Please wait a minute...
Journal of Arid Land  2019, Vol. 11 Issue (1): 66-74    DOI: 10.1007/s40333-018-0018-x
Orginal Article     
Variation and heritability of morphological and physiological traits among Leymus chinensis genotypes under different environmental conditions
Xue YANG, Junpeng LI, Tingting ZHAO, Lidong MO, Jianli ZHANG, Huiqin REN, Nianxi ZHAO*(), Yubao GAO
Department of Plant Biology and Ecology, College of Life Science, Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, China
Download: HTML     PDF(294KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      


Intraspecific trait variation and heritability in different environmental conditions not only suggest a potential for an evolutionary response but also have important ecological consequences at the population, community, and ecosystem levels. However, the contribution of quantitative trait variation within a grassland species to evolutionary responses or ecological consequences is seldom documented. Leymus chinensis is an important dominant species in semi-arid grasslands of China, which has seriously suffered from drought and high temperature stresses in recent decades. In the present study, we measured variation and heritability of 10 quantitative traits, namely the number of tillers, maximum shoot height, number of rhizomes, maximum rhizome length, rhizome mass, aboveground mass, root mass, maximum net photosynthetic rate (Pmax), specific leaf area (SLA), and leaf length to leaf width ratio (LL/LW), for 10 genotypes of L. chinensis under one non-stress (Ck) condition and three environmental stress conditions (i.e., drought (Dr), high temperature (Ht), and both drought and high temperature (DrHt)). Result indicated that (1) the interaction of genotype and environmental condition (G×E) was significant for 6 traits but not significant for the other 4 traits as shown by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), suggesting that different selection forces were placed for different traits on the factors dominating phenotypic responses to different environmental conditions. Moreover, these significant G×E effects on traits indicated significantly different phenotypic adaptive responses among L. chinensis genotypes to different environmental conditions. Additionally, individuals could be grouped according to environmental condition rather than genotype as shown by canonical discriminant analysis, indicating that environmental condition played a more important role in affecting phenotypic variation than genotype; (2) by one-way ANOVA, significant differences among L. chinensis genotypes were found in all 10 traits under Ck and Dr conditions, in 8 traits under DrHt condition and only in 4 traits under Ht condition; and (3) all 10 traits showed relatively low or non-measurable broad-sense heritability (H2) under stress conditions. However, the lowest H2 value for most traits did not occur under DrHt condition, which supported the hypothesis of 'unfavorable conditions have unpredictable effects' rather than 'unfavorable conditions decrease heritability'. Results from our experiment might aid to improve predictions on the potential impacts of climate changes on L. chinensis and eventually species conservation and ecosystem restoration.

Key wordsLeymus chinensis      genotype      quantitative trait variation      heritability      drought      high temperature     
Received: 11 October 2017      Published: 10 February 2019
Corresponding Authors:
Cite this article:

Xue YANG, Junpeng LI, Tingting ZHAO, Lidong MO, Jianli ZHANG, Huiqin REN, Nianxi ZHAO, Yubao GAO. Variation and heritability of morphological and physiological traits among Leymus chinensis genotypes under different environmental conditions. Journal of Arid Land, 2019, 11(1): 66-74.

URL:     OR

[1] Badyaev A V.2005. Stress-induced variation in evolution: from behavioural plasticity to genetic assimilation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 272(1566): 877-886.
[2] Bai Y F, Han X G, Wu J G, et al.2004. Ecosystem stability and compensatory effects in the Inner Mongolia grassland. Nature, 431(7005): 181-184.
[3] Bischoff A, Steinger T, Müller-Schärer H.2010. The importance of plant provenance and genotypic diversity of seed material used for ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology, 18(3): 338-348.
[4] Bolnick D I, Amarasekare P, Araújo M S, et al.2011. Why intraspecific trait variation matters in community ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 26(4): 183-192.
[5] Charmantier A, Garant D.2005. Environmental quality and evolutionary potential: lessons from wild populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 272(1571): 1415-1425.
[6] Cook-Patton S C, McArt S H, Parachnowitsch A L, et al.2011. A direct comparison of the consequences of plant genotypic and species diversity on communities and ecosystem function. Ecology, 92(4): 915-923.
[7] Cornelissen J H C, Lavorel S, Garnier E, et al.2003. A handbook of protocols for standardized and easy measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Australian Journal of Botany, 51(4): 335-380.
[8] Crawford K M, Rudgers J A.2013. Genetic diversity within a dominant plant outweighs plant species diversity in structuring an arthropod community. Ecology, 94(5): 1025-1035.
[9] Crutsinger G M, Strauss S Y, Rudgers J A.2010. Genetic variation within a dominant shrub species determines plant species colonization in a coastal dune ecosystem. Ecology, 91(4): 1237-1243.
[10] Crutsinger G M.2016. A community genetics perspective: opportunities for the coming decade. New Phytologist, 210(1): 65-70.
[11] Dia M, Wehner T C, Hassell R, et al.2016. Genotype×environment interaction and stability analysis for watermelon fruit yield in the United States. Crop Science, 56(4): 1645-1661.
[12] Draghi J A, Whitlock M C.2012. Phenotypic plasticity facilitates mutational variance, genetic variance, and evolvability along the major axis of environmental variation. Evolution, 66(9): 2891-2902.
[13] Espeland E K, Emery N C, Mercer K L, et al.2017. Evolution of plant materials for ecological restoration: insights from the applied and basic literature. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54(1): 102-115.
[14] Ghalambor C K, McKay J K, Carroll S P, et al.2007. Adaptive versus non-adaptive phenotypic plasticity and the potential for contemporary adaptation in new environments. Functional Ecology, 21(3): 394-407.
[15] Gustafson D J, Major C, Jones D, et al.2014. Genetic sorting of subordinate species in grassland modulated by intraspecific variation in dominant species. PloS ONE, 9(3): e91511, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091511.
[16] Hallsson L R, Björklund M.2012. Selection in a fluctuating environment leads to decreased genetic variation and facilitates the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 25(7): 1275-1290.
[17] Hoffmann A A, Merilä J.1999. Heritable variation and evolution under favourable and unfavourable conditions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 14(3): 96-101.
[18] Hughes A R, Inouye B D, Johnson M T, et al.2008. Ecological consequences of genetic diversity. Ecology Letters, 11(6): 609-623.
[19] Kraft N J B, Crutsinger G M, Forrestel E J, et al.2014. Functional trait differences and the outcome of community assembly: an experimental test with vernal pool annual plants. Oikos, 123(11): 1391-1399.
[20] Liu Z P, Li X F, Li H J, et al.2007. The genetic diversity of perennial Leymus chinensis originating from China. Grass and Forage Science, 62(1): 27-34.
[21] Lynch M, Walsh B.1998. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, Inc., 548-550.
[22] Manaa A, Ahmed H B, Valot B, et al.2011. Salt and genotype impact on plant physiology and root proteome variations in tomato. Journal of Experimental Botany, 62(8): 2797-2813.
[23] Mittelbach G G, Osenberg C W, Wainwright P C.1999. Variation in feeding morphology between pumpkinseed populations: Phenotypic plasticity or evolution? Evolutionary Ecology Research, 1(1): 111-128.
[24] Morris G P, Hu Z B, Grabowski P P, et al.2016. Genotypic diversity effects on biomass production in native perennial bioenergy cropping systems. Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 8(5): 1000-1014.
[25] Nicotra A B, Atkin O K, Bonser S P, et al.2010. Plant phenotypic plasticity in a changing climate. Trends in Plant Science, 15(12): 684-692.
[26] Pigliucci M.2005. Evolution of phenotypic plasticity: where are we going now? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(9): 481-486.
[27] Prieto I, Violle C, Barre P, et al.2015. Complementary effects of species and genetic diversity on productivity and stability of sown grasslands. Nature Plants, 1(4): 15033.
[28] Qiu H, Huang S, Zhang Y.1996. Flora Peipublicae Popularis Sinicae, Tomus 42(2). Beijing: Science Press, 133-147. (in Chinese)
[29] Salmela M J, Greenham K, Lou P, et al.2016. Variation in circadian rhythms is maintained among and within populations in Boechera stricta. Plant, Cell & Environment, 39(6): 1293-1303.
[30] Shaw E J, Kakuda Y, Rajcan I.2016. Effect of genotype, environment, and genotype×environment interaction on tocopherol accumulation in soybean seed. Crop Science, 56(1): 40-50.
[31] Shen J F, Ren H Q, Xin X J, et al.2015. Leymus chinensis genotypic diversity increase the response of population to disturbance. Acta Ecologia Sinica, 35(23): 7682-7689. (in Chinese)
[32] Smith M D, Hoffman A M, Avolio M L.2016. Gene expression patterns of two dominant tallgrass prairie species differ in response to warming and altered precipitation. Scientific Reports, 6: 25522.
[33] Treplin M, Pennings S C, Zimmer M.2013. Decomposition of leaf litter in a U.S. saltmarsh is driven by dominant species, not species complementarity. Wetlands, 33(1): 83-89.
[34] Wang Y S, Zhao L M, Wang H, et al.2005. Molecular genetic variation in a clonal plant population of Leymus chinensis (Trin.) Tzvel. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology, 47(9): 1055-1064.
[35] Wang Z W, Li L H, Han X G, et al.2004. Do rhizome severing and shoot defoliation affect clonal growth of Leymus chinensis at ramet population level?, Acta Oecologica, 26(3): 255-260.
[36] Xu S X, Shu Q Y, Liu G S.2006. Genetic relationship in ecotypes of Leymus chinensis revealed by polymorphism of amplified DNA fragment lengths. Russian Journal of Plant Physiology, 53(5): 678-683.
[37] Xu Z Z, Zhou G S.2006. Combined effects of water stress and high temperature on photosynthesis, nitrogen metabolism and lipid peroxidation of a perennial grass Leymus chinensis. Planta, 224(5): 1080-1090.
[38] Yang X, Shen J F, Zhao N X, et al.2017. Phenotypic plasticity and genetic differentiation of quantitative traits in genotypes of Leymus chinensis. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 41(3): 359-368. (in Chinese)
[1] ZHAO Xuqin, LUO Min, MENG Fanhao, SA Chula, BAO Shanhu, BAO Yuhai. Spatiotemporal changes of gross primary productivity and its response to drought in the Mongolian Plateau under climate change[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(1): 46-70.
[2] CHEN Yingying, LIN Yajun, ZHOU Xiaobing, ZHANG Jing, YANG Chunhong, ZHANG Yuanming. Effects of drought treatment on photosystem II activity in the ephemeral plant Erodium oxyrhinchum[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(6): 724-739.
[3] Fateme RIGI, Morteza SABERI, Mahdieh EBRAHIMI. Improved drought tolerance in Festuca ovina L. using plant growth promoting bacteria[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(6): 740-755.
[4] BAI Miao, LI Zhanling, HUO Pengying, WANG Jiawen, LI Zhanjie. Propagation characteristics from meteorological drought to agricultural drought over the Heihe River Basin, Northwest China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(5): 523-544.
[5] Sakine KOOHI, Hadi RAMEZANI ETEDALI. Future meteorological drought conditions in southwestern Iran based on the NEX-GDDP climate dataset[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(4): 377-392.
[6] Mohammad Hossein TAGHIZADEH, Mohammad FARZAM, Jafar NABATI. Rhizobacteria facilitate physiological and biochemical drought tolerance of Halimodendron halodendron (Pall.) Voss[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(2): 205-217.
[7] ZHAO Lili, LI Lusheng, LI Yanbin, ZHONG Huayu, ZHANG Fang, ZHU Junzhen, DING Yibo. Monitoring vegetation drought in the nine major river basins of China based on a new developed Vegetation Drought Condition Index[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(12): 1421-1438.
[8] Mahdi SEDIGHKIA, Bithin DATTA. Analyzing environmental flow supply in the semi-arid area through integrating drought analysis and optimal operation of reservoir[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(12): 1439-1454.
[9] Olfa TERWAYET BAYOULI, ZHANG Wanchang, Houssem TERWAYET BAYOULI. Combining RUSLE model and the vegetation health index to unravel the relationship between soil erosion and droughts in southeastern Tunisia[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(11): 1269-1289.
[10] Lobna MNIF FAKHFAKH, Mohamed CHAIEB. Effects of water stress on growth phenology photosynthesis and leaf water potential in Stipagrostis ciliata (Desf.) De Winter in North Africa[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(1): 77-90.
[11] WANG Fengjiao, FU Bojie, LIANG Wei, JIN Zhao, ZHANG Liwei, YAN Jianwu, FU Shuyi, GOU Fen. Assessment of drought and its impact on winter wheat yield in the Chinese Loess Plateau[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(7): 771-786.
[12] Hushiar HAMARASH, Rahel HAMAD, Azad RASUL. Meteorological drought in semi-arid regions: A case study of Iran[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(11): 1212-1233.
[13] HUANG Laiming, ZHAO Wen, SHAO Ming'an. Response of plant physiological parameters to soil water availability during prolonged drought is affected by soil texture[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(7): 688-698.
[14] WANG Chunyuan, YU Minghan, DING Guodong, GAO Guanglei, ZHANG Linlin, HE Yingying, LIU Wei. Size- and leaf age-dependent effects on the photosynthetic and physiological responses of Artemisia ordosica to drought stress[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(7): 744-758.
[15] Nirmal M DAHAL, XIONG Donghong, Nilhari NEUPANE, Belayneh YIGEZ, ZHANG Baojun, YUAN Yong, Saroj KOIRALA, LIU Lin, FANG Yiping. Spatiotemporal analysis of drought variability based on the standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index in the Koshi River Basin, Nepal[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(5): 433-454.