| Literature DB >> 25893438 |
Janosch Sedlacek1, Julia A Wheeler2, Andrés J Cortés3, Oliver Bossdorf4, Guenter Hoch5, Christian Lexer6, Sonja Wipf7, Sophie Karrenberg3, Mark van Kleunen1, Christian Rixen7.
Abstract
Climate change is altering spring snowmelt patterns in alpine and arctic ecosystems, and these changes may alter plant phenology, growth and reproduction. To predict how alpine plants respond to shifts in snowmelt timing, we need to understand trait plasticity, its effects on growth and reproduction, and the degree to which plants experience a home-site advantage. We tested how the common, long-lived dwarf shrub Salix herbacea responded to changing spring snowmelt time by reciprocally transplanting turfs of S. herbacea between early-exposure ridge and late-exposure snowbed microhabitats. After the transplant, we monitored phenological, morphological and fitness traits, as well as leaf damage, during two growing seasons. Salix herbacea leafed out earlier, but had a longer development time and produced smaller leaves on ridges relative to snowbeds. Longer phenological development times and smaller leaves were associated with reduced sexual reproduction on ridges. On snowbeds, larger leaves and intermediate development times were associated with increased clonal reproduction. Clonal and sexual reproduction showed no response to altered snowmelt time. We found no home-site advantage in terms of sexual and clonal reproduction. Leaf damage probability depended on snowmelt and thus exposure period, but had no short-term effect on fitness traits. We conclude that the studied populations of S. herbacea can respond to shifts in snowmelt by plastic changes in phenology and leaf size, while maintaining levels of clonal and sexual reproduction. The lack of a home-site advantage suggests that S. herbacea may not be adapted to different microhabitats. The studied populations are thus unlikely to react to climate change by rapid adaptation, but their responses will also not be constrained by small-scale local adaptation. In the short term, snowbed plants may persist due to high stem densities. However, in the long term, reduction in leaf size and flowering, a longer phenological development time and increased exposure to damage may decrease overall performance of S. herbacea under earlier snowmelt.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25893438 PMCID: PMC4403918 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122395
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
The effects of destination, origin, year and sex respectively, and their interactions, on the leaf size, stem number, phenology (duration from snowmelt to leaf expansion phenophase), leaf damage, ratio of flowering and ratio of fruiting stems of reciprocally transplanted Salix herbacea turfs.
| Leaf size | Stem number | Onset of leaf expansion | Development time to leaf expansion | Leaf damage | Flowering stem ratio | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source of Variation | dAIC | χ2 |
| dAIC | χ2 |
| dAIC | χ2 |
| dAIC | χ2 |
| dAIC | χ2 |
| dAIC | χ2 |
|
| Stem number 2011 | - | - | - | 251.52 | 253.52 |
| - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Year | 2.16 | 14.16 |
| -1.91 | 0.09 | 0.767 | 39.31 | 41.30 |
| 49.38 | 51.38 |
| 15.20 | 17.20 |
| - | - | - |
| Sex | - | - |
| - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | -0.71 | 1.29 | 0.257 |
| Destination | 2.70 | 4.70 |
| -1.60 | 0.40 | 0.526 | 23.33 | 25.33 |
| 7.75 | 9.75 |
| 3.47 | 5.47 |
| 0.94 | 2.94 | 0.087 |
| Origin | -2.00 | 0.00 | 0.966 | 11.90 | 13.90 |
| 0.13 | 2.13 | 0.144 | -1.83 | 0.17 | 0.682 | 0.37 | 2.37 | 0.123 | 4.35 | 6.35 |
|
| Destination:Year | -0.67 | 1.33 | 0.250 | -1.55 | 0.45 | 0.502 | 99.98 | 101.99 |
| 7.33 | 9.33 |
| 2.27 | 4.27 |
| - | - | - |
| Destination:Sex | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1.52 | 3.52 | 0.061 |
| Origin:Year | -2.00 | 0.00 | 0.966 | 2.35 | 4.35 |
| 0.61 | 2.61 | 0.107 | -1.93 | 0.07 | 0.793 | -1.35 | 0.65 | 0.421 | - | - | - |
| Origin:Sex | - | - | - | - | - |
| - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1.01 | 3.01 | 0.083 |
| Origin:Destination | -0.38 | 1.62 | 0.203 | -1.16 | 0.84 | 0.359 | -1.69 | 0.31 | 0.578 | -1.87 | 0.13 | 0.715 | -1.97 | 0.02 | 0.882 | -0.04 | 1.96 | 0.162 |
| Origin:Destination:Year | -1.91 | 0.09 | 0.763 | -1.97 | 0.04 | 0.852 | -1.61 | 0.39 | 0.531 | -1.96 | 0.04 | 0.849 | -1.70 | 0.30 | 0.584 | - | - | - |
| Origin:Destination:Sex | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | -1.39 | 0.62 | 0.433 |
|
|
| SD | - | SD | - | SD | - | SD | - | SD | - | SD | ||||||
| Turf/Patch/Plot/Site | - | 0.1552 | - | 0.3365 | - | <0.0001 | - | <0.0001 | - | <0.0001 | - | 0.2595 | ||||||
| Patch/Plot/Site | - | 0.1880 | - | 0.1511 | - | <0.0001 | - | <0.0001 | - | 0.0009 | - | 0.5205 | ||||||
| Plot/Site | - | 0.1018 | - | 0.0295 | - | 5.1790 | - | 4.4440 | - | 0.1047 | - | 0.0028 | ||||||
| Site | - | <0.0001 | - | 0.0002 | - | <0.0001 | - | <0.0001 | - | <0.0001 | - | 0.0032 | ||||||
| Residual | - | 0.2823 | - | - | - | 5.2800 | - | 7.1030 | - | - | - | - | ||||||
|
|
| 0.05 | 0.49 | - | 0.52 | 0.84 | - | 0.78 | 0.88 | - | 0.31 | 0.48 | - | 0.18 | 0.18 | - | 0.08 | 0.17 |
|
| 493.3 | - | - | 3802.9 | - | - | 2573.8 | - | - | 2851.9 | - | - | 502.3 | - | - | 285.9 | - | - |
Ratio of flowering and fruiting stems was measured only in 2013, so year was excluded from these models. Initial stem number of 2011 was used as a covariate in the model for stem number (see Methods for details). Log-likelihood ratio tests were used to obtain χ2 test statistic. We also report delta AIC (dAIC) values for the model comparisons (see Methods and S3 Table for details on the comparisons).
Fig 1Leaf size (a), stem number (b), phenological development time (time from snowmelt to leaf expansion) (c), and leaf damage probability (d) of Salix herbacea turfs, reciprocally transplanted in 2011 between late exposed snowbed and early exposed ridge microhabitat sites in an alpine tundra site near Flüelapass, Switzerland.
Turfs originating from ridges (R) are marked with solid lines and filled circles, turfs originating from snowbeds (S) with dashed lines and open circles. Errorbars show standard errors.
Fig 2Proportion of flowering female and male stems of Salix herbacea turfs, reciprocally transplanted in 2011 between late exposed snowbed and early exposed ridge microhabitat sites in an alpine tundra site near Flüelapass, Switzerland.
Turfs originating from ridges (R) are marked with solid lines and filled circles, turfs originating from snowbeds (S) with dashed lines and open circles. Error bars show standard errors.
Fig 3Significant linear and quadratic selection gradients using a) a proxy for sexual reproductive fitness (flowering probability) and b) a proxy for clonal reproductive fitness (relative change in stem number from 2012 to 2013) of Salix herbacea turfs growing in ridge and snowbed microhabitat sites (panels).
Turfs originating from ridges (R) are marked with solid lines and filled circles, turfs originating from snowbeds (S) with dashed lines and open circles.
Estimates, bootstrapped confidence intervals and likelihood ratio test statistics of the reduced optimal models (see Methods for details) for multivariate linear (β) and quadratic (γ) selection gradients at ridge and snowbed sites, using a proxy for sexual reproductive fitness (flowering probability) and a proxy for clonal reproductive fitness (relative stem ratio between 2013 and 2012).
| Fitness proxy and micro-habitat | Trait | Linear selection gradient | Quadratic selection gradient | R2 reduced optimal model | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | lowCI, upCI | dAIC | χ2 |
| γ | lowCI, upCI | dAIC | χ2 |
| |||
|
| ||||||||||||
| Leaf size | 0.296 | -0.47, 0.52 | -0.4 | 1.59 | 0.208 | - | - | - | - | |||
|
| Development time to leaf expansion | -0.071 | -0.54, 0.55 | -2.0 | 0.01 | 0.912 | - | - | - | - | - | 0.30 |
| Leaf damage probability | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| Leaf size | 0.591 | 0.09, 1.27 | 3.2 | 5.21 |
| - | - | - | - | - | ||
|
| Development time to leaf expansion | -0.697 | -1.64, -0.14 | 3.7 | 5.75 |
| - | - | - | - | - | 0.44 |
| Leaf damage probability | 0.484 | -1.18, 1.97 | -1.6 | 0.47 | 0.495 | - | - | - | - | - | ||
|
| ||||||||||||
| Leaf size | 0.090 | 0.02, 0.16 | 5.0 | 7.05 |
| - | - | - | - | - | ||
|
| Development time to leaf expansion | 0.053 | -0.04, 0.15 | -0.9 | 1.17 | 0.279 | -0.142 | -0.26, -0.02 | 3.9 | 5.88 |
| 0.27 |
| Leaf damage probability | 0.136 | -0.14, 0.39 | -1.0 | 1.05 | 0.306 | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| Leaf size | 0.030 | -0.03, 0.09 | -1.2 | 0.81 | 0.367 | - | - | - | - | - | ||
|
| Development time to leaf expansion | 0.031 | -0.03, 0.1 | -1.2 | 0.83 | 0.361 | - | - | - | - | - | 0.07 |
| Leaf damage probability | 0.051 | -0.14, 0.23 | -1.7 | 0.32 | 0.572 | - | - | - | - | - | ||
Note that a quadratic term was kept only in the reduced optimal model for the analysis using clonal fitness at snowbed sites. We also report delta AIC (dAIC) values for the comparisons between the model from which the respective parameter has been removed and the reduced optimal model.