should we use wild-collected ecotypes or cultivars for prairie restoration? an experimental test
TRANSCRIPT
Should We Use Wild-Collected Ecotypes or Cultivars for Prairie
Restoration? An Experimental Test
David GibsonDepartment of Plant Biology, Center for Ecology
SIUC
© Photos: DJ Gibson unless indicated otherwise
@DavidJohnGibson
Slideshare: http://bit.ly/1MyBXUa
Outline• North American Tallgrass
Prairie• Restoration Issues• Three Experiments To Test
Seed Source Effects• Take Home Messages
Photo: Laurel Wilson
Should We Use Wild-Collected Ecotypes or Cultivars for Prairie Restoration?
Spoiler: Either, but be careful.Slideshare: http://bit.ly/1MyBXUa
(Packard and Mutel 1997)
There Used to be a Lot of Tallgrass Prairie
Prairie Fire and Buffalo Stampede by William Jacob Hays
The Gathering of the herds by William Jacob Hays [American Painter, 1830-1875]
It May Have Looked
Something Like This
https://americangallery19th.wordpress.com/2010/12/18/william-jacob-hays-1830-1875/
Most Of It Is Now Gone
North America 34,900,000 ha to <63,000 ha*
Illinois 8,900,000 ha to <1000 ha**
(* Whitney 1994, ** Robertson and Schwartz 1994)
Reasons For Loss• Habitat destruction• Fragmentation• Lack of Natural Disturbances
(e.g. fire and large free roaming herbivores)
(Team Of Oxen Plowing The Prairie. Harvey Dunn 1884-1952)
https://americangallery.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/harvey-dunn-1884-1952/
http://loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3a10799/
Solutions?• Tallgrass Prairie Restoration
Movement• Limited Data• Management practices • Biotic & Abiotic filters• Seed Source Issues
http://inhfblog.org/2013/10/25/inhf-in-action-staff-seed-harvest/
(don’t forget today’s native plant sale)
“If competition is an important determinant of plant community structure, then the competitive ability of the dominant species will influence the entire community.”*
Problem: Choice of dominant species seed sources (local, non-local, and cultivar) could effect the successof restoration / conservation efforts.
*Tilman 1988
Seed Source Issues
What is the provenance?Does it matter?
Prairie grass cultivars: artificially selected for “agronomic” traits.
Reduced phenotypic variation
Cultivars are genetically distinct from natural populations
Cultivars are physiologically different when compared between native vs. restored prairie
Seed Source: Artificial Cultivars vs. Natural Selected Genotypes
http://iowawhitetail.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13362&page=2 Photo: SG Bear
Cultivars Look Different
Shizachyrium scoparium cultivarshttp://grasstrials.com/2013/03/25/university-of-vermont/
• Adapted to local conditions = Ecotypes
• Presumed to establish better, provision resources to higher trophic levels at the most appropriate time, and restore biotic interactions.
• Minimize evolutionary risk to local populations
• outbreeding depression• loss of local adaptation
Rationale for Using ‘Local’ Sources
• Difficult to define “local”• Vary with life history traits• Genetic variation can correspond with
environmental variation at small scales.
• Small local populations can harbor low genetic diversity
• May not be best adapted to degraded conditions or future conditions
• Limited knowledge • Few tests of ecotypic variation in species
used to restore communities• Ecological consequences unknown
Controversy about ‘Local’ Sources
11.906 9.045 6.184 3.323 0.462
T*GC*MB
WS RestoredBFMGLIW
D RemnantSWH'K'
'R' Cultivar'P'Konza
Euclidean Distance based on RAPDs
Andropogon gerardii Varies Genetically in IL
(Gustafson et al., J. Applied Ecology 2004)
Lesica & Allendorf (1999) Restoration Ecology
Size of disturbancesmall large
Degr
ee o
f dist
urba
nce
low
high
Culti
vars
“Local” genotypes
GenotypicMixtures
Recommendations?
1) Southern Illinois Cultivar Experiment: Effect of Seed Source of Dominant Grasses on an
Experimental Restoration
Photo: SG Bear
Experimental Design
23 m
7 m
Split Plot Design
Whole plot factor:Dominant C4 grass source (n=6/source)
CultivarNon-cultivar
Subplot factor:Species pool (n=12/pool)
A BC
Block
ABC 25 m2
Used multiple species pools and sites to elucidate whether ecological consequences of using cultivars is generalizable. Photo: SG Bear
5 m
Species Pool A Species Pool B Species Pool CNon-legume forbs Non-legume forbs
Non-legume forbs
Asclepias tuberosa* Achillea millefolium Symphyotrichum oolentangiense*
Asclepias verticillata Asclepias syriaca Heliopsis helianthoides
Symphyotrichum oblongifolium Echinacea purpurea Brickellia eupatoroides
Callirhoe involucrata Eupatorium altissimum Monarda fistulosa
Delphinium carolininaum* Liatris pycnostachya Penstemon digitalis
Oenothera macrocarpa Oenothera biennis Rudbeckia hirta
Ratibida pinnata Ruellia humilis Silphium laciniatum
Rosa arkansana* Silphium integrifolium Solidago speciosa
Packera plattensis* Solidago rigida Vernonia fasciculataC3 Grass
C3 Grass
C3 Grass
Elymus canadensis Koeleria macrantha Agrostis hyemalis
C4 Grass C4 Grass C4 Grass
Sporobolus heterolepis* Bouteloua curtipendula Panicum virgatum
Legumes Legumes Legumes
Baptisia alba var. macrophylla Amorpha canescens* Astragalus canadensis*
Chamaecrista fasciculata Dalea candida* Baptisia bracteata
Mimosa microphylla* Desmanthus illinoensis Lespedeza capitata
Psoralidium tenuiflorum Desmodium illinoense Dalea purpurea
Photo: Alison Lambert
Photos: Alison Lambert
Klopf & Baer 2011Restoration Ecology
“Enhanced” Traits of C4 Grass Cultivars Maintained in Restorations
A. gerardiiS. nutans
S. scoparium
Lambert et al. 2011Restoration Ecology
* Interaction with time, cultivars same or higher Anet
*
(Gibson et al 2012 Journal of Vegetation Science)
Temporal Patterns ‘As Expected’
Photo: Alison Lambert
2006 2007 2008 2009
Tota
l AN
PP
(g m
-2 y
-1)
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
CultivarLocal ecotype
A
B
2006 2007 2008 2009
Pla
nted
AN
PP
(g m
-2 y
-1)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400Year effect:
P<0.001
2006 2007 2008 2009
Vol
unte
er A
NP
P (g
m-2
y-1
)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
2006 2007 2008 20090
400
800
1200
1600
ab
b
c
2006 2007 2008 20090
400
800
1200
1600
c
d
ba
Year effect:
P < 0.001
2006 2007 2008 20090
400
800
1200
1600
c
a
b
a
C
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Year effect:
P<0.001
CultivarLocal ecotype
CultivarLocal ecotype
Baer et al. 2014 Evolutionary Applications
Aboveground Net Primary Productivity
Increased But No Population Source
Effect
(Willand et al 2014 Journal of Vegetation Science)
Seed, Seedling, Vegetative Growth of C4 grasses Depends More on Sp. Pool than Pop. Source
Seedlings
Ramets
Seed Rain
Declines in Species Richness Unrelated to Population Source Except in 2nd Year
Gibson et al. 2013 Journal of Vegetation Science
Species Richness Most Strongly Related to Species Pools
Gibson et al. 2013 Journal of Vegetation Science
Community Composition Related to Species Pool not Population Source
Effect of species pool (ANOSIM R=0.44, P < 0.0001)
Gibson et al. 2013 Journal of Vegetation Science
Species Phylogenetics: Does it show a Population Source Effect?
Khalil et al., in review
Phylogenetic Clustering Related to Population Sources
Khalil et al., in review
2) Does location matter: Regional Cultivar Experiment
Konza Prairie (2006-2010) Belleville, IL (2006-2010)
Higher Cover of Grasses in Cultivar PlotsOver Time in Kansas but not Illinois
a-d time effect within source* difference between sources within a year
Klopf et al. 2014 Environmental Management
Belleville, IL (2006-2010)Konza Prairie (2006-2010)
Limited Effects of Population Source on Diversity in Kansas and Illinois
Klopf et al. 2014 Environmental Management
3) Forget Cultivars: Reciprocal Transplant Ecotype Experiment
Photo: Laurel Wilson
Subordinate Species Dominant Species
Wilson et al. 2016 Ecosphere
Home-site advantage: Dominants best ‘at home’, subordinates worst with ‘home’ dominants
Outline• North American Tallgrass
Prairie• Restoration Issues• Three Experiments To Test
Seed Source Effects• Take Home Messages
Photo: Laurel Wilson
Should We Use Wild-Collected Ecotypes or Cultivars for Prairie Restoration?
Spoiler: Either, but be careful.Slideshare: http://bit.ly/1MyBXUa
Conclusions: Should We Use Wild-Collected Ecotypes or Cultivars for Prairie Restoration?
• ‘Local’ cultivars of dominant grasses suitable for restoration.• Limited effect of population source, short-lived, geographically
variable.• Species pool (species mix) effects stronger.• Origin of cultivars can be geographically close to local ecotypes;
similar genetic diversity. • Ecotypes exhibit ‘home-site’ advantage.
Future Challenges
• Climate change • Local may not be best• Plasticity, migration,
adaptation• Seed storage capacity(Adapted from Havens et al. 2015)
Acknowledgements
• Sara Baer (SIUC)• Loretta Johnson (KSU)• Mohammed Khalil, Ryan Klopf, Alison
Lambert, Lewis Reed, Jason Willand, Ben Wodika, Laurel Wilson
• Gibson & Baer labs
Slideshare: http://bit.ly/1MyBXUa
Slideshare: http://bit.ly/1MyBXUa
