| Literature DB >> 29383232 |
Jonathan T Bauer1, Liz Koziol2, James D Bever2,3.
Abstract
Many plant species are limited to habitats relatively unaffected by anthropogenic disturbance, so protecting these undisturbed habitats is essential for plant conservation. Coefficients of conservatism (C values) were developed as indicators of a species' sensitivity to anthropogenic disturbance, and these values are used in Floristic Quality Assessment as a means of assessing natural areas and ecological restoration. However, assigning of these values is subjective and improved quantitative validation of C values is needed. We tested whether there are consistent differences in life histories between species with high and low C values. To do this, we grew 54 species of tallgrass prairie plants in a greenhouse and measured traits that are associated with trade-offs on the fast-slow continuum of life-history strategies. We also grew plants with and without mycorrhizal fungi as a test of these species' reliance on this mutualism. We compared these traits and mycorrhizal responsiveness to C values. We found that six of the nine traits we measured were correlated with C values, and together, traits predicted up to 50 % of the variation in C values. Traits including fast growth rates and greater investment in reproduction were associated with lower C values, and slow growth rates, long-lived leaves and high root:shoot ratios were associated with higher C values. Additionally, plants with high C values and a slow life history were more responsive to mutualisms with mycorrhizal fungi. Overall, our results connect C values with life-history trade-offs, indicating that high C value species tend to share a suite of traits associated with a slow life history.Entities:
Keywords: Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; Floristic Quality Assessment; coefficients of conservatism; disturbance; functional traits; inoculation; succession; tallgrass prairie
Year: 2017 PMID: 29383232 PMCID: PMC5778608 DOI: 10.1093/aobpla/plx073
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AoB Plants Impact factor: 3.276
Hypothesized links between traits and plant species’ life history and our predictions for relationships between these traits and C values. Overall, the traits we measured can be good indicators of a plant species life history and successional association. We predict that species with an early-successional life history will tend to have low C values, and species with a late-successional life history will tend to have high C values.
| Trait | Prediction | References |
|---|---|---|
| Total biomass | Rapid growth is associated with a ruderal life history, so we expect slower growth rates among species with high C values. |
|
| Root:shoot | The fitness of late-successional plants is more dependent on the survival of established plants, and investment below-ground is likely to be necessary to maintain the high competitive ability of late-successional plants. Consequently, we predicted higher root:shoot ratios among species with high C values. |
|
| % Flowering biomass | Early-successional plants are expected to invest more resources in reproduction and to allocate resources to reproduction earlier than late-successional plant species. We predicted more investment in reproductive biomass among species with low C values. |
|
| Number of leaves | We expected that fast-growing ruderal species would produce more leaves due to fast growth rates and to compete for light with other fast-growing ruderal species. We expected more leaves among species with low C values. | |
| Proportion of dead leaves | This measurement was taken as an indicator of leaf lifespan, and, together with leaf thickness, these data were collected as an indication of the ‘leaf economic spectrum’. Early-successional plants are expected to invest relatively few resources in thin leaves, maximizing photosynthetic area to capture high amounts of light, but these leaves are short-lived. In contrast, late-successional plants are expected to invest more resources in long-lived leaves. |
|
| Leaf thickness | Predictions for this trait follow proportion of dead leaves. We expected species with high C values to have both thicker leaves and a lower proportion of dead leaves. |
|
| Height | Adult height can be associated with late-successional plant species’ competition for light. However, this may not be the case in grasslands, especially among seedlings. We expected that early-successional species would grow taller as an adaptation to competing for light alongside other fast-growing species in disturbed environments. |
|
| Variation in seed dimensions | Low variation in seed dimensions indicates a spherical seed, and this is expected to facilitate the burial of seeds in the seed bank. This may indicate a species reliance on the seed bank for future recruitment, a strategy that we hypothesized would be important to early-successional species. We predicted that species with low C values may have more spherical seeds. |
|
| Seed mass | Especially in forests, high seed mass may be required to recruit into highly competitive environments, so we predicted greater seed mass among late-successional species. |
|
Figure 1.Principal component analysis with points representing species and blue arrows representing trait values. Numbers correspond to species names identified in Table 3. PC1 best represents variation in species life history, with six traits loading strongly on this axis. Short-lived species known to benefit from disturbance are associated with low values on PC1, and long-lived species associated with undisturbed prairies are associated with high values on PC2 (Table 2).
Results of our PCA of species traits.
| Trait loadings | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proportion of variance | Cumulative proportion of variance | Root:shoot | % Flowering biomass | Total biomass | Leaf thickness | Height | No. of leaves | % Dead leaves | Seed weight | Variation in seed dimensions | |
| PC1 | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.27 | −0.22 | −0.53 | 0.33 | −0.53 | −0.14 | −0.43 | 0.07 | 0.00 |
| PC2 | 0.19 | 0.49 | −0.33 | 0.04 | −0.34 | −0.44 | 0.03 | 0.51 | −0.39 | −0.27 | 0.31 |
| PC3 | 0.14 | 0.63 | 0.65 | −0.44 | 0.43 | −0.24 | −0.07 | 0.20 | −0.11 | −0.24 | 0.20 |
| PC4 | 0.11 | 0.73 | −0.27 | −0.05 | 0.45 | 0.39 | 0.17 | −0.05 | −0.55 | 0.28 | 0.40 |
| PC5 | 0.09 | 0.82 | 0.20 | 0.15 | −0.22 | −0.29 | 0.03 | −0.33 | 0.24 | 0.37 | 0.71 |
| PC6 | 0.07 | 0.89 | −0.30 | −0.01 | 0.18 | −0.08 | −0.30 | −0.57 | 0.00 | −0.64 | 0.19 |
| PC7 | 0.06 | 0.94 | 0.00 | 0.08 | 0.15 | −0.62 | −0.09 | −0.34 | −0.44 | 0.34 | −0.40 |
| PC8 | 0.03 | 0.98 | −0.33 | −0.85 | −0.18 | −0.10 | 0.24 | −0.15 | 0.15 | 0.15 | −0.03 |
| PC9 | 0.02 | 1.00 | −0.31 | −0.09 | 0.28 | −0.08 | −0.73 | 0.31 | 0.29 | 0.32 | 0.06 |
Species number as labelled in Fig. 1, list of species included in our experiment, their position on our first two PCA axes and their C value in Rothrock and Homoya (2005).
| Number | Species name | PC1 | PC2 | CC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| −0.57 | −0.27 | 0 |
| 2 |
| 0.36 | −0.43 | 4 |
| 3 |
| −0.57 | −0.23 | 1 |
| 4 |
| 0.36 | −0.03 | 9 |
| 5 |
| −0.12 | 0.38 | 1 |
| 6 |
| −0.18 | −0.01 | 4 |
| 7 |
| −0.17 | −0.15 | 1 |
| 8 |
| 0.06 | 0.04 | 4 |
| 9 |
| 0.00 | −0.17 | 5 |
| 10 |
| 0.34 | 0.27 | 10 |
| 11 |
| 0.10 | 0.23 | 3 |
| 12 |
| 0.33 | −0.13 | 10 |
| 13 |
| −0.31 | 0.23 | 2 |
| 14 |
| 0.44 | −0.20 | 6 |
| 15 |
| −0.25 | 0.27 | 4 |
| 16 |
| −0.32 | 0.38 | 5 |
| 17 |
| −0.35 | 0.22 | 2 |
| 18 |
| −0.16 | 0.12 | 2 |
| 19 |
| −0.11 | 0.45 | 0 |
| 20 |
| −0.30 | 0.68 | 0 |
| 21 |
| 0.08 | 0.36 | 8 |
| 22 |
| 0.19 | −0.12 | 5 |
| 23 |
| 0.46 | −0.22 | 10 |
| 24 |
| 0.44 | 0.07 | 6 |
| 25 |
| −0.62 | −0.03 | 5 |
| 26 |
| 0.32 | 0.07 | 10 |
| 27 |
| −1.07 | −0.33 | 0 |
| 28 |
| 0.04 | −0.03 | 3 |
| 29 |
| 0.23 | 0.08 | 4 |
| 30 |
| 0.39 | −0.19 | 9 |
| 31 |
| 0.35 | 0.46 | 8 |
| 32 |
| −0.02 | 0.03 | 4 |
| 33 |
| 0.04 | 0.14 | 3 |
| 34 |
| −0.07 | −0.18 | 0 |
| 35 |
| −0.64 | −0.12 | 0 |
| 36 |
| −0.23 | 0.10 | 4 |
| 37 |
| 0.34 | −0.23 | 9 |
| 38 |
| 0.23 | −0.01 | 4 |
| 39 |
| −0.05 | 0.01 | 5 |
| 40 |
| −0.66 | 0.21 | 0 |
| 41 |
| 0.06 | 0.47 | 5 |
| 42 |
| 0.47 | 0.10 | 5 |
| 43 |
| 0.30 | −0.06 | 2 |
| 44 |
| −0.32 | −0.78 | 0 |
| 45 |
| −0.26 | 0.03 | 4 |
| 46 |
| 0.43 | −0.29 | 7 |
| 47 |
| 0.55 | −0.49 | 6 |
| 48 |
| −0.16 | −0.33 | 4 |
| 49 |
| 0.07 | −0.09 | 10 |
| 50 |
| −0.20 | −0.72 | 3 |
| 51 |
| 0.42 | 0.19 | 2 |
| 52 |
| 0.32 | 0.25 | 8 |
Figure 2.(A) C values and the first PC of species traits (Fig. 1) are significantly correlated (DF = 50, y = 5.8x + 4.3, P < 0.001, r2 = 0.45). Low scores on PC1 are correlated with traits typically of an early-successional life history and high scores are associated with late-successional traits. C values are from Rothrock and Homoya (2005). (B) Responsiveness of plant species to AMF as compared to the first PC of species traits (DF = 45, y = 1.38x + 1.38, P < 0.001, r2 = 0.35). (C) Species with high C values tend to be more responsive to mycorrhizal fungi (DF = 45, y = 0.18x + 0.57, P = 0.004, r2 = 0.17).
Figure 3.Plots of individual traits as compared to coefficients of conservatism. Traits were log-transformed and then standardized on a scale of 0–1, as in the PCA. We hypothesized that total biomass, percentage of dead leaves, height, number of leaves and percentage of biomass invested in reproduction (A, B, E, F and G) are indicators of an early-successional life history and that these traits would be negatively correlated with C values. In contrast, we hypothesized that root:shoot, leaf thickness and seed weight (C, D and H) would indicate a late-successional life history and be positively correlated with C values. Regression lines are displayed for significant relationships (DF = 50, P < 0.05).
Figure 4.Intraspecific variation in species traits with central dark lines representing medians, boxes representing interquartile range and whiskers representing minimum and maximum values. Species are arranged from highest C values at top to lowest C values at the bottom of the figure. Data include traits measured on plants grown with and without mycorrhizal fungi, so variation is increased in traits that are responsive to mycorrhizal inoculation (including total biomass) since the data here include both within and between treatment variation.
Model averaging results for the nine traits we measured in our experiment plus mycorrhizal responsiveness as predictors of C values.
| Importance | N containing models | Estimate | SE |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 6.9 | 1.9 | 0.0003 | ||
| Total biomass | 0.98 | 27 | −4.1 | 1.6 | 0.0108 |
| Percent dead leaves | 0.98 | 27 | −4.1 | 1.6 | 0.0137 |
| Root:shoot | 0.92 | 25 | 4.2 | 1.7 | 0.0167 |
| No. of leaves | 0.66 | 16 | −3.1 | 1.6 | 0.0624 |
| Percent flowering biomass | 0.49 | 14 | −3.9 | 2.5 | 0.1173 |
| Leaf thickness | 0.20 | 6 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 0.2761 |
| Variation in seed dimensions | 0.18 | 7 | −1.6 | 1.7 | 0.3705 |
| AMF responsiveness | 0.12 | 5 | −0.1 | 0.6 | 0.8058 |
| Seed weight | 0.10 | 4 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 0.5659 |
| Height | 0.08 | 3 | 1.0 | 2.5 | 0.7015 |
r 2 values for correlations among C values assigned to neighbouring regions, including Indiana (Rothrock and Homoya 2005), Chicago (Swink and Wilhelm 1994), Illinois (Taft 1997), Wisconsin (Bernthal and Cochrane 2003) and Michigan (Herman ). The Chicago region includes counties in Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana and Michigan, but we include the C values from the Chicago region because different authors assigned values in each region.
| Chicago | Illinois | Wisconsin | Michigan | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indiana | 0.76 | 0.77 | 0.69 | 0.68 |
| Chicago | 0.86 | 0.68 | 0.67 | |
| Illinois | 0.81 | 0.68 | ||
| Wisconsin | 0.74 |
Figure 5.Illustration of representative plant species across a range of coefficients of conservatism. Plant height, percent dead leaves, root biomass, root:shoot and percent flowering biomass are all scaled based on regressions of the untransformed data. Rooting width and depth was constrained by pot size. Since all species grew through the full depth of the pot by the end of the experiment, roots are illustrated as being the same length. Species illustrated include (from left to right): Conyza canadensis, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Chamaecrista fasciculata, Monarda fistulosa, Asclepias tuberosa, Ratibida pinnata, Baptisia alba, Silphium integrifolium, Veronicastrum virginicum, Amorpha canescens and Sporobolus heterolepis.