Giacomo Puglielli , Enrico Tordoni , Lauri Laanisto , Jesse M. Kalwij , Michael J. Hutchings , Aelys M. Humphreys
{"title":"Abiotic stress tolerance can explain range size and filling in temperate woody plants","authors":"Giacomo Puglielli , Enrico Tordoni , Lauri Laanisto , Jesse M. Kalwij , Michael J. Hutchings , Aelys M. Humphreys","doi":"10.1016/j.ppees.2023.125734","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span><span>Efforts to understand the mechanisms explaining the relationship between abiotic stress tolerance and range size and filling have hitherto yielded contradictory results. Unlike previous studies that have focused on single stress factors, we here examine the extent to which range size and filling can be explained by tolerance of multiple abiotic stressors (cold, shade, drought and waterlogging). As range metrics, we used range size and filling (the ratio between actual and potential range) for 331 European and North American temperate </span>woody plant species. Stress tolerance strategies were expressed as a multivariate axis reflecting a cold/waterlogging-drought tolerance trade-off. We used mixed models to evaluate the relationship between range size/filling and this multivariate stress tolerance axis, using latitude as a covariate, and phylogeny and </span>plant functional type as random effects. Range size and stress tolerance were negatively correlated, mostly independently of latitude and continent. Thus, cold/wet-tolerant species had the largest range sizes and cold-sensitive/drought-tolerant species the smallest. In contrast, range filling mostly depended on latitude. Our results show that abiotic stress tolerance can explain interspecific differences in range size, and to a lesser extent range filling, which sets up predictions for range size variation in plants that go beyond latitude.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56093,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives in Plant Ecology Evolution and Systematics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives in Plant Ecology Evolution and Systematics","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1433831923000185","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Efforts to understand the mechanisms explaining the relationship between abiotic stress tolerance and range size and filling have hitherto yielded contradictory results. Unlike previous studies that have focused on single stress factors, we here examine the extent to which range size and filling can be explained by tolerance of multiple abiotic stressors (cold, shade, drought and waterlogging). As range metrics, we used range size and filling (the ratio between actual and potential range) for 331 European and North American temperate woody plant species. Stress tolerance strategies were expressed as a multivariate axis reflecting a cold/waterlogging-drought tolerance trade-off. We used mixed models to evaluate the relationship between range size/filling and this multivariate stress tolerance axis, using latitude as a covariate, and phylogeny and plant functional type as random effects. Range size and stress tolerance were negatively correlated, mostly independently of latitude and continent. Thus, cold/wet-tolerant species had the largest range sizes and cold-sensitive/drought-tolerant species the smallest. In contrast, range filling mostly depended on latitude. Our results show that abiotic stress tolerance can explain interspecific differences in range size, and to a lesser extent range filling, which sets up predictions for range size variation in plants that go beyond latitude.
期刊介绍:
Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics (PPEES) publishes outstanding and thought-provoking articles of general interest to an international readership in the fields of plant ecology, evolution and systematics. Of particular interest are longer, in-depth articles that provide a broad understanding of key topics in the field. There are six issues per year.
The following types of article will be considered:
Full length reviews
Essay reviews
Longer research articles
Meta-analyses
Foundational methodological or empirical papers from large consortia or long-term ecological research sites (LTER).