Giacomo Puglielli , Enrico Tordoni , Lauri Laanisto , Jesse M. Kalwij , Michael J. Hutchings , Aelys M. Humphreys
{"title":"非生物抗逆性可以解释温带木本植物的范围大小和灌浆","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":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1433831923000185\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1433831923000185","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
Abiotic stress tolerance can explain range size and filling in temperate woody plants
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.