| Literature DB >> 24567751 |
Sara G Baer1, David J Gibson1, Danny J Gustafson2, Allison M Benscoter1, Lewis K Reed1, Ryan E Campbell1, Ryan P Klopf1, Jason E Willand1, Ben R Wodika1.
Abstract
Genetic principles underlie recommendations to use local seed, but a paucity of information exists on the genetic distinction and ecological consequences of using different seed sources in restorations. We established a field experiment to test whether cultivars and local ecotypes of dominant prairie grasses were genetically distinct and differentially influenced ecosystem functioning. Whole plots were assigned to cultivar and local ecotype grass sources. Three subplots within each whole plot were seeded to unique pools of subordinate species. The cultivar of the increasingly dominant grass, Sorghastrum nutans, was genetically different than the local ecotype, but genetic diversity was similar between the two sources. There were no differences in aboveground net primary production, soil carbon accrual, and net nitrogen mineralization rate in soil between the grass sources. Comparable productivity of the grass sources among the species pools for four years shows functional equivalence in terms of biomass production. Subordinate species comprised over half the aboveground productivity, which may have diluted the potential for documented trait differences between the grass sources to influence ecosystem processes. Regionally developed cultivars may be a suitable alternative to local ecotypes for restoration in fragmented landscapes with limited gene flow between natural and restored prairie and negligible recruitment by seed.Entities:
Keywords: genetic diversity; genetic structure; grassland; prairie; propagule; soil
Year: 2013 PMID: 24567751 PMCID: PMC3927892 DOI: 10.1111/eva.12124
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evol Appl ISSN: 1752-4571 Impact factor: 5.183
Physiological variation between the cultivar and local ecotype seed sources of the three focal grass species (transcribed from Lambert et al. 2011). Leaf-level processes were measured four times during the 2007 growing season. The dominant grass source by date interaction (SOR × D) is explained in the footnote.
| Dominant grass species | Dominant grass seed source | Net photosynthesis ( | Stomatal conductance ( | Water use efficiency (WUE) μmol CO2 mol H2O−1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Local ecotype | 15.5 ± 0.39 | 96.2 ± 2.02 | 166.1 ± 3.54 | |
| Cultivar | 20.3 ± 0.52 | 120.2 ± 4.64 | 175.2 ± 3.76 | |
| Local ecotype | 17.1 ± 0.35 | 120.7 ± 8.58 | 171.2 ± 6.92 | |
| Cultivar | 20.2 ± 0.47 | 119.6 ± 4.78 | 189.9 ± 7.89 | |
| Local ecotype | 21.8 ± 0.80 | 131.3 ± 6.14 | 172.9 ± 3.02 | |
| Cultivar | 25.5 ± 0.46SOR × D | 149.4 ± 4.66 | 173.3 ± 1.85SOR × D |
Values represent the average (± standard error) over all repeated measures and species pools.
A significant main effect of dominant grass source occurred for most processes
P < 0.001;
0.001 < P < 0.01;
0.01 < P < 0.05).
Interaction between dominant grass source and date for Anet (P = 0.009) resulted from higher Anet in cultivars on the 2nd and 4th measurement dates, but there was no difference in Anet between population sources on the 1st and 3rd measurement dates. Interaction between SOR and D for WUE (P = 0.015) resulted from higher WUE in the cultivar on all but the 1st measurement date.
Figure 1The split-plot design used to test whether dominant grass source differentially influences ecosystem functioning. Six whole plots were randomly assigned to cultivar or local ecotype seed source of three dominant grasses within two adjacent agricultural fields treated as blocks. Three unique pools (A, B, and C) of subordinate species were randomly assigned to 5 m × 5 m subplots within each whole-plot.
Figure 2Average (± standard error) aboveground net primary productivity (ANPP) of cultivar and local ecotype sources of (A) all focal grasses, (B) Sorghastrum nutans, (C) Andropogon gerardii, and (D) Schizachyrium scoparium in each restoration year. Inset graphs present significant main effects of time if there was no interaction between dominant grass source and species pool. Means accompanied by the same letter were not significantly different (α = 0.025).
Average (± standard error) aboveground net primary productivity (g m−2 year−1) of cultivar and local ecotype sources of each focal grass species and all focal grasses in each species pool averaged over the 4 years of study.
| Species pool A | Species pool B | Species pool C | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cultivar | 124 ± 48 | 38 ± 8 | 74 ± 23 |
| Local ecotype | 133 ± 28 | 62 ± 28 | 75 ± 25 |
| Cultivar | 382 ± 49 | 427 ± 88 | 530 ± 74 |
| Local ecotype | 415 ± 70 | 449 ± 74 | 350 ± 110 |
| Cultivar | 58 ± 16a | 27 ± 9 | 40 ± 11 |
| Local ecotype | 22 ± 8b | 18 ± 5 | 35 ± 13 |
| All focal grasses | |||
| Cultivar | 564 ± 28 | 492 ± 101 | 644 ± 101 |
| Local ecotype | 571 ± 66 | 529 ± 59 | 460 ± 113 |
Source means within a species pool accompanied by different letters were significantly different (α = 0.025).
Figure 3Average (± standard error) aboveground net primary productivity of (A) all species, (B) planted species, and (C) volunteer species each year in the cultivar and local ecotype dominant grass treatments. Inset graphs present significant main effects of time if there was no interaction between dominant grass source and species pool. Means accompanied by the same letter were not significantly different (α = 0.025).
Figure 4Average (± standard error) aboveground net primary productivity of (A) planted species excluding the dominant grasses and (B) all planted forbs each year in the cultivar and local ecotype dominant grass treatments.