Ecological Archives E096-233-A2

Connor R. Fitzpatrick, Anurag A. Agrawal, Nathan Basiliko, Amy P. Hastings, Marney E. Isaac, Michael Preston, and Marc T. J. Johnson. 2015. The importance of plant genotype and contemporary evolution for terrestrial ecosystem processes. Ecology 96:26322642. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/14-2333.1

Appendix B. Study site information including plot measures of evolutionary change in Oenothera biennis populations, soil characteristics, and plant species composition, and a photograph of the ecosystem assays.

Table B1. Plot characteristics from the field experiment. We show the treatment (herbivores present vs absent), O. biennis abundance (i.e., no. individuals), genotypic composition (GC 1 and GC 2), evolutionary rate measured as Euclidean distance, and soil properties in each plot. We assessed genotypic composition by collecting tissue from 190 individual plants per plot and genotyping each sample using four microsatellite markers that provided a diagnostic identification of each of the 18 original genotypes. We then used correspondence analysis (CA) to quantify the genotypic composition (GC) of each plot based on the relative frequency of individual genotypes. Scores along the CA axes (GC1 and GC2) represent the direction of evolutionary change occurring across populations of O. biennis. Euclidean distance quantified the rate of evolutionary change within populations and it was quantified as magnitude of change in genotype between the beginning of the experiment (2007) and 2011. The insecticide treatment did not significantly alter any of the soil properties that we measured.

 

 

 

Treatment

Plot

Abundance

GC 1

GC 2

Euclidean Distance

Soil Moisture (%)

pH

Carbon (%)

Nitrogen (%)

C:N

Net N Mineralization Rate (μg N/g soil/day)

Herbivores present

2

246

0.197

0.358

0.393

29.24

6.8

4.06

0.4

10.27

0.063

3

82

0.569

0.262

0.445

26.74

6.6

4.21

0.43

9.85

-0.192

5

482

0.395

0.362

0.352

26.64

6.7

3.95

0.38

10.46

0.077

7

508

0.242

0.33

0.301

27.49

6.6

4.36

0.42

10.47

0.158

8

524

0.275

0.316

0.332

25.75

6.5

3.37

0.35

9.75

0.102

10

226

0.281

0.401

0.552

26.48

6.6

3.37

0.33

10.14

-0.001

11

270

0.316

0.458

0.574

28.23

6.6

3.02

0.3

10.05

-0.027

14

131

0.391

0.459

0.565

26.18

7

3.14

0.33

9.51

0.078

27.09

6.7

3.68

0.37

10.06

0.032

Herbivores suppressed

1

83

0.854

0.176

0.286

28.68

6.8

4.28

0.42

10.12

-0.053

4

85

0.356

0.393

0.355

28.73

6.7

3.93

0.4

9.76

-0.035

6

144

0.589

0.557

0.308

26.82

6.8

3.47

0.35

10.06

0.039

9

215

0.452

0.498

0.447

27.47

6.7

3.91

0.38

10.18

-0.002

12

819

0.376

0.453

0.554

25.66

6.7

3.11

0.32

9.83

-0.002

13

124

0.589

0.586

0.422

30.75

6.7

3.48

0.36

9.8

-0.127

15

818

0.505

0.793

0.538

29.42

6.7

3.37

0.35

9.76

0.176

16

41

0.495

0.519

0.561

29.02

6.7

3.23

0.34

9.62

-0.017

28.32

6.7

3.60

0.36

9.89

-0.002

 

Table B2. Plant species abundance data across each of our 16 plots. Abundance was recorded as the number of plants and/or proportion cover.

Solidago rugosa

Solidago altissima

Asclepias syriaca

Erigeron sp.

Silene sp.

Solanum carolinense

Plot

Treatment

Total N

N

%

N

%

N

N

%

N

N

1

I

11

0

0.1

0

0

14

13

0

2

15

2

C

13

0

0

0

0.01

14

334

0.44

2

0

3

C

11

0

0

1

0

0

42

0

0

2

4

I

12

0

0

0

0.33

0

12

0

4

17

5

C

12

3

0.01

2

0.01

0

167

0.28

0

10

6

I

10

0

0

0

0.125

2

6

0

9

35

7

C

10

0

0

0

0.67

0

9

0

3

1

8

C

12

0

0.01

0

0.037

0

5

0

0

5

9

I

11

0

0

0

0.01

0

9

0

0

16

10

C

13

0

0

0

0.17

0

26

0

2

7

11

C

16

0

0.02

0

0.074

4

15

0

0

6

12

I

11

0

0

0

0.11

5

12

0

0

21

13

I

13

0

0.01

0

0.056

16

0

0

0

25

14

C

19

0

0.01

0

0

22

5

0

1

15

15

I

20

0

0.125

0

0

22

1

0

1

19

16

I

18

0

0.01

0

0.074

26

0

0

0

34

Rhus sp.

Galium sp.

Ambrosia sp.

Arctium minus

Bellis sp.

Vicia sp.

Lathyrus sp.

Prunus serotia

Plot

Treatment

N

%

N

N

%

N

%

N

N

%

1

I

3

0.1

0.17

4

0

1

0

1

0

0

2

C

0

0

0.01

2

0.05

0

0

0

0

0

3

C

0

0

0

1

0.01

0

0.56

0

2

0

4

I

0

0

0.11

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

C

0

0

0

4

0.01

0

0

0

0

0

6

I

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

7

C

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

8

C

0

0

0.037

0

0.037

0

0

0

0

0

9

I

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

10

C

0

0

0.037

2

0.01

0

0

0

0

0

11

C

0

0

0.056

3

0.037

0

0

0

0

0

12

I

0

0.1

0

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

13

I

0

0

0

4

0.22

0

0

0

0

0

14

C

0

0

0.02

6

0

1

0

0

0

0

15

I

0

0

0

5

0

1

0

0

1

0.056

16

I

0

0

0

2

0.01

0

0

0

0

0.02

Table B2 cont'd.

Phytolacca sp.

Morus sp.

Rosa sp.

Berberis sp.

Cirsium arvense

Fragaria  sp.

Clematis-like plant

Daucus sp.

Plot

Treatment

N

%

N

%

%

N

%

N

%

N

N

1

I

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.05

0

0

2

C

0

0

1

0.11

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

3

C

0

0

1

0.0625

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

4

I

0

0

2

0.03

0.08

2

0.01

1

0

0

0

5

C

0

0

0

0

0.01

1

0

5

0

0

0

6

I

0

0

0

0

0

1

0.02

0

0

0

0

7

C

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.03

0

0

8

C

0

0

0

0

0.01

0

0

0

0

0.074

0

9

I

1

0.02

0

0

0

3

0.01

2

0

0

0

10

C

0

0

0

0.125

0.028

0

0

3

0

0

0

11

C

0

0

0

0

0.037

0

0

5

0

0

0

12

I

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

0

1

13

I

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0.33

0

0

14

C

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

0.01

0

0

15

I

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

4

0

0

1

16

I

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0.33

0

29

 

 

Chenopodium sp.

Arctium minus

woody vine

Mint sp.

Phalaris sp.

Vitis sp.

Linaria vulgaris

Plantago sp.

Plot

Treatment

N

N

%

N

N

N

%

N

%

%

%

1

I

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

C

0

0

0

1

3

7

0.0625

0

0

0

0

3

C

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0.01

0

0

4

I

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0.01

0.01

0

5

C

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.01

6

I

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.028

0

0

7

C

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.01

0.01

0

8

C

0

9

0.333

0

0

2.5

0.01

0

0

0

0

9

I

0

2

0.056

0

1

0

0

1

0.01

0

0

10

C

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

11

C

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.01

0

0

12

I

0

0

0

0

0

3

0.02

0

0.01

0

0

13

I

0

6

0.11

0

0

5

0

0

0.01

0

0.01

14

C

0

0

0

0

6

1

0

0

0

0

0

15

I

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0.02

16

I

0

1

0

0

5

0

0

1

0.01

0

0.02

Table B2 cont'd.

Poa sp.

Rhamnus sp.

Oxalis sp.

Symphyotrichum sp.

Hesperis sp.

Solanum dulcamara

Symphyotrichum novae-angliae

Plot

Treatment

%

%

%

N

%

N

%

N

N

%

1

I

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

C

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

C

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

I

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

C

0.17

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

I

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

7

C

0

0

0.028

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

8

C

0.01

0

0

0

0.074

0

0

0

0

0

9

I

0.01

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

10

C

0.01

0

0.037

0

0.028

0

0

0

0

0

11

C

0.01

0

0.037

0

0.02

1

0.01

0

0

0

12

I

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

13

I

0

0

0.02

0

0

0

0

0

4

0.02

14

C

0

0

0.037

0

0.01

0

0

0

1

0

15

I

0.028

0

0.01

2

0.015

0

0

0

5

0

16

I

0

0

0.01

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Clematis sp.

Rumex crispus

Viburnum dentatum

Artemisia sp.

Ranunculus sp.

Lonicera sp.

Setaria sp.

Rubus sp.

Plot

Treatment

N

N

N

N

N

N

%

N

%

1

I

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

C

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

C

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

I

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

C

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

I

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

7

C

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

8

C

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

9

I

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

10

C

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

11

C

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

12

I

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

13

I

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

14

C

2

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

15

I

0

0

0

0

1

2

0

1

0

16

I

0

0

0

0

1

1

0.028

3

0.01


 

FigB1

Fig. B1. Photographs showing methods used to estimate ecosystem processes and feedbacks onto plant fitness. (A) Field leaf decay - a standard amount of leaf litter from each O. biennis genotype was placed in a bag in each plot and collected at three intervals. (B) Lab leaf decay - a standard amount of leaf litter from each genotype was placed on soil taken from each plot and weighed after 60 days. (C) Substrate induced respiration - rates of CO2 respiration were measured from soil taken from each plot and placed in vials under the addition of genotype-specific litter leachate. (D) Seedling performance - seeds from each genotype planted in soil taken from each plot; biomass of seedlings was measured 7 days post-germination. Photo credit: C. Fitzpatrick.


[Back to E096-233]