| Literature DB >> 33234143 |
Claudia Colesie1, Zsofia Reka Stangl2, Vaughan Hurry3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fast growing invasive alien species are highly efficient with little investment in their tissues. They often outcompete slower growing species with severe consequences for diversity and community composition. The plant economics trait-based approach provides a theoretical framework, allowing the classification of plants with different performance characteristics. However, in multifaceted background, this approach needs testing. The evaluation and prediction of plant performance outcomes in ecologically relevant settings is among the most pressing topics to understand and predict ecosystem functioning, especially in a quickly changing environment. Temperature and nutrient availability are major components of the global environmental change and this study examines the response of growth economic traits, photosynthesis and respiration to such changes for an invasive fast-growing (Bromus hordaceus) and a slow-growing perennial (Bromus erectus) grass species.Entities:
Keywords: Carbon; Ecophysiology; Functional type; Invasive species; Nutrient availability; Plant trait coordination; Root; Strategy; Stress physiology
Year: 2020 PMID: 33234143 PMCID: PMC7684899 DOI: 10.1186/s12898-020-00333-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Ecol ISSN: 1472-6785 Impact factor: 2.964
Fig. 1Growth economic traits. a Relative growth rate (RGR), b Specific leaf area (SLA), c Net assimilation rate (NAR) and d Carbon to nitrogen ration (C:N ratio)
Fig. 2Carbon uptake and nitrogen use efficiency. a Maximum carbon uptake rates (NPmax), b Nitrogen use efficiency (NUE). Arrows indicate changes with changes in nutrient availability
Growth parameters
| Parameter | N-treatment | Temp (°C) | Test statistics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| t | df | p | |||||
| RGR (mg/gd) | FA | 7 | 109 | 74 | |||
| 20 | 113 | 192 | |||||
| 30 | 85 | 82 | |||||
| LA | 7 | 71 | 60 | ||||
| 20 | 81 | 135 | |||||
| 30 | 76 | 77 | |||||
| NAR (g /m2d) | FA | 7 | 8.2 | 4.2 | |||
| 20 | 3.4 | 4.6 | |||||
| 30 | 3.6 | 4.0 | |||||
| LA | 7 | 2.1 | 1.8 | ||||
| 20 | 3.6 | 4.1 | |||||
| 30 | 3.3 | 3.2 | |||||
| SLA (m2/kg) | FA | 7 | 17 ± 2.3 | 30 ± 8.1 | 9.2 | 8 | |
| 20 | 47 ± 5.3 | 57 ± 9.3 | 2.6 | 8 | |||
| 30 | 41 ± 27.5 | 34 ± 19.0 | 0.8 | 8 | 0.21 | ||
| LA | 7 | 59 ± 5.4 | 58 ± 9.7 | 6.8 | 8 | ||
| 20 | 33 ± 6.4 | 54 ± 3.7 | 4.8 | 8 | |||
| 30 | 44 ± 12.3 | 53 ± 15.2 | 1.0 | 9 | 0.17 | ||
| R:S ratio | FA | 7 | 0.52 ± 0.04 | 0.63 ± 0.06 | 0.9 | 12 | 0.18 |
| 20 | 0.42 ± 0.03 | 0.39 ± 0.02 | 0.1 | 12 | 0.46 | ||
| 30 | 0.40 ± 0.02 | 0.37 ± 0.02 | 0.7 | 12 | 0.26 | ||
| LA | 7 | 0.46 ± 0.03 | 0.63 ± 0.06 | 1.4 | 12 | 0.08 | |
| 20 | 0.47 ± 0.04 | 0.56 ± 0.05 | 0.8 | 12 | 0.22 | ||
| 30 | 0.84 ± 0.19 | 0.83 ± 0.14 | 0.1 | 12 | 0.47 | ||
| NUE (g/g) | FA | 7 | 252.7 ± 13.8 | 221.1 ± 17.9 | 3.1 | 8 | |
| 20 | 205.1 ± 8.4 | 187.2 ± 7.2 | 3.6 | 8 | |||
| 30 | 277.7 ± 19.8 | 216.6 ± 18.8 | 5.0 | 8 | |||
| LA | 7 | 241.4 ± 12.8 | 270.0 ± 31.7 | 1.9 | 8 | ||
| 20 | 296.7 ± 22.1 | 286.9 ± 7.7 | 0.9 | 8 | 0.18 | ||
| 30 | 442.5 ± 103.6 | 208.4 ± 15.7 | 3.4 | 8 | |||
Mean relative growth rate (RGR, mg/g d), net assimilation rate (NAR, g/m−2 d) and specific leaf area (SLA, m2/kg), root to shoot ratio and nitrogen use efficiency NUE (g/ g) of the fast-growing Bromus hordeaceus and the slow-growing Bromus erectus, when grown at 7 °C, 20 °C, or 30 °C, with free access (FA) or 50% access (LA) nitrogen
SLA, R:S ratio and NUE values are the average of 5 plants sampled with a fully expanded third leaf (± standard deviation). Test statistics show results from T-tests between the species
Physiological response
| Parameter | N-treatment | Temp (°C) | Test statistics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| t | df | p | |||||
| Net photosynthesis (nmol/g s) | FA | 7 | 19.49 ± 2.7 | 38.90 ± 5.3 | |||
| 20 | 268.13 ± 13.1 | 518.51 ± 42.8 | |||||
| 30 | 183.35 ± 71.5 | 404.52 ± 45.73 | |||||
| LA | 7 | 11.12 ± 4.0 | 17.26 ± 7.8 | 1.2 | 3 | 0.31 | |
| 20 | 186.39 ± 71.5 | 296.11 ± 19.84 | 2.5 | 2 | 0.12 | ||
| 30 | 54.93 ± 11.1 | 25.54 ± 1.4 | |||||
| Respiration in the dark (nmol/g s) | FA | 7 | 6.42 ± 1.2 | 16.68 ± 6.5 | 2.7 | 2 | 0.11 |
| 20 | 99.66 ± 18.4 | 183.74 ± 53.3 | 2.5 | 2 | 0.12 | ||
| 30 | 102.43 ± 3.3 | 221.69 ± 14.35 | |||||
| LA | 7 | 6.12 ± 1.2 | 6.81 ± 1.24 | 0.6 | 4 | 0.53 | |
| 20 | 66.03 ± 16.4 | 90.40 ± 25.4 | 1.3 | 3 | 0.25 | ||
Rates of net photosynthesis and leaf respiration in the dark under their respective growth conditions (ex: plants that where grown at 20 °C were measured at 20 °C, plant that were grown at 30 °C were measured at 30 °C)
Values are means of n = 3 samples and shown with standard deviation. Test statistics show results from T-test between the species
Fig. 3Optimal growth temperature. Displayed is a ratio between the optimal temperature for photosynthesis (Topt) and the growth temperature during the experiment. These values are related to the growth temperature to visualize deviations and acclimation. A ratio of one indicates that the optimal temperature matches the growth temperature, values above one indicate that the optimal temperature was higher than the growth temperature and vice versa
Fig. 4Daily carbon budget. Dry weight-based rates for net photosynthesis, dark respiration and root respiration rates were converted to a per day basis and the daily rates were weighted according to the number of hours that each gas exchange parameter took place (NP:16 h; DR: 8 h and RR: 24 h). The total size of the circle reflects the RGR that is normalized for fast-growing B.hordaceus at control conditions to 100%