Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 88, Issue 1, pp 84–90 | Cite as

Ecological genetics of Bromus tectorum

II. Intraspecific variation in phenotypic plasticity
  • Kevin J. Rice
  • Richard N. Mack
Original Papers

Summary

For Bromus tectorum, an alien annual grass now widespread in western North America, we assessed the sensitivity of the phenotypic expression of populational differences in phenology and demography to variation in plant density. Plants were grown in an unheated glasshouse from seeds collected from six habitat types located along a moisture-temperature gradient. Survival to flowering was high with a mean overall survival of 91%. Survival was highest among plants from the coolest, most mesic site. Time to first flowering decreased at the higher sowing density and was dependent on seed source. Plant dry weight and average seed production was lowest within high density plots; the magnitude of this reduction was significantly dependent on seed source. Individual seed weight was also dependent on the interaction of seed source and sowing density. Seed weight did not vary as much as seed number or plant weight in response to density. Differences among sources in hierarchies of plant size and seed production were detected at low sowing densities. The degree of inequality in the distributions of plant size and seed number increased at high density.

Key words

Bromus tectorum Density effects Ecological genetics Phenotypic plasticity Reproductive hierarchies 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barrett SCH, Richardson BJ (1986) Genetic attributes of invading species. In: Groves RH, Burdon JJ (eds) Ecology of biological invasions. Cambridge University Press, Great Britain, pp 21–33Google Scholar
  2. Barrett SCH, Wilson BL (1981) Colonizing ability in the Echinochloa crus-galli complex (barnyard grass). I. Variation in life history. Can J Bot 59:1844–1860Google Scholar
  3. Bradshaw AD (1965) Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants Adv Gen 13:115–155Google Scholar
  4. Caswell H (1983) Phenotypic plasticity in life-history traits: Demographic effects and evolutionary consequences. Am Zool 23:35–46Google Scholar
  5. Clausen J, Keck DD, Heisey WM (1948) Experimental studies on the nature of species. III. Environmental responses of climatic races of Achillea. Carnegie Inst Washington Pub 581Google Scholar
  6. Crawley MJ (1986) What makes a community invasible? In: Gray AJ, Crawley MJ, Edwards PJ (eds) Colonization, succession and stability. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 429–453Google Scholar
  7. Daubenmire R (1970) Steppe vegetation of Washington. Washington Agric Expt Stn Tech Bul 62Google Scholar
  8. Dolan RW, Sharitz RR (1984) Population dynamics of Ludwigia leptocarpa (Onagraceae) and some factors affecting size hierarchies in a natural population. J Ecol 72:1031–1041Google Scholar
  9. Freund RJ, Littell RC, Spector PC (1986) SAS system for linear models. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  10. Gottlieb LD (1977) Genotypic similarity of large and small individuals in a natural population of the annual plant Stephanomeria exigua ssp. coronaria (Compositae). J Ecol 65:127–134Google Scholar
  11. Harper JL (1961) Approaches to the study of plant competition. In: Milthorpe FL (ed) Mechanisms in biological competition. Symp Soc Exptl Biol 15, pp 1–39Google Scholar
  12. Harper JL (1961) A Darwinian approach to plant ecology. J Ecol 55:247–270Google Scholar
  13. Harper JL, White J (1974) The demography of plants. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 5:419–463Google Scholar
  14. Harper JL, Lovell PH, Moore KG (1970) The shapes and sizes of seeds. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 1:327–356Google Scholar
  15. Harper JL, Williams JT, Sagar GR (1965) The behaviour of seeds in soil. Part 1. The heterogeneity of soil surfaces and its role in determining the establishment of plants from seed. J Ecol 53:273–286Google Scholar
  16. Hartgerink AP, Bazzaz FA (1984) Seedling-scale environmental heterogeneity influences individual fitness and population structure. Ecology 65:198–206Google Scholar
  17. Hayward IM, Druce GC (1919) The adventive flora of Tweedside. T. Buncle and Co., ArbroathGoogle Scholar
  18. Heywood JS (1986) The effect of plant size variation on genetic drift in populations of annuals. Am Nat 127:851–861Google Scholar
  19. Hickman JC (1975) Environmental unpredictability and plastic energy allocation strategies in the annual Polygonum cascadense (Polygonaceae). J Ecol 63:689–701Google Scholar
  20. Holm LG, Pluckett DL, Pancho JV, Herberger JP (1977) The world's worst weeds. University of Hawaii, HonoluluGoogle Scholar
  21. Jain SK (1978) Inheritance of phenotypic plasticity in soft chess, Bromus mollis L. (Gramineae). Experientia 34:835–836Google Scholar
  22. Jain SK (1979) Adaptive strategies: polymorphism, plasticity, and homeostasis. In: Solbrig OT, Jain SK, Johnson GB, Raven PH (eds) Topics in plant population biology. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 160–187Google Scholar
  23. Klemmedson JO, Smith JG (1964) Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). Bot Rev 30:226–262Google Scholar
  24. Levin DA (1978) Some genetic consequences of being a plant. In: Brussard PF (ed) Ecological genetics: the interface. Springer, New York, pp 189–212Google Scholar
  25. Levins R (1968) Evolution in a changing environment. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  26. Lewontin RC (1957) The adaptation of populations to varying environments. Cold Spring Harbor Symp Quant Biol 22: 395–408Google Scholar
  27. Mack RN (1989) Temperate grasslands vulnerable to plant invasion: characteristics and consequences. In: Drake JA, Mooney HA, Di Castri F, Groves RH, Kruger FJ, Rejmanek M, Williamson M (eds) Biological invasiens: a global perspective. Wiley and Sons, New York, pp 155–179Google Scholar
  28. Mack RN, Harper JL (1977) Interference in dune annuals: spatial pattern and neighbourhood effects. J Ecol 65:345–363Google Scholar
  29. Mack RN, Pyke DA (1983) The demography of Bromus tectorum L.: variation in time and space. J Ecol 71:69–93Google Scholar
  30. Mack RN, Pyke DA (1984) The demography of Bromus tectorum: the role of microclimate, predation and disease. J Ecol 72:731–748Google Scholar
  31. Marshall DL, Levin DA, Fowler NL (1985) Plasticity in yield components in response to fruit predation and date of fruit initiation in three species of Sesbania (Leguminosae). J Ecol 73:71–81Google Scholar
  32. Marshall DR, Jain SK (1968) Phenotypic plasticity of Avena fatua and A. barbata. Am Nat 102:457–467Google Scholar
  33. Maun MA (1981) Seed germination and seedling establishment of Calamovilfa longifolia on Lake Huron sand dunes. Can J Bot 59:460–469Google Scholar
  34. McNeilly T (1968) Evolution in closely adjacent plant populations. III. Agrostis tenuis on a small copper mine. Heredity 23:99–108Google Scholar
  35. McNeilly T (1984) Ecotypic differentiation in Poa annua: within population variation in response to competition and cutting. New Phytol 96:307–316Google Scholar
  36. McNeilly T, Bradshaw AD (1968) Evolutionary processes in populations of copper tolerant Agrostis tenuis. Evolution 22:108–118Google Scholar
  37. Moran GF, Marshall DR, Muller WJ (1981) Phenotypic variation and plasticity in the colonizing species Xanthium strumarium L. (Noogoora Burr). Aust J Biol Sci 34:639–648Google Scholar
  38. Palmblad IG (1968) Competition in experimental studies on populations of weeds with emphasis on the regulation of population size. Ecology 49:26–34Google Scholar
  39. Rice KJ (1990) Reproductive hierarchies in Erodium: effects of variation in plant density and rainfall distribution. Ecology 71:1316–1322Google Scholar
  40. Rice KJ, Mack RN (1991a) Ecological genetics of Bromus tectorum I. A hierarchical analysis of phenotypic variation Oecologia 88:77–83Google Scholar
  41. Rice KJ, Mack RN (1991b) Ecological genetics of Bromus tectorum III. The demography of reciprocally sown populations. Oecologia 88:91–101Google Scholar
  42. Ridley HN (1930) The dispersal of plants throughout the world. L. Reeve, Kent, Great BritainGoogle Scholar
  43. Salisbury EJ (1940) Ecological aspects of plant taxonomy. In: Huxley J (ed) The new systematics. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 329–340Google Scholar
  44. Salisbury EJ (1961) Weeds and aliens. Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Scheiner SM and Goodnight CJ (1984) The comparison of phenotypic plasticity and genetic variation in populations of the grass Danthonia spicata. Evolution 38:845–855Google Scholar
  46. Schlichting CD (1986) The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 17:667–693Google Scholar
  47. Schlichting CD, Levin DA (1984) Phenotypic plasticity of annual Phlox: tests of some hypotheses. Am J Bot 71:252–260Google Scholar
  48. Schlichting CD, Levin DA (1986) Phenotypic plasticity: an evolving plant character. Biol J Linn Soc 29:37–47Google Scholar
  49. Shaw RG (1986) Response to density in a wild population of the perennial herb Salvia lyrata: variation among families. Evolution 40:492–505Google Scholar
  50. Solbrig OT (1981) Studies on the population biology of the genus Viola. II. The effect of plant size on fitness in Viola sororia. Evolution 35:1080–1093Google Scholar
  51. Stearns SC, Koella JC (1986) The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in lifehistory traits: predictions of reaction norms for age and size at maturity. Evolution 40:893–913Google Scholar
  52. Stewart G, Hull AC (1949) Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) — an ecological intruder in southern Idaho. Ecology: 30 58–74Google Scholar
  53. Sultan SE (1987) Evolutionary implications of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Evol Biol 21:127–178Google Scholar
  54. Thoday JM (1975) Non-Darwinian “evolution” and biological progress. Nature 255:675–677Google Scholar
  55. Turkington R (1983) Plasticity in growth and pattern of dry mass distribution of two genotypes of Trifolium repens grown in different environments of neighbours. Can J Bot 61:2186–2194Google Scholar
  56. Via S, Lande R (1985) Genotype-environment interactions and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Evolution 39:505–522Google Scholar
  57. Watkinson AR (1982) Factors affecting the density response of Vulpia fasciculata. J Ecol 70:149–161Google Scholar
  58. Weiner J, Solbrig OT (1984) The meaning and measurement of size hierarchies in plant populations. Oecologia 61:334–336Google Scholar
  59. Yoda K, Kira T, Ogawa H, Hozumi K (1963) Self thinning in overcroweded pure stands under cultivated and natural conditions. J Biol Osaka City Univ 14:107–129Google Scholar
  60. Zar JH (1974) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs, New JerseyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin J. Rice
    • 1
  • Richard N. Mack
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Agronomy and Range ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.Department of BotanyWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA

Personalised recommendations