Table 1.
Group or lineage specific responses of Phragmites australis to global change factors.
| European Phragmites | North American Phragmites | Asian/Australian Phragmites | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lineage | EU | Med | NAint M | NAint Delta | NAnat | Not defined |
| Natural temperature range | Average monthly temperature for survival -14 to 27.5°C (Haslam, 1975; Clevering et al., 2001; Gorai et al., 2006); shoot emergence and germination from -2 to 8°C (Haslam, 1975; Irmak et al., 2013); optimum temperature: 20 to 30°C (Haslam, 1975; Gorai et al., 2006) | Annual mean temp on average 7°C (Guo et al., 2013) | Annual mean temp on average 18 to 20°C (Guo et al., 2013) | Annual mean temperature on average 4°C, ranging from 25 to -17°C (CliMond dataset in Kriticos et al., 2012) | 18 to 32°C mean annual warmest temp, 0 to 15°C mean annual coldest temperature in Japanese vs. Australian populations (Karunaratne et al., 2003) | |
| Annual mean temperature on average 10°C (Guo et al., 2013) | Annual mean temperature 18 to 20°C (Guo et al., 2013) | |||||
| Elevated temperature | Germination suppressed above 30°C (Haslam, 1975; Gorai et al., 2006); temperature fluctuation results in stimulated shoot growth and germination (Haslam, 1975; Brix, 1999a); lower photosynthetic capacity and Rubisco activity but increased growth (Eller et al., 2013) | Strong growth- and photosynthetic response to elevated temperature, if growth-CO2 concentration is elevated concomitantly (Eller et al., 2014a) | No investigations found | >25°C decline of photosynthetic parameters (Ge et al., 2014) | ||
| Increased photosynthetic rates (Lessmann et al., 2001), high phenotypic plasticity to temperature (Eller and Brix, 2012) | Lower phenotypic plasticity to temperature compared with EU lineage (Eller and Brix, 2012) | Increased distribution toward higher latitudes due to seedling survival in warmer winters (Brisson et al., 2008) | Adapted and expanding to regions of high annual mean temperature (Guo et al., 2013) | |||
| Elevated CO2 | No effect on aboveground biomass, shoot or leaf production rates and shoot length, but increased photosynthetic capacity and Rubisco activity (Eller et al., 2013), lowered isoprene emissions (Scholefield et al., 2004) | Strong growth- and photosynthetic response to elevated growth-CO2 concentration if temperature is elevated concomitantly (Eller et al., 2014a) | Mildly increased biomass production (Mozdzer and Megonigal, 2012) | No investigations found | ||
| Strong (37%) stimulation in Asat with elevated CO2, which increased to 56% with CO2 + N (Mozdzer and Caplan, unpublished data). Effects of CO2 are driven by changes in physiology and morphology (Mozdzer and Caplan unpublished data) | ||||||
| Increased deep root production (Mozdzer et al., 2016b), strongly increased biomass production, especially after concomitant N addition (Mozdzer and Megonigal, 2012), amplified productivity throughout the growing season (Caplan et al., 2015) | ||||||
| Natural salinity range | 0 to 18 ppt, local adaptation of populations (Engels and Jensen, 2010; Achenbach et al., 2013) | 0.3 to 27 ppt, fresh water, brackish water, mesophytic, sand dune and salt marsh habitats (Nada et al., 2015) | 3.6 to 6.7 ppt (Yarwood et al., 2016), up to 30 ppt, survival from 7 to 24 ppt (Burdick and Konisky, 2003; Vasquez et al., 2005) | No reports found | 2.6 to 6.2 ppt (Yarwood et al., 2016), survival from 1.2 to max. 18 ppt (Vasquez et al., 2005), no differences in growth performance from 03 to 12 ppt (Price et al., 2014), mesohaline wetlands (Meyerson et al., 2010a,b) | Growth at 0.9 to 28 ppt (Gao et al., 2012; Ma et al., 2013), seed germination <30 ppt but highest <20 ppt (Yu et al., 2012), local adaptation of reeds occurring from <6 ppt to >18 ppt (Holmes et al., 2016); 6 to 7 ppt healthy adult stands (Li et al., 2013) |
| Increased salinity | If originating from freshwater marsh, reed will have declined biomass and survival in salt marshes (Engels and Jensen, 2010) | Stable water-use efficiency and only slightly lower photosynthetic rates, also depending on nutrient and water availability in natural habitat (Nada et al., 2015) | Lower expression of photosynthetic genes, somewhat increased expression of stress-related genes (20 ppt; Eller et al., 2014b) | Considerably lowered growth and survival, more than NAint M (Vasquez et al., 2005) | Seed germination decreases above 30 ppt (Yu et al., 2012), slightly (15 ppt) and severely (30 ppt) decreased photosynthetic rates (Ge et al., 2014) | |
| Better performance with higher salinity in natural marshes (Vasquez et al., 2005; Price et al., 2014), increased expansion into oligo- and mesohaline marshes (Chambers et al., 1999) | High salt tolerance in laboratory (20 ppt), especially when temperature and CO2 are elevated (Eller et al., 2014a) | |||||
| Salinity increased stimulation effects of elevated CO2 in the field up to 18 PSU (Mozdzer and Caplan, unpublished data) | ||||||
| Drought | In fluctuating water-levels and short-term drought events, whole-plant leaf-area decreases to maintain high assimilation rates in the remaining leaves (Saltmarsh et al., 2006) | Lower seed production and height growth (Minchinton, 2002; Price et al., 2014) | No reports found | Although inland ecotypes predominate in the arid regions of the Southwest, groundwater drawdown is a threat (Meyerson et al., 2010a,b) | Ecotypes adapted to habitats of different water availability and also heavy drought stress, through gene expression, photosynthetic adaptations, and changed redox status (Wang et al., 1998; Chen et al., 2003; Gong et al., 2011; Zhu et al., 2012) | |
| High intrinsic water-use efficiency, leaf shedding and physiological maintenance of surviving leaves as tolerance method (Pagter et al., 2005) | Accumulation of compatible solutes increases from flooded to drained physiological maintenance of surviving leaves as tolerance habitats, little reduction in relative water content of leaves (Elhaak et al., 1993) | |||||
| Eutrophication | Weak culms susceptible to mechanical damage (most likely only EU lineage), suffering from anoxia in highly eutrophicated habitats (Cizkova-Koncalova et al., 1992; Meriste et al., 2012), but also increased growth (Kolada, 2016) or at least no negative effects (Vermaat et al., 2016) | Higher biomass and leaf area than EU and MED under unlimited nutrient supply (Tho et al., 2016) | Good competitor under low nutrient availability, but poor under eutrophicated conditions in nature (Holdredge et al., 2010; Mozdzer and Zieman, 2010), weak response to nutrient increase (Saltonstall and Stevenson, 2007), but high nutrient removal efficiency (especially P) in constructed wetland (Rodriguez and Brisson, 2016) | Large biomass development (Karunaratne et al., 2003; Han and Cui, 2016) | ||
| N extends phenology leading to greater C gain (Caplan et al., 2015) | ||||||
| N induces changes in morphology (leaf area, height, and leaf width) that contribute to performance moreso than physiological adaptation (Mozdzer and Caplan, unpublished data) | ||||||
| Lower phenotypic plasticity to nutrient availability than MED (Eller and Brix, 2012) | High phenotypic plasticity to nutrient availability (Eller and Brix, 2012) | High photosynthetic rates and increased rhizome productivity under high nutrient availability (Holdregde et al., 2010; Mozdzer and Zieman, 2010), increased aboveground growth and shoot production (Saltonstall and Stevenson, 2007), increased establishment, growth and seedling production (Sciance et al., 2016) | ||||
| Flooding | Permanent water-logging is detrimental (Saltmarsh et al., 2006; Gigante et al., 2014), relatively fewer flood-tolerant genoypes grow in deep water compared to the edge (Engloner and Szego, 2016) | Seedling establishment mainly in less-frequently flooded habitats (Kettenring et al., 2015) | No specific studies found | No specific records found | Flooding can both facilitate and hinder the growth and expansion of reed ecotypes (Lee and An, 2015; Wang et al., 2015) | |
| Juvenile stems have low flooding tolerance, rhizomes and shoots have to be undamaged to survive short-term flooding, flooding events determine reed dynamics in lakes (Ostendorp and Dienst, 2012) | ||||||
EU and MED lineage are not always separated especially in early publications and can be considered “native European Phragmites.” The natural range of an abiotic factor shows the current range of distribution, which is the native range for EU, Med, NAnat and Asian/Australian, and the introduced range for the invasive North American Phragmites, NAint M and NAint Delta.