4.6 Article

Phenotypic selection on leaf ecophysiological traits in Helianthus

Journal

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
Volume 183, Issue 3, Pages 868-879

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02916.x

Keywords

desert dunes; Helianthus (sunflower); leaf size; nitrogen; selection differentials; selection gradients; succulence; water-use efficiency

Categories

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [0131078, 0614739]
  2. National Institute of Health [GM59065]
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM059065] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

P>Habitats that differ in soil resource availability are expected to differ for selection on resource-related plant traits. Here, we examined spatial and temporal variation in phenotypic selection on leaf ecophysiological traits for 10 Helianthus populations, including two species of hybrid origin, Helianthus anomalus and Helianthus deserticola, and artificial hybrids of their ancestral parents. Leaf traits assessed were leaf size, succulence, nitrogen (N) concentration and water-use efficiency (WUE). Biomass and leaf traits of artificial hybrids indicate that the actively moving dune habitat of H. anomalus was more growth limiting, with lower N availability but higher relative water availability than the stabilized dune habitat of H. deserticola. Habitats differed for direct selection on leaf N and WUE, but not size or succulence, for the artificial hybrids. However, within the H. anomalus habitat, direct selection on WUE also differed among populations. Across years, direct selection on leaf traits did not differ. Leaf N was the only trait for which direct selection differed between habitats but not within the H. anomalus habitat, suggesting that nutrient limitation is an important selective force driving adaptation of H. anomalus to the active dune habitat. New Phytologist (2009) 183: 868-879doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02916.x.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available