| Literature DB >> 24832520 |
Abstract
An understanding of the climate conditions governing spatial variation in the reproductive performance of plants can provide important information about the factors characterizing plant community structure, especially in the context of climate change. This study focuses on the effect of climate on the sexual reproductive output of Dactylis glomerata L., a perennial grass species widely distributed throughout temperate regions. An indirect space-for-time substitution procedure was used. Sixty mountain populations of the same target species were surveyed along an elevation gradient, and then, a relevant climate model was used to infer a potential response to climate change over time. Within each population, information on the number of stems, seed number and seed mass were collected. Resource investment in reproduction (RIR) was quantified as seed number × seed mass. A clear variation was found in the reproductive performance of D. glomerata along the elevational gradient: RIR improved with increasing temperature. The best model included only one term: the maximum temperature of the warmest month. This study demonstrates that mountain ecosystems offer particularly good opportunities to study climate effects over relatively short distances and suggests that warming will enhance D. glomerata's reproductive output throughout its elevational range. Furthermore, it can be hypothesized that a potential migration of D. glomerata toward higher altitudes may occur in response to accelerated climate change.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 24832520 PMCID: PMC4009817 DOI: 10.3390/biology1030857
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biology (Basel) ISSN: 2079-7737
Relationships between log10 resource investment in reproduction (RIR) and climate variables. All analyses were performed with linear mixed-effects models, including the random effect for district and site within district. The best predictor among each bioclimatic group (environmental energy, water availability and climatic seasonality) is shown in bold.
| Variable | Intercept | β |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Max temperature of warmest month | 2.971 | 0.072 | 12.413 | <0.001 | |
| Mean temperature of wettest quarter | 3.377 | 0.091 | 11.757 | 0.001 | 0.167 |
| Mean temperature of warmest quarter | 3.377 | 0.091 | 11.757 | 0.001 | 0.167 |
| Annual mean temperature | 3.817 | 0.111 | 12.190 | <0.001 | 0.146 |
| Mean temperature of driest quarter | 4.396 | 0.109 | 11.518 | 0.001 | 0.146 |
| Mean temperature of coldest quarter | 4.396 | 0.109 | 11.518 | 0.001 | 0.146 |
| Min temperature of coldest month | 5.276 | 0.119 | 8.685 | 0.005 | 0.077 |
| Mean diurnal range | 3.819 | 0.096 | 1.273 | 0.264 | 0.020 |
|
| |||||
| Precipitation of wettest quarter | 6.150 | −0.003 | 9.412 | 0.003 |
|
| Precipitation of wettest month | 6.019 | −0.007 | 6.379 | 0.014 | 0.102 |
| Annual precipitation | 6.252 | −0.001 | 8.642 | 0.005 | 0.093 |
| Precipitation of warmest quarter | 5.154 | −0.001 | 1.012 | 0.319 | 0.018 |
| Precipitation of driest quarter | 5.024 | −0.001 | 0.277 | 0.601 | 0.004 |
| Precipitation of coldest quarter | 5.024 | −0.001 | 0.277 | 0.601 | 0.004 |
| Precipitation of driest month | 4.776 | −0.001 | 0.080 | 0.779 | 0.002 |
|
| |||||
| Temperature annual range | 1.980 | 0.097 | 9.470 | 0.003 |
|
| Temperature seasonality | 2.036 | 0.004 | 8.278 | 0.006 | 0.137 |
| Isothermality | 6.519 | −0.044 | 2.891 | 0.095 | 0.052 |
| Precipitation seasonality | 4.430 | 0.820 | 1.181 | 0.282 | 0.021 |
Pseudo-R2 (R2) calculated from components of the variance matrix is reported.
Figure 1Relationships between log10 resource investment in reproduction (RIR) and selected climate variables: (a) maximum temperature of the warmest month (TEMP), (b) precipitation of the wettest quarter (PREC), and (c) temperature annual range (SEAS).
Plausible candidate models (ΔAICc < 2) explaining resource investment in reproduction (RIR). The multi-model inference procedure included also the interactions between the predictors. As these interactions were never included in the set of plausible models, they are not shown in the table.
| Variable importance | Coefficients | 1st mod. | 2nd | 3rd | 4th |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - |
| 0.18 | 0.15 | 0.14 | 0.13 |
| - | ΔAICc | 0 | 1.45 | 1.71 | 1.99 |
| Σ | Model | 0.52 | 0.25 | 0.22 | 0.14 |
| - | Intercept | 3.185 | 2.148 | 2.635 | 2.982 |
| 0.81 | TEMP | 0.060 | - | 0.045 | 0.070 |
| 0.23 | PREC | - | - | - | −0.001 |
| 0.46 | SEAS | - | 0.092 | 0.035 |
Models (columns) are ranked from left to right according to their ΔAICc. Variables (rows) are ranked according to their Σw. Parameter estimates, pseudo-R (R) calculated from components of the variance matrix and model weights (w) are reported. Parameter estimates: TEMP, mean temperature of the coldest quarter; PREC, precipitation of the driest month; SEAS, temperature seasonality.
Figure 2The independent contributions estimated from hierarchical partitioning of each bioclimate variable (TEMP, maximum temperature of the warmest month; PREC, precipitation of the wettest quarter; SEAS, temperature annual range) for the resource investment in reproduction (RIR). Variable ranking is conducted according to the size of the independent effect, i.e., variable importance declines from left to right.