4.5 Article

Gender-specific variation in physiology in the dioecious shrub Corema album throughout its distributional range

期刊

FUNCTIONAL PLANT BIOLOGY
卷 39, 期 12, 页码 968-978

出版社

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/FP12131

关键词

aridity gradient; distributional range; drought; gender dimorphism; photosynthesis; water relations

资金

  1. Ministry of Education and Science [FPU AP20021733]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Different requirements for reproduction between sexes in dioecious plants can lead to gender-specific physiological responses to environmental constraints. Females generally endure higher reproductive investment and costs than males, displaying lower water and nutrient use efficiency and growth. We studied the ecophysiology of the dioecious shrub Corema album L. (D.) Don. to assess how drought impacts physiological responses and gender dimorphism along an aridity gradient within the species' range. Leaf gas exchange, photochemical efficiency (F-v/F-m), water potential (Psi), vegetative growth (VG) and leaf C isotopic discrimination and nitrogen content were measured in three populations under markedly different climatic conditions. Physiological responses and growth indicated higher level of stress in the drier environments, leading to increased WUE (Delta) and lower VG. Physiological stress increases among plants were related to incremental changes in the degree of gender dimorphism, with significant effects on Psi and F-v/F-m (P < 0.05); males showed higher VG (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis of instantaneous and integrated measurements revealed gender-related effects across the climatic gradient (P < 0.01). Reproduction investment has an effect on the physiological performance and growth of C. album. Gender responses are site-specific, being influenced by climate. The increase in physiological stress with aridity could lead to the potential retreat and variation in structure in these populations if genders are affected differently by the predicted climate change.

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

4.5
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