Plant Ecology

, Volume 193, Issue 1, pp 85–99 | Cite as

Phenotypic plasticity and biomass allocation pattern in three Dryopteris (Dryopteridaceae) species on an experimental light-availability gradient

Original Paper

Abstract

We were interested in whether the contrasting regional distribution patterns of three congeneric, frequently co-occurring fern species (Dryopteris carthusiana, D. dilatata and D. expansa) could be explained by differential biomass allocation strategies and different phenotypic plasticities to light availability. The morphology and habitat preference of these ferns are known to be very similar, but in Estonia, their frequencies of occurrence differ sharply––Dryopteris carthusiana is common, D. expansa grows in scattered localities, and D. dilatata is rare. We grew the species under different levels of illumination (100, 50, 25 and 10% of full daylight) in an experimental garden to compare their autecological responses to shading. After one growing season there were clear interspecific differences in total plant biomass accumulation––D. carthusiana > D. expansa > D. dilatata––indicating the possible competitive inferiority of the latter at the young sporophyte stage. D. expansa was the least shade-tolerant, with biomass decreasing sharply under less than 50% illumination; D. dilatata was the most shade-tolerant, with similar growth at all illumination levels. In relative biomass allocation patterns, the most notable differences among species were in the relative shares of biomass stored in rhizomes. In D. carthusiana and D. expansa this share was nearly constant and independent of the illumination conditions. D. dilatata allocated very little biomass into rhizome in deep shade, but was able to increase this share more than twofold in 50% light. Dryopteris dilatata was clearly shown to be morphologically the most plastic of the three. In four traits––rhizome mass, frond:below-ground biomass ratio, stipe length and specific leaf area––its degree of ontogenetic plasticity to light was significantly higher than that of D. expansa and D. carthusiana. While the general performance (biomass production) of species in the experiment coincided with that observed in nature, the results of plasticity estimation were somewhat surprising––it is difficult to explain the inferior performance of a species (D. dilatata) through high morphological plasticity. Probably, the species is rare either because of certain climatic restrictions, or because it is presently expanding its distribution and is in the phase of invading Estonian understory communities.

Keywords

Dryopteris Biomass allocation Light availability Phenotypic plasticity Rarity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank E. Toomiste for taking care of the plants in the experiment, M. Lepik and L. Laanisto for statistical advice and two anonymous referees for helpful comments on the first version of the manuscript. This study was financed by the Estonian Science Foundation (grant 5535) and Tartu University (grants 1896 and 2540).

References

  1. Bakkenes M, Alkemade JRM, Ihle F, Leemans R, Latour JB (2002) Assessing effects of forecasted climate change on the diversity and distribution of European higher plants for 2050. Global Change Biol 8:390–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baskauf CJ, Eickmeier WG (1994) Comparative ecophysiology of a rare and a widespread species of Echinacea (Asteraceae). Am J Bot 81:958–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell DL, Sultan SE (1999) Dynamic phenotypic plasticity for root growth in Polygonum: a comparative study. Am J Bot 86:807–819PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bevill RL, Louda SM (1999) Comparisons of related rare and common species in the study of plant rarity. Conserv Biol 13:493–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blamey M, Fitter R, Fitter A (2003) Wild Flowers of Britain & Ireland. A & C Black Publishers Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonser SP, Aarssen LW (1994) Plastic allometry in young sugar maple (Acer saccharum): adaptive responses to light availability. Am J Bot 81:400–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brach AR, McNaughton SJ, Raynal DJ (1993) Photosynthetic adaptability of two fern species of a northern hardwood forest. Am Fern J 83:47–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradshaw AD (1965) Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Adv Genet 13:115–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown JH (1984) On the relationship between abundance and distribution of species. Am Nat 124:255–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Casper BB, Cahill JF, Hyatt LA (1998) Above-ground competition does not alter biomass allocated to roots in Abutilon theophrasti. New Phytol 140:231–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cheplick GP (2003) Evolutionary significance of genotypic variation in developmental reaction norms for a perennial grass under competitive stress. Evol Ecol 17:175–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chiou WL, Farrar DR (1997) Antheridiogen production and response in Polypodiaceae species. Am J Bot 84:633–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coleman JS, McConnaughay KDM (1995) A non-functional interpretation of a classical optimal-partitioning example. Funct Ecol 9:951–954Google Scholar
  14. Cousens MI, Lacey DG, Scheller JM (1988) Safe sites and the ecological life-history of Lorenseria aerolata. Am J Bot 75:797–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davidson R, Gagnon D, Mauffette Y, Hernandez H (1998) Early survival, growth and foliar nutrients in native Ecuadorian trees planted on degraded volcanic soil. Forest Ecol Manag 105:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davidson R, Mauffette Y, Gagnon D (2002) Light requirements of seedlings: A method for selecting tropical trees for plantation forestry. Basic Appl Ecol 3:209–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Demmig-Adams B, Adams WW (1992) Photoprotection and other responses of plants to high light stress. Ann Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 43:599–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dorn LA, Pyle EH, Schmitt J (2000) Plasticity to light cues and resources in Arabidopsis thaliana: testing for adaptive value and costs. Evolution 54:1982–1994PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Ellenberg H, Weber HE, Düll R, Wirth V, Werner W, Paulisen D (1991) Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. Scripta Geobot 18:1–248Google Scholar
  20. Fraser-Jenkins CR, Reichstein T (1984) Dryopteris. In: Conert HJ, Hamann U, Schultze-Motel W, Wagenitz G (eds) Illustrierte Flora von Mitteleuropa, Band 1. Teil 1. Pteridophyta. Verlag Paul Parey, Berlin und Hamburg, pp 137–169Google Scholar
  21. Fraser-Jenkins CR (1993) Dryopteris Adanson. In: Tutin TG, Heywood VH, Burges NA, Valentine DH, Walters SM, Webb DA (eds) Flora Europea, vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 27–30Google Scholar
  22. Garcia-Berthou E (2001) On the misuse of residuals in ecology: testing regression residuals vs. the analysis of covariance. J Anim Ecol 70:708–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gavrilets S, Scheiner SM (1993) The genetics of phenotypic plasticity. V. Evolution of reaction norm shape. J Evol Biol 6:31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gehring CA (2003) Growth responses to arbuscular mycorrhizae by rain forest seedlings vary with light intensity and tree species. Plant Ecol 167:127–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gibby M, Walker S (1977) Further cytogenetic studies and a reappraisal of the diploid ancestry in the Dryopteris carthusiana complex. Fern Gazette 11:315–324Google Scholar
  26. González AJ, Gianoli E (2004) Morphological plasticity in response to shading in three Convolvus species of different ecological breadth. Acta Oecol 26:185–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Greer GK, Lloyd RM, McCarthy BC (1997) Factors influencing the distribution of pteridophytes in a southern Ohio hardwood forest. J Torrey Bot Soc 124:11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Greer GK, McCarthy BC (1999) Gametophytic plasticity among four species of ferns with contrasting ecological distributions. Int J Plant Sci 160:879–886PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Greer GK, Curry D (2004) Pheromonal interactions among cordate gametophytes of the lady fern, Athyrium filix-femina. Am Fern J 94:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grime JP (1985) Factors limiting the contribution of pteridophytes to a local flora. Proc R Soc Edinburgh 86B:403–421Google Scholar
  31. Guo QF, Kato M, Ricklefs RE (2003) Life history, diversity and distribution: a study of Japanese pteridophytes. Ecography 26:129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hamilton RG, Lloyd RM (1991) An experimental study on the effects of earthworms on the ecological success of fern gametophytes. Am Fern J 81:95–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hawthorn WR, Cavers PB (1982) Dry weight and resource allocation patterns among individuals in populations of Plantago major and P. rugelii. Can J Bot 60:2424–2439Google Scholar
  34. Hietz P, Briones O (2001) Photosynthesis, chlorophyll fluorescence and within-canopy distribution of epiphytic ferns in a Mexican cloud forest. Plant Biology 3:279–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hill RH (1971) Comparative habitat requirements for spore germination and prothallial growth of three ferns in south eastern Michigan. Am Fern J 61:171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hill JD, Silander JA Jr ( 2001) Distribution and dynamics of two ferns: Dennstaedtia punctilobula (Dennstaedtiaceae) and Thelypteris noveboracensis (Thelypteridaceae) in a Northeast mixed hardwoods-hemlock forest. Am J Bot 88:894–902PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hultén E, Fries M (1986) Atlas of North European Vascular Plants, vol.I Koeltz Scientific Books, KönigsteinGoogle Scholar
  38. Jaagus J (1999) Uusi andmeid Eesti kliimast. (New data about the climate of Estonia). Publicationes Instituti Geographici Universitatis Tartuensis 85:28–38Google Scholar
  39. Kawai H, Kanegae T, Christensen S, Kiyosue T, Sato Y, Imaizumi T, Kadota A, Wada M (2003) Responses of ferns to red light are mediated by an unconventional photoreceptor. Nature 421:287–290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kukk T, Kull T (eds) (2005) Atlas of the Estonian Flora. Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences of the Estonian University of Life Sciences, TartuGoogle Scholar
  41. Lavergne S, Thompson JD, Garnier E, Debussche M (2004) The biology and ecology of narrow endemic and widespread plants: A comparative study of trait variation in 20 congeneric pairs. Oikos 107:505–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ledig FT, Bormann FH, Wenger KF (1970) The distribution of dry matter growth between shoot and roots in loblolly pine. Botanical Gazette 131:349–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lepik M, Liira J, Zobel K (2005) High shoot plasticity favours plant coexistence in herbaceous vegetation. Oecologia 145:465–474PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Li XP, Ong BL (1997) Tolerance of gametophytes of Acrostichum aureum (L.) to salinity and water stress. Photosynthetica 34:21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McConnaughay KDM, Coleman JS (1999) Biomass allocation in plants: ontogeny or optimality? A test along three resource gradients. Ecology 80:2581–2593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McLellan AJ, Law R, Fitter AH (1997) Response of calcareous grassland plant species to diffuse competition: results from a removal experiment. J Ecol 85:479–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nasrulhaq-Boyce A, Haji Mohamed MA (1987) Photosynthetic and respiratory characteristics of Malayan sun and shade ferns. New Phytol 105:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Odland A (1998) Size and reproduction of Thelypteris limbosperma and Athyrium distentifolium along environmental gradients in Western Norway. Nord J Bot 18:311–321Google Scholar
  49. Odland A, Birks HJB, Line JM (1990) Quantitative vegetation-environment relationships in west Norwegian tall-fern vegetation. Nord J Bot 10:511–533Google Scholar
  50. Olsen RT, Ruter JM, Rieger MW (2002) Photosynthetic responses of container-grown Illicium L. taxa to sun and shade. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 127:919–924Google Scholar
  51. Page CN (1979) The diversity of ferns. An ecological perspective. In: Dyer AF (ed) The Experimental Biology of Ferns. Academic Press, London, New York, San Francisco, pp 10–56Google Scholar
  52. Page CN (1997) The ferns of Britain and Ireland. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  53. Peck JH, Peck CJ, Farrar DR (1990) Influences of life history attributes on formation of local and distant fern populations. Am Fern J 80:126–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Petit C, Thompson JD, Bretagnolle F (1996) Phenotypic plasticity in relation to ploidy level and corm production in the perennial grass Arrhenatherum elatius. Can J Bot 74:1964–1973Google Scholar
  55. Pigliucci M, Schmitt J (1999) Genes affecting phenotypic plasticity in Arabidopsis: pleiotropic effects and reproductive fitness of photomorphogenic mutants. J Evol Biol 12:551–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pigliucci M (2001) Phenotypic plasticity: beyond nature and nurture. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and LondonGoogle Scholar
  57. Pohlman CL, Nicotra AB, Murray BR (2005) Geographic range size, seedling ecophysiology and phenotypic plasticity in Australian Acacia species. J Biogeogr 32: 341–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Proctor MCF (2003) Comparative ecophysiological measurements on the light responses, water relations and desiccation tolerance of the filmy ferns Hymenophyllum wilsonii Hook and H. tunbrigense (L.) Smith. Ann Bot 91:717–727PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Reudink MW, Snyder JP, Xu D, Cunkelman A, Balsamo RA (2005) A comparison of physiological and morphological properties of deciduous and wintergreen ferns in southeastern Pennsylvania. Am Fern J 95:45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rünk K (2002) Initial survey of the Dryopteris carthusiana complex in Estonia. Fern Gazette 16:450Google Scholar
  61. Rünk K, Moora M, Zobel M (2004) Do different competitive abilities of three fern species explain their different regional abundances? J Veg Sci 15:351–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rünk K, Moora M, Zobel M (2006) Population stage structure of three congeneric Dryopteris species in Estonia. Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences. Biology. Ecology 55:15–30Google Scholar
  63. Saldaña A, Gianoli E, Lusk CH (2005) Ecophysiological responses to light availability in three Blechnum species (Pteridophyta, Blechnaceae) of different ecological breadth. Oecologia 145:252–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sato T, Sakai A (1981) Cold tolerance of gametophytes of some cool temperature ferns native to Hokkaido. Can J Bot 59:604–608Google Scholar
  65. Schenk HJ (2006) Root competition: beyond resource depletion. J Ecol 94:725–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Scheiner SM (1993) Genetics and evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Annu Rev Ecol S 24:35–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schlichting CD, Pigliucci M (1998) Phenotypic Evolution. A Reaction Norm Perspective. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  68. Schneider H, Schuettpelz E, Pryer KM, Cranfill R, Magallón S, Lupia R (2004) Ferns diversified in the shadow of angiosperms. Nature 428:553–557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Semchenko M, Zobel K (2005) The effect of breeding on allometry and phenotypic plasticity in four varieties of oat (Avena sativa L.). Field Crops Res 93:151–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry, 3rd edn. Freeman, San FransiscoGoogle Scholar
  71. StatSoft Inc. (1998) STATISTICA for Windows (Computer program manual). StatSoft Inc., Tulsa, OKGoogle Scholar
  72. Stratton D (1998) A Reaction norm functions and QTL-environment interactions for flowering time in Arabidopsis thaliana. Heredity 81:144–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stuefer JF, Huber H (1998) Differential effects of light quantity and spectral light quality on growth, morphology and development of two stoloniferous Potentilla species. Oecologia 117:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sultan SE (1987) Evolutionary implications of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Evol Biol 21:127–178Google Scholar
  75. Sultan SE (2001) Phenotypic plasticity for fitness components in Polygonum species of contrasting ecological breadth. Ecology 82:328–343Google Scholar
  76. Suzuki CCLF, Paulilo MT, Randi ÁM (2005) Substrate and irradiance affect the early growth of the endangered tropical tree fern Dicksonia sellowiana Hook. (Dicksoniaceae). Am Fern J 95:115–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tryon AF (1964) Evolution in the leaf of living ferns. B Torrey Bot Club 21:73–85Google Scholar
  78. Tuomisto H, Poulsen AD (1996) Influence of edaphic specialization on pteridophyte distribution in neotropical rain forests. J Biogeogr 23:283–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Valladares F, Martinez-Ferri E, Balaguer L, Perez-Corona E, Manrique E (2000) Low leaf-level response to light and nutrients in Mediterranean evergreen oaks: a conservative resource-use strategy? New Phytol 148:79–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. van Tienderen PH (1997) Generalists, specialists, and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity in sympatric populations of distinct species. Evolution 51:1372–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Walck JL, Baskin JM, Baskin CC (2001) Why is Solidago shortii narrowly endemic and S. altissima geographically widespread? A comprehensive comparative study of biological traits. J Biogeogr 28:1221–1237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Walters LB, Field CB (1987) Photosynthetic light acclimation in two rainforest Piper species with different ecological amplitudes. Oecologia 72:449–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Weiner J (1988) The influence of competition on plant reproduction. In: Lovett-Doust J, Lovett-Doust L (eds) Plant Reproductive Ecology: Patterns and Strategies. Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford, pp 228–245Google Scholar
  84. Weinig C (2000) Plasticity versus canalization: population differences in the timing of shade-avoidance responses. Evolution 54:441–451PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Wild M, Gagnon D (2005) Does lack of available suitable habitat explain the patchy distributions of rare calcicole fern species? Ecography 28:191–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Winn AA (1996) The contributions of programmed developmental change and phenotypic plasticity to within-individual variation in leaf traits in Dicerandra linearifolia. J Evol Biol 9:737–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Botany and EcologyUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations