Do spatial patterns of clonal fragments and architectural responses to defoliation depend on the structural blue-print? An experimental test with two rhizomatous Cyperaceae

Abstract

International audienceClonal architecture is involved in performance of clonal fragments, as it determines spatial distribution of ramets. It is expected to rely on the species-specific expression of several architectural traits (structural blue-print). However, in contrasting environments, realized clonal architectures may differ, due to phenotypic plasticity. In this paper, we compared clonal architectures between two rhizomatous ecologically close Cyperaceae (Carex divisa and Eleocharis palustris) in non-defoliated and defoliated conditions. Two questions were addressed. (1) How much do the structural blue-print and resulting colonization and occupation of space differ between both species? (2) Does the structural blue-print constrain plastic responses of clonal architecture to defoliation? Traits related to performance, spatial pattern, architecture and biomass allocation of clonal fragments were monitored through an original non-destructive mapping method. In nondefoliated conditions, both species showed similar biomass but contrasting architectures and patterns of biomass allocation to rhizomes that resulted in different spatial patterns. The rhizome network of C. divisa, which consisted in only two primary rhizomes but several branches, was involved in resource storage rather than in spatial colonization. Conversely, E. palustris produced on average six primary rhizomes that grew in the whole horizontal plane, maximizing both occupation and colonization of space. These differences in structural constraints coupled with allometric relationships, resulted in differential responses to defoliation. In C. divisa, the costs associated to defoliation caused a decrease in branching, limiting the area occupied and number of ramets produced by clonal fragments, but increasing ramet density. Conversely, the weakly branched rhizome network of E. palustris was not affected by defoliation. Both spatial strategies (consolidation vs. colonization) are likely to provide ecological advantages allowing their coexistence in grazed meadows

Competition Is a Strong Driving Factor in Wetlands, Peaking during Drying Out Periods

“…Under flooded conditions, A . stolonifera developed longer stems along which adventitious roots grew, which favored space occupancy and high re-growth ability [ 48 , 49 ], together with good competitive effect [ 6 ]. Regarding J .…”

Morphological response to competition for light in the clonal Trifolium repens (Fabaceae)

“…We assessed horizontal plasticity of the target plants by four traits, i.e., length of the primary stolon, total length of branches, mean interramet distance of the primary stolon, and number of branches. All of these traits were assessed nondestructively using geographic information system (GIS) analysis of photographs ( Benot et al, 2010 ). The positions of the ramets along the stolons were marked with colored pins, and then the clone was photographed using a camera mounted on a standardized structure 1.30 m above the culture unit.…”

Using intra‐individual variation in shrub architecture to explain population cover

“…2) The link between whole‐plant traits and population spread cover corroborates the suggestion by de Kroon et al () that competitive properties may not be properly extrapolated from a few modules without taking whole‐plant organization into account. A better understanding of the integrative traits that allow woody species to occupy space efficiently could bring new insights into species behaviors and interactions, as has been the case for herbaceous species (Huber et al , Benot et al ). While numerous studies have described the whole‐plant architecture of well‐developed individuals, thereby providing helpful tools and results for understanding the space use by trees (Hallé et al , Oldeman , Barthélémy and Caraglio ), the integration of architectural strategies into ecology remains a promising realm.…”

“…Two main patterns could explain differential responses in plant development between whole‐plant structure and module responses (the term ‘module’ refers in this paper to a structural unit repeated over time and composed of a dominant axis and its lateral subordinates axes): first, similar modules can be organized in different ways, producing organisms with different forms, functions and ecological behaviours (Edelin , Hallé et al , White , Oldeman , Millet et al , Preston and Ackerly , Barthélémy and Caraglio , Kawamura ); second, the successive modules in a structure are only rarely equivalent to one another because of modifications during plant ontogeny, through a process called ‘ontogenic drift’ or ‘morphogenetic gradient’ (Nozeran et al , Evans , Coleman et al , Barthélémy and Caraglio ), which leads the same organism to occupy a series of different niches over the course of its life cycle (Young et al , Niinemets ). These two patterns can also interact with phenotypic plasticity: 1) phenotypic plasticity can either have an effect independent from ontogenic drift or produce confounding effects, for example, by modifying the plant growth rate or its ontogenetic program (Coleman et al , Kawamura and Takeda , Wright and McConnaughay ); 2) a strong positional effect of modules within the whole‐plant structure determines their functions and plastic response abilities (Winn , Grosfeld et al , Benot et al , Charles‐Dominique et al , ). While refining the description of these patterns is considered key to explaining species success, very few quantitative studies have focused specifically on the requirements of long‐lived species after their juvenile stage (Wright and McConnaughay , Poorter et al ).…”