Advertisement

Ecological Research

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 327–335 | Cite as

Geographical pattern in the response of the arctic-alpine Silene suecica (Cariophyllaceae) to the interaction between water availability and photoperiod

  • Thomas Abeli
  • Simone Orsenigo
  • Filippo Guzzon
  • Matteo Faè
  • Alma Balestrazzi
  • Ulla Carlsson-Granér
  • Jonas V. Müller
  • Andrea Mondoni
Original Article

Abstract

We hypothesized a geographical pattern of the plant performance (seedling development, biomass production, relative water content and chlorophyll content) as a result of response to the interaction between photoperiod and water availability in populations of the arctic-alpine Silene suecica from different latitudes, thus experiencing different photoperiods during the growing season. Particularly, we expected a lower drought sensitivity in northern compared to southern populations as a consequence of harsher conditions experienced by the northern populations in terms of water availability. The experiment was carried out under common garden conditions, manipulating the water availability (wet and dry) and the photoperiod (21 and 16 h). We found an interaction between photoperiod and water availability on plant height, leaves, growth, biomass and total chlorophyll. However, the photoperiod neither counteracted nor intensified the effect of drought. Plants exposed to drought compensated for decreasing water availability by reducing their shoot growth. Changes in the chlorophyll content and chlorophyll a/b ratio were observed. Northern populations showed a higher basal growth performance and a greater response to the changed water regime (from wet to dry) than the southern populations. Southern populations showed a reduced ability to respond to drought, but their low basal performance may be advantageous under low water availability, avoiding water loss. In contrast, northern populations showed a stronger plastic response that limited the negative effects of reduced water availability. This study highlights the possibility that the plant response to environmental constraints (specifically water availability) may follow a geographical pattern.

Keywords

Climate change Growth rate Plasticity Peripheral populations Water availability 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank S. Bodino, P. Cauzzi and M.C. Mariani (University of Pavia) who helped with the plant measurements. We are also grateful to B. Stedje (Natural History Museum, Oslo) who collected seeds of S. suecica in Norway. This work was carried out in the framework of SHARE (Ev-K2-CNR, Bergamo) and of the Project of National Interest NextData supported by the Italian Ministry of Education University and Research (MIUR). Lamps and other electrical components were provided free of charge by the company Abeli Franco & C. s.n.c., Voghera, Italy.

Supplementary material

11284_2014_1225_MOESM1_ESM.eps (37.4 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (EPS 38328 kb) Fig. S1 - Temperature trend recorded in the experimental greenhouse during the photoperiod-drought experiment. The observed differences in temperature between light treatments were not statistically significant

References

  1. Abeli T, Rossi G, Gentili R, Mondoni A, Cristofanelli P (2012) Response of alpine plant flower production to temperature and snow cover fluctuation at the species range boundary. Plant Ecol 213:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abeli T, Gentili R, Mondoni A, Orsenigo S, Rossi G (2014) Effects of marginality: an overview for plant population performance. J Biogeogr 41:239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aranda I, Castro L, Pardos M, Gil L, Pardos J (2005) Effects of the interaction between drought and shade on water relations gas exchange and morphological traits in Cork Oak L. seedlings. Forest Ecol Manag 210:117–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barr HD, Weatherley PE (1962) A re-examination of the relative turgidity technique for estimating water deficit in leaves. Aust J Biol Sci 15:413–428Google Scholar
  5. Beierkuhnlein C, Thiel D, Jentsch A, Willner E, Kreylin J (2011) Ecotypes of European grass species respond differently to warming and extreme drought. J Ecol 99:703–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Billings WD, Mooney HA (1968) The ecology of arctic and alpine plants. Biol Rev 43:481–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Billings WD, Clebsch EEC, Mooney HA (1968) Effect of low concentrations of carbon dioxide on photosynthesis rates of two races of Oxyria. Science 133:1834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Black M, Pritchard HW (2002) Desiccation and survival in plants. Drying without dying. CABI publishing, OxonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dale MP, Causton DR (1992) Use of the chlorophyll a/b ratio as a bioassay for the light environment of a plant. Funct Ecol 6:190–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Bello F, Lavorel S, Lavergne S, Albert CH, Boulangeat I, Mazel F, Thuiller W (2013) Hierarchical effects of environmental filters on the functional structure of plant communities: a case study in the French Alps. Ecography 36:393–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Boeck HJ, Dreesen FE, Janssens IA, Nijs I (2011) Whole-system responses of experimental plant communities to climate extremes imposed in different seasons. New Phytol 189:806–817CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gottfried M et al (2012) Continent-wide response of mountain vegetation to climate change. Nat Clim Change 2:111–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hall DK, Salomonson VV, Riggs GA (2006) MODIS/Terra Snow Cover 8-Day L3 Global 500 m Grid. Version 5. (MOD10A2). National Snow and Ice Data Center, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  14. Haraldsen KB, Wesenberg J (1993) Population genetic analyses of an amphi-atlantic species—Lychnis alpina Caryophyllaceae. Nordic J Bot 13:377–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hay FR, Smith RD (2003) Seed maturity: when to collect seeds from wild plants. In: Smith RD, Dickie JB, Linington SH, Pritchard HW, Probert RJ (eds) Seed conservation: turning science into practice. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, pp 97–133Google Scholar
  16. Heide OM, Bush MG, Evans LT (1985) Interaction of photoperiod and gibberellin on growth and photosynthesis of high-latitude Poa pratensis. Physiol Plantarum 65:135–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jaleel CA, Paramasivam M, Wahid A, Farooq M, Al-Juburi HJ, Somasundaram R, Panneerselvam R (2009) Drought stress in plants: a review on morphological characteristics and pigments composition. Int J Agric Biol 11:100–105Google Scholar
  18. Mooney HA, Johnson AW (1965) Comparative physiological ecology of an arctic and alpine population of Thalictrum alpinum. Ecology 46:721–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nagy L (2013) Biological Flora of the British Isles: Silene suecica. J Ecol 101:532–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nelson RJ, Denlinger DL, Somers DE (2010) Photoperiodism the biological calendar. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Pilon J, Santamaría L (2002) Clonal variation in morphological and physiological responses to irradiance and photoperiod for the aquatic angiosperm Potamogeton pectinatus. J Ecol 90:859–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Porra RJ (2002) The chequered history of the development and use of simultaneous equations for the accurate determination of chlorophylls a and b. Photosynth Res 73:149–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Reddy AR, Chaitanya KV, Vivekanandan M (2004) Drought induced responses of photosynthesis and antioxidant metabolism in higher plants. J Plant Physiol 161:1189–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ruttanaprasert R, Jogloy S, Vorasoota N, Kesmala T, Kanwar RS, Holbrookc CC, Patanothai A (2013) Photoperiod and growing degree days effect on dry matter partitioning in Jerusalem artichoke. Int J Plant Prod 7:393–416Google Scholar
  25. Saikkonen K, Taulavuori K, Hyvonen T, Gundel PE, Hamilton CE, Vanninen I, Nissinen A, Helander M (2012) Climate change-driven species’ range shifts filtered by photoperiodism. Nat Clim Change 2:239–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sánchez-Vilas J, Bermúdez R, Retuerto R (2012) Soil water content and patterns of allocation to below- and above-ground biomass in the sexes of the subdioecious plant Honckenya peploides. Ann Bot Lond 110:839–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sexton JP, Mcintyre PJ, Angert AL, Rice KJ (2009) Evolution and ecology of species range limits. Ann Rev Ecol Evol S 40:415–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sierra-Almeida A, Casanova-Katny MA, Bravo LA, Corcuera LJ, Cavieres LA (2007) Photosynthetic responses to temperature and light of Antarctic and Andean populations of Colobanthus quitensis Caryophyllaceae. Rev Chil Hist Nat 80:335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Singh S, Agrawal M, Agrawal SB (2013) Differential sensitivity of spinach and Amaranthus to enhanced UV-B at varying soil nutrient levels: association with gas exchange, UV-B-absorbing compounds and membrane damage. Photosynt Res 115:123–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Taulavuori K, Sarala M, Taulavuori E (2010a) Growth responses of trees to Arctic light environment. Progr Bot 71:157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Taulavuori E, Taulavuori K, Niinimaa A, Laine K (2010a) Effect of ecotype and latitude on growth frost hardiness and oxidative stress of south to north transplanted Scots Pine seedlings. Int J For Res 162084Google Scholar
  32. Trnka M et al (2011) Agroclimatic conditions in Europe under climate change. Global Change Biol 17:2298–2318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Valladares F, Hernández LG, Dobarro I, García-Pérez C, Sanz R, Pugnaire FI (2003) The ratio of leaf to total photosynthetic area influences shade survival and plastic response to light of green-stemmed leguminous shrub seedlings. Ann Bot Lond 91:577–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Valladares F, Sanchez-Gomez D, Zavala MA (2006) Quantitative estimation of phenotypic plasticity: bridging the gap between the evolutionary concept and its ecological applications. J Ecol 94:1103–1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van Gestel NC, Nesbit AD, Gordon EP, Green C, Paré PW, Thompson L, Peffley EB, Tissue DT (2005) Continuous light may induce photosynthetic downregulation in onion—consequences for growth and biomass partitioning. Physiol Plantarum 125:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wu M, Zhang WH, Ma C, Zhou ZJ (2013) Changes in morphological, physiological, and biochemical responses to different levels of drought stress in chinese Cork Oak (Quercus variabilis bl.) seedlings. Russ J Plant Physiol 60:681–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Ecological Society of Japan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Abeli
    • 1
  • Simone Orsenigo
    • 1
  • Filippo Guzzon
    • 1
  • Matteo Faè
    • 2
  • Alma Balestrazzi
    • 2
  • Ulla Carlsson-Granér
    • 3
  • Jonas V. Müller
    • 4
  • Andrea Mondoni
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Earth and Environmental SciencesUniversity of PaviaPaviaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Biology and Biotechnology “L. Spallanzani”, Laboratory of Genetics and Microbiology “A. Buzzati-Traverso”University of PaviaPaviaItaly
  3. 3.Department of Ecology and Environmental ScienceUniversity of UmeaUmeaSweden
  4. 4.Seed Conservation DepartmentRoyal Botanic GardensKewUK

Personalised recommendations