Potential local adaptation in populations of invasive reed canary grass (<i>Phalaris arundinacea</i>) across an urbanization gradient

Weston, Leah M.; Mattingly, Kali Z.; Day, Charles T. C.; Hovick, Stephen M.

doi:10.1002/ece3.7938

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…high levels of variability) have low sensitivity to local environmental changes compared with species that have locally adapted niches and thus high sensitivity to local environmental changes (Bennett et al, 2019). For example, variability of responses in an invasive grass enabled adaptation to urban environments (Weston et al, 2021), representing a species with low sensitivity to local change and/or a species with locally adapted populations. Quantifying the differences between interspecific variability and potential intraspecific variability (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Large‐scale spatial variability in urban tolerance of birds

Callaghan

Palacio

Benedetti

et al. 2022

Journal of Animal Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantifying intraspecific and interspecific trait variability is critical to our understanding of biogeography, ecology and conservation. But quantifying such variability and understanding the importance of intraspecific and interspecific variability remain challenging. This is especially true of large geographic scales as this is where the differences between intraspecific and interspecific variability are likely to be greatest. Our goal is to address this research gap using broad‐scale citizen science data to quantify intraspecific variability and compare it with interspecific variability, using the example of bird responses to urbanization across the continental United States. Using more than 100 million observations, we quantified urban tolerance for 338 species within randomly sampled spatial regions and then calculated the standard deviation of each species' urban tolerance. We found that species' spatial variability in urban tolerance (i.e. standard deviation) was largely explained by the variability of urban cover throughout a species' range (R2 = 0.70). Variability in urban tolerance was greater in species that were more tolerant of urban cover (i.e. the average urban tolerance throughout their range), suggesting that generalist life histories are better suited to adapt to novel anthropogenic environments. Overall, species differences explained most of the variability in urban tolerance across spatial regions. Together, our results indicate that (1) intraspecific variability is largely predicted by local environmental variability in urban cover at a large spatial scale and (2) interspecific variability is greater than intraspecific variability, supporting the common use of mean values (i.e. collapsing observations across a species' range) when assessing species–environment relationships. Further studies, across different taxa, traits and species–environment relationships are needed to test the role of intraspecific variability, but nevertheless, we recommend that when possible, ecologists should avoid using discrete categories to classify species in how they respond to the environment.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Large‐scale spatial variability in urban tolerance of birds

Callaghan

Palacio

Benedetti

et al. 2022

Journal of Animal Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies of mutualisms have predominantly focused on plant–pollinator interactions and adaptation for only one of the interacting species (Irwin et al., 2018; Rivkin et al., 2020; Theodorou et al., 2018; but see Brans et al., 2022). Moreover, studies evaluating local adaptation in urban environments have focused primarily on adaptation to abiotic factors, such as temperature (Brans et al., 2017; Martin et al., 2021) and pollutants (Reid et al., 2016; Weston et al., 2021). Anthropogenic impacts on legume–rhizobia symbioses have been evaluated in both agricultural (Lau et al., 2022; Weese et al., 2015) and more recently in urban environments (Forrester & Ashman, 2018; Regus et al., 2017; Wendlandt et al., 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, studies evaluating local adaptation in urban environments have focused primarily on adaptation to abiotic factors, such as temperature (Brans et al, 2017;Martin et al, 2021) and pollutants (Reid et al, 2016;Weston et al, 2021). Anthropogenic impacts on legume-rhizobia symbioses have been evaluated in both agricultural (Lau et al, 2022;Weese et al, 2015) and more recently in urban environments (Forrester & Ashman, 2018;Regus et al, 2017;Wendlandt et al, 2022).…”

Section: Con Clus Ionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mosaic of local adaptation between white clover and rhizobia along an urbanization gradient

Murray‐Stoker,

Johnson

2024

Journal of Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urbanization frequently alters the biotic and abiotic environmental context. Variation in both the biotic and abiotic environment can result in selection mosaics that lead to locally adapted phenotypes. Ecological changes to urban environments can result in evolutionary responses across a diverse array of plants and animals, but the effects of urbanization on local adaptation and coevolution between species remain largely unstudied. Using a common garden experiment of 30 populations and 1080 plants, we tested for local adaptation in the mutualism between white clover (Trifolium repens) and rhizobia (Rhizobium leguminosarum symbiovar trifolii) along an urbanization gradient. We asked: (Q1) are white clover and rhizobia locally adapted? (Q2) Does nitrogen (N) addition mediate the strength of local adaptation? (Q3) Is the strength of local adaptation in host plants related to the strength of local adaptation in rhizobia, as expected if white clover and rhizobia are coadapting? And (Q4) how does the degree of local adaptation vary with urbanization? We found evidence for local adaptation for both white clover and rhizobia, with stronger signatures of local adaptation for rhizobia than white clover (Q1). While N addition positively affected plant biomass and negatively affected nodule density, N addition did not consistently mediate patterns of local adaptation (Q2). The strength of local adaptation was positively related between white clover and rhizobia under N addition, suggesting that soil N mediates coadaptation between white clover and rhizobia (Q3). We did not find a consistent relationship between measures of urbanization and local adaptation (Q4). Additionally, fitness responses for white clover and rhizobia were unrelated to Rhizobium abundance and local adaptation was unrelated to the broader bacterial microbiome in the soil inoculants or root endosphere. Synthesis. Our results show a spatial mosaic in local adaptation, with stronger local adaptation for rhizobia than white clover. While urbanization does influence the ecology of plant–microbe interactions, our study suggests urbanization does not disrupt local adaptation and coevolution among mutualists.

show abstract

“…Previous studies of mutualisms have predominantly focused on plant-pollinator interactions and adaptation for only one of the interacting species (Irwin et al 2018;Theodorou et al 2018;Rivkin et al 2020; but see Brans et al 2022). Moreover, studies evaluating local adaptation in urban environments have focused primarily on adaptation to abiotic factors, such as temperature (Brans et al, 2017;Martin et al, 2021) and pollutants (N. M. Reid et al, 2016;Weston et al, 2021). Anthropogenic impacts on legume-rhizobia symbioses have been evaluated in both agricultural (Lau et al, 2022;Weese et al, 2015) and more recently in urban (Forrester & Ashman, 2018;Regus et al, 2017;Wendlandt et al, 2022) environments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mosaic of local adaptation between white clover and rhizobia along an urbanization gradient

Murray-Stoker,

Johnson

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urbanization alters many biotic and abiotic environmental factors, but the effects of urbanization on local adaptation and coevolution between species remains largely unstudied. Using a common garden experiment of 30 populations and 1080 plants, we tested for local adaptation in the mutualism between white clover (Trifolium repens) and rhizobia (Rhizobium leguminosarum symbiovar trifolii) along an urbanization gradient. Our results show a spatial mosaic in local adaptation, with stronger local adaptation for rhizobia than white clover. While nitrogen addition (N) strongly influenced plant biomass and nodule density, it did not consistently mediate patterns of local adaptation. The strength of local adaptation was positively related between white clover and rhizobia under N addition, suggesting that soil N mediates coadaptation between white clover and rhizobia. Local adaptation was not influenced by urbanization, indicating that while urbanization does influence the ecology of plant-microbe interactions, it does not disrupt local adaptation and coevolution among mutualists.

show abstract

Potential local adaptation in populations of invasive reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) across an urbanization gradient

Abstract: This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri bution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Cited by 9 publications

References 82 publications

Large‐scale spatial variability in urban tolerance of birds

Large‐scale spatial variability in urban tolerance of birds

Mosaic of local adaptation between white clover and rhizobia along an urbanization gradient

Mosaic of local adaptation between white clover and rhizobia along an urbanization gradient

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About