Plant genotype, nutrients, and G × E interactions structure floral visitor communities

Abstract

Abstract. Intraspecific variation in plants is driven by both genetic and environmental factors and has been shown to play an important role in determining assemblages of herbivores, predators, and pathogens. Yet, the consequences of genetic (G) and environmental (E) factors, as well as potential (G 3 E) interactions, for floral visitor communities remains poorly explored. In a common garden experiment, we compared the relative effects of host-plant genotype and genotypic diversity as well as soil nutrient enrichment on floral resource abundance and insect floral visitors associated with tall goldenrod, Solidago altissima. We found that the floral visitor community varied considerably among genotypes, driven predominantly by variation in floral phenology among S. altissima clones. Floral visitors also varied among nutrient treatments, though this response was much weaker than to different plant genotypes, and was likely driven by effects of floral rewards rather than of floral phenology. Importantly, we also detected several G 3 E interactions for both flowering and floral visitors. Taken together, our results suggest that the effects of host-plant genetic variation, and to a lesser extent G 3 E interactions, are key agents in structuring the diversity and composition of floral visitors.

Trait plasticity is more important than genetic variation in determining species richness of associated communities

“…Despite the increasing number of genotype‐by‐environment studies in the past decade (Abdala‐Roberts et al, ; Busby, Newcombe, Dirzo, & Whitham, ; Johnson, ; Johnson & Agrawal, ; Mooney & Agrawal, ; Tack, Ovaskainen, Pulkkinen, & Roslin, ; Wagner et al, ), most studies neglect to measure functional traits, precluding an understanding of the relative importance of trait plasticity vs. genetic variation in structuring communities. The few studies that can give insight to the relative importance of trait plasticity vs. genetic variation have been limited to manipulations of soil nutrients within common gardens and focused on the response of plant growth traits and above‐ground arthropod communities (Abdala‐Roberts & Mooney, ; Barrios‐Garcia et al, ; Burkle et al, ; Orians & Fritz, ). This prior work suggests that the community‐level effects of trait plasticity range from being weakly independent (Abdala‐Roberts & Mooney, ; Barrios‐Garcia et al, ; Burkle et al, ) to strongly modified by plant genotype (Orians & Fritz, ).…”

“…The few studies that can give insight to the relative importance of trait plasticity vs. genetic variation have been limited to manipulations of soil nutrients within common gardens and focused on the response of plant growth traits and above‐ground arthropod communities (Abdala‐Roberts & Mooney, ; Barrios‐Garcia et al, ; Burkle et al, ; Orians & Fritz, ). This prior work suggests that the community‐level effects of trait plasticity range from being weakly independent (Abdala‐Roberts & Mooney, ; Barrios‐Garcia et al, ; Burkle et al, ) to strongly modified by plant genotype (Orians & Fritz, ). In contrast, we found strong and independent effects of trait plasticity on above‐ and below‐ground species richness in multiple environmental contexts.…”

“…Few studies though have tested whether a plant’s genetic background modifies linkages between environmental variation, traits, and community structure. The rare examples of this have been limited to manipulations of soil nutrients and responses of above‐ground growth traits and arthropod communities (Abdala‐Roberts & Mooney, ; Barrios‐Garcia, Rodriguez‐Cabal, Rudgers, & Crutsinger, ; Burkle, Souza, Genung, & Crutsinger, ; Orians & Fritz, ; Rossi & Stiling, ). In general though, the relative importance of trait plasticity vs. genetic variation in structuring the diverse communities associated with plants remains unclear.…”

Time‐invariant differences between plant individuals in interactions with arthropods correlate with intraspecific variation in plant phenology, morphology and floral scent

“…Johnson & Agrawal, ; Hersch‐Green et al ., ; Barbour et al ., ). Similar effects in flower–visitor interactions have been shown for plant genotype (Burkle et al ., ), but to what extent the intraspecific variation in a set of multiple floral traits affects the variability of flower–visitor interaction patterns between plant individuals is still poorly understood.…”

Plant genotypic variation and intraspecific diversity trump soil nutrient availability to shape old‐field structure and function

“…; Genung, Bailey & Schweitzer ; Burkle et al . ) and ecosystem structure (Crutsinger et al . ), the degree to which genotypic variation and genotypic diversity scale up to influence larger ecosystem fluxes of carbon (CO 2 ) and water (H 2 O) is less clear (but, see Breza et al .…”