Javier Puy1,2, Carlos P Carmona3, Hana Dvořáková1, Vít Latzel2, Francesco de Bello4. 1. Department of Botany, Faculty of Sciences, University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice, Czech Republic. 2. Institute of Botany, Czech Academy of Sciences, Průhonice, Czech Republic. 3. Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, Department of Botany, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia. 4. CIDE-CSIC, Montcada, Valencia, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The observed positive diversity effect on ecosystem functioning has rarely been assessed in terms of intraspecific trait variability within populations. Intraspecific phenotypic variability could stem both from underlying genetic diversity and from plasticity in response to environmental cues. The latter might derive from modifications to a plant's epigenome and potentially last multiple generations in response to previous environmental conditions. We experimentally disentangled the role of genetic diversity and diversity of parental environments on population productivity, resistance against environmental fluctuations and intraspecific phenotypic variation. METHODS: A glasshouse experiment was conducted in which different types of Arabidopsis thaliana populations were established: one population type with differing levels of genetic diversity and another type, genetically identical, but with varying diversity levels of the parental environments (parents grown in the same or different environments). The latter population type was further combined, or not, with experimental demethylation to reduce the potential epigenetic diversity produced by the diversity of parental environments. Furthermore, all populations were each grown under different environmental conditions (control, fertilization and waterlogging). Mortality, productivity and trait variability were measured in each population. KEY RESULTS: Parental environments triggered phenotypic modifications in the offspring, which translated into more functionally diverse populations when offspring from parents grown under different conditions were brought together in mixtures. In general, neither the increase in genetic diversity nor the increase in diversity of parental environments had a remarkable effect on productivity or resistance to environmental fluctuations. However, when the epigenetic variation was reduced via demethylation, mixtures were less productive than monocultures (i.e. negative net diversity effect), caused by the reduction of phenotypic differences between different parental origins. CONCLUSIONS: A diversity of environmental parental origins within a population could ameliorate the negative effect of competition between coexisting individuals by increasing intraspecific phenotypic variation. A diversity of parental environments could thus have comparable effects to genetic diversity. Disentangling the effect of genetic diversity and that of parental environments appears to be an important step in understanding the effect of intraspecific trait variability on coexistence and ecosystem functioning.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The observed positive diversity effect on ecosystem functioning has rarely been assessed in terms of intraspecific trait variability within populations. Intraspecific phenotypic variability could stem both from underlying genetic diversity and from plasticity in response to environmental cues. The latter might derive from modifications to a plant's epigenome and potentially last multiple generations in response to previous environmental conditions. We experimentally disentangled the role of genetic diversity and diversity of parental environments on population productivity, resistance against environmental fluctuations and intraspecific phenotypic variation. METHODS: A glasshouse experiment was conducted in which different types of Arabidopsis thaliana populations were established: one population type with differing levels of genetic diversity and another type, genetically identical, but with varying diversity levels of the parental environments (parents grown in the same or different environments). The latter population type was further combined, or not, with experimental demethylation to reduce the potential epigenetic diversity produced by the diversity of parental environments. Furthermore, all populations were each grown under different environmental conditions (control, fertilization and waterlogging). Mortality, productivity and trait variability were measured in each population. KEY RESULTS: Parental environments triggered phenotypic modifications in the offspring, which translated into more functionally diverse populations when offspring from parents grown under different conditions were brought together in mixtures. In general, neither the increase in genetic diversity nor the increase in diversity of parental environments had a remarkable effect on productivity or resistance to environmental fluctuations. However, when the epigenetic variation was reduced via demethylation, mixtures were less productive than monocultures (i.e. negative net diversity effect), caused by the reduction of phenotypic differences between different parental origins. CONCLUSIONS: A diversity of environmental parental origins within a population could ameliorate the negative effect of competition between coexisting individuals by increasing intraspecific phenotypic variation. A diversity of parental environments could thus have comparable effects to genetic diversity. Disentangling the effect of genetic diversity and that of parental environments appears to be an important step in understanding the effect of intraspecific trait variability on coexistence and ecosystem functioning.
Authors: Y Zhu; H Chen; J Fan; Y Wang; Y Li; J Chen; J Fan; S Yang; L Hu; H Leung; T W Mew; P S Teng; Z Wang; C C Mundt Journal: Nature Date: 2000-08-17 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Ian J Wright; Peter B Reich; Johannes H C Cornelissen; Daniel S Falster; Eric Garnier; Kouki Hikosaka; Byron B Lamont; William Lee; Jacek Oleksyn; Noriyuki Osada; Hendrik Poorter; Rafael Villar; David I Warton; Mark Westoby Journal: New Phytol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 10.151
Authors: Daniel I Bolnick; Priyanga Amarasekare; Márcio S Araújo; Reinhard Bürger; Jonathan M Levine; Mark Novak; Volker H W Rudolf; Sebastian J Schreiber; Mark C Urban; David A Vasseur Journal: Trends Ecol Evol Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 17.712
Authors: Debra Zuppinger-Dingley; Bernhard Schmid; Jana S Petermann; Varuna Yadav; Gerlinde B De Deyn; Dan F B Flynn Journal: Nature Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Nicolas Gross; Yoann Le Bagousse-Pinguet; Pierre Liancourt; Miguel Berdugo; Nicholas J Gotelli; Fernando T Maestre Journal: Nat Ecol Evol Date: 2017-04-18 Impact factor: 15.460
Authors: Alex Innes Thomson; Frederick I Archer; Melinda A Coleman; Gonzalo Gajardo; William P Goodall-Copestake; Sean Hoban; Linda Laikre; Adam D Miller; David O'Brien; Sílvia Pérez-Espona; Gernot Segelbacher; Ester A Serrão; Kjersti Sjøtun; Michele S Stanley Journal: Evol Appl Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 5.183