Kin recognition is density‐dependent and uncommon among temperate grassland plants

Abstract

Summary Some plant species may frequently encounter neighbourhoods composed of genetically closely related individuals. Such species should benefit from an ability to recognize kin and to display cooperative behaviour towards closely related neighbours. While kin recognition has been demonstrated in plants, previous studies have only examined single species in single environmental settings, making it impossible to draw conclusions about the prevalence of this behaviour in plants and its consequences in different competitive environments. We investigated the ability of eight co‐occurring plant species to distinguish between sibling and nonsibling neighbours and to avoid competition with close relatives at different neighbour densities. Apparent sibling recognition and cooperative behaviour towards siblings were only observed in Trifolium repens: with increasing neighbour density, plants grown among siblings significantly increased investment to seed production at the expense of allocation to competitive organs, while plants grown among unrelated individuals did not display such a response. One more species (Lychnis flos‐cuculi) exhibited differences in specific leaf area in sibling and nonsibling groups, but other traits remained unchanged. The effect of genetic relatedness on plant traits always depended on neighbour density. Our results suggest that kin recognition may not be a common phenomenon in temperate grasslands and that it is more likely to occur in species experiencing frequent sibling interactions because of localized seed dispersal and/or clonal propagation.

Kin recognition is a nutrient-dependent inducible phenomenon

“…In particular, the ability of plants to distinguish between members of the same or different accessions, the phenomenon of kin recognition (KR), has been well characterized. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Plants are generally thought to be incapable of processing complex visual or auditory cues, such as plumage or song, suggesting these sensory input channels are unavailable for KR. However cryptochrome-mediated KR has been observed in model organisms such as A. thaliana.…”

Genotypic recognition and spatial responses by rice roots

“…There is evidence that the outcome of belowground interactions between plants, of the kind illustrated in the previous set of examples, can be mediated by identity recognition, including species-specific responses (23)(24)(25)(26), kin/stranger responses (27)(28)(29)(30), and self/nonself responses (2, 3). Mahall and Callaway (23) found that root systems of the desert shrub Ambrosia dumosa appear to be capable of detecting and avoiding other Ambrosia root systems.…”

Does a plant detect its neighbor if it is kin or stranger? Evidence from a common garden experiment

“…Plant kin recognition and its contribution to plant coexi�te��e �atte��� a�e �till ���e��t��� i������ie�tl�, alt����� several works demonstrate their ecological relevance (File et al 2012, Lepik et al 2012, Karban et al 2013, Ehlers et al 2016. Nevertheless, further evidence is required to under-).…”

“…Given this, biomass alloca-). Given this, biomass allocation (Dudley and File 2007, Murphy and Dudley 200�, Bhatt et al 2011, Marler 2013, Semchenko et al 2014, Murphy et al 2017, reproductive traits (Milla et al 200�, Lepik et al 2012), spatial disposition of leaves (Crepy and Casal 2015), physiological mechanisms (Biedrzycki et al 2010, Biedrzycki andBais 2011a), molecular patterns (Biedrzycki a�� Bai� 2011b�, a� �ell a� i�t�a a�� i�te����e�i� � i�te�a�� �, a� �ell a� i�t�a a�� i�te����e�i�� i�te�a�-tions (Ehlers et al 2016) have been assessed with contrasting results (Lepik et al 2012, Semchenko et al 2017). However, with exception of work carried out by Karban et al (2013) regarding the role of volatile emission in plant kin recognition, most of these studies were achieved in pot with labopot with labowith laboratory or greenhouse settings, where conditions are far from t�at e�����te�e� ���e� �el� ����iti��� (Callaway and Mahall 2007).…”