, Volume 684, Issue 1, pp 261–269 | Cite as

To share or not to share: clonal integration in a submerged macrophyte in response to light stress

  • Susanne R. Wolfer
  • Dietmar StraileEmail author
Primary Research Paper


The ability of clonal plant species to share resources has been studied in many experiments. The submerged macrophyte Potamogeton perfoliatus produces interconnected ramets within short time intervals and hence may or may not share resources with ramets growing in less favourable microhabitats. From a genet point of view, sharing with ramets growing under less favourable conditions might not be an optimal strategy when photosynthates could be used to establish other ramets growing under more favourable conditions. To analyse the plasticity in clonal integration of P. perfoliatus, we set up a factorial aquaria experiment with unshaded or shaded recipient ramets (offspring), which were connected to or separated from donor ramets (parents). Increased biomass production of offspring in parent–offspring systems compared with severed offspring in both light and shade showed that ramets share resources through clonal integration. The relative translocation to the first- and second-offspring generation was influenced by habitat quality: If first-offspring ramets grew in a shaded microhabitat, second-offspring ramets clearly profited. This may be at least partially because of the fact that resources are shifted from first-offspring to second-offspring ramets, indicating controlled senescence of the first-offspring. This complex sharing behaviour might be relevant when plants produce ramets within a dense patch of macrophytes, where support of a shaded ramet might not pay off.


Clonal architecture Habitat heterogeneity Biomass allocation Potamogeton Plant senescence 



We thank the Special Collaborative Project (SFB) 454 “Bodenseelitoral” at the University of Konstanz and RIZA/Lelystad for financial support and J. F. Stuefer. H. Coops, and M. Scheffer for valuable comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Comments by two anonymous reviewers and the editor improved the manuscript considerably.


  1. Alcoverro, T., J. Romero, C. M. Duarte & N. I. Lopez, 1997. Spatial and temporal variations in nutrient limitation of seagrass Posidonia oceanica growth in the NW Mediterranean. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 146: 155–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alpert, P., 1999. Clonal integration in Fragaria chiloensis differs between populations: ramets from grassland are shelfish. Oecologia 120: 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alpert, P. & J. F. Stuefer, 1997. Division of labour in clonal plants. In van Groenendael, J. & H. deKroon (eds), The Ecology and Evolution of Clonal Plants. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden: 137–154.Google Scholar
  4. Amsberry, L., M. A. Baker, P. J. Ewanchuk & M. D. Bertness, 2000. Clonal integration and the expansion of Phragmites australis. Ecological Applications 10: 1110–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Kroon, H. & M. J. Hutchings, 1995. Morphological plasticity in clonal plants: the foraging concept reconsidered. Journal of Ecology 83: 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Kroon, H., H. Huber, J. F. Stuefer & J. M. van Groenendael, 2005. A modular concept of phenotypic plasticity in plants. New Phytologist 166: 73–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gardner, S. N. & M. Mangel, 1999. Modeling investments in seeds, clonal offspring, and translocation in a clonal plant. Ecology 80: 1202–1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hartnett, D. C. & F. A. Bazzaz, 1983. Physiological integration among intraclonal ramets in Solidago canadensis. Ecology 64: 779–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hellström, K., M. M. Kytoviita, J. Tuomi & P. Rautio, 2006. Plasticity of clonal integration in the perennial herb Linaria vulgaris after damage. Functional Ecology 20: 413–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hester, M. W., K. L. McKee, D. M. Burdick, M. S. Koch, K. M. Flynn, S. Patterson & I. A. Mendelssohn, 1994. Clonal integration in Spartina patens across a nitrogen and salinity gradient. Canadian Journal of Botany 72: 767–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Honkanen, T. & E. Haukioja, 1994. Why does a branch suffer more after branch-wide than after tree-wide defoliation. Oikos 71: 441–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hothorn, T., F. Bretz & P. Westfall, 2008. Simultaneous inference in General Parametric Models. Biometrical Journal 50: 346–363.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hutchings, M. J. & D. K. Wijesinghe, 1997. Patchy habitat, division of labour and growth dividends in clonal plants. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 12: 390–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jonsdottir, I. S. & T. V. Callaghan, 1990. Intraclonal translocation of ammonium and nitrate nitrogen in Carex bigelowii Torr Ex Schwein using N-15 and nitrate reductase assays. New Phytologist 114: 419–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Le Bagousse-Pinguet, Y., E. M. Gross and D. Straile, 2012a. Release from competition and protection determine the outcome of plant interactions along a grazing gradient. Oikos 121: 95–101.Google Scholar
  16. Le Bagousse-Pinguet, Y., P. Liancourt, N. Gross and D. Straile, 2012b. Indirect facilitation promotes macrophyte dominance in freshwater ecosystems threatened by eutrophication. Journal of Ecology. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01931.x.
  17. Li, W. G. & J. B. Wang, 2011. Influence of light and nitrate assimilation on the growth strategy in clonal weed Eichhornia crassipes. Aquatic Ecology 45: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marbà, N., M. A. Hemminga, M. A. Mateo, C. M. Duarte, Y. E. M. Mass, J. Terrados & E. Gacia, 2002. Carbon and nitrogen translocation between seagrass ramets. Marine Ecology Progress Series 226: 287–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marshall, C. & E. A. C. Price, 1997. Sectoriality and its implications for physiological integration. In deKroon, H. & J. van Groenendael (eds), The Ecology and Evolution of Clonal Plants. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden: 79–107.Google Scholar
  20. Marshall, C. & G. R. Sagar, 1965. Influence of defoliation on distribution of assimilates in Lolium multiflorum Lam. Annals of Botany 29: 365–370.Google Scholar
  21. Methy, M., P. Alpert & J. Roy, 1990. Effects of light quality and quantity on growth of the clonal plant Eichhornia crassipes. Oecologia 84: 265–271.Google Scholar
  22. Miler, O. & D. Straile, 2010. How to cope with a superior enemy? Plant defence strategies in response to annual herbivore outbreaks. Journal of Ecology 98: 900–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Müller, I., B. Schmid & J. Weiner, 2000. The effect of nutrient availability on biomass allocation patterns in 27 species of herbaceaous plants. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 3: 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Novoplansky, A., D. Cohen & T. Sachs, 1989. Ecological implications of correlative inhibition between plant shoots. Physiologia Plantarum 77: 136–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ong, C. K. & C. Marshall, 1979. Growth and survival of severely-shaded tillers in Lolium perenne L. Annals of Botany 43: 147–155.Google Scholar
  26. Pinheiro, J., D. Bates, S. DebRoy, D. Sarkar and the R Development Core Team, 2011. nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-100.Google Scholar
  27. Pitelka, L. & J. Ashmun, 1985. Physiology and integration of ramets in clonal plants. In Jackson, J. B. C., L. W. Buss & R. E. Cook (eds), Population Biology and Evolution of Clonal Organisms. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut: 399–436.Google Scholar
  28. Sachs, T. & A. Novoplansky, 1997. What does aclonal organization suggest concerning clonal plants? In van Groenendael, J. & H. deKroon (eds), The Ecology and Evolution of Clonal Plants. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden: 55–78.Google Scholar
  29. Schmid, B., G. M. Puttick, K. H. Burgess & F. A. Bazzaz, 1988. Clonal integration and effects of simulated herbivory in old-field perennials. Oecologia 75: 465–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stapel, J. & M. A. Hemminga, 1997. Nutrient resorption from seagrass leaves. Marine Biology 128: 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stuefer, J. F., H. de Kroon & H. J. During, 1996. Exploitation of environmental heterogeneity by spatial divison of labour in a clonal plant. Functional Ecology 10: 328–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sutherland, W. J. & R. A. Stillman, 1988. The foraging tactics of plants. Oikos 52: 239–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Terrados, J., C. M. Duarte & W. J. Kenworthy, 1997. Is the apical growth of Cymodocea nodosa dependent on clonal integration? Marine Ecology Progress Series 158: 103–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tomasko, D. A. & C. J. Dawes, 1989. Evidence for physiological integration between shaded and unshaded short shoots of Thalassia testudinum. Marine Ecology Progress Series 54: 299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van Kleunen, M., M. Fischer & B. Schmid, 2000. Clonal integration in Ranunculus reptans: by-product or adaptation? Journal of Evolutionary Biology 13: 237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wijesinghe, D. K. & S. N. Handel, 1994. Advantages of clonal growth in heterogenous habitats: an experiment with Potentilla simplex. Journal of Ecology 82: 495–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wolfer, S. R. & D. Straile, 2004a. Density control of clonal growth of Potamogeton perfoliatus. Limnologica 34: 98–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wolfer, S. R. & D. Straile, 2004b. Spatio-temporal dynamics and plasticity of clonal architecture in Potamogeton perfoliatus. Aquatic Botany 78: 307–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wolfer, S. R., E. H. van Nes & D. Straile, 2006. Modelling the clonal growth of the rhizomatous macrophyte Potamogeton perfoliatus. Ecological Modelling 192: 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Xiao, K. Y., D. Yu, X. W. Xu & W. Xiong, 2007. Benefits of clonal integration between interconnected ramets of Vallisneria spiralis in heterogeneous light environments. Aquatic Botany 86: 76–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Limnological InstituteUniversity of KonstanzKonstanzGermany

Personalised recommendations