Advertisement

Journal of Arid Land

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 58–65 | Cite as

Phenotypic plasticity of Artemisia ordosica seedlings in response to different levels of calcium carbonate in soil

  • Pingping Xue
  • Xuelai Zhao
  • Yubao GaoEmail author
  • Xingdong He
Article
First Online:
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

Plant phenotypic plasticity is a common feature that is crucial for explaining interspecific competition, dynamics and biological evolution of plant communities. In this study, we tested the effects of soil CaCO3 (calcium carbonate) on the phenotypic plasticity of a psammophyte, Artemisia ordosica, an important plant species on sandy lands in arid and semi-arid areas of China, by performing pot experiments under different CaCO3 contents with a two-factor randomized block design and two orthogonal designs. We analyzed the growth responses (including plant height, root length, shoot-leaf biomass and root biomass) of A. ordosica seedlings to different soil CaCO3 contents. The results revealed that, with a greater soil CaCO3 content, A. ordosica seedlings gradually grew more slowly, with their relative growth rates of plant height, root length, shoot-leaf biomass and root biomass all decreasing significantly. Root N/P ratios showed significant negative correlations with the relative growth rates of plant height, shoot-leaf biomass and root length of A. ordosica seedlings; however, the relative growth rate of root length increased significantly with the root P concentration increased, showing a positive correlation. These results demonstrate that soil CaCO3 reduces the local P availability in soil, which produces a non-adaptive phenotypic plasticity to A. ordosica seedlings. This study should prove useful for planning and promoting the restoration of damaged/degraded vegetation in arid and semi-arid areas of China.

Keywords

Artemisia ordosica N/P ratio phenotypic plasticity relative growth rate soil CaCO3 soil P availability arid and semi-arid areas 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2016YFC0500706).

References

  1. Abbas J A, Mohammed S A, Saleh M A. 1991. Edaphic factors and plant species distribution in a protected area in the desert of Bahrain Island. Vegetation, 95(1): 87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bao S D. 2007. Analytical Methods for Soil and Agro-Chemistry (3rd ed.). Beijing: Chinese Agriculture Science and Technology Press, 268–270, 389–391. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  3. Bossdorf O, Pigliucci M. 2009. Plasticity to wind is modular and genetically variable in Arabidopsis thaliana. Evolutionary Ecology, 23(5): 669–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradshaw A D. 1965. Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Advances in Genetics, 13: 115–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradshaw A D, Hardwick K. 1989. Evolution and stress-genotypic and phenotypic components. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 37(1–2): 137–155.Google Scholar
  6. Cai H M, Xie W B, Zhu T, et al. 2012. Transcriptome response to phosphorus starvation in rice. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 34(1): 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen M M, Yin H B, O'Connor P, et al. 2010. C: N: P stoichiometry and specific growth rate of clover colonized by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Plant and Soil, 326(1–2): 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. D'Ambrosio P, Colagè I. 2017. Extending epigenesis: from phenotypic plasticity to the bio-cultural feedback. Biology & Philosophy, 32(5): 705–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ehlers K, Bakken L R, Frostegård Å, et al. 2010. Phosphorus limitation in a Ferralsol: impact on microbial activity and cell internal P pools. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 42(4): 558–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elser J J, Fagan W F, Kerkhoff A J, et al. 2010. Biological stoichiometry of plant production: metabolism, scaling and ecological response to global change. New Phytologist, 186(3): 593–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fan Y, Li P F, Hou Z A, et al. 2012. Water adaptive traits of deep-rooted C3 halophyte (Karelinia caspica (Pall.) Less.) and shallow-rooted C4 halophyte (Atriplex tatarica L.) in an arid region, Northwest China. Journal of Arid Land, 4(4): 469–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fusco G, Minelli A. 2010. Phenotypic plasticity in development and evolution: facts and concepts. Philosophical Transactions Biological Sciences, 365: 547–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Geng Y P, Zhang W J, Li B, et al. 2004. Phenotypic plasticity and invasiveness of alien plants. Biodiversity Science, 12(4): 447–455. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  14. Ghalambor C K, McKay J K, Carroll S P, et al. 2007. Adaptive versus non-adaptive phenotypic plasticity and the potential for contemporary adaptation in new environments. Functional Ecology, 21(3): 394–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. He X D, You W X, Yu D. 2016. Ecological Restoration Theory and Vegetation Reconstruction Technique in Yanchi County of the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region. Tianjin: Nankai University Press, 32–58. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  16. Jain S K, Bradshaw A D. 1966. Evolutionary divergence among adjacent plant populations. Heredity, 21(3): 407–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kerley S J. 2000. Changes in root morphology of white lupin (Lupinus albus L.) and its adaptation to soils with heterogeneous alkaline/acid profiles. Plant and Soil, 218(1–2): 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lauri P É, Barigah T S, Lopez G, et al. 2016. Erratum to: Genetic variability and phenotypic plasticity of apple morphological responses to soil water restriction in relation with leaf functions and stem xylem conductivity. Trees, 30(5): 1909–1910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee J A, Woolhouse H W. 1971. The relationship of compartmentation of organic acid metabolism to bicarbonateion sensitivity of root growth in calcicoles and calcifuges. New Phytologist, 70: 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li J M, Du L S, Guan W B, et al. 2016. Latitudinal and longitudinal clines of phenotypic plasticity in the invasive herb Solidago canadensis in China. Oecologia, 182(3): 755–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li L, Tang C, Renge Z, et al. 2004. Calcium, magnesium and microelement uptake as affected by phosphorus sources and interspecific root interactions between wheat and chickpea. Plant and Soil, 261(1–2): 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ma B, Zhou Z Y, Zhang C P, et al. 2009. Inorganic phosphorus fractions in the rhizosphere of xerophytic shrubs in the Alxa Desert. Journal of Arid Environments, 73(1): 55–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martinez-Oro D, Parraga-Aguado I, Querejeta J I, et al. 2017. Importance of intra-and interspecific plant interactions for the phytomanagement of semiarid mine tailings using the tree species Pinus halepensis. Chemosphere, 186: 405–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Matzek V, Vitousek P M. 2009. N: P stoichiometry and protein: RNA ratios in vascular plants: an evaluation of the growth-rate hypothesis. Ecology Letters, 12(8): 765–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pedersen J, Fransson A M, Olsson P A. 2011. Performance of Anisantha (Bromus) tectorum and Rumex acetosella in sandy calcareous soil. Flora, 206(3): 276–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Persson J, Wojewodzic M W, Hessen D O, et al. 2011. Increased risk of phosphorus limitation at higher temperatures for Daphnia magna. Oecologia, 165: 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pigliucci M, Diiorio P, Schlichting C. 1997. Phenotypic plasticity of growth trajectories in two species of Lobelia in response to nutrient availability. Journal of Ecology, 85(3): 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pigliucci M. 2002. Touchy and bushy: phenotypic plasticity and integration in response to wind stimulation in Arabidopsis thaliana. International Journal of Plant Sciences, 163(3): 399–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pigliucci M, Kolodynska A. 2002. Phenotypic plasticity to light intensity in Arabidopsis thaliana: invariance of reaction norms and phenotypic integration. Evolutionary Ecology, 16(1): 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pigliucci M. 2005. Evolution of phenotypic plasticity: where are we going now? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(9): 481–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reinbott T M, Blevins D G. 1999. Phosphorus nutritional effects on root hydraulic conductance, xylem water flow and flux of magnesium and calcium in squash plants. Plant and Soil, 209(2): 263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rivas-Ubacha A, Sardansa J, Pérez-Trujillob M, et al. 2012. Strong relationship between elemental stoichiometry and metabolome in plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of American, 109(11): 4181–4186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schinas S, Rowell D L. 1977. Lime-induced chlorosis. European Journal of Soil Science, 28(2): 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schlichting C D. 1986. The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 17: 667–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stearns S C. 1989. The evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity. Bioscience, 39(7): 436–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Storz J F, Scott G R, Cheviron Z A. 2010. Phenotypic plasticity and genetic adaptation to high-altitude hypoxia in vertebrates. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 213: 4125–4136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sultan S E. 2001a. Phenotypic plasticity for fitness components in Polygonum species of contrasting ecological breadth. Ecology, 82(2): 328–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sultan S E. 2001b. Phenotypic plasticity for plant development, function and life history. Trends in Plant Science, 5(12): 537–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Via S, Gomulkiewicz R, De Jong G, et al. 1995. Adaptive phenotypic plasticity: consensus and controversy. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 10(5): 212–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wang X, Song N P, Yang X G, et al. 2018. Grazing exclusion-induced shifts, the relative importance of environmental filtering, biotic interactions and dispersal limitation in shaping desert steppe communities, northern China. Journal of Arid Land, 10(3): 402–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wojewodzic M W, Kyle M, Elser J J, et al. 2011. Joint effect of phosphorus limitation and temperature on alkaline phosphatase activity and somatic growth in Daphnia magna. Oecologia, 165(4): 837–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhao X L, He X D, Xue P P, et al. 2012. Effects of soil stoichiometry of the CaCO3/available phosphorus ratio on plant density in Artemisia ordosica communities. Chinese Science Bulletin, 57(5): 492–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zheng M, Lai L, Jiang L, et al. 2012. Moderate water supply and partial sand burial increase relative growth rate of two Artemisia species in an inland sandy land. Journal of Arid Environments. 85: 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pingping Xue
    • 1
  • Xuelai Zhao
    • 1
  • Yubao Gao
    • 1
    Email author
  • Xingdong He
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Life SciencesNankai UniversityTianjinChina

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options