Biological Invasions

, Volume 18, Issue 9, pp 2531–2549 | Cite as

Do ploidy level and nuclear genome size and latitude of origin modify the expression of Phragmites australis traits and interactions with herbivores?

  • Laura A. Meyerson
  • James T. Cronin
  • Ganesh P. Bhattarai
  • Hans Brix
  • Carla Lambertini
  • Magdalena Lučanová
  • Shelby Rinehart
  • Jan Suda
  • Petr Pyšek
PHRAGMITES INVASION

Abstract

We studied the relationship between genome size and ploidy level variation and plant traits for the reed grass Phragmites australis. Using a common garden approach on a global collection of populations in Aarhus, Denmark, we investigated the influence of monoploid genome size and ploidy level on the expression of P. australis growth, nutrition and herbivore-defense traits and whether monoploid genome size and ploidy level play different roles in plant trait expression. We found that both monoploid genome size and latitude of origin contributed to variation in traits that we studied for P. australis, with latitude of origin being generally a better predictor of trait values and that ploidy level and its interaction with monoploid genome size and latitude of origin also contributed to trait variation. We also found that for four traits, tetraploids and octoploids had different relationships with the monoploid genome size. While for tetraploids stem height and leaf water content showed a positive relationship with monoploid genome size, octoploids had a negative relationship with monoploid genome size for stem height and no relationship for leaf water content. As genome size within octoploids increased, the number of aphids colonizing leaves decreased, whereas for tetraploids there was a quadratic, though non-significant, relationship. Generally we found that tetraploids were taller, chemically better defended, had a greater number of stems, higher leaf water content, and supported more aphids than octoploids. Our results suggest trade-offs among plant traits mediated by genome size and ploidy with respect to fitness and defense. We also found that the latitude of plant origin is a significant determinant of trait expression suggesting local adaptation. Global climate change may favor some genome size and ploidy variants that can tolerate stressful environments due to greater phenotypic plasticity and to fitness traits that vary with cytotype which may lead to changes in population genome sizes and/or ploidy structure, particularly at species’ range limits.

Keywords

Cytotype Global climate change Latitude of origin Nuclear genome size Plant defense Plant invasion Polyploidy 

References

  1. Achenbach L, Lambertini C, Brix H (2012) Phenotypic traits of Phragmites australis clones are not related to ploidy level and distribution range. AoB Plants. doi:10.1093/aobpla/pls017 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Albert CH et al (2010) Intraspecific functional variability: extent, structure and sources of variation. J Ecol 98:604–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arvanitis L, Wiklund C, Munzbergová Z, Dahlgren JP, Ehrlén J (2010) Novel antagonistic interactions associated with plant polyploidization influence trait selection and habitat preference. Ecol Lett 13:330–337CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Balao F, Herrera J, Talavera S (2011) Phenotypic consequences of polyploidy and genome size at the microevolutionary scale: a multivariate morphological approach. N Phytol 192:256–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett MD, Leitch IJ (2005) Genome size evolution in plants. In: Gregory T (ed) The evolution of the genome. Elsevier, San Diego, pp 89–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhattarai GP, Meyerson LA, Anderson J, Cummings D, Allen WJ, Cronin J (2016) The biogeography of a plant invasion: genetic variation and plasticity in latitudinal clines for plant-herbivore interaction traits. Ecol Monogr (in review)Google Scholar
  7. Boalt E, Arvanitis L, Lehtilä K, Ehrlén J (2010) The association among herbivory tolerance, ploidy level, and herbivory pressure in Cardamine pratensis. Evol Ecol 24:1101–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2010) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, Narwani A, Mace GM, Tilman D, Wardle DA, Kinzig AP, Daily GC, Loreau M, Grace JB, Larigauderie A, Srivastava D, Naeem S (2012) Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486:59–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Chambers RM, Meyerson LA, Saltonstall K (1999) Expansion of reed into tidal wetlands of North America. Aquat Bot 64:261–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clevering OA, Lissner J (1999) Taxonomy, chromosome numbers, clonal diversity and population dynamics of Phragmites australis. Aquat Bot 64:185–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clevering O, Brix H, Lukavská J (2001) Geographic variation in growth responses in Phragmites australis. Aquat Bot 69:89–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collins AR, Thalmann D, Müller-Schärer H (2013) Cytotypes of Centaurea stoebe found to differ in root growth using growth pouches. Weed Res 53:159–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crawford KM, Rudgers JA (2013) Genetic diversity within a dominant plant outweighs plant species diversity in structuring an arthropod community. Ecology 94:1025–1035CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Cronin JT, Bhattarai GP, Allen WJ, Meyerson LA (2015) Biogeography of a plant invasion: plant-herbivore interactions. Ecology 96:1115–1127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. De Frenne P, Graae BJ, Rodríguez-Sánchez F, Kolb A, Chabrerie O, Decocq G, De Kort H, De Schrijver A, Diekmann M, Eriksson O, Gruwez R, Hermy M, Lenoir J, Plue J, Coomes DA, Verheyen K (2013) Latitudinal gradients as natural laboratories to infer species’ responses to temperature. J Ecol 101:784–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Doležel J, Greilhuber J, Suda J (2007) Estimation of nuclear DNA content in plants using flow cytometry. Nat Prot 2:2233–2244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fagan WF, Aumann C, Kennedy CM, Unmack PJ (2005) Rarity, fragmentation, and the scale dependence of extinction risk in desert fishes. Ecology 86:34–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fridley JD, Craddock A (2015) Contrasting growth phenology of native and invasive forest shrubs mediated by genome size. N Phytol 207:659–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greilhuber J, Doležel J, Lysák MA, Bennett MD (2005) The origin, evolution and proposed stabilization of the terms ‘genome size’ and ‘C-value’ to describe nuclear DNA contents. Ann Bot 95:255–260CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Hahn PG, Dornbush ME (2012) Exotic consumers interact with exotic plants to mediate native plant survival in a Midwestern forest herb layer. Biol Invasions 14:449–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Halverson K, Heard SB, Nason JD, Stireman JO III (2008) Differential attack on diploid, tetraploid, and hexaploid Solidago altissima L. by five insect gallmakers. Oecologia 154:755–761CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hansen D, Lambertini C, Jampeetong A, Brix H (2007) Clone-specific differences in Phragmites australis: effects of ploidy level and geographic origin. Aquat Bot 86:269–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hao GY et al (2013) Polyploidy enhances the occupation of heterogeneous environments through hydraulic related trade-offs in Atriplex canescens (Chenopodiaceae). N Phytol 197:970–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Henery ML, Bowmann G, Mráz P, Trier UA, Gex-Fabry E, Schaffner U, Müller-Schärer H (2010) Evidence for a combination of pre-adapted traits in the invasive plant Centaurea stoebe. J Ecol 98:800–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol 25:1965–1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hughes AR, Stachowicz JJ (2004) Genetic diversity enhances the resistance of a seagrass ecosystem to disturbance. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:8998–9002CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Hull-Sanders HM, Johnson RH, Owen HA, Meyer GA (2009) Influence of polyploidy on insect herbivores of native and invasive genotypes of Solidago gigantean (Asteraceae). Plant Signal Behav 4:893–895CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Hulme P, Pyšek P, Jarošik V, Pergl J, Schaffner U, Vila M (2013) Bias and error in understanding invasions and impacts. TREE 28:212–218PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Janz N, Thompson JN (2002) Plant polyploidy and host expansion in an insect herbivore. Oecologia 130:570–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson JB, Peat SM, Adams BJ (2009) Where’s the ecology in molecular ecology? Oikos 118:1601–1609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kambo D, Kotanen PM (2014) Latitudinal trends in herbivory and performance of an invasive species, common burdock (Arctium minus). Biol Invasions 16:101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Keller BE (2000) Genetic variation among and within populations of Phragmites australis in the Charles River watershed. Aquat Bot 66:195–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kiviat E (2013) Ecosystem services of Phragmites in North America with emphasis on habitat functions. AoB Plants 5:plt008CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Knight CA, Ackerly DD (2002) Variation in nuclear DNA content across environmental gradients: a quantile regression analysis. Ecol Lett 5:66–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Knight CA, Molinari NA, Petrov DA (2005) The large genome constraint hypothesis: evolution, ecology and phenotype. AoB 95:177–190Google Scholar
  38. Kubešová M, Moravcová L, Suda J, Jarošík V, Pyšek P (2010) Naturalized plants have smaller genomes than their non-invading relatives: a flow cytometric analysis of the Czech alien flora. Preslia 82:81–96Google Scholar
  39. Küster EC, Kühn I, Bruelheide H, Klotz S (2008) Trait interactions help explain plant invasion success in the German flora. J Ecol 96:860–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lambertini C, Gustafsson MHG, Frydenberg J, Lissner J, Speranza M, Brix H (2006) A phylogeographic study of the cosmopolitan genus Phragmites (Poaceae) based on AFLPs. Plant Syst Evol 258:161–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lambertini C, Mendelssohn IA, Gustafsson MH, Olesen B, Riis T, Sorrell BK, Brix H (2012) Tracing the origin of Gulf Coast Phragmites (Poaceae): a story of long-distance dispersal and hybridization. Am J Bot 99:538–551CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Lavergne S, Muenke NJ, Molofsky J (2010) Genome size reduction can trigger rapid phenotypic evolution in invasive plants. AoB 105:109–116Google Scholar
  43. Lavorel S, Díaz S, Cornelissen JHC, Garnier E, Harrison SP, McIntyre S, Pausas JG, Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Roumet C, Urcelay C (2007) Plant functional types: Are we getting any closer to the Holy Grail? In: Canadell JG, Pataki DE, Pitelka LF (eds) Terrestrial ecosystems in a changing world. Springer, NewYork, pp 149–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Levin DA (2002) The role of chromosomal change in plant evolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Lozier JD, Roderick GK, Mills NJ (2009) Tracing the invasion history of mealy plum aphid, Hyalopterus pruni (Hemiptera: Aphididae), in North America: a population genetics approach. Biol Invasions 11:299–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Meyerson LA, Lambert AM, Saltonstall K (2010) A tale of three lineages: expansion of common reed (Phragmites australis) in the U.S. southwest and Gulf Coast. Invasive Plant Sci Manage 3:515–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Meyerson LA, Lambertini C, McCormick M, Whigham D (2012) Hybridization of common reed in North America? The answer is blowing in the wind. AoB Plants. doi:10.1093/aobpla/pls022 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Meyerson LA, Cronin JT, Pyšek P (2016) Phragmites as a model organism for plant invasions. Biol Invasions. doi:10.1007/s10530-016-1132-3 Google Scholar
  49. Mitchell CE, Power AG (2003) Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature 421:625–627CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Mitchell CE, Blumenthal D, Jarošík V, Puckett EE, Pyšek P (2010) Controls on pathogen species richness in plants’ introduced and native ranges: roles of residence time, range size, and host traits. Ecol Lett 13:1525–1535CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Münzbergová Z (2006) Ploidy level interacts with population size and habitat conditions to determine the degree of herbivory damage in plant populations. Oikos 115:443–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Packer J, Meyerson LA, Skálová H, Haslam S, Pyšek P, Kueffer C (2016) Biological flora of British Isles. Phragmites australis. J Ecol (in review)Google Scholar
  53. Pandit MK, White S, Pocock MJO (2014) The contrasting effects of genome size, chromosome number and ploidy level on plant invasiveness: a global analysis. N Phytol 203:697–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pyšek P, Jarošík V, Pergl J, Randall R, Chytrý M, Kühn I, Tichý L, Danihelka J, Chrtek jun J, Sádlo J (2009) The global invasion success of Central European plants is related to distribution characteristics in their native range and species traits. Divers Distrib 15:891–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pyšek P, Manceur AM, Alba C, McGregor KF, Pergl J, Štajerová K, Chytrý M, Danihelka J, Kartesz J, Klimešová J, Lučanová M, Moravcová L, Nishino M, Sádlo J, Suda J, Tichý L, Kühn I (2015) Naturalization of central European plants in North America: species traits, habitats, propagule pressure, residence time. Ecology 96:762–774CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Reusch TBH, Hughes AR (2006) The emerging role of genetic diversity for ecosystem functioning: estuarine macrophytes as models. Estuar Coasts 29:159–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Saltonstall K (2002) Cryptic invasion by a non-native genotype of the common reed, Phragmites australis, into North America. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:2445–2449CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Schemske DW, Mittelbach GG, Cornell HV, Sobel JM, Roy K (2009) Is there a latitudinal gradient in the importance of biotic interactions? Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:245–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sides CB, Enquist BJ, Ebersole JJ, Smith MN, Henderson AN, Sloat LL (2014) Revisiting Darwin’s hypothesis: Does greater intraspecific variability increase species’ ecological breadth? Am J Bot 101:56–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Stachowicz JJ, Bruno JF, Duffy JE (2007) Understanding the effects of marine biodiversity on communities and ecosystems. AREES 38:739–766Google Scholar
  61. Suda J, Meyerson LA, Pyšek P, Leitch I (2015) The hidden side of plant invasions: the role of genome size. N Phytol 205:994–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. te Beest M, Le Roux JJ, Richardson DM, Brysting AK, Suda J, Kubešová M, Pyšek P (2011) The more the better? The role of polyploidy in facilitating plant invasions. Ann Bot 109:19–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tewksbury L, Casagrande R, Blossey B, Hafliger P, Schwarzlander M (2002) Potential for biological control of Phragmites australis in North America. Biol Control 23:191–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thébault A, Gillet F, Müller-Schärer H, Buttler A (2011) Polyploidy and invasion success: trait trade-offs in native and introduced cytotypes of two Asteraceae species. Plant Ecol 212:315–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Thompson JN, Merg KF (2008) Evolution of polyploidy and the diversification of plant-pollinator interactions. Ecology 89:2197–2206CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Waterman PG, Mole S (1994) Analysis of plant phenolic metabolites. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford  Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura A. Meyerson
    • 1
  • James T. Cronin
    • 2
  • Ganesh P. Bhattarai
    • 2
    • 3
  • Hans Brix
    • 4
  • Carla Lambertini
    • 4
  • Magdalena Lučanová
    • 5
    • 8
  • Shelby Rinehart
    • 1
    • 6
    • 7
  • Jan Suda
    • 5
    • 8
  • Petr Pyšek
    • 5
    • 9
  1. 1.The University of Rhode IslandKingstonUSA
  2. 2.Louisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA
  3. 3.Indian River Research and Education CenterUniversity of FloridaFort PierceUSA
  4. 4.Department of Bioscience, Plant BiologyAarhus UniversityAarhus CDenmark
  5. 5.Institute of BotanyThe Czech Academy of SciencesPrůhoniceCzech Republic
  6. 6.Department of BiologySan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA
  7. 7.Department of Evolution and EcologyUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA
  8. 8.Department of Botany, Faculty of ScienceCharles University in PraguePragueCzech Republic
  9. 9.Department of Ecology, Faculty of ScienceCharles University in PraguePragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations