Advertisement

Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 437–448 | Cite as

Origin matters for level of resource sharing in the clonal herb Aegopodium podagraria

  • Johanna Nilsson
  • Tina D’Hertefeldt
Original Paper

Abstract

Resource sharing in heterogeneous environments has been shown to increase growth and survival of clonal plants. In addition, plants in harsh climates have been suggested to have higher levels of resource sharing than plants in milder climates. We experimentally investigated the level of resource sharing in plants from garden and forest habitats from two regions with contrasting climates. The clonal herb Aegopodium podagraria reaches its northern distribution limit in central Sweden. South of that it grows in both patchy and dynamic light climate, as a natural component of deciduous forest, as well as in more homogeneous light climates as a garden weed. Since heterogeneity and habitat harshness have both been suggested to increase resource sharing, we hypothesized (1) integration and sharing of resources to be higher in plants from forest than in plants from garden habitats and (2) integration and sharing of resources to be higher in plants from the northern region that encounter a harsher climate than in plants from the southern region. Clonal fragments of A. podagraria were collected and multiplied in the greenhouse. Ramet pairs were then planted in adjacent pots, with one ramet shaded. Rhizome connection was either left intact or severed to prevent resources sharing. Plants from forest habitats were more negatively affected by the severance treatment than plants from garden habitats. Although region alone had no significant effect on biomass, the interaction between rhizome severing, shading and regional origin was close to significance. We conclude that A. podagraria from forests are more dependent on resource sharing than those from gardens. These results concur with previous studies that suggest that local adaptation for different degrees of resource sharing can occur in clonal plants.

Keywords

Resource sharing Aegopodium podagraria Physiological integration Local adaptation Clonal plant 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Nils Cronberg for valuable comments on the manuscript and Lars Pettersson for both statistical advice and comments on the manuscript. We also want to thank two anonymous reviewers for insightful and valuable comments and suggestions. Ursula Falkengren-Grerup and Martin Diekmann generously provided information about natural populations of A. podagraria. Financial support has been provided from Svante Murbecks fund.

References

  1. Alexandersson H, Karlström C, Larsson-McCann S (1991) Temperature and precipitation in Sweden. 1961–1990 reference normals. SMHI Meteorologi 81:88Google Scholar
  2. Alpert P (1991) Nitrogen sharing among ramets increases clonal growth in Fragaria chiloensis. Ecology 72:69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alpert P (1999) Clonal integration in Fragaria chiloensis differs between populations: ramets from grassland are selfish. Oecologia 120:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alpert P, Holzapfel C, Slominski C (2003) Differences in performance between genotypes of Fragaria chiloensis with different degrees of resource sharing. J Ecol 91:27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alpert P, Mooney HA (1986) Resource sharing among ramets in the clonal herb Fragaria chiloensis. Oecologia 70:227–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caraco T, Kelly CK (1991) On the adaptive value of physiological integration in clonal plants. Ecology 72:81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen J-S, Lei N-F, Yu D, Dong M (2006) Differential effects of clonal integration on performance in the stoloniferous herb Duchesnea indica, as growing at two sites with different altitude. Plant Ecol 183:147–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. D'Hertefeldt T, Jónsdóttir IS (1994) Effects of resource availability on integration and clonal growth in Maianthemum bifolium. Folia Geobot Phytotax 29:167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. D'Hertefeldt T, van der Putten WH (1998) Physiological integration of the clonal plant Carex arenaria and its response to soil-borne pathogens. Oikos 81:229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Kroon H, Whigham DF, Watson MA (1991) Developmental ecology of Mayapple: Effects of rhizome severing fertilization and timing of shoot senescence. Funct Ecol 3:360–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gatsuk LK, Smirnova OV, Vorontzova LI, Zaugolnova LB, Zhukova LA (1980) Age states of plants of various growth froms: a review. J Ecol 68:675–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harper JL (1985) Modules branches and the capture of resources. In: Jackson JBC, Buss LW, Cook RE (eds) Population biology and evolution of clonal organismsGoogle Scholar
  13. Hutchings MJ (1999) Clonal plants as cooperative systems: Benefits in heterogeneous environments. Plant Species Biol 14(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hutchings MJ, Wijesinghe DK (1997) Patchy habitats, division of labour and growth dividends in clonal plants. Tree (Amsterdam) 12:390–394Google Scholar
  15. Jónsdóttir IS, Callaghan TV (1989) Localized defoliation stress and the movement of carbon-14 photoassimilates between tillers of Carex bigelowii . Oikos 54:211–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jónsdóttir IS, Watson M (1997) Extensive physiological integration: An adaptive trait in resource-poor envirinments? In: de Kroon H, van Groenendael J (eds) The ecology and evolution of clonal plants. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp 109–136Google Scholar
  17. Kelly CK (1995) Thoughts on clonal integration: facing the evolutionary context. Evolutionary Ecology 9:575–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klimes L, Klimesová J, Hendriks R, van Groenendael J (1997) Clonal Plant architechture: A comparative analysis of form and function. In: de Kroon H, van Groenendael J (eds) The ecology and evolution of clonal plants. Backhuys publishers, Lieden, pp 1–29Google Scholar
  19. Lenssen JPM, van Kleunen M, Fischer M, de Kroon H (2004) Local adaptation of the clonal plant Ranunculus reptans to flooding along a small-scale gradient. J Ecol 92:696–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lötscher M, Hay MJM (1997) Genotypic differences in physiological integration, morphological plasticity and utilization of phosphorus induced by variation in phosphate supply in Trifolium repens. J Ecol 85:341–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marshall C (1996) Sectoriality and physiological organisation in herbaceous plants: an overview. Vegetatio 127:9–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oborny B, Kun Á, Cźarán T, Bokros S (2000) The effect of clonal integration on plant competition for mosaic habitat space. Ecology 81:3291–3304Google Scholar
  23. Ong CK, Marshall C (1979) The growth and survival of severely shaded tillers of Lolium perenne. Ann Bot 43:147–156Google Scholar
  24. Packham JR, Harding DJL, Hilton GM, Stuttard RA (1992) Functional ecology of woodlands and forests. Chapman & Hall, Cambridge, pp 33–65Google Scholar
  25. Pitelka LF, Ashmun JW (1985) Physiology and Integration of Ramets in Clonal Plants. In: Jackson JBC, Buss LW, Cook RE (eds) Population biology and Evolution of Clonal Organisms. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 399–435Google Scholar
  26. Roiloa SR, Alpert P,Tharayil N, Hancock G, Bhowmik PC (2007) Greater capacity for division of labour in clones of Fragaria chiloensis from patchier habitats. J Ecol 93:397–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Salzman AG, Parker MA (1985) Neighbors ameliorate local salinity stress for a rhizomatous plant in a heterogeneous environment. Oecologia 65:273–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Slade AJ, Hutchings MJ (1987) The effects of nutrient availability on foraging in the clonal herb Glechoma hederacea. J Ecol 75:95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. SPSS 14.0 for Windows (2005) SPSS inc., Chicago, IL, USAGoogle Scholar
  30. Stuefer JF (1998) Two types of division of labour in clonal plants: benefits, costs and constraints. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 1(1):47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stuefer JF, de Kroon H, During HJ (1996) Exploitation of environmental heterogeneity by spatial division of labour in a clonal plant. Funct Ecol 10:328–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stuefer JF, During HJ, de Kroon H (1994) High benefits of clonal integration in two stoloniferous species in response to heterogeneous light environments. J Ecol 82:511–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stuefer JF, Hutchings MJ (1994) Environmental heterogeneity and clonal growth: a study of the capacity for reciprocal translocation in Glechoma hederacea L. Oecologia 100:302–308Google Scholar
  34. van Kleunen M, Fischer M (2001) Adaptive evolution of plastic foraging responses in a clonal plant. Ecology 82:3309–3319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van Kleunen M, Fisher M, Schmid B (2000) Clonal integration in Ranunculus reptans : by-product or adaptation? J Evol Biol 13:237–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wijesinghe DK, Handel SN (1994) Advantages of clonal growth in heterogeneous habitats: An experiment with Potentilla simplex. J Ecol 82:495–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wittig R (2004) The origin and development of the urban flora of Central Europe. Urban Ecosyst 7:323–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yu F, Chen Y, Dong M (2002) Clonal integration enhances survival and performance of Potentilla anserina, suffering from partial sand burial on Ordos plateau, China. Evol Ecol 15:303–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology, Plant Ecology and SystematicsLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations