| Literature DB >> 27154623 |
Yaiza Lechuga-Lago1, Marta Sixto-Ruiz2, Sergio R Roiloa3, Luís González2.
Abstract
Biological invasion represents one of the main threats for biodiversity conservation at the global scale. Identifying the mechanisms underlying the process of biological invasions is a crucial objective in the prediction of scenarios of future invasions and the mitigation of their impacts. In this sense, some plant attributes might better explain the success of invasive plant species than others. Recently, clonal growth has been identified as an attribute that could contribute to the invasiveness of plants. In this experiment, we aim to determine the effect of physiological integration (one of the most striking attributes associated with clonal growth) in the performance (at morphological and physiological levels) of the aggressive invader Carpobrotus edulis, when occupying stressful environments. To achieve this objective we performed a greenhouse experiment in which apical ramets of C. edulis were water-stressed and the connection with the basal ramets was either left intact (physiological integration is allowed) or severed (physiological integration is impeded). Our results show that clonal integration allowed apical ramets to buffer drought stress in terms of photochemical activity, and as a consequence, to increase their growth in comparison with severed apical ramets. Interestingly, this increase in biomass was mainly due to the production of aboveground structures, increasing the spread along the soil surface, and consequently having important implications for the colonization success of new environments by this aggressive invader. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company.Entities:
Keywords: Biomass partitioning; chlorophyll fluorescence; physiological integration; plant invasions; water stress
Year: 2016 PMID: 27154623 PMCID: PMC4925925 DOI: 10.1093/aobpla/plw023
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AoB Plants Impact factor: 3.276
Figure 1.Schematic representation of the experimental treatments, with connections (connected, severed) and water availability (well-watered, water-stressed) as main factors. See text for detailed description of the experimental design.
Results of two-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) for analyses of differences in shoot mass, root mass, total mass and RMR to examine the effects of ‘connection’ and ‘water’ for basal and apical ramets.
| Effect | Total mass | Shoot mass | Root mass | RMR | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| df | P | df | P | df | P | df | P | |||||
| Connection | 1 | 7.11 | 1 | 8.93 | 1 | 0.55 | 0.46 | 1 | 17.56 | |||
| Water | 1 | 1.84 | 0.18 | 1 | 1.79 | 0.19 | 1 | 1.70 | 0.20 | 1 | 0.07 | 0.80 |
| Connection x water | 1 | 0.02 | 0.89 | 1 | 0.02 | 0.89 | 1 | 0.01 | 0.90 | 1 | 0.37 | 0.55 |
| Error | 36 | 36 | 36 | 36 | ||||||||
| Connection | 1 | 12.05 | 1 | 16.48 | 1 | 8.00 | 1 | 42.84 | ||||
| Water | 1 | 6.77 | 1 | 6.79 | 1 | 3.62 | 0.06 | 1 | 0.63 | 0.43 | ||
| Connection × water | 1 | 2.79 | 0.10 | 1 | 3.06 | 0.09 | 1 | 0.25 | 0.62 | 1 | 4.52 | |
| Error | 36 | 36 | 36 | 36 | ||||||||
Values with P < 0.05 are in boldface. See Figs 2 and 3 for data.
Figure 2.Mean (±s.e) total mass (A), shoot mass (B), root mass (C) and RMR (D) of connected (filled bars) and severed (empty bars) basal ramets in the water-stressed and well-watered treatments. See Table 1 for ANOVA parameters.
Figure 3.Mean (±s.e) total mass (A), shoot mass (B), root mass (C) and RMR (D) of connected (filled bars) and severed (empty bars) apical ramets in the water-stressed and well-watered treatments. See Table 1 for ANOVA parameters.
Figure 4.Mean (±s.e) F0 (A), F0/Fm (B) and Fv/Fm (C) of basal ramets and F0 (D), F0/Fm (E) and Fv/Fm (F) of apical ramets of connected (filled bars) and severed basal (empty bars) ramets in the water-stressed and well-watered treatments. See Table 2 for ANOVA parameters.
Results of two-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) for analyses of differences in F0, F0/Fm, Fv/Fm to examine the effects of ‘connection’ and ‘water’ for basal and apical ramets.
| Effect | F0 | F0/Fm | Fv/Fm | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| df | P | df | P | df | P | ||||
| Connection | 1 | 0.04 | 0.83 | 1 | 0.18 | 0.67 | 1 | 0.09 | 0.77 |
| Water | 1 | 0.81 | 0.37 | 1 | 0.11 | 0.74 | 1 | 0.04 | 0.84 |
| Connection × water | 1 | 1.00 | 0.32 | 1 | 1.59 | 0.22 | 1 | 1.94 | 0.17 |
| Error | 36 | 36 | 36 | ||||||
| Connection | 1 | 0.01 | 0.91 | 1 | 0.12 | 0.73 | 1 | 0.08 | 0.78 |
| Water | 1 | 10.02 | 1 | 4.75 | 1 | 3.84 | 0.06 | ||
| Connection × water | 1 | 5.95 | 1 | 1.86 | 0.18 | 1 | 0.51 | 0.48 | |
| Error | 36 | 36 | 36 | ||||||
Values with P < 0.05 are in boldface. See Fig. 4 for data.