Constraints on the evolution of phenotypic plasticity in the clonal plant Hydrocotyle vulgaris

Abstract

The evolution of phenotypic plasticity of plant traits may be constrained by costs and limits. However, the precise constraints are still unclear for many traits under different ecological contexts. In a glasshouse experiment, we grew ramets of 12 genotypes of a clonal plant Hydrocotyle vulgaris under the control (full light and no flood), shade and flood conditions and tested the potential costs and limits of plasticity in 13 morphological and physiological traits in response to light availability and flood variation. In particular, we used multiple regression and correlation analyses to evaluate potential plasticity costs, developmental instability costs and developmental range limits of each trait. We detected significant costs of plasticity in specific petiole length and specific leaf area in response to shade under the full light condition and developmental range limits in specific internode length and intercellular CO concentration in response to light availability variation. However, we did not observe significant costs or limits of plasticity in any of the 13 traits in response to flood variation. Our results suggest that the evolution of phenotypic plasticity in plant traits can be constrained by costs and limits, but such constraints may be infrequent and differ under different environmental contexts.

Global trends in phenotypic plasticity of plants

“…Costs may arise when plastic phenotypes are not able to produce the extreme trait values required under stressful conditions, in contrast to fixed phenotypes (e.g. Wang et al, 2018; but see van Kleunen et al, 2000), or due to maintenance and production costs becoming more apparent under stressful conditions (Dorn et al, 2000; Steinger et al, 2003). Moreover, increased phenotypic integration (the degree of trait‐trait correlations) is often observed under stressful conditions (García‐Verdugo et al, 2009; Gianoli, 2004; Kawano & Hara, 1995; Waitt & Levin, 1993) and may result in lower phenotypic plasticity (Gianoli, 2003; Gianoli & Palacio‐López, 2009; Godoy et al, 2012; Schlichting, 1989).…”

“…The lower levels of phenotypic plasticity in colder conditions, on the other hand, may be due to plasticity costs. Many studies reveal negligible or low costs of phenotypic plasticity (Auld et al, 2010; van Kleunen & Fischer, 2005; Wang et al, 2018), but these results may be due to methodological issues (Auld et al, 2010). The available evidence on costs of phenotypic plasticity suggests that they are more frequently detected and higher under stressful conditions (Auld et al, 2010; Van Buskirk & Steiner, 2009).…”

“…This should be evidenced—graphically and statistically—as changes in the slope of the relationship between phenotypic plasticity and environmental conditions, indicating clear declines in the magnitude of phenotypic plasticity in areas with low precipitation and/or extreme temperatures. The costs of phenotypic plasticity tend to increase under stressful conditions (van Kleunen et al, 2000; Steinger et al, 2003; Van Buskirk & Steiner, 2009; Auld et al, 2010; but see Wang et al, 2018) thus resulting in lower phenotypic plasticity. If costs outweigh benefits, it should lead to selection against phenotypic plasticity (e.g.…”

Morphological Characterisation and Documentation of Freshwater Macrophytes in Pontian, Johor's Water

“…Hydrocotyle vulgaris, C. haspan, E. dulcis and L. rotundifolia were the emergent macrophytes collected this in study. Hydrocotyle vulgaris can be identified as it can be found in aquatic habitat (not all Hydrocotyle species were aquatic), and its veinous structure on the adaxial surface of the frond made H. vulgaris distinct from other species within same genus (Wang et al, 2018). Cyperus haspan was identified by referring to the dichotomous key proposed by Tucker (1983) as C. haspan lack of leaf blades, sharp-pointed sheaths at the base of the culms and coarse granular surfaces.…”

Current and future plant invasions in protected areas: Does clonality matter?

“…Asexual plants change just as often and just as fast as do sexual plants when introduced to a new range (Dalrymple et al, 2015). Furthermore, clonal plasticity facilitates the adaptation of IAPS to rapid changing environments (Nicotra et al, 2010;Wang et al, 2018). Clonal plasticity could enhance the exploitation of resource heterogeneity by clonal IAPS, which have a significant contribution to maintenance or improvement of fitness under climate change (Nicotra et al, 2010;Santamaría, 2002;Wang et al, 2021).…”