| Literature DB >> 30375415 |
Yusong Cao1,2, Yi'an Xiao3,4, Sisi Zhang1, Wenhai Hu1,2.
Abstract
Phenological and reproductive shifts of plants due to climate change may have important influences on population dynamics. Climate change may also affect invasive species by changing their phenology and reproduction, but few studies have explored this possibility. Here, we investigated the impact of climate change on the phenology, reproduction and invasion potential of two alien Solidago canadensis and Bidens frondosa and one native weed, Pterocypsela laciniata, all of which are in the Asteraceae family. The three species responded to simulated climate change by increasing reproductive investments and root/leaf ratio, prolonging flowering duration, and while the two alien species also displayed a mass-flowering pattern. Moreover, our experimental results indicated that the alien invasive species may have greater phenological plasticity in response to simulated warming than that of the native species (P. laciniata). As such, climate change may enhance the invasion and accelerate the invasive process of these alien plant species.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30375415 PMCID: PMC6207732 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-34218-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Effect of simulated warming on plant height of S. canadensis, B. frondosa and P. laciniata. Note: The values are “means ± S.E.”. Different letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).
Figure 2Effect of simulated warming on leaf number of S. canadensis, B. frondosa and P. laciniata.
Flowering phenology index of S. canadensis, B. frondosa and P. laciniata.
| Items | Treatment |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Onset day (d) | OTC | 34 ± 2.645 | 9 ± 0.960 | 8 ± 1.483 |
| CK | 38 ± 2.379 | 41 ± 2.873 | 13 ± 1.715 | |
| P | 0.016 | 0.001 | 0.139 | |
| Peak flowering date (d) | OTC | 49 ± 2.684 | 65 ± 1.678 | 23 ± 1.944 |
| CK | 52 ± 2.44 | 82 ± 2.250 | 31 ± 1.181 | |
| P | 0.014 | 0.008 | 0.041 | |
| Endset day (d) | OTC | 77 ± 1.979 | 94 ± 4.326 | 33 ± 2.512 |
| CK | 73 ± 0.759 | 103 ± 1.331 | 56 ± 1.499 | |
| P | 0.042 | 0.100 | 0.004 | |
| Duration (d) | OTC | 44 ± 2.517 | 85 ± 2.824 | 26 ± 0.922 |
| CK | 36 ± 1.102 | 65 ± 1.575 | 35 ± 1.432 | |
| P | 0.047 | 0.005 | 0.017 | |
| Flower number | OTC | 5331 ± 557.78 | 401 ± 22.88 | 90 ± 4.590 |
| CK | 5725 ± 557.34 | 352 ± 13.98 | 100 ± 2.068 | |
| P | 0.429 | 0.040 | 0.024 | |
| Flowering synchrony index | OTC | 0.77 ± 0.036 | 0.85 ± 0.013 | 0.73 ± 0.022 |
| CK | 0.72 ± 0.043 | 0.67 ± 0.011 | 0.84 ± 0.019 | |
| P | 0.014 | 0.001 | 0.020 | |
| Relative flowering intensity | OTC | 0.54 ± 0.051 | 0.44 ± 0.064 | 0.53 ± 0.034 |
| CK | 0.47 ± 0.056 | 0.27 ± 0.044 | 0.53 ± 0.035 | |
| P | 0.227 | 0.111 | 0.986 |
Figure 3Effect of simulated warming on flowering phenology of S. canadensis, B. frondosa and P. laciniata.
Effect of simulated warming on biomass of S. canadensis, B. frondosa and P. laciniata.
| Items | Treatments |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Root biomass (g.plant−1) | OTC | 29.357 ± 0.520 | 10.966 ± 0.371 | 0.37 ± 0.04 |
| CK | 25.521 ± 0.544 | 10.108 ± 0.278 | 0.52 ± 0.04 | |
| P | 0.026 | 0.07 | 0.027 | |
| Shoot biomass (g.plant−1) | OTC | 22.192 ± 0.582 | 29.779 ± 0.499 | 3.22 ± 0.44 |
| CK | 20.435 ± 0.405 | 27.267 ± 0.463 | 1.92 ± 0.09 | |
| P | 0.014 | 0.008 | 0.042 | |
| Leaf biomass (g.plant−1) | OTC | 8.115 ± 0.143 | 7.408 ± 0.189 | 0.55 ± 0.08 |
| CK | 9.391 ± 0.307 | 8.425 ± 0.245 | 0.62 ± 0.03 | |
| P | 0.004 | 0.01 | 0.448 | |
| Flower biomass (g.plant−1) | OTC | 5.271 ± 0.276 | 8.613 ± 0.159 | 0.34 ± 0.08 |
| CK | 5.029 ± 0.223 | 7.776 ± 0.153 | 0.37 ± 0.04 | |
| P | 0.427 | 0.015 | 0.757 | |
| Total biomass (g.plant−1) | OTC | 64.935 ± 0.928 | 56.767 ± 0.741 | 4.48 ± 0.60 |
| CK | 61.376 ± 0.556 | 53.576 ± 0.888 | 3.44 ± 0.17 | |
| P | 0.04 | 0.034 | 0.158 |
Biomass allocation of S. canadensis, B. frondosa and P. laciniata by simulated warming.
| Items | Treatments |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Root biomass ratio | OTC | 45.4% ± 0.4% | 19.5% ± 0.6% | 8.4% ± 0.8% |
| CK | 43.4% ± 0.7% | 19.2% ± 0.4% | 15.4% ± 0.9% | |
| P | 0.038 | 0.583 | 0.004 | |
| Shoot biomass ratio | OTC | 34.0% ± 0.7% | 52.7% ± 0.2% | 70.9% ± 2.9% |
| CK | 32.8% ± 0.7% | 51.0% ± 0.5% | 56.0% ± 1.9% | |
| P | 0.026 | 0.015 | 0.00.5 | |
| Leaf biomass ratio | OTC | 12.6% ± 0.3% | 13.0% ± 0.5% | 13.3% ± 2.1% |
| CK | 15.6% ± 0.5% | 15.9% ± 0.3% | 17.9% ± 0.7% | |
| P | 0.002 | 0.001 | 0.103 | |
| Reproductive allocation ratio | OTC | 8.0% ± 0.4% | 14.8% ± 0.2% | 7.4% ± 0.8% |
| CK | 8.3% ± 0.3% | 13.9% ± 0.2% | 10.8% ± 0.9% | |
| P | 0.187 | 0.037 | 0.028 | |
| Root/leaf ratio | OTC | 3.722 ± 0.129 | 1.650 ± 0.140 | 0.858 ± 0.105 |
| CK | 2.899 ± 0.113 | 1.231 ± 0.042 | 0.896 ± 0.067 | |
| P | 0.008 | 0.024 | 0.644 | |
| Root/shoot ratio | OTC | 0.493 ± 0.004 | 0.244 ± 0.010 | 0.093 ± 0.109 |
| CK | 0.473 ± 0.008 | 0.239 ± 0.007 | 0.173 ± 0.112 | |
| P | 0.058 | 0.600 | 0.004 |
Effect of simulated warming on seed of S. canadensis, B. frondosa and P. laciniata.
| Items | Treatments |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1000-seed weight (g) | OTC | 0.0475 ± 0.000 | 2.783 ± 0.044 | 0.37 ± 0.006 |
| CK | 0.0465 ± 0.000 | 2.373 ± 0.063 | 0.35 ± 0.003 | |
| P | 0.021 | 0.005 | 0.053 | |
| Seed length (mm) | OTC | 1.558 ± 0.009 | 6.609 ± 0.069 | 3.268 ± 0.019 |
| CK | 1.557 ± 0.011 | 6.215 ± 0.057 | 3.260 ± 0.023 | |
| P | 0.959 | 0.001 | 0.778 | |
| Seed size (mm) | OTC | 0.559 ± 0.008 | 2.711 ± 0.041 | 1.230 ± 0.019 |
| CK | 0.548 ± 0.008 | 2.553 ± 0.030 | 1.200 ± 0.0166 | |
| P | 0.293 | <0.001 | 0.247 | |
| Germination ratio (%) | OTC | 38.8 ± 2.417 | — | 86.00 ± 2.608 |
| CK | 30.0 ± 1.414 | 91.20 ± 1.625 | ||
| P | 0.024 | 0.24 |
Note: The germination ratio of was not statistically analyzed, because there were only 3 seeds germinated in OTC but not seed germinated in CK.