Phenotypic plasticity of four Chenopodiaceae species with contrasting saline-sodic tolerance in response to increased salinity-sodicity.

Yingxin Huang, Gaohua Fan, Daowei Zhou, Jiayin Pang
Author Information
  1. Yingxin Huang: Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology Chinese Academy of Sciences Changchun China. ORCID
  2. Gaohua Fan: Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology Chinese Academy of Sciences Changchun China.
  3. Daowei Zhou: Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology Chinese Academy of Sciences Changchun China.
  4. Jiayin Pang: School of Agriculture and Environment The University of Western Australia Perth Western Australia Australia.

Abstract

It is unknown whether phenotypic plasticity in fitness-related traits is associated with salinity-sodicity tolerance. This study compared growth and allocation phenotypic plasticity in two species with low salinity-sodicity tolerance ( and ) and two species with high salinity-sodicity tolerance ( and ) in a pot experiment in the Songnen grassland, China. While the species with low tolerance had higher growth and allocation plasticity than the highly tolerant species, the highly tolerant species only adjusted their growth traits and maintained higher fitness (e.g., plant height and total biomass) in response to increased soil salinity-sodicity, with low biomass allocation plasticity. Most plasticity is "apparent" plasticity (ontogenetic change), and only a few traits, for example, plant height:stem diameter ratio and root:shoot biomass ratio, represent "real" plasticity (real change in response to the environment). Our results show that phenotypic plasticity was negatively correlated with saline-sodic tolerance and could be used as an index of species sensitivity to soil salinity-sodicity.

Keywords

References

  1. Funct Plant Biol. 2011 Apr;38(3):187-198 [PMID: 32480875]
  2. Ecol Evol. 2019 Feb 10;9(4):1545-1553 [PMID: 30847054]
  3. Plant Biol (Stuttg). 2017 Mar;19(2):172-182 [PMID: 27981788]
  4. Ecol Lett. 2014 Nov;17(11):1351-64 [PMID: 25205436]
  5. Trends Ecol Evol. 2005 Sep;20(9):481-6 [PMID: 16701424]
  6. Tree Physiol. 2005 Aug;25(8):1041-52 [PMID: 15929935]
  7. New Phytol. 2009;182(3):565-588 [PMID: 19434804]
  8. Plant Biol (Stuttg). 2015 Nov;17(6):1187-95 [PMID: 26177120]
  9. Plant Cell Environ. 2003 Jun;26(6):941-956 [PMID: 12803621]
  10. Trends Plant Sci. 2010 Dec;15(12):684-92 [PMID: 20970368]
  11. Tree Physiol. 2002 Nov;22(15-16):1045-64 [PMID: 12414366]
  12. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e50304 [PMID: 23185600]
  13. Tree Physiol. 2004 Jul;24(7):775-84 [PMID: 15123449]
  14. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2006 May;81(2):259-91 [PMID: 16573844]
  15. Ann Bot. 2012 Sep;110(4):849-57 [PMID: 22782237]
  16. New Phytol. 2005 May;166(2):485-96 [PMID: 15819912]
  17. Ecology. 2017 May;98(5):1388-1398 [PMID: 28263365]
  18. Trends Plant Sci. 2000 Dec;5(12):537-42 [PMID: 11120476]
  19. Funct Plant Biol. 2012 Sep;39(8):699-707 [PMID: 32480821]
  20. Oecologia. 1994 Aug;98(3-4):419-428 [PMID: 28313920]
  21. New Phytol. 2005 Apr;166(1):49-60 [PMID: 15760350]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0plasticitytolerancespeciessalinity-sodicityphenotypictraitsgrowthallocationbiomasslowresponsesoiltwohigherhighlytolerantplantincreasedchangeratiosaline-sodicunknownwhetherfitness-relatedassociatedstudycomparedhighpotexperimentSongnengrasslandChinaadjustedmaintainedfitnessegheighttotal"apparent"ontogeneticexampleheight:stemdiameterroot:shootrepresent"real"realenvironmentresultsshownegativelycorrelatedusedindexsensitivityPhenotypicfourChenopodiaceaecontrastingsaline–sodic

Similar Articles

Cited By