Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 72, Issue 2, pp 291–296 | Cite as

Population niche structure

Differential response of Abutilon theophrasti progeny to resource gradients
  • K. Garbutt
  • F. A. Bazzaz
Original Papers

Summary

The response of twenty maternal families of the annual Abutilon theophrasti to two resource gradients, nutrient and light, was investigated. The structure of the population niche for both biomass and reproductive output was found to be quite different on the two gradients. On the light gradient there was a great diversity of responses among the families while on the nutrient gradient the families responded in a similar manner. On both gradients the plants showed a significant genotype/environment interaction. Three strategies for the production of seed variation have been proposed-all offspring are adapted to the same restricted environment, each offspring of an individual is adapted to a particular environment somewhat different thant that of its siblings, and all the offspring are able to grow in a wide range of environments. We found evidence for all three of these strategies amongst the families. The range of responses seen amongst families (of the same species) in this study was as broad as that found in previous studies among species of the old field annual community to which Abutilon theophrasti belongs. This has significant implications to the nature of competitive interactions and to the evolution of differential resource use in plant populations.

Key words

Abutilon Biomass Reproduction Light Nutrition 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baker HG (1965) Characteristics and modes of origin of weeds. In: Baker HG, Stebbins GL (eds) The genetics of colonizing species. Academic Press, New York, pp 147–172Google Scholar
  2. Bazzaz FA (1987) Experimental studies on the evolution of niche in successional plant populations. In: Colonization, Succession and Stability. Gray AJ, Crawley MJ, Edwards PJ (eds) Symposium Vol. No 26 of the British Ecological Society (in press)Google Scholar
  3. Clough JM, Alberte RS, Teeri JA (1980) Photosynthetic adaptation of Sloanum dulcamara L. to sun and shade environments III. Characterization of genotypes with differing photosynthetic performance. Oecologia (Berlin) 44:221–225Google Scholar
  4. Eberhart SA, Russell WA (1966) Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci 6:36–40Google Scholar
  5. Finlay KW, Wilkinson GN (1963) The analysis of adaptation in plant breeding programmes. Aust J Agric Res 14:742–754Google Scholar
  6. Garbutt K, Bazzaz FA, Levin DA (1985) Population and genotype niche width in clonal Phlox paniculata. Am J Bot 72:640–645Google Scholar
  7. Garbutt K, Zangerl AR (1983) Application of genotype-environment interaction analysis to niche quantification. Ecology 64:1292–1296Google Scholar
  8. Goldberg DE, Werner PA (1983) Equivalence of competitors in plant communities: null hypothesis and a field experimental approach. Am J Bot 70:1098–1104Google Scholar
  9. Levins R (1968) Evolution in changing environments. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  10. Lewontin RC (1957) The adaption of populations to varying environments. Cold Spring Harbor Symp Quant Biol 22:395–408Google Scholar
  11. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of Island Biogeography, Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  12. Odum EP (1969) The stratergy of ecosystem development. Science 164:262–270Google Scholar
  13. Parrish JAD, Bazzaz FA (1982) Competitive interactions in plant communities of different successional ages. Ecology 63:314–320Google Scholar
  14. Parrish JAD, Bazzaz FA (1985) Ontogenetic niche shifts in old-field annuals. Ecology 66:1296–1302Google Scholar
  15. Roughgarden J (1979) Theory of population genetics and evolutionary ecology: An introduction. MacMillan, New York, 634 ppGoogle Scholar
  16. Schmid B (1985) Clonal growth in grassland perennials. III. Genetic variation and plasticity between and within populations of Belis perennis and Prunella vulgaris. J Ecol 73:819–830Google Scholar
  17. Schoener TW (1970) Non-synchronous spatial overlap of lizards in patchy habitats. Ecology 51:408–418Google Scholar
  18. Solbrig OT, Simpson BB (1977) A garden experiment on competition between biotypes of common dandelion (Taraxacum officianale). J Ecol 427:430Google Scholar
  19. Turkington R, Harper JL (1979) The growth, distribution and neighbour relationships of Trifolium repens in a permanent pasture. IV. Fine scale biotic differentiation. J Ecol 67:245–254Google Scholar
  20. Van Valen L (1965) Morphological variation and the width of ecological niche. Am Nat 99:377–390Google Scholar
  21. Witcome JR, Wittington WJ (1971) A study of the genotype by environment interaction shown by germinating seeds of Brassica napus. Heredity 26:397–411Google Scholar
  22. Zangerl AR, Bazzaz FA (1983) Plasticity and genotypic variation in photosynthetic behavior of an early and a late successional species of Polygonum. Oecologia (Berlin) 57:270–273Google Scholar
  23. Zangerl AR, Bazzaz FA (1984) Niche partitioning between two phosphoglucoisomerase genotypes in Amaranthus retroflexus. Ecology 65:218–222Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Garbutt
    • 1
  • F. A. Bazzaz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Organismic and Evolutionary BiologyHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations