| Literature DB >> 35991412 |
Xin Lu1, Ruoyan Jiang1, Guangfu Zhang1.
Abstract
Climate change affects parasitic plants and their hosts on distributions. However, little is known about how parasites and their hosts shift in distribution, and niche overlap in response to global change remains unclear to date. Here, the potential distribution and habitat suitability of four endangered holoparasites and their primary hosts in northern China were predicted using MaxEnt based on occurrence records and bioclimatic variables. The results indicated that (1) Temperature annual range (Bio7) and Precipitation of driest quarter (Bio17) were identified as the common key climatic factors influencing distribution (percentage contribution > 10%) for Cynomorium songaricum vs. Nitraria sibirica (i.e., parasite vs. host); Temperature seasonality (Bio4) and Precipitation of driest month (Bio14) for Boschniakia rossica vs. Alnus mandshurica; Bio4 for Cistanche deserticola vs. Haloxylon ammodendron; Precipitation of warmest quarter (Bio18) for Cistanche mongolica vs. Tamarix ramosissima. Accordingly, different parasite-host pairs share to varying degree the common climatic factors. (2) Currently, these holoparasites had small suitable habitats (i.e., moderately and highly) (0.97-3.77%), with few highly suitable habitats (0.19-0.81%). Under future scenarios, their suitable habitats would change to some extent; their distribution shifts fell into two categories: growing type (Boschniakia rossica and Cistanche mongolica) and fluctuating type (Cynomorium songaricum and Cistanche deserticola). In contrast, the hosts' current suitable habitats (1.42-13.43%) varied greatly, with highly restricted suitable habitats (0.18-1.00%). Under future scenarios, their suitable habitats presented different trends: growing type (Nitraria sibirica), declining type (Haloxylon ammodendron) and fluctuating type (the other hosts). (3) The niche overlaps between parasites and hosts differed significantly in the future, which can be grouped into two categories: growing type (Boschniakia rossica vs. Alnus mandshurica, Cistanche mongolica vs. Tamarix ramosissima), and fluctuating type (the others). Such niche overlap asynchronies may result in severe spatial limitations of parasites under future climate conditions. Our findings indicate that climate factors restricting parasites and hosts' distributions, niche overlaps between them, together with parasitic species identity, may jointly influence the suitable habitats of parasitic plants. Therefore, it is necessary to take into account the threatened holoparasites themselves in conjunction with their suitable habitats and the parasite-host association when developing conservation planning in the future.Entities:
Keywords: MaxEnt; conservation; niche overlap; parasitic plants; suitable habitat
Year: 2022 PMID: 35991412 PMCID: PMC9384867 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.942448
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 6.627
FIGURE 1The habitat and morphological features of four holoparasitic plants (A–D) and their primary hosts (E–H). (A) Cynomorium songaricum; (B) Boschniakia rossica; (C) Cistanche deserticola; (D) Cistanche mongolica; (E) Nitraria sibirica; (F) Alnus mandshurica; (G) Haloxylon ammodendron; (H) Tamarix ramosissima. The photographs (A,B,E) were provided by Liu L.; (C,D,G) by Duan S., Zang D., and Zhao D. respectively; (F,H) by Zhang G.
FIGURE 2Occurrence records of four holoparasitic plants and their primary hosts in China. (A) Cynomorium songaricum and Nitraria sibirica; (B) Boschniakia rossica and Alnus mandshurica; (C) Cistanche deserticola and Haloxylon ammodendron; (D) Cistanche mongolica and Tamarix ramosissima.
Area under curve and TSS values of four holoparasitic plants and their primary hosts under different climate scenarios in China.
| No. | Species | Climate scenarios | |||||||||
| Current climate | RCP2.6-2050s | RCP8.5-2050s | RCP2.6-2070s | RCP8.5-2070s | |||||||
| AUC | TSS | AUC | TSS | AUC | TSS | AUC | TSS | AUC | TSS | ||
| 1 | P: | 0.937 | 0.767 | 0.936 | 0.763 | 0.938 | 0.755 | 0.937 | 0.758 | 0.937 | 0.749 |
| H: | 0.844 | 0.597 | 0.833 | 0.593 | 0.824 | 0.579 | 0.831 | 0.583 | 0.830 | 0.587 | |
| 2 | P: | 0.954 | 0.835 | 0.949 | 0.828 | 0.946 | 0.806 | 0.949 | 0.810 | 0.949 | 0.821 |
| H: | 0.964 | 0.865 | 0.962 | 0.874 | 0.959 | 0.873 | 0.960 | 0.869 | 0.960 | 0.852 | |
| 3 | P: | 0.948 | 0.827 | 0.953 | 0.837 | 0.952 | 0.825 | 0.949 | 0.824 | 0.952 | 0.828 |
| H: | 0.906 | 0.723 | 0.900 | 0.685 | 0.902 | 0.681 | 0.901 | 0.696 | 0.902 | 0.687 | |
| 4 | P: | 0.980 | 0.906 | 0.975 | 0.878 | 0.974 | 0.879 | 0.975 | 0.881 | 0.975 | 0.868 |
| H: | 0.848 | 0.586 | 0.845 | 0.576 | 0.844 | 0.569 | 0.842 | 0.583 | 0.845 | 0.579 | |
P, parasite; H, host.
Key climatic factors influencing habitat distribution of four holoparasitic plants and their primary hosts in China.
| No. | Species | Climatic factors | Total percentage contribution (%) |
| 1 | P: | Bio2, Bio7, Bio11, Bio16, Bio17 | 96.9 |
| H: | Bio6, Bio7, Bio17 | 79.4 | |
| 2 | P: | Bio4, Bio10, Bio14 | 97.2 |
| H: | Bio4, Bio9, Bio14 | 90.8 | |
| 3 | P: | Bio4, Bio12, Bio15, Bio18 | 87.0 |
| H: | Bio4, Bio13 | 73.0 | |
| 4 | P: | Bio11, Bio14, Bio18 | 98.5 |
| H: | Bio4, Bio6, Bio18 | 80.6 |
P, parasite; H, host.
The climatic variable with percentage contribution > 10.0% was listed as a key climatic factor in Table 2.
FIGURE 3Predicted suitable habitat distributions of Cynomorium songaricum (A1–E1) and its host Nitraria sibirica (A2–E2) under different climate scenarios in China.
FIGURE 4Predicted suitable habitat distributions of Boschniakia rossica (A1–E1) and its host Alnus mandshurica (A2–E2) under different climate scenarios in China.
FIGURE 5Predicted suitable habitat distributions of Cistanche deserticola (A1–E1) and its host Haloxylon ammodendron (A2–E2) under different climate scenarios in China.
FIGURE 6Predicted suitable habitat distributions of Cistanche mongolica (A1–E1) and its host Tamarix ramosissima (A2–E2) under different climate scenarios in China.
Dynamics of changes in distribution area of four holoparasitic plants and their primary hosts under different climate scenarios.
| Climate | Not suitable habitat (%) | Low suitable habitat (%) | Moderately suitable habitat (%) | Highly suitable habitat (%) | Suitable habitat (moderately and highly) (%) |
| Current climate | 91.35 | 5.97 | 2.13 | 0.55 | 2.68 |
| RCP2.6-2050s | 91.69 | 5.95 | 1.93 | 0.44 | 2.37 |
| RCP8.5-2050s | 91.71 | 5.61 | 2.24 | 0.45 | 2.69 |
| RCP2.6-2070s | 91.65 | 5.93 | 2.01 | 0.41 | 2.42 |
| RCP8.5-2070s | 90.89 | 6.51 | 2.16 | 0.43 | 2.59 |
| Current climate | 65.91 | 22.28 | 10.81 | 1.00 | 11.81 |
| RCP2.6-2050s | 62.21 | 24.81 | 11.94 | 1.03 | 12.97 |
| RCP8.5-2050s | 61.96 | 24.77 | 12.30 | 0.97 | 13.27 |
| RCP2.6-2070s | 62.58 | 24.69 | 11.54 | 1.20 | 12.74 |
| RCP8.5-2070s | 62.78 | 24.34 | 11.74 | 1.15 | 12.89 |
| Current climate | 88.62 | 7.62 | 2.96 | 0.81 | 3.77 |
| RCP2.6-2050s | 87.99 | 7.13 | 3.99 | 0.89 | 4.88 |
| RCP8.5-2050s | 88.48 | 6.61 | 3.96 | 0.95 | 4.91 |
| RCP2.6-2070s | 88.54 | 6.73 | 3.62 | 1.11 | 4.73 |
| RCP8.5-2070s | 88.52 | 7.06 | 3.28 | 1.14 | 4.42 |
| Current climate | 95.05 | 3.53 | 1.24 | 0.18 | 1.42 |
| RCP2.6-2050s | 95.14 | 3.29 | 1.47 | 0.10 | 1.57 |
| RCP8.5-2050s | 94.53 | 3.71 | 1.66 | 0.10 | 1.76 |
| RCP2.6-2070s | 94.83 | 3.54 | 1.43 | 0.20 | 1.63 |
| RCP8.5-2070s | 94.49 | 3.61 | 1.73 | 0.16 | 1.89 |
| Current climate | 91.01 | 5.35 | 3.27 | 0.38 | 3.65 |
| RCP2.6-2050s | 90.58 | 5.96 | 3.04 | 0.42 | 3.46 |
| RCP8.5-2050s | 90.56 | 5.97 | 3.14 | 0.34 | 3.48 |
| RCP2.6-2070s | 90.35 | 6.03 | 3.34 | 0.28 | 3.62 |
| RCP8.5-2070s | 90.26 | 6.07 | 3.40 | 0.28 | 3.68 |
| Current climate | 83.11 | 7.29 | 9.31 | 0.29 | 9.60 |
| RCP2.6-2050s | 79.78 | 11.31 | 8.41 | 0.50 | 8.91 |
| RCP8.5-2050s | 79.48 | 11.42 | 8.86 | 0.24 | 9.10 |
| RCP2.6-2070s | 79.65 | 11.26 | 8.69 | 0.40 | 9.09 |
| RCP8.5-2070s | 80.28 | 11.22 | 7.41 | 1.10 | 8.51 |
| Current climate | 97.33 | 1.70 | 0.78 | 0.19 | 0.97 |
| RCP2.6-2050s | 95.59 | 2.77 | 1.51 | 0.13 | 1.64 |
| RCP8.5-2050s | 95.31 | 3.08 | 1.52 | 0.09 | 1.61 |
| RCP2.6-2070s | 95.67 | 2.77 | 1.48 | 0.07 | 1.55 |
| RCP8.5-2070s | 95.32 | 3.07 | 1.53 | 0.09 | 1.62 |
| Current climate | 68.61 | 17.96 | 12.75 | 0.68 | 13.43 |
| RCP2.6-2050s | 66.09 | 19.74 | 13.33 | 0.83 | 14.16 |
| RCP8.5-2050s | 66.13 | 20.15 | 13.09 | 0.63 | 13.72 |
| RCP2.6-2070s | 65.60 | 20.11 | 13.77 | 0.52 | 14.29 |
| RCP8.5-2070s | 66.17 | 20.71 | 12.19 | 0.93 | 13.12 |
Niche overlap in terms of Schoener’s D between each holoparasitic plant and its primary host under different climate scenarios.
| Climate scenarios | Parasite-Host | |||
|
|
|
|
| |
| Current climate | 0.5180 | 0.6673 | 0.6585 | 0.2593 |
| RCP2.6-2050s | 0.5238 | 0.6769 | 0.6684 | 0.2908 |
| RCP8.5-2050s | 0.5080 | 0.7067 | 0.6577 | 0.2853 |
| RCP2.6-2070s | 0.5115 | 0.7208 | 0.6792 | 0.2846 |
| RCP8.5-2070s | 0.5096 | 0.7316 | 0.6746 | 0.2723 |
| Mean ± SD | 0.5142 ± 0.0066 | 0.7007 ± 0.0277 | 0.6677 ± 0.0096 | 0.2785 ± 0.0127 |
C. songaricum, Cynomorium songaricum; N. sibirica, Nitraria sibirica; B. rossica, Boschniakia rossica; A. mandshurica, Alnus mandshurica; C. deserticola, Cistanche deserticola; H. ammodendron, Haloxylon ammodendron; C. mongolica, Cistanche mongolica; T. ramosissima, Tamarix ramosissima.
Mean ± SD refers to the average value of Schoener’s D of each parasite-host pair under current and four future climate scenarios. Groups identified by different letters are significantly different in the same column (P < 0.01).