Oecologia

, Volume 57, Issue 1–2, pp 270–273

Plasticity and genotypic variation in photosynthetic behaviour of an early and a late successional species of Polygonum

  • A. R. Zangerl
  • F. A. Bazzaz
Original Papers

Summary

Rates of photosynthesis were measured in each of six replicated genotypes for each of two Polygonum species at five light and seven temperature levels. The early successional species, Polygonum pensylvanicum L., exhibited higher rates of photosynthesis and a more sun-tolerant behavior compared to its later successional relative, Polygonum virginianum L., results that are consistent with previously observed successional trends. Quantitative comparisons of individual genotype plasticity and between-genotype variation indicate that, in general, plasticity contributes more to population flexibility in photosynthetic response of these species than does between-genotype variation. However, the relative contribution of between-genotype variation was found to vary depending on the environmental variable and species studied. Between-genotype variation assumed greater importance in the temperature response than in the light response. Similarly between-genotype variation was more important in P. virginianum than in P. pensylvanicum supporting the notion that later successional species are less plastic. These results establish that significant levels of photosynthetic variation occur even within populations.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bazzaz FA (1979) The physiological ecology of succession. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 10:351–371Google Scholar
  2. Bazzaz FA, Pickett STA (1980) Physiological ecology of tropical succession: A comparative review. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 11:287–310Google Scholar
  3. Bazzaz FA, Carlson RW (1982) Photosynthetic acclimation to variability in the light environment of early and late successional plants. Oecologia (Berlin) 54:313–316Google Scholar
  4. Bjorkman O (1968) Carboxydismutase activity in shade-adapted and sun-adapted species of higher plants. Physiol Plantarum 21:1–10Google Scholar
  5. Clough JM, Teeri JA, Alberte RS (1979a) Photosynthetic adaptation of Solanum dulcamara L. to sun and shade environments: I. A comparison of sun and shade populations. Oecologia (Berlin) 38:13–22Google Scholar
  6. Clough JM, Alberte RS, Teeri JA (1979b) Photosynthetic adaptation of Solanum dulcamara to sun and shade environments: II. Physiological characterization of phenotypic response to environment. Plant Physiol (Bethesda) 64:25–30Google Scholar
  7. Clough JM, Alberte RS, Teeri JA (1980) Photosynthetic adaptation of Solanum dulcamara to sun and shade environments: III. Characterization of genotypes with differing photosynthetic performance. Oecologia (Berlin) 44:221–225Google Scholar
  8. Mooney HA, Gulmon SC (1982) Constraints on leaf structure and function in refeence to herbivory. Bioscience 32:198–206Google Scholar
  9. Odum EP (1969) The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 164:262–270Google Scholar
  10. Roughgarden J (1972) Evolution of niche width. Amer Natur 106:683–718Google Scholar
  11. Van Valen L (1965) Morphological variation and the width of the ecological niche. Amer Natur 94:337–390Google Scholar
  12. Zangerl AR, Bazzaz FA (1983) Niche partitioning between two phosphoglucoisomerase genotypes in Amaranthus retroflexus. Ecology (in press)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. R. Zangerl
    • 1
  • F. A. Bazzaz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BotanyUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations