Oecologia

, Volume 105, Issue 3, pp 281–285 | Cite as

Components of variation in seedling potential relative growth rate: phylogenetically independent contrasts

Ecophysiology Original Paper

Abstract

Variation between species in seedling potential relative growth rate (RGR) is among the most important spectra of plant adaptation. Investigations are reported into the components responsible for this variation, using phylogenetically independent contrasts (PICs). The two species for each PIC were selected to diverge in seed mass at least four-fold, seed mass being a known correlate of RGR. Consistent with previous reports, the main influence on RGR differences between species was leaf area per unit leaf mass (SLA), rather than net assimilation rate per leaf area (NARa). The PIC design showed that SLA differences both underpinned old RGR divergences between orders and families, and also were repeatedly responsible for more recent RGR divergences between genera and species.

Key words

Relative growth rate Phylogenetically independent contrasts Net assimilation rate Specific leaf area 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aerts R, Pijl MJ van der (1993) A simple model to explain the dominance of low productive perennials in nutrient-poor habitats. Oikos 68:144–147Google Scholar
  2. Arendonk JJCM van, Poorter H (1994) The chemical composition and anatomical structure of leaves of grass species differing in relative growth rate. Plant Cell Environ 17:963–970Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson D (1973) Some general effects of phosphorus deficiency on growth and development. New Phytol 72:101–111Google Scholar
  4. Chapin FS III (1980) The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:233–260Google Scholar
  5. Chapin FS III (1991) Integrated responses of plants to stress. BioScience 41:29–36Google Scholar
  6. Chapin FS III, Autumn K, Pugnaire F (1993) Evolution of suites of traits in response to environmental stress. Am Nat 142 (suppl):S78-S92Google Scholar
  7. Dijkstra P (1989) Causes and effects of differences in SLA. In: Lambers H, Cambridge ML, Konings H, Pons TL (eds) Causes and consequences of variation in growth rate and productivity of higher plants. SPB Academic, The Hague, pp 125–140Google Scholar
  8. Fenner M (1978) Susceptibility to shade in seedlings of colonising and closed turf species. New Phytol 81:739–744Google Scholar
  9. Garnier E (1992) Growth analysis of congeneric annual and perennial grass species. J Ecol 80:665–675Google Scholar
  10. Garnier E, Laurent G (1994) Leaf anatomy, specific leaf mass and water content in congeneric annual and perennial grass species. New Phytol 128:725–736Google Scholar
  11. Grime JP (1974) Vegetation classification by reference to strategies. Nature 250:26–31Google Scholar
  12. Grime JP (1977) Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am Nat 111:1169–1194Google Scholar
  13. Grime JP (1979) Plant strategies and vegetation processes. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  14. Grime JP, Hunt R (1975) Relative growth rate: its range and adaptive significance in a local flora. J Ecol 63:393–422Google Scholar
  15. Grime JP, Hodgson JG, Hunt R (1988) Comparative plant ecology: a functional approach to common British species. Unwin-Hyman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Gross KL (1984) Effects of seed size and growth form on seedling establishment on six monocarpic perennial plants. J Ecol 72:369–387Google Scholar
  17. Haegi L, Purdie RW, Symon DE, Osborn B (1982) Flora of Australia vol 29, Solanaceae. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  18. Harden GJ (1990–1992) Flora of New South Wales. New South Wales University Press, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  19. Jessop J ed (1981) Flora of Central Australia. Reed, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  20. Jurado E, Westoby M (1992) Seedling growth in relation to seed size among species of arid Australia. J Ecol 80:407–416Google Scholar
  21. Keddy PA, McLellan P (1990) Centrifugal organization in forests. Oikos 59:75–84Google Scholar
  22. Kelly CK, Purvis A (1993) Seed size and establishment conditions in tropical trees. Oecologia 94:356–360Google Scholar
  23. Kitajima K (1994) Relative importance of photosynthetic traits and allocation patterns as correlates of seedling shade tolerance of 13 tropical trees. Oecologia 98:419–428Google Scholar
  24. Lambers H, Dijkstra P (1987) A physiological analysis of genotypic variation in relative growth rate: Can growth rate confer ecological advantage? In: Andel J van, Bakker JP, Snaydon RW (eds) Disturbance in grasslands, Junk, Dordrecht, pp 237–252Google Scholar
  25. Lambers H, Poorter H (1992) Inherent variation in growth rate between higher plants: A scarch for physiological causes and ecological consequences. Adv Ecol Res 23:187–261Google Scholar
  26. Lee WG, Fenner M (1989) Mineral nutrition allocation in seeds and shoots of 12 Chionochloa spp. in relation to soil fertility. J Ecol 77:704–716Google Scholar
  27. Marañon T, Grubb PJ (1993) Physiological basis and ecological significance of the seed size and relative growth rate relationship in mediterranean annuals. Funct Ecol 7:591–599Google Scholar
  28. Mooney HA, Ferrar PJ, Slatyer RO (1978) Photosynthetic capacity and allocation patterns in diverse growth forms of Eucalyptus. Oecologia 36:103–111Google Scholar
  29. Poorter H, Lambers H (1991) Is interspecific variation in relative growth rate positively correlated with biomass allocation to leaves? Am Nat 138:1264–1268Google Scholar
  30. Poorter H, Remkes C (1990) Leaf area ratio and net assimilation rate of 28 species differing in relative growth rates. Oecologia 83:553–559Google Scholar
  31. Potter JR, Jones JW (1977) Leaf area partitioning as an important factor in growth. Plant Physiol 59:10–14Google Scholar
  32. Reich PB, Walters MB, Ellsworth DS (1992) Leaf life-span in relation to leaf, plant, and stand characteristics among diverse ecosystems. Ecol Monogr 62:365–392Google Scholar
  33. Shipley B, Keddy PA (1988) The relationship between relative growth rate and sensitivity to nutrient stress in twenty-eight species of emergent macrophytes. J Ecol 76:1101–1110Google Scholar
  34. Shipley B, Peters RH (1990) The allometry of seed weight and seedling relative growth rate. Funct Ecol 4:523–529Google Scholar
  35. Swanborough P, Westoby M (in press) Seedling relative growth rate and its components in relation to seed size: phylogenetically independent contrasts. Funct EcolGoogle Scholar
  36. Tilman D (1990) Mechanisms of plant competition for nutrients: the elements of a predictive theory of competition. In: Grace JB, Tilman D (eds) Perspectives on plant competition. Academic Press, New York, pp 117–141Google Scholar
  37. Thompson K (1987) Seeds and seed banks. New Phytol 106 (suppl):23–34Google Scholar
  38. Werf A van der, Visser AJ, Schieving F, Lambers H (1993) Evidence for optimal partitioning of biomass and nitrogen at a range of nitrogen availabilities for a fast-and slow-growing species. Funct Ecol 7:63–74Google Scholar
  39. Westoby M, Jurado E, Leishman M (1992) Comparative evolutionary ecology of seed size. Trends Ecol Evol 7:368–372Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Spinger-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesMacquarie UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations