Advertisement

Brittonia

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 133–151 | Cite as

Ecotypic response to ultramafic soils by some plant species of northwestern United States

  • Arthur R. Kruckeberg
Article

Abstract

Soils high in magnesium derived from ultramafic rocks (serpentine, peridotite, and dunite) in northwestern United States support endemic as well as wide-ranging but edaphically indifferent(bodenvag) species. The latter occur widely on diverse rock formations of the region. Severalbodenvag species are shown to respond ecotypically to ultramafic soils. Of 18 species tested, all but three are differentiated into strains either tolerant or intolerant of ultramafic soils. Tests for edaphic preferences were conducted with seedlings and mature transplants on ultramafic soils. Growth performances were determined in greenhouse pot tests, outdoor soil bins, and by transplants in the wild. Herbaceous perennials (e.g.,Achillea millefolium, Fragaria virginiana, Prunella vulgaris, Rumex acetosella) gave the clearest ecotypic differences. Woody species either showed only slight ecotypic response(Spiraea douglasii var.menziesii andGaultheria shallon) or delayed the expression of their genotypic adaptability(Pinus contorta). Where ultramafic abut non-ultramafic soils, those populations ofbodenvag species that grow in non-ultramafic habitats can have a significant proportion of individuals tolerant to ferromagnesian soils (e.g.,Achillea millefolium). This suggests gene flow between populations of contrasting edaphic sites and possibly preadaptedness for the ultramafic habitat. Strains of two introduced weeds(Prunella vulgaris andRumex acetosella) have become ecotypically tolerant to ultramafic soils, probably within the last 75 years.

Keywords

Ultramafic Rock Serpentine Soil Pinus Contorta Ultramafic Soil Achillea Millefolium 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Baker, H. G. 1965. Characteristics and modes of origin of weeds. Pp. 147–172.In: Baker, H. G. & G. L. Stebbins, Jr. (Editors). The Genetics of Colonizing Species. New York & London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bradshaw, A. D. 1954. Local population differences inAgrostis tenuis. Atti del IX Congresso Internat. di Genetica. Caryologia Vol. Suppl.1954: 1026.Google Scholar
  3. Bradshaw, A. D.. 1962. The taxonomic problems of local geographical variation in plant species. Systematics Assoc. Publ. No. 4: 7–16.Google Scholar
  4. Clausen, J., D. D. Keck, &W. M. Hiesey 1940. Experimental studies on the nature of species. I. Effect of varied environments on western North American plants. Carnegie Inst. Washington Publ. 520: 1–452.Google Scholar
  5. —. 1948. Experimental studies on the nature of species. III. Environmental responses of climatic races ofAchillea. Carnegie Inst. Washington Publ. 581: 1–129.Google Scholar
  6. DeVries, L. 1939. German-English Science Dictionary. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. x + 473 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Griffin, J. R. 1965. Digger Pine seedling response to serpentinite and non-serpentinite soil. Ecology46: 801–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Krause, W. 1958. Andere Bodenspezialisten.In: Ruhland, W. (Editor). Handbuch der Pflanzenphysiologie4: 755–806.Google Scholar
  9. Kruckeberg, A. R. 1950. An experimental inquiry into the nature of endemism on serpentine soils. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. California (Berkeley).Google Scholar
  10. —. 1951. Intraspecific variability in the response of certain native plant species to serpentine soil. Amer. Jour. Bot.38: 408–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. —. 1954. The ecology of serpentine soils. III. Plant species in relation to serpentine soils. Ecology35: 267–274.Google Scholar
  12. —. 1964. Ferns associated with ultramafic rocks in the Pacific Northwest. Amer. Fern Jour.54: 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McMillan, C. 1956. The edaphic restriction ofCupressus andPinus in the Coast Ranges of Central California. Ecol. Monogr.26: 177–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mason, H. L. 1946. The edaphic factor in narrow endemism. II. The geographic occurrence of plants of highly restricted patterns of distribution. Madroño8: 241–257.Google Scholar
  15. Nelson, A. P. 1965. Taxonomic and evolutionary implications of lawn races inPrunella vulgaris (Labiatae). Brittonia17: 160–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rune, O. 1953. Plant life on serpentines and related rocks in the north of Sweden. Acta Phytogeogr. Suecica31: 1–139.Google Scholar
  17. Snaydon, R. W. 1962. The growth and competitive ability of contrasting natural populations ofTrifolium repens L. on calcareous and acid soils. Jour. Ecology50:439–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Snedecor, G. W. 1946. Statistical Methods. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College Press. 485 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Stebbins, G. L., Jr. 1950. Variation and Evolution in Plants. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, xx + 643 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Unger, F. 1836. über den Einfluss des Bodens auf die Vertheilung der GewÄchse, nachgewiesen in der Vegetation des nordöstlichen Tirols. Wien: Rohrmann & Schweigerd. xxiv + 367 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Vlamis, J. &H. Jenny 1948. Calcium deficiency in serpentine soils as revealed by adsorbent technique. Science107: 549.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Walker, R. B. 1954. The ecology of serpentine soils. II. Factors affecting plant growth on serpentine soils. Ecology35: 259–266.Google Scholar
  23. Whittaker, R. H. 1954. The ecology of serpentine soils. IV. The vegetational response to serpentine soils. Ecology35: 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. —. 1960. Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecol. Monogr.30: 279–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 1967

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arthur R. Kruckeberg
    • 1
  1. 1.University of WashingtonSeattle

Personalised recommendations