Advertisement

Oecologia

, 158:141 | Cite as

Transgenerational effects of global environmental change: long-term CO2 and nitrogen treatments influence offspring growth response to elevated CO2

  • Jennifer A. LauEmail author
  • Jill Peiffer
  • Peter B. Reich
  • Peter Tiffin
Global Change Ecology - Original Paper

Abstract

Global environmental changes can have immediate impacts on plant growth, physiology, and phenology. Long-term effects that are only observable after one or more generations are also likely to occur. These transgenerational effects can result either from maternal environmental effects or from evolutionary responses to novel selection pressures and are important because they may alter the ultimate ecological impact of the environmental change. Here, we show that transgenerational effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and soil nitrogen (N) treatments influence the magnitude of plant growth responses to elevated CO2 (eCO2). We collected seeds from Lupinus perennis, Poa pratensis, and Schizachyrium scoparium populations that had experienced five growing seasons of ambient CO2 (aCO2) or eCO2 treatments and ambient or increased N deposition and planted these seeds into aCO2 or eCO2 environments. We found that the offspring eCO2 treatments stimulated immediate increases in L. perennis and P. pratensis growth and that the maternal CO2 environment influenced the magnitude of this growth response for L. perennis: biomass responses of offspring from the eCO2 maternal treatments were only 54% that of the offspring from the aCO2 maternal treatments. Similar trends were observed for P. pratensis and S. scoparium. We detected some evidence that long-term N treatments also altered growth responses to eCO2; offspring reared from seed from maternal N-addition treatments tended to show greater positive growth responses to eCO2 than offspring from ambient N maternal treatments. However, the effects of long-term N treatments on offspring survival showed the opposite pattern. Combined, our results suggest that transgenerational effects of eCO2 and N-addition may influence the growth stimulation effects of eCO2, potentially altering the long-term impacts of eCO2 on plant populations.

Keywords

Climate change Evolution FACE Maternal effect 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank A. Mueller for her assistance in field and R. Shaw, J. Dechaine, and two anonymous reviewers for providing helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. This project was funded primarily by NSF IOB 0417094 to P. Tiffin, R. Shaw, and P. Reich and secondarily by NSF LTER (DEB 0080382) and Biocomplexity (0322057) programs, and a University of Minnesota Initiative on Renewable Energy and the Environment seed grant. This is KBS contribution #1462. The experiments described herein comply with current laws of the United States of America.

References

  1. Aarssen LW, Burton SM (1990) Maternal effects at four levels in Senecio vulgaris (Asteraceae) grown on a soil nutrient gradient. Am J Bot 77:1231–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal AA, Laforsch C, Tollrian R (1999) Transgenerational induction of defences in animals and plants. Nature 401:60–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bazzaz FA (1990) The response of natural ecosystems to the rising global CO2 levels. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 21:167–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bazzaz FA, Jasienski M, Thomas SC, Wayne P (1995) Microevolutionary responses in experimental populations of plants to CO2-enriched environments: parallel results from two model systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:8161–8165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bezemer TM, Thompson LJ, Jones TH (1998) Poa annua shows inter-generational differences in response to elevated CO2. Glob Chang Biol 4:687–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins S, Sultemeyer D, Bell G (2006) Changes in C uptake in populations of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii selected at high CO2. Plant Cell Environ 29:1812–1819PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cramer W, Bondeau A, Woodward FI, Prentice IC, Betts RA, Brovkin V, Cox PM, Fisher V, Foley JA, Friend AD, Kucharik C, Lomas MR, Ramankutty N, Sitch S, Smith B, White A, Young-Molling C (2001) Global response of terrestrial ecosystem structure and function to CO2 and climate change: results from six dynamic global vegetation models. Glob Chang Biol 7:357–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Durrant A (1958) Environmental conditioning of flax. Nature 181:928–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ginzburg LR, Taneyhill DE (1994) Population cycles of forest lepidoptera: a maternal effect hypothesis. J Anim Ecol 63:79–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hairston NG, Ellner SP, Geber MA, Yoshida T, Fox JA (2005) Rapid evolution and the convergence of ecological and evolutionary time. Ecol Lett 8:1114–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hungate BA, Holland EA, Jackson RB, Chapin FS, Mooney HA, Field CB (1997) The fate of carbon in grasslands under carbon dioxide enrichment. Nature 388:576–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huxman TE, Hamerlynck EP, Jordan DN, Salsman KJ, Smith SD (1998) The effects of parental CO2 environment on seed quality and subsequent seedling performance in Bromus rubens. Oecologia 114:202–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huxman TE, Charlet TN, Grant C, Smith SD (2001) The effects of parental CO2 and offspring nutrient environment on initial growth and photosynthesis in an annual grass. Int J Plant Sci 162:617–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Körner C (2003) Ecological impacts of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on terrestrial ecosystems. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 361:2023–2041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lau JA, Shaw RG, Reich PB, Shaw RG, Tiffin P (2007) Strong ecological but weak evolutionary effects of elevated CO2 on a recombinant inbred population of Arabidopsis thaliana. New Phytol 175:351–362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lau JA, Strengbom J, Stone LR, Reich PB, Tiffin P (2008) Direct and indirect effects of CO2, nitrogen, and community diversity on plant–enemy interactions. Ecology 89:226–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Niklaus PA, Körner C (2004) Synthesis of a six-year study of calcareous grassland responses to in situ CO2 enrichment. Ecol Monogr 74:491–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Norby RJ, DeLucia EH, Gielen B, Calfapietra C, Giardina CP, King JS, Ledford J, McCarthy HR, Moore DJP, Ceulemans R, De Angelis P, Finzi AC, Karnosky DF, Kubiske ME, Lukac M, Pregitzer KS, Scarascia-Mugnozza GE, Schlesinger WH, Oren R (2005) Forest response to elevated CO2 is conserved across a broad range of productivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:18052–18056PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Platenkamp GAJ, Shaw RG (1993) Environmental and genetic maternal effects on seed characters in Nemophila menziesii. Evolution 47:540–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Poorter H, Navas M-L (2003) Plant growth and competition at elevated CO2: on winners, losers and functional groups. New Phytol 157:175–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rasse DP, Peresta G, Drake BG (2005) Seventeen years of elevated CO2 exposure in a Chesapeake Bay Wetland: sustained but contrasting responses of plant growth and CO2 uptake. Glob Chang Biol 11:369–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reale D, McAdam AG, Boutin S, Berteaux D (2003) Genetic and plastic responses of a northern mammal to climate change. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:591–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reich PB, Knops J, Tilman D, Craine J, Ellsworth D, Tjoelker M, Lee T, Wedin D, Naeem S, Bahauddin D, Hendrey G, Jose S, Wrage K, Goth J, Bengston W (2001a) Plant diversity enhances ecosystem responses to elevated CO2 and nitrogen deposition. Nature 410:809–812PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reich PB, Tilman D, Craine J, Ellsworth D, Tjoelker MG, Knops J, Wedin D, Naeem S, Bahauddin D, Goth J, Bengston W, Lee TD (2001b) Do species and functional groups differ in acquisition and use of C, N and water under varying atmospheric CO2 and N availability regimes? A field test with 16 grassland species. New Phytol 150:435–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reich PB, Hobbie SE, Lee T, Ellsworth DS, West JB, Tilman D, Knops JMH, Naeem S, Trost J (2006) Nitrogen limitation constrains sustainability of ecosystem response to CO2. Nature 440:922–925PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roach DA, Wulff RD (1987) Maternal effects in plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 18:209–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rossiter MC (1996) Incidence and consequences of inherited environmental effects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 27:451–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shaw RG, Mitchell-Olds T (1993) ANOVA for unbalanced data: an overview. Ecology 74:1638–1645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Snaydon RW (1970) Rapid population differentiation in a mosaic environment. I. The response of Anthoxanthum odoratum populations to soils. Evolution 24:257–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Snaydon RW, Davies MS (1972) Rapid population differentiation in a mosaic environment. II. Morphological variation in Anthoxanthum odoratum. Evolution 26:390–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Snaydon RW, Davies TM (1982) Rapid divergence of plant populations in response to recent changes in soil conditions. Evolution 36:289–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Steinger T, Stephan A, Scmid B (2007) Predicting adaptive evolution under elevated atmospheric CO2 in the perennial grass Bromus erectus. Glob Chang Biol 13:1028–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Trombulak SC (1991) Maternal influence on juvenile growth rates in Belding ground squirrel (Spermophilus beldingi). Can J Zool 69:2140–2145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wieneke S, Prati D, Brandl R, Stocklin J, Auge H (2004) Genetic variation in Sanguisorba minor after 6 years in situ selection under elevated CO2. Glob Chang Biol 10:1389–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yoshida T, Jones LE, Ellner SP, Fussmann GF, Hairston NG Jr (2003) Rapid evolution drives ecological dynamics in a predator–prey system. Nature 424:303–306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yoshida T, Hairston NG Jr, Ellner SP (2004) Evolutionary tradeoff between defense against grazing and competitive ability in a simple unicellular alga, Chlorella vulgaris. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:1947–1953CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer A. Lau
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Jill Peiffer
    • 1
  • Peter B. Reich
    • 2
  • Peter Tiffin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant BiologyUniversity of MinnesotaSt PaulUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forest ResourcesUniversity of MinnesotaSt PaulUSA
  3. 3.Kellogg Biological Station and Department of Plant BiologyMichigan State UniversityHickory CornersUSA

Personalised recommendations