A comparison of the functional traits of common reed (Phragmites australis) in northern China: aquatic vs. terrestrial ecotypes

PLoS One. 2014 Feb 19;9(2):e89063. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089063. eCollection 2014.

Abstract

Common reed (Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud.) is distributed widely throughout the world with various ecotypes. This research compares the functional traits and biomass allocation patterns of two contrasting reed ecotypes. Twelve pairs of aquatic and terrestrial reed samples were collected in northern China. Significant differences in functional traits between the two reed ecotypes were observed, while biomass allocation patterns of reed organs did not differ significantly except for at the root. The dry matter content (DMC) in the whole of the reed plant, leaf, root, and rhizome was higher; while the specific leaf area (SLA) and specific root length (SRL) were lower in terrestrial versus aquatic reed. The biomass allocation in organs of the two forms of reed was isometric, only root in the terrestrial habitat increased faster with an increase in the whole plant biomass. It can be affirmed that aquatic and terrestrial reed that adapt to different environments generally has distinct leaf and root functional traits but isometric biomass allocation patterns. This suggests different resource acquisition strategies: (1) aquatic reed grows faster with high SLA and SRL and is more responsive to the environment, while (2) terrestrial reed with high DMC grows slower and is less responsive to the adverse environment (e.g. dry soil conditions).

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Aquatic Organisms
  • Biomass
  • China
  • Desiccation
  • Ecosystem*
  • Ecotype*
  • Plant Leaves / anatomy & histology
  • Plant Leaves / chemistry
  • Plant Roots / anatomy & histology
  • Plant Roots / chemistry
  • Poaceae / anatomy & histology*
  • Poaceae / chemistry*
  • Quantitative Trait, Heritable

Grants and funding

This study was funded by the Kurt Eberhard Bode Foundation, Germany (within the Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41173083). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.