. M., Gordillo, H., Waldmann, W., \u0026amp; Rillig, M. C. (2023). Photodegradation modifies microplastic effects on soil properties and plant performance. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Ecology\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLozano, Y. M., Lehnert, T., Linck, L. T., Lehmann, A., \u0026amp; Rillig, M. C. (2021). Microplastic Shape, Polymer Type, and Concentration Affect Soil Properties and Plant Biomass [Original Research]. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Plant Science\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 12\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.616645 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLozano, Y. M., \u0026amp; Rillig, M. C. (2022). Legacy effect of microplastics on plant\u0026ndash;soil feedbacks [Original Research]. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Plant Science\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 13\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.965576 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLuo, G., Jin, T., Zhang, H., Peng, J., Zuo, N., Huang, Y., et al. (2022). Deciphering the diversity and functions of plastisphere bacterial communities in plastic-mulching croplands of subtropical China. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Hazardous Materials\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 422\u003c/em\u003e, 126865. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126865 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMacLeod, M., Arp, H. P. H., Tekman, M. B., \u0026amp; Jahnke, A. (2021). The global threat from plastic pollution. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 373\u003c/em\u003e(6550), 61-65. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abg5433 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaity, S., \u0026amp; Pramanick, K. (2020). Perspectives and challenges of micro/nanoplastics-induced toxicity with special reference to phytotoxicity. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Change Biology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 26\u003c/em\u003e(6), 3241-3250. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15074 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarschner, P., \u0026amp; Rumberger, A. (2004). Rapid changes in the rhizosphere bacterial community structure during re-colonization of sterilized soil. \u003cem\u003eBiology and Fertility of Soils\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 40\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-004-0736-4 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMuff, S., Nilsen, E. B., O\u0026rsquo;Hara, R. B., \u0026amp; Nater, C. R. (2021). Rewriting results sections in the language of evidence. \u003cem\u003eTrends in Ecology \u0026amp; Evolution\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.10.009 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePignattelli, S., Broccoli, A., \u0026amp; Renzi, M. (2020). Physiological responses of garden cress (L. sativum) to different types of microplastics. \u003cem\u003eScience of The Total Environment\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 727\u003c/em\u003e, 138609. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138609 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D., \u0026amp; R Core Team. (2021). nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 3.1-153. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePlastics Europe (2022). \u003cem\u003ePlastics - the Facts 2022\u003c/em\u003e. PlasticsEurope AISBL. Retrieved 5th October 2023 https://plasticseurope.org/knowledge-hub/plastics-the-facts-2022/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePOWO (2024). \u003cem\u003ePlants of the World Online. Facilitated by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Published on the Internet\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved 05 April 2024 from http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQi, Y., Yang, X., Pelaez, A. M., Lwanga, E. H., Beriot, N., Gertsen, H., et al. (2018). Macro- and micro- plastics in soil-plant system: Effects of plastic mulch film residues on wheat (\u003cem\u003eTriticum aestivum\u003c/em\u003e) growth. \u003cem\u003eScience of The Total Environment\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 645\u003c/em\u003e, 1048-1056. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.229 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eR Core Team. (2022). \u003cem\u003eR: A language and environment for statistical computing\u003c/em\u003e.\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003eIn R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRillig, M. C. (2012). Microplastic in Terrestrial Ecosystems and the Soil? \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science \u0026amp; Technology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 46\u003c/em\u003e(12), 6453-6454. https://doi.org/10.1021/es302011r \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRillig, M. C., Kim, S. W., \u0026amp; Zhu, Y.-G. (2023). The soil plastisphere. \u003cem\u003eNature Reviews Microbiology\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-023-00967-2 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRillig, M. C., \u0026amp; Lehmann, A. (2020). Microplastic in terrestrial ecosystems. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 368\u003c/em\u003e(6498), 1430-1431. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb5979 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRochman, C. M. (2018). Microplastics research - from sink to source. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 360\u003c/em\u003e(6384), 28-29. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.aar7734 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRochman, C. M., Browne, M. A., Halpern, B. S., Hentschel, B. T., Hoh, E., Karapanagioti, H. K., et al. (2013). Classify plastic waste as hazardous. \u003cem\u003eNature\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 494\u003c/em\u003e(7436), 169-171. https://doi.org/10.1038/494169a \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRong, L., Zhao, L., Zhao, L., Cheng, Z., Yao, Y., Yuan, C., et al. (2021). LDPE microplastics affect soil microbial communities and nitrogen cycling. \u003cem\u003eScience of The Total Environment\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 773\u003c/em\u003e, 145640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145640 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSemchenko, M., Barry, K. E., de Vries, F. T., Mommer, L., Moora, M., \u0026amp; Maci\u0026aacute;-Vicente, J. G. (2022). Deciphering the role of specialist and generalist plant\u0026ndash;microbial interactions as drivers of plant\u0026ndash;soil feedback. \u003cem\u003eNew Phytologist\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 234\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1929-1944. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18118 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShah, A. A., Hasan, F., Hameed, A., \u0026amp; Ahmed, S. (2008). Biological degradation of plastics: A comprehensive review. \u003cem\u003eBiotechnology Advances\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 26\u003c/em\u003e(3), 246-265. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2007.12.005 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShi, Z., Xiong, L., Liu, T., \u0026amp; Wu, W. (2022). Alteration of bacterial communities and co-occurrence networks as a legacy effect upon exposure to polyethylene residues under field environment. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Hazardous Materials\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 426\u003c/em\u003e, 128126. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.128126 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpei\u0026szlig;er, B. (2023). Time matters: Why ecological effects of microplastics might change over time. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Ecology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 61\u003c/em\u003e(1), 4-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14542 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpei\u0026szlig;er, B., \u0026amp; van Kleunen, M. (2023). Plants forage for soil patches free of plastic pollution but cannot bag the profits. \u003cem\u003eScientific Reports\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 18506. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45662-7 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSun, Y., Shi, J., Wang, X., Ding, C., \u0026amp; Wang, J. (2022). Deciphering the Mechanisms Shaping the Plastisphere Microbiota in Soil. \u003cem\u003emSystems\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 7\u003c/em\u003e(4), e00352-00322. https://doi.org/doi:10.1128/msystems.00352-22 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThompson, R. C., Moore, C. J., vom Saal, F. S., \u0026amp; Swan, S. H. (2009). Plastics, the environment and human health: current consensus and future trends. \u003cem\u003ePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 364\u003c/em\u003e(1526), 2153-2166. https://doi.org/doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0053 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan der Putten, W. H., Bardgett, R. D., Bever, J. D., Bezemer, T. M., Casper, B. B., Fukami, T., et al. (2013). Plant\u0026ndash;soil feedbacks: the past, the present and future challenges. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Ecology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 101\u003c/em\u003e(2), 265-276. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12054 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan der Putten, W. H., Bradford, M. A., Pernilla Brinkman, E., van de Voorde, T. F. J., \u0026amp; Veen, G. F. (2016). Where, when and how plant\u0026ndash;soil feedback matters in a changing world. \u003cem\u003eFunctional Ecology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 30\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1109-1121. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12657 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan der Putten, W. H., Van Dijk, C., \u0026amp; Peters, B. A. M. (1993). Plant-specific soil-borne diseases contribute to succession in foredune vegetation. \u003cem\u003eNature\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 362\u003c/em\u003e(6415), 53-56. https://doi.org/10.1038/362053a0 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan Kleunen, M., Brumer, A., Gutbrod, L., \u0026amp; Zhang, Z. (2020). A microplastic used as infill material in artificial sport turfs reduces plant growth. \u003cem\u003ePLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 2\u003c/em\u003e(2), 157-166. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10071 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVethaak, A. D., \u0026amp; Legler, J. (2021). Microplastics and human health. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 371\u003c/em\u003e(6530), 672-674. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.abe5041 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWagner, M., Moncl\u0026uacute;s, L., Arp, H. P. H., Groh, K. J., L\u0026oslash;seth, M. E., Muncke, J., et al. (2024). \u003cem\u003eState of the science on plastic chemicals - Identifying and addressing chemicals and polymers of concern\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWan, Y., Wu, C., Xue, Q., \u0026amp; Hui, X. (2019). Effects of plastic contamination on water evaporation and desiccation cracking in soil. \u003cem\u003eScience of The Total Environment\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 654\u003c/em\u003e, 576-582. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.123 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, F., Zhang, X., Zhang, S., Zhang, S., \u0026amp; Sun, Y. (2020). Interactions of microplastics and cadmium on plant growth and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities in an agricultural soil. \u003cem\u003eChemosphere\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 254\u003c/em\u003e, 126791. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126791 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWardle, D. A. (2002). \u003cem\u003eCommunities and Ecosystems Linking the Aboveground and Belowground components\u003c/em\u003e. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/doi:10.1515/9781400847297 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilschut, R. A., Hume, B. C. C., Mamonova, E., \u0026amp; van Kleunen, M. (2023). Plant\u0026ndash;soil feedback effects on conspecific and heterospecific successors of annual and perennial Central European grassland plants are correlated. \u003cem\u003eNature Plants\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-023-01433-w \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilschut, R. A., van der Putten, W. H., Garbeva, P., Harkes, P., Konings, W., Kulkarni, P., et al. (2019). Root traits and belowground herbivores relate to plant\u0026ndash;soil feedback variation among congeners. \u003cem\u003eNature Communications\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 10\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1564. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09615-x \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXi, N., Adler, P. B., Chen, D., Wu, H., Catford, J. A., van Bodegom, P. M., et al. (2021). Relationships between plant\u0026ndash;soil feedbacks and functional traits. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Ecology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 109\u003c/em\u003e(9), 3411-3423. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13731 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXue, W., Berendse, F., \u0026amp; Bezemer, T. M. (2018a). Spatial heterogeneity in plant\u0026ndash;soil feedbacks alters competitive interactions between two grassland plant species. \u003cem\u003eFunctional Ecology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 32\u003c/em\u003e(8), 2085-2094. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13124 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXue, W., Bezemer, T. M., \u0026amp; Berendse, F. (2018b). Density-dependency and plant-soil feedback: former plant abundance influences competitive interactions between two grassland plant species through plant-soil feedbacks. \u003cem\u003ePlant and Soil\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 428\u003c/em\u003e(1), 441-452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-018-3690-x \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, M., Zhao, Y., Qin, X., Jia, W., Chai, L., Huang, M., et al. (2019). Microplastics from mulching film is a distinct habitat for bacteria in farmland soil. \u003cem\u003eScience of The Total Environment\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 688\u003c/em\u003e, 470-478. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.108 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, Y., Ma, J., O\u0026apos;Connor, P., \u0026amp; Zhu, Y.-G. (2022). Microbial communities on biodegradable plastics under different fertilization practices in farmland soil microcosms. \u003cem\u003eScience of The Total Environment\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 809\u003c/em\u003e, 152184. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152184 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZheng, Y., Yanful, E. K., \u0026amp; Bassi, A. S. (2005). A Review of Plastic Waste Biodegradation. \u003cem\u003eCritical Reviews in Biotechnology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 25\u003c/em\u003e(4), 243-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/07388550500346359 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhou, Y., He, G., Jiang, X., Yao, L., Ouyang, L., Liu, X., et al. (2021). Microplastic contamination is ubiquitous in riparian soils and strongly related to elevation, precipitation and population density. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Hazardous Materials\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 411\u003c/em\u003e, 125178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125178 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhu, D., Ma, J., Li, G., Rillig, M. C., \u0026amp; Zhu, Y.-G. (2021). Soil plastispheres as hotspots of antibiotic resistance genes and potential pathogens. \u003cem\u003eThe ISME Journal\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 16\u003c/em\u003e(2), 521-532. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-021-01103-9 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N. J., Saveliev, A. A., \u0026amp; Smith, G. M. (2009). \u003cem\u003eMixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R\u003c/em\u003e. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-87458-6 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e Results of linear mixed-effects models testing the effects of soil community (intact vs. initially depleted), material treatment (glass and different microplastics in low and high concentrations), and the interaction of both factors on PSF effects on \u003cem\u003eCrepis biennis\u003c/em\u003e. Effects were assessed for the calculated PSF values based on total plant biomass (PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e), root-weight ratio (PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e), specific root length (PSF\u003csub\u003eSRL\u003c/sub\u003e), and average link length (PSF\u003csub\u003eLL\u003c/sub\u003e). Fixed effects were assessed using log-likelihood ratio tests\u0026nbsp;(Zuur et al., 2009). Log-likelihood ratios (LLR) are approximately\u0026nbsp;\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e-distributed. P values \u0026lt; 0.05 are indicated in bold, p values \u0026lt; 0.1 are indicated in italics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 17%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 17%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 17%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePSF\u003csub\u003eSRL\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 17%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePSF\u003csub\u003eLL\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFixed effects\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLLR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLLR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLLR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLLR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInitial leaf area\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.014\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaterial treatment (M)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.166\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.048\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSoil community (S)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37.59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.012\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47.73\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM\u0026times;S\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45.69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRandom effects\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 17%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 17%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 17%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 17%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBlock\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 17%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0024\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 17%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0772\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 17%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0024\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 17%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0286\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResidual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 17%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.3219\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 17%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1567\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 17%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2826\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 17%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1936\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e Results of linear mixed-effects models testing the effects of soil community (intact vs. initially depleted), orthogonal contrasts comparing specific material treatment combinations (material type, i.e. glass and different microplastics, and low vs. high concentrations; Supplementary Table 3), and the interaction of both factors on PSF effects on \u003cem\u003eCrepis biennis\u003c/em\u003e. Effects were assessed for the calculated PSF values based on total plant biomass (PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e), root-weight ratio (PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e), specific root length (PSF\u003csub\u003eSRL\u003c/sub\u003e), and average link length (PSF\u003csub\u003eLL\u003c/sub\u003e). Fixed effects were assessed using log-likelihood ratio tests\u0026nbsp;(Zuur et al., 2009). Log-likelihood ratios (LLR) are approximately\u0026nbsp;\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e-distributed. P values \u0026lt; 0.05 are indicated in bold, p values \u0026lt; 0.1 are indicated in italics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22.2222%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5.05051%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 18.1818%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 18.1818%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 18.1818%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePSF\u003csub\u003eSRL\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 18.1818%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePSF\u003csub\u003eLL\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22.2222%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFixed effects\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5.05051%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLLR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLLR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLLR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLLR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22.2222%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInitial leaf area\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5.05051%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.014\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22.2222%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC1 (particles vs no particles)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5.05051%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.73\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22.2222%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC2 (glass vs plastics)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5.05051%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.72\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.95\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22.2222%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC3 (individual vs mixed plastics)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5.05051%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22.2222%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC4 (degradable vs conventional)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5.05051%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.006\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.73\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22.2222%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC5 (PE vs EPDM)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5.05051%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.008\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22.2222%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC6 (low vs high glass)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5.05051%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.002\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e0.08\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22.2222%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC7 (low vs high EPDM)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5.05051%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e0.091\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.98\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22.2222%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC8 (low vs high PE)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5.05051%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22.2222%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC9 (low vs high PHA)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5.05051%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.98\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22.2222%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC10 (low vs high mix)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5.05051%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.004\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.013\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22.2222%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSoil community (S)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5.05051%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.012\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47.73\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22.2222%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC1\u0026times;S\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5.05051%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e0.057\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22.2222%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC2\u0026times;S\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5.05051%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22.2222%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC3\u0026times;S\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5.05051%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.99\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.73\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22.2222%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC4\u0026times;S\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5.05051%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e0.08\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22.2222%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC5\u0026times;S\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5.05051%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e0.071\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.98\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22.2222%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC6\u0026times;S\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5.05051%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.002\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22.2222%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC7\u0026times;S\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5.05051%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.031\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22.2222%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC8\u0026times;S\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5.05051%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e0.073\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22.2222%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC9\u0026times;S\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5.05051%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.98\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.013\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22.2222%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC10\u0026times;S\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5.05051%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.09091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22.2222%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRandom effects\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5.05051%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 18.1818%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 18.1818%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 18.1818%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 18.1818%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22.2222%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBlock\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5.05051%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 18.1818%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0024\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 18.1818%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0772\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 18.1818%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0024\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 18.1818%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0286\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22.2222%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResidual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 5.05051%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 18.1818%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.3219\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 18.1818%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1567\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 18.1818%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2826\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 18.1818%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1936\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e Results of linear mixed-effects models testing the effects of soil community (intact vs. initially depleted), material treatment (glass and different microplastics in low and high concentrations), and the interaction of both factors on PSF effects on \u003cem\u003eEragrostis minor\u003c/em\u003e. Effects were assessed for the calculated PSF values based on total plant biomass (PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e) and root-weight ratio (PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e). Fixed effects were assessed using log-likelihood ratio tests\u0026nbsp;(Zuur et al., 2009). Log-likelihood ratios (LLR) are approximately\u0026nbsp;\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e-distributed. P values \u0026lt; 0.05 are indicated in bold.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFixed effects\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLLR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLLR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInitial leaf area\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.009\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaterial treatment (M)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.006\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSoil community (S)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM\u0026times;S\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.01\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRandom effects\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBlock\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0056\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1077\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResidual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2673\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1771\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eResults of linear mixed-effects models testing the effects of soil community (intact vs. initially depleted), orthogonal contrasts comparing specific material treatment combinations (material type, i.e. glass and different microplastics, and low vs. high concentrations; Supplementary Table 3), and the interaction of both factors on PSF effects on \u003cem\u003eEragrostis minor\u003c/em\u003e. Effects were assessed for the calculated PSF values based on total plant biomass (PSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e) and root-weight ratio (PSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e). Fixed effects were assessed using log-likelihood ratio tests\u0026nbsp;(Zuur et al., 2009). Log-likelihood ratios (LLR) are approximately\u0026nbsp;\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e-distributed. P values \u0026lt; 0.05 are indicated in bold, p values \u0026lt; 0.1 are indicated in italics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 28%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePSF\u003csub\u003ebiomass\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 28%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePSF\u003csub\u003eRWR\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFixed effects\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLLR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLLR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInitial leaf area\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.009\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC1 (particles vs no particles)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.005\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.95\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.047\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC2 (glass vs plastics)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC3 (individual vs mixed plastics)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC4 (degradable vs conventional)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC5 (PE vs EPDM)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.004\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC6 (low vs high glass)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.011\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC7 (low vs high EPDM)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC8 (low vs high PE)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC9 (low vs high PHA)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC10 (low vs high mix)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.99\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSoil community (S)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC1\u0026times;S\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC2\u0026times;S\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.008\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC3\u0026times;S\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC4\u0026times;S\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e0.057\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC5\u0026times;S\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC6\u0026times;S\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC7\u0026times;S\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC8\u0026times;S\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC9\u0026times;S\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.027\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC10\u0026times;S\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRandom effects\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 28%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 28%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBlock\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 28%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0056\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 28%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1077\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResidual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 28%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2673\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 28%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1771\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":true,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"plant-and-soil","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"plso","sideBox":"Learn more about [Plant and Soil](https://www.springer.com/journal/11104)","snPcode":"11104","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/11104/3","title":"Plant and Soil","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Microplastic, plant-soil feedback, plastic pollution, plant-soil interactions","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4918961/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4918961/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground and aims\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMicroplastics affect plant growth and change abiotic and biotic soil properties, such as soil structure or soil-community composition. However, how microplastics affect plant-soil interactions, such as plant-soil feedbacks (PSFs), is still poorly understood. Here, we tested how artificial particles affect heterospecific PSFs, depending on an intact or depleted soil community.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe conducted a two-phase-greenhouse experiment using \u003cem\u003eCentaurea jacea\u003c/em\u003e to condition soil containing an intact or initially depleted soil community in the first phase. Subsequently, we grew individuals of \u003cem\u003eCrepis biennis\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eEragrostis minor\u003c/em\u003e in all combinations of soil conditioning, soil-community status, and different material treatments including no particle addition, glass particles, or three microplastics individually and mixed. Effects of soil community, material treatment and their interaction on PSFs were assessed based on plant biomass and rootmorphology traits.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticles in general, microplastics and glass, increased PSF strength based on plant biomass. PSFs tended to be negative with the intact but positive with the initially depleted soil community. Overall, particle-addition effects on PSFs were stronger in the initially depleted community, indicating interactive effects of artificial particles in the soil and soil biota. Interactive particle and soil-community effects generally depended on material type and concentration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur findings indicate that artificial particles can affect heterospecific PSFs, and that these effects are likely to be partly mediated by the soil community. Further, they highlight the need for studies assessing potential ecological implications of microplastics modifying plant-soil interactions.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Artificial particles and soil communities interactively change heterospecific plant-soil feedbacks","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-09-27 04:55:19","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4918961/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Major revisions","date":"2024-10-14T09:41:42+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"","date":"2024-09-17T13:44:35+00:00","index":0,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-08-29T07:35:35+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"Plant and Soil","date":"2024-08-21T11:13:16+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-08-21T09:16:43+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Plant and Soil","date":"2024-08-20T09:21:49+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"plant-and-soil","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"plso","sideBox":"Learn more about [Plant and Soil](https://www.springer.com/journal/11104)","snPcode":"11104","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/11104/3","title":"Plant and Soil","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"9575c7ca-81fb-4391-93bd-23001ca16084","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 27th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-01-27T16:07:52+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-4918961","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-025-07223-x","journal":{"identity":"plant-and-soil","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Plant and Soil"},"publishedOn":"2025-01-23 15:58:24","publishedOnDateReadable":"January 23rd, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-09-27 04:55:19","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s11104-025-07223-x","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-025-07223-x","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4918961","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4918961","identity":"rs-4918961","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}