| Literature DB >> 29233135 |
Kenny Helsen1, Kamal P Acharya2, Jörg Brunet3, Sara A O Cousins4, Guillaume Decocq5, Martin Hermy6, Annette Kolb7, Isgard H Lemke7, Jonathan Lenoir5, Jan Plue4, Kris Verheyen8, Pieter De Frenne8,9, Bente J Graae2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The importance of intraspecific trait variation (ITV) is increasingly acknowledged among plant ecologists. However, our understanding of what drives ITV between individual plants (ITVBI) at the population level is still limited. Contrasting theoretical hypotheses state that ITVBI can be either suppressed (stress-reduced plasticity hypothesis) or enhanced (stress-induced variability hypothesis) under high abiotic stress. Similarly, other hypotheses predict either suppressed (niche packing hypothesis) or enhanced ITVBI (individual variation hypothesis) under high niche packing in species rich communities. In this study we assess the relative effects of both abiotic and biotic niche effects on ITVBI of four functional traits (leaf area, specific leaf area, plant height and seed mass), for three herbaceous plant species across a 2300 km long gradient in Europe. The study species were the slow colonizing Anemone nemorosa, a species with intermediate colonization rates, Milium effusum, and the fast colonizing, non-native Impatiens glandulifera.Entities:
Keywords: Anemone nemorosa; Between-individual ITV; Herbaceous plant species; Impatiens glandulifera; Individual variation hypothesis; Intraspecific trait variation; Latitudinal gradient; Milium effusum; Niche packing; Phenotypic plasticity
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29233135 PMCID: PMC5727960 DOI: 10.1186/s12898-017-0151-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Ecol ISSN: 1472-6785 Impact factor: 2.964
Study region overview with average intraspecific trait variation levels
| Study region (nearest city) | Amiens | Ghent | Potsdam | Bremen | Lund | Stockholm | Trondheim | Umeå | Abisko | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Latitude (°N) | 49.9 | 51.1 | 52.4 | 53.1 | 55.7 | 59.3 | 63.4 | 63.8 | 68.4 | ||
| Longitude (°E) | 2.3 | 3.7 | 13.1 | 8.8 | 13.2 | 18.1 | 10.4 | 20.3 | 18.8 | ||
| MAP (mm) | 634 | 754 | 566 | 732 | 653 | 527 | 884 | 572 | 387 | ||
| GDH | 12.29 | 10.72 | 9.71 | 9.77 | 8.00 | 10.28 | – | 7.66 | – | ||
| GDH | 16.55 | 17.92 | 18.27 | 16.50 | 15.17 | – | – | 11.68 | 11.99 | ||
| GDH | 47.41 | 47.24 | – | 42.29 | 38.35 | 39.30 | 31.71 | – | – | ||
|
| # pops | 6 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 37 |
| Plant height CV | 16.8 | 13.5 | 12.4 | 11.6 | 10.4 | 13.4 | – | 14.1 | – | 13.5 | |
| Seed mass CV | 25.8 | 26.2 | 22.3 | 20.8 | 18.0 | 23.3 | – | 29.0 | – | 23.9 | |
| SLA CV | 15.0 | 10.9 | 10.3 | 10.4 | 7.6 | 11.8 | – | 11.3 | – | 11.4 | |
| Leaf area CV | 36.1 | 31.4 | 37.3 | 27.9 | 24.3 | 29.2 | – | 32.8 | – | 32.1 | |
|
| # pops | 5 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 39 |
| Plant height CV | 22.4 | 18.1 | 14.3 | 14.5 | 12.0 | – | – | 10.8 | 11.0 | 14.3 | |
| Seed mass CV | 23.6 | 20.9 | 26.8 | 16.9 | 17.6 | – | – | 19.9 | 22.7 | 21.2 | |
| SLA CV | 11.6 | 9.3 | 12.3 | 7.3 | 9.2 | – | – | 13.0 | 20.2 | 12.0 | |
| Leaf area CV | 30.6 | 27.7 | 27.6 | 22.2 | 21.9 | – | – | 21.9 | 33.3 | 26.3 | |
|
| # pops | 6 | 6 | 0 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 34 |
| Plant height CV | 19.5 | 23.0 | – | 15.3 | 15.6 | 19.2 | 22.9 | – | – | 19.4 | |
| Seed mass CV | 19.5 | 23.1 | – | 17.9 | 19.3 | 18.6 | 18.7 | – | – | 19.6 | |
| Leaf area CV | 23.0 | 38.3 | – | 26.4 | 30.8 | 42.8 | 51.1 | – | – | 36.7 | |
Location, climatic characterization, number of sampled populations (# pops) and mean population level functional trait coefficients of variation (CV) within each study region
GDH growing degree hours, MAP long-term mean annual precipitation, SLA specific leaf area
Parameter estimates of the performed reduced linear mixed-effect models for each functional trait ITVBI measure separately
| Species | Functional trait CV |
| AIC/ΔAIC | Climate | Local abiotic | Local biotic |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Plant height | 0.524/0.531 | 90.86/10.29 | GDH 12.75*/− 5.73 | Soil Nb 7.29*/0.42 | Species richness 6.26*/− 0.31 |
| GDH2 14.70*/6.25 | Functional divergence 7.41*/− 0.41 | |||||
| C-sign. 9.59**/0.46 | ||||||
| Seed massb | 0.202/0.202 | 105.18/12.22 | – | – | Functional evennessc 4.43*/− 0.32 | |
| C-sign. 4.86*/0.34 | ||||||
| SLAa | 0.442/0.442 | 92.45/3.49 | MAP 4.57*/− 0.30 | S-sign. 8.76**/0.43 | Functional richness 3.09(*)/− 0.24 | |
| Functional evennessc 7.77**/− 0.37 | ||||||
| Leaf area | < 0.001/0.243 | 102.28/2.18 | – | – | – | |
|
| Plant height | 0.236/0.434 | 105.37/16.17 | GDH 5.31(*)/0.51 | – | – |
| Seed mass | 0.362/0.362 | 105.98/5.44 | MAP 9.09*/− 0.56 | Soil N 8.57**/− 1.53 | – | |
| GDH 12.70*/0.63 | Soil N2 7.09*/1.44 | |||||
| SLAa | 0.803/0.803 | 58.93/18.68 | MAP 41.50***/− 0.57 | Soil N 14.68***/− 1.25 | Functional divergence 5.26*/− 0.18 | |
| Soil N2 19.30***/1.50 | ||||||
| S-sign. 10.47**/− 0.27 | ||||||
| S-sign.2 10.49**/0.25 | ||||||
| Leaf area | < 0.001/0.272 | 112.11/8.82 | – | – | – | |
|
| Plant height | 0.445/0.445 | 88.86/4.33 | MAP 14.66*/− 8.85 | S-sign. 9.18**/− 0.48 | Functional evenness 5.38*/0.38 |
| MAP2 15.54*/9.31 | ||||||
| GDH 5.48*/0.50 | ||||||
| Seed massb | 0.110/0.110 | 99.41/6.43 | – | – | Functional evenness 4.06(*)/0.34 | |
| Leaf areab | 0.580/0.580 | 80.54/4.70 | MAP 19.86*/− 6.70 | S-sign. 6.39*/− 0.32 | Functional divergence 3.49(*)/0.24 | |
| MAP2 21.78*/7.01 |
Marginal (), conditional R2 (), AIC of the best model and ΔAIC for the full (initial) model given for each final model. Test statistic (F) and P-value (before slash) and beta-coefficient (after slash) given for each retained predictor after model reduction. All models based on coefficient of variation (CV)
C-sign. mean abundance weighted functional competition signature, GDH growing degree hours, MAP mean annual precipitation, S-sign. mean abundance weighted functional stress signature, SLA specific leaf area, soil N soil nitrogen concentration
(*) 0.10 ≥ P-value > 0.05; * 0.05 ≥ P-value > 0.01; ** 0.01 ≥ P-value > 0.001; *** 0.001 ≥ P-value
aSquare root transformation, b logarithm transformation, c squared transformation
Fig. 1Relationships between intraspecific trait variation (cf. ITVBI) and several abiotic and biotic factors. a Relationship between mean annual precipitation (MAP) and the log-transformed coefficient of variation (CV) of leaf area for Impatiens glandulifera, b relationship between stress-signature and the square-root-transformed CV of specific leaf area (SLA) for Milium effusum, c relationship between species richness and the CV of plant height for Anemone nemorosa, d relationship between functional evenness and the log-transformed CV of seed mass for Impatiens glandulifera. Regression lines present statistically significant linear relationships