Cargando…

Trait–performance relationships of grassland plant species differ between common garden and field conditions

The way functional traits affect growth of plant species may be highly context‐specific. We asked which combinations of trait values are advantageous under field conditions in managed grasslands as compared to conditions without competition and land‐use. In a two‐year field experiment, we recorded t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Breitschwerdt, Eva, Jandt, Ute, Bruelheide, Helge
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6392492/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30847065
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4818
_version_ 1783398485144371200
author Breitschwerdt, Eva
Jandt, Ute
Bruelheide, Helge
author_facet Breitschwerdt, Eva
Jandt, Ute
Bruelheide, Helge
author_sort Breitschwerdt, Eva
collection PubMed
description The way functional traits affect growth of plant species may be highly context‐specific. We asked which combinations of trait values are advantageous under field conditions in managed grasslands as compared to conditions without competition and land‐use. In a two‐year field experiment, we recorded the performance of 93 species transplanted into German grassland communities differing in land‐use intensity and into a common garden, where species grew unaffected by land‐use under favorable conditions regarding soil, water, and space. The plants’ performance was characterized by two independent dimensions (relative growth rates (RGR) of height and leaf length vs. aboveground biomass and survival) that were differently related to the eight focal key traits in our study (leaf dry matter content (LDMC), specific leaf area (SLA), height, leaf anatomy, leaf persistence, leaf distribution, vegetative reproduction, and physical defense). We applied multivariate procrustes analyses to test for the correspondence of the optimal trait–performance relationships between field and common garden conditions. RGRs were species‐specific and species ranks of RGRs in the field, and the common garden were significantly correlated. Different traits explained the performance in the field and the common garden; for example, leaf anatomy traits explained species performance only in the field, whereas plant height was found to be only important in the common garden. The ability to reproduce vegetatively, having leaves that are summer‐persistent and with high leaf dry matter content (LDMC) were traits of major importance under both settings, albeit the magnitude of their influence differed slightly between the field and the common garden experiment. All optimal models included interactions between traits, pointing out the necessity to analyze traits in combination. The differences between field and common garden clearly demonstrate context dependency of trait‐based growth models, which results in limited transferability of favorable trait combinations between different environmental settings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6392492
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63924922019-03-07 Trait–performance relationships of grassland plant species differ between common garden and field conditions Breitschwerdt, Eva Jandt, Ute Bruelheide, Helge Ecol Evol Original Research The way functional traits affect growth of plant species may be highly context‐specific. We asked which combinations of trait values are advantageous under field conditions in managed grasslands as compared to conditions without competition and land‐use. In a two‐year field experiment, we recorded the performance of 93 species transplanted into German grassland communities differing in land‐use intensity and into a common garden, where species grew unaffected by land‐use under favorable conditions regarding soil, water, and space. The plants’ performance was characterized by two independent dimensions (relative growth rates (RGR) of height and leaf length vs. aboveground biomass and survival) that were differently related to the eight focal key traits in our study (leaf dry matter content (LDMC), specific leaf area (SLA), height, leaf anatomy, leaf persistence, leaf distribution, vegetative reproduction, and physical defense). We applied multivariate procrustes analyses to test for the correspondence of the optimal trait–performance relationships between field and common garden conditions. RGRs were species‐specific and species ranks of RGRs in the field, and the common garden were significantly correlated. Different traits explained the performance in the field and the common garden; for example, leaf anatomy traits explained species performance only in the field, whereas plant height was found to be only important in the common garden. The ability to reproduce vegetatively, having leaves that are summer‐persistent and with high leaf dry matter content (LDMC) were traits of major importance under both settings, albeit the magnitude of their influence differed slightly between the field and the common garden experiment. All optimal models included interactions between traits, pointing out the necessity to analyze traits in combination. The differences between field and common garden clearly demonstrate context dependency of trait‐based growth models, which results in limited transferability of favorable trait combinations between different environmental settings. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-01-28 /pmc/articles/PMC6392492/ /pubmed/30847065 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4818 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Breitschwerdt, Eva
Jandt, Ute
Bruelheide, Helge
Trait–performance relationships of grassland plant species differ between common garden and field conditions
title Trait–performance relationships of grassland plant species differ between common garden and field conditions
title_full Trait–performance relationships of grassland plant species differ between common garden and field conditions
title_fullStr Trait–performance relationships of grassland plant species differ between common garden and field conditions
title_full_unstemmed Trait–performance relationships of grassland plant species differ between common garden and field conditions
title_short Trait–performance relationships of grassland plant species differ between common garden and field conditions
title_sort trait–performance relationships of grassland plant species differ between common garden and field conditions
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6392492/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30847065
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4818
work_keys_str_mv AT breitschwerdteva traitperformancerelationshipsofgrasslandplantspeciesdifferbetweencommongardenandfieldconditions
AT jandtute traitperformancerelationshipsofgrasslandplantspeciesdifferbetweencommongardenandfieldconditions
AT bruelheidehelge traitperformancerelationshipsofgrasslandplantspeciesdifferbetweencommongardenandfieldconditions