Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 30, Issue 5, pp 861–876 | Cite as

Local adaptation of annual weed populations to habitats differing in disturbance regime

  • Lenka Malíková
  • Vít Latzel
  • Petr Šmilauer
  • Jitka Klimešová
Original Paper

Abstract

Plants have evolved several strategies to cope with disturbance, and one strategy is tolerance. In tolerance, plants store resources (meristems, carbohydrates) so that they can resprout after disturbance and thereby compensate to some degree for losses. Because tolerance is costly (it occurs at the expense of current growth), we can expect adaptation to the local disturbance regime. In this study, we determined whether populations of a common European annual weed, Euphorbia peplus, are adapted to the local disturbance regime. We hypothesized that the tolerance and hence compensation for losses in seed and biomass production after experimental damage are greater in plants from more severely disturbed than from less severely disturbed populations. We also hypothesized that transgenerational effects can alter adaptation. We found that compensation for biomass loss to damage was greater for plants from more severely disturbed habitats than for plants from less severely disturbed habitats. This, however, was not at the expense of growth before damage because plants from both disturbance regimes did not show differences when not damaged. Transgenerational effects played a positive role in adaptation to disturbance during germination and maturity. We conclude that local adaptation together with transgenerational effects have evolved in more severely disturbed populations but not in less severely disturbed populations of E. peplus.

Keywords

Local adaptation Euphorbia peplus Disturbance Annual 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The study was financially supported by the Czech Science Foundation (Grant No. P504/12/540 and GA14–06802S). We are grateful to Bruce Jaffee for improvement of English.

References

  1. Aarssen LW (1995) Hypotheses for the evolution of apical dominance in plants: implications for the interpretation of overcompensation. Oikos 74:149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B et al (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effect models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bischoff A, Muller-Scharer H (2010) Testing population differentiation in plant species—how important are environmental maternal effects. Oikos 119:445–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyko AR, Quignon P, Li L, Schoenebeck JJ et al (2010) A simple genetic architecture underlies morphological variation in dogs. PLoS Biol 8:e1000451CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Briske DD (1996) Strategies of plant survival in grazed systems: A functional interpretation. In: Hodgson J, Illius AW (eds) The ecology and management of grazing systems. CAB International, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Castro J (2006) Short delay in timing of emergence determines establishment success in Pinus sylvestris across microhabitats. Ann Bot 98:1233–1240CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapin FS III, Schulze E, Mooney HA (1990) The ecology and economics of storage in plants. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 21:423–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Galloway LF, Etterson JR (2007) Transgenerational plasticity is adaptive in the wild. Science 318:1134–1136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Huhta AP, Hellström K, Rautio P et al (2000a) A test of the compensatory continuum: fertilization increases and below-ground competition decreases the grazing tolerance of tall wormseed mustard (Erysimum strictum). Evol Ecol 14:353–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Huhta AP, Lennartsson T, Tuomi J et al (2000b) Tolerance of Gentianella campestris in relation to damage intensity: an interplay between apical dominance and herbivory. Evol Ecol 14:373–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huhta AP, Tuomi J, Rautio P (2000c) Cost of apical dominance in two monocarpic herbs, Erysimum strictum and Rhinanthus minor. Can J Bot 78:591–599Google Scholar
  12. Huhta AP, Hellström K, Rautio P et al (2003) Grazing tolerance of Gentianella amarella and other monocarpic herbs: why is tolerance highest at low damage levels? Plant Ecol 166:49–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Irwin DL, Aarssen LW (1996) Effects of nutrient level on cost and benefit of apical dominance in Epilobium ciliatum. Am Mid Nat 136:14–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Iwasa Y, Kubo T (1997) Optimal size of storage for recovery after unpredictable disturbances. Evol Ecol 11:41–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Juenger T, Lennartsson T, Tuomi J (2000) The evolution of tolerance to damage in Gentianella campestris: natural selection and the quantitative genetics of tolerance. Evol Ecol 14:393–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kawecki TJ, Ebert D (2004) Conceptual issues in local adaptation. Ecol Lett 7:1225–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Klimešová J, Klimeš L (2007) Bud banks and their role in vegetative regeneration—a literature review and proposal for simple classification and assessment. Perspect Plant Ecol Syst 8:115–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kobe RK (1997) Carbohydrate allocation to storage as a basis of interspecific variation in sapling survivorship and growth. Oikos 80:226–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Latzel V (2015) Pitfalls in ecological research—transgenerational effects. Folia Geobot 50:75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Latzel V, Dospělová L, Klimešová J (2009) Annuals sprouting adventitiously from the hypocotyl: their compensatory growth and implications for weed management. Biológia 64:923–929Google Scholar
  21. Latzel V, Klimešová J, Hájek T et al (2010) Maternal effects alter progeny’s response to disturbance and nutrients in two Plantago species. Oikos 119:1700–1710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Latzel V, Malíková L, Klimešová J (2011) Compensatory growth of Euphorbia peplus regenerating from potential bud bank. Botany 89:313–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Latzel V, Janeček S, Doležal J et al (2014) Adaptive transgenerational plasticity in the perennial Plantago lanceolata. Oikos 123:41–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leimu R, Fischer M (2008) A meta-analysis of local adaptation in plants. PLoS One 3:e4010CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Lennartsson T, Nilsson P, Tuomi J (1997) Evidence for an evolutionary history of overcompensation in the grassland biennial herb Gentianella campestris (Gentiaceae). Am Nat 149:1147–1155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Lennartsson T, Nilsson P, Tuomi J (1998) Induction of overcompensation in the field gentian Gentianella campestris. Ecology 79:1061–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Levitt J (1972) Responses of plants to environmental stresses. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Martínková J, Klimešová J, Mihulka S (2008) Compensation of seed production after severe disturbance in the short-lived herb Barbarea vulgaris. Basic Appl Ecol 9:44–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martínková J, Klimeš L, Klimešová J (2011) Multiple regenerative strategies of short-lived species: an effect on geographical distribution, preference of human-made habitats and invasive status. Folia Geobot 46:181–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miao SL, Bazzaz FA, Primack RB (1991) Persistence of maternal nutrient effects in Plantago major: the third generation. Ecology 72:1634–1642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller AD, Roxburgh SH, Shea K (2011) How frequency and intensity shape diversity-disturbance relationships. PNAS 108:5643–5648CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Pausas JG (2015) Bark thickness and fire regime. Funct Ecol 29:315–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roach DA, Wulff RD (1987) Maternal effects in plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 18:209–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rossiter M (1996) Incidence and consequences of inherited environmental effects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 27:451–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  36. Tuomi J, Nilsson P, Astrom M (1994) Plant compensatory responses bud dormancy as an adaptation to herbivory. Ecology 75:1429–1436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Verdú M, Traveset A (2005) Early emergence enhances plant fitness: a phylogenetically controlled meta-analysis. Ecology 86:1385–1394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Whittle C, Otto SP, Johnston MO et al (2009) Adaptive epigenetic memory of ancestral temperature regime in Arabidopsis thaliana. Botany 87:650–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lenka Malíková
    • 1
  • Vít Latzel
    • 2
  • Petr Šmilauer
    • 3
  • Jitka Klimešová
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Functional Ecology, Institute of BotanyASCRTřeboňCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Population Ecology, Institute of BotanyASCRPrůhoniceCzech Republic
  3. 3.Faculty of ScienceUniversity of South BohemiaČeské BudějoviceCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations