4.3 Article

Morphological plasticity in response to shading in three Convolvulus species of different ecological breadth

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.actao.2004.05.001

关键词

species distribution; plastic responses; morphology; reaction norms light; convolvulaceae

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We evaluated in corm-non-garden experiments the morphological plasticity to shading of three Convolvulus species that occur in Chile and differ in ecological breadth. Convolvulus arvensis L. is a world weed distributed along the country, and is found in open as well as in shaded habitats. Convolvidus chilensis Pets. is a Chilean endemic species typical of coastal habitats, and is found in open to partially open sites. C. demissus choisy occurs only on slopes of the Andes of Chile and Argentina, habitats with high incidence of solar radiation. We hypothesized that the magnitude of phenotypic plasticity to shading of these species would correlate with their ecological breadth. Shading had a significant effect on internode length, petiole length, stem diameter, stem length, number of branches, leaf area, leaf shape, leaf biomass, and specific leaf area. Species differed in all the morphological traits except leaf biomass. A significant Shading x Species interaction in the two-way ANOVA, i.e. differential plasticity to shading of Convolvidus species, was found for petiole length, stem length, number of branches, leaf shape, and specific leaf area. Contrary to our hypothesis, tests of parallelism showed that, in general, the plasticity to shading of C. chilensis (the species of intermediate ecological breadth) was the greatest, and that of C. arvensis (the weed) and C. demissus (the species of narrow distribution) was similar. Issues of ecotype differentiation, in the case of C. arvensis, and the role of life history traits are raised to explain the observed lack of association between ecological breadth and magnitude of phenotypic plasticity. (C) 2004 Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据