Effects of two centuries of global environmental variation on phenology and physiology of Arabidopsis thaliana

Abstract

Intraspecific trait variation is caused by genetic and plastic responses to environment. This intraspecific diversity is captured in immense natural history collections, giving us a window into trait variation across continents and through centuries of environmental shifts. Here we tested if hypotheses based on life history and the leaf economics spectrum explain intraspecific trait changes across global spatiotemporal environmental gradients. We measured phenotypes on a 216‐year time series of Arabidopsis thaliana accessions from across its native range and applied spatially varying coefficient models to quantify region‐specific trends in trait coordination and trait responses to climate gradients. All traits exhibited significant change across space or through time. For example, δ15N decreased over time across much of the range and leaf C:N increased, consistent with predictions based on anthropogenic changes in land use and atmosphere. Plants were collected later in the growing season in more recent years in many regions, possibly because populations shifted toward more spring germination and summer flowering as opposed to fall germination and spring flowering. When climate variables were considered, collection dates were earlier in warmer years, while summer rainfall had opposing associations with collection date depending on regions. There was only a modest correlation among traits, indicating a lack of a single life history/physiology axis. Nevertheless, leaf C:N was low for summer‐ versus spring‐collected plants, consistent with a life history–physiology axis from slow‐growing winter annuals to fast‐growing spring/summer annuals. Regional heterogeneity in phenotype trends indicates complex responses to spatiotemporal environmental gradients potentially due to geographic genetic variation and climate interactions with other aspects of environment. Our study demonstrates how natural history collections can be used to broadly characterize trait responses to environment, revealing heterogeneity in response to anthropogenic change.

Are There Differences in the Reaction of the Light-Tolerant Subgenus Pinus spp. Biomass to Climate Change as Compared to Light-Intolerant Genus Picea spp.?

“…The patterns of biomass amount change under assumed changed climatic conditions ( Figure 2 , Figure 3 , Figure 4 , Figure 5 , Figure 6 and Figure 7 ) seem to be hypothetical. They reflect the long-term adaptive responses of forest ecosystems to regional climate, and ignore the rapid trends of current climate changes, which place serious constraints on forests adaptations to new climatic conditions [ 51 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 ]. The law of limiting factors [ 69 , 70 ] works well in stationary conditions.…”

“…The main pool of our harvest data on forest biomass in Eurasia was obtained from the 1970s to the 1990s, and the climate maps used cover the period of the late 1990s to the early 2000s. Some discrepancy between the two time periods may cause possible biases in the results obtained, but for such a small time difference in the initial data, the inclusion of compensatory mechanisms or phenological shifts in forest communities is unlikely [ 67 , 78 ]. There is an uncertainty in assessing the impact of phenology on the biological productivity of stands, established for the cherry oak in the south of Russia: while the assessment of the biomass of oak stands did not reveal differences between the phenologic varieties of oak, the assessment of net primary production shows a 1.6-fold advantage of the late-blooming variety over the early-blooming one [ 79 ].…”

Changes in foliage’s biomass of two-needled pine subgenus (Pinus spp.) and genus Betula spp. along the gradients of winter temperature and precipitation: inter-genera paradox in the forests of Eurasia

“…2-4) are hypothetical. They re ect long-term adaptive responses of forest stands to regional climatic conditions and do not take into account rapid trends of current environmental changes, which place serious constraints on the ability of forests to adapt to new climatic conditions (Givnish, 2002, Berner et al, 2013, Schaphoff et al, 2016, Spathelf et al, 2018, Vasseur et al, 2018, DeLeo et al, 2020, Denney and Anderson, 2020. The law of limiting factors (Liebig 1840, Shelford 1913 works well in stationary conditions.…”

“…The main pool of our harvest data on forest biomass in Eurasia were obtained since 1970s to 1990s, and the climate maps used cover the period of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Some discrepancy between the two time periods may cause possible biases in the results obtained, but for such a small time difference in the initial data, the inclusion of compensatory mechanisms or phenological shifts in forest communities is unlikely (Anderegg et al, 2019, DeLeo et al, 2020. There is an uncertainty in assessing the impact of phenology on the biological productivity of stands, established for the cherry oak in the South of Russia: if the assessment of the biomass of oak stands did not reveal differences between the phenological varieties of oak, then the assessment of net primary production shows a 1.6-fold advantage of late-blooming variety over the early-blooming variety (Zhou Wen Nan, 1992).…”

Natural history collections document biological responses to climate change

“…However, natural history museums and herbaria remain a relatively untapped resource which allows us to track past phenological patterns. In this issue of Global Change Biology , DeLeo et al () leverage long‐term herbarium records spanning over 200 years to identify historical changes in phenology and physiology across the native range of Arabidopsis thaliana (Brassicaceae). DeLeo et al () document striking shifts in phenology in this model species.…”