The synergistic response of primary production in grasslands to combined nitrogen and phosphorus addition is caused by increased nutrient uptake and retention

Background and aims A synergistic response of aboveground plant biomass production to combined nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) addition has been observed in many ecosystems, but the underlying mechanisms and their relative importance are not well known. We aimed at evaluating several mechanisms that could potentially cause the synergistic growth response, such as changes in plant biomass allocation, increased N and P uptake by plants, and enhanced ecosystem nutrient retention. Methods We studied five grasslands located in Europe and the USA that are subjected to an element addition experiment composed of four treatments: control (no element addition), N addition, P addition, combined NP addition. Results Combined NP addition increased the total plant N stocks by 1.47 times compared to the N treatment, while total plant P stocks were 1.62 times higher in NP than in single P addition. Further, higher N uptake by plants in response to combined NP addition was associated with reduced N losses from the soil (evaluated based on soil δ15N) compared to N addition alone, indicating a higher ecosystem N retention. In contrast, the synergistic growth response was not associated with significant changes in plant resource allocation. Conclusions Our results demonstrate that the commonly observed synergistic effect of NP addition on aboveground biomass production in grasslands is caused by enhanced N uptake compared to single N addition, and increased P uptake compared to single P addition, which is associated with a higher N and P retention in the ecosystem

The synergistic response of primary production in grasslands to combined nitrogen and phosphorus addition is caused by increased nutrient uptake and retention

Background and aimsA synergistic response of aboveground plant biomass production to combined nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) addition has been observed in many ecosystems, but the underlying mechanisms and their relative importance are not well known. We aimed at evaluating several mechanisms that could potentially cause the synergistic growth response, such as changes in plant biomass allocation, increased N and P uptake by plants, and enhanced ecosystem nutrient retention.MethodsWe studied five grasslands located in Europe and the USA that are subjected to an element addition experiment composed of four treatments: control (no element addition), N addition, P addition, combined NP addition.ResultsCombined NP addition increased the total plant N stocks by 1.47 times compared to the N treatment, while total plant P stocks were 1.62 times higher in NP than in single P addition. Further, higher N uptake by plants in response to combined NP addition was associated with reduced N losses from the soil (evaluated based on soil delta N-15) compared to N addition alone, indicating a higher ecosystem N retention. In contrast, the synergistic growth response was not associated with significant changes in plant resource allocation.ConclusionsOur results demonstrate that the commonly observed synergistic effect of NP addition on aboveground biomass production in grasslands is caused by enhanced N uptake compared to single N addition, and increased P uptake compared to single P addition, which is associated with a higher N and P retention in the ecosystem

Nutrient enrichment increases invertebrate herbivory and pathogen damage in grasslands

1- Plant damage by invertebrate herbivores and pathogens influences the dynamics of grassland ecosystems, but anthropogenic changes in nitrogen and phosphorus availability can modify these relationships. 2- Using a globally distributed experiment, we describe leaf damage on 153 plant taxa from 27 grasslands worldwide, under ambient conditions and with experimentally elevated nitrogen and phosphorus. 3- Invertebrate damage significantly increased with nitrogen addition, especially in grasses and non-leguminous forbs. Pathogen damage increased with nitrogen in grasses and legumes but not forbs. Effects of phosphorus were generally weaker. Damage was higher in grasslands with more precipitation, but climatic conditions did not change effects of nutrients on leaf damage. On average, invertebrate damage was relatively higher on legumes and pathogen damage was relatively higher on grasses. Community-weighted mean damage reflected these functional group patterns, with no effects of N on community-weighted pathogen damage (due to opposing responses of grasses and forbs) but stronger effects of N on community-weighted invertebrate damage (due to consistent responses of grasses and forbs). 4- Synthesis. As human-induced inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus continue to increase, understanding their impacts on invertebrate and pathogen damage becomes increasingly important. Our results demonstrate that eutrophication frequently increases plant damage and that damage increases with precipitation across a wide array of grasslands. Invertebrate and pathogen damage in grasslands is likely to increase in the future, with potential consequences for plant, invertebrate and pathogen communities, as well as the transfer of energy and nutrients across trophic levels.EEA Santa CruzFil: Ebeling, Anne. University of Jena. Institute of Ecology and Evolution; AlemaniaFil: Strauss, Alex T. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior; Estados UnidosFil: Strauss, Alex T. University of Georgia. Odum School of Ecology; Estados UnidosFil: Adler, Peter B. Utah State University. Department of Wildland Resources and the Ecology Center; Estados UnidosFil: Arnillas, Carlos Alberto. University of Toronto —Scarborough. Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences; CanadáFil: Barrio, Isabel C. Agricultural University of Iceland. Faculty of Environmental and Forest Sciences; IslandiaFil: Biederman, Lori A. Iowa State University. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology; Estados UnidosFil. Borer, Elizabeth T. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior; Estados UnidosFil: Bugalho, Miguel N. University of Lisbon. Centre for Applied Ecology (CEABN-InBIO). School of Agriculture; Portugal.Fil: Caldeira, Maria C. University of Lisbon. Forest Research Centre. School of Agriculture; Portugal.Fil: Cadotte, Marc W. University of Toronto Scarborough. Department of Biological Sciences; CanadáFil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Blumenthal, Dana M. USDA-ARS, Rangeland Resources & Systems Research Unit; Estados Unido

The positive effect of plant diversity on soil carbon depends on climate

Little is currently known about how climate modulates the relationship between plant diversity and soil organic carbon and the mechanisms involved. Yet, this knowledge is of crucial importance in times of climate change and biodiversity loss. Here, we show that plant diversity is positively correlated with soil carbon content and soil carbon-to-nitrogen ratio across 84 grasslands on six continents that span wide climate gradients. The relationships between plant diversity and soil carbon as well as plant diversity and soil organic matter quality (carbon-to-nitrogen ratio) are particularly strong in warm and arid climates. While plant biomass is positively correlated with soil carbon, plant biomass is not significantly correlated with plant diversity. Our results indicate that plant diversity influences soil carbon storage not via the quantity of organic matter (plant biomass) inputs to soil, but through the quality of organic matter. The study implies that ecosystem management that restores plant diversity likely enhances soil carbon sequestration, particularly in warm and arid climates.EEA Santa CruzFil: Spohn, Marie. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU). Department of Soil and Environment; SueciaFil: Bagchi, Sumanta. Indian Institute of Science; India.Fil: Biederman, Lori A. Iowa State University. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology; Estados UnidosFil: Borer, Elizabeth T. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior; Estados UnidosFil: Bråthen, Kari Anne. Arctic University of Norway. Department of Arctic and Marine Biology; NoruegaFil: Bugalho, Miguel N. University of Lisbon. Centre for Applied Ecology “Prof. Baeta Neves” (CEABN-InBIO). School of Agriculture; Portugal.Fil: Caldeira, Maria C. University of Lisbon. Forest Research Centre. Associate Laboratory TERRA. School of Agriculture; Portugal.Fil: Catford, Jane A. King’s College London. Department of Geography; Reino UnidoFil: Catford, Jane A. University of Melbourne. School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences; Australia.Fil: Collins, Scott L. University of New Mexico. Department of Biology; Estados UnidosFil: Eisenhauer, Nico. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv). Halle-Jena-Leipzig; AlemaniaFil: Eisenhauer, Nico. Leipzig University. Institute of Biology; AlemaniaFil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Yahdjian, Laura. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET). Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura (IFEVA); Argentina.Fil: Yahdjian, Laura. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía; Argentina

Nothing lasts forever: Dominant species decline under rapid environmental change in global grasslands

1. Dominance often indicates one or a few species being best suited for resource capture and retention in a given environment. Press perturbations that change availability of limiting resources can restructure competitive hierarchies, allowing new species to capture or retain resources and leaving once dominant species fated to decline. However, dominant species may maintain high abundances even when their new environments no longer favour them due to stochastic processes associated with their high abundance, impeding deterministic processes that would otherwise diminish them. 2. Here, we quantify the persistence of dominance by tracking the rate of decline in dominant species at 90 globally distributed grassland sites under experimentally elevated soil nutrient supply and reduced vertebrate consumer pressure. 3. We found that chronic experimental nutrient addition and vertebrate exclusion caused certain subsets of species to lose dominance more quickly than in control plots. In control plots, perennial species and species with high initial cover maintained dominance for longer than annual species and those with low initial cover respectively. In fertilized plots, species with high initial cover maintained dominance at similar rates to control plots, while those with lower initial cover lost dominance even faster than similar species in controls. High initial cover increased the estimated time to dominance loss more strongly in plots with vertebrate exclosures than in controls. Vertebrate exclosures caused a slight decrease in the persistence of dominance for perennials, while fertilization brought perennials' rate of dominance loss in line with those of annuals. Annual species lost dominance at similar rates regardless of treatments. 4. Synthesis. Collectively, these results point to a strong role of a species' historical abundance in maintaining dominance following environmental perturbations. Because dominant species play an outsized role in driving ecosystem processes, their ability to remain dominant—regardless of environmental conditions—is critical to anticipating expected rates of change in the structure and function of grasslands. Species that maintain dominance while no longer competitively favoured following press perturbations due to their historical abundances may result in community compositions that do not maximize resource capture, a key process of system responses to global change.EEA Santa CruzFil: Wilfahrt, Peter A. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior; Estados UnidosFil: Seabloom, Eric William. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior; Estados UnidosFil: Bakker, Jonathan D. University of Washington. School of Environmental and Forest Sciences; Estados Unidos.Fil: Biederman, Lori A. Iowa State University. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology; Estados UnidosFil: Bugalho, Miguel N. University of Lisbon. Centre for Applied Ecology “Prof. Baeta Neves” (CEABN-InBIO). School of Agriculture; Portugal.Fil: Cadotte, Marc W. University of Toronto Scarborough. Department of Biological Sciences; Canadá.Fil: Caldeira, Maria C. University of Lisbon. Forest Research Centre. School of Agriculture; Portugal.Fil: Catford, Jane A. King’s College London. Department of Geography; Reino UnidoFil: Catford, Jane A. University of Melbourne. School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences; Australia.Fil: Chen, Qingqing. Peking University. College of Urban and Environmental Science; China.Fil: Chen, Qingqing. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv). Halle-Jena-Leipzig; AlemaniaFil: Donohue, Ian. Trinity College Dublin. School of Natural Sciences. Department of Zoology; IrlandaFil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral.; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Borer, Elizabeth T. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior; Estados Unido

Consistent responses of soil microbial communities to elevated nutrient inputs in grasslands across the globe

Soil microorganisms are critical to ecosystem functioning and the maintenance of soil fertility. However, despite global increases in the inputs of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) to ecosystems due to human activities, we lack a predictive understanding of how microbial communities respond to elevated nutrient inputs across environmental gradients. Here we used high-throughput sequencing of marker genes to elucidate the responses of soil fungal, archaeal, and bacterial communities using an N and P addition experiment replicated at 25 globally distributed grassland sites. We also sequenced metagenomes from a subset of the sites to determine how the functional attributes of bacterial communities change in response to elevated nutrients. Despite strong compositional differences across sites, microbial communities shifted in a consistent manner with N or P additions, and the magnitude of these shifts was related to the magnitude of plant community responses to nutrient inputs. Mycorrhizal fungi and methanogenic archaea decreased in relative abundance with nutrient additions, as did the relative abundances of oligotrophic bacterial taxa. The metagenomic data provided additional evidence for this shift in bacterial life history strategies because nutrient additions decreased the average genome sizes of the bacterial community members and elicited changes in the relative abundances of representative functional genes. Our results suggest that elevated N and P inputs lead to predictable shifts in the taxonomic and functional traits of soil microbial communities, including increases in the relative abundances of faster-growing, copiotrophic bacterial taxa, with these shifts likely to impact belowground ecosystems worldwide

Drivers of the microbial metabolic quotient across global grasslands

Aim: The microbial metabolic quotient (MMQ; mg CO2-C/mg MBC/h), defined as the amount of microbial CO2 respired (MR; mg CO2-C/kg soil/h) per unit of microbial biomass C (MBC; mg C/kg soil), is a key parameter for understanding the microbial regulation of the carbon (C) cycle, including soil C sequestration. Here, we experimentally tested hypotheses about the individual and interactive effects of multiple nutrient addition (nitrogen + phosphorus + potassium + micronutrients) and herbivore exclusion on MR, MBC and MMQ across 23 sites (five continents). Our sites encompassed a wide range of edaphoclimatic conditions; thus, we assessed which edaphoclimatic variables affected MMQ the most and how they interacted with our treatments. Location: Australia, Asia, Europe, North/South America. Time period: 2015–2016. Major taxa: Soil microbes. Methods: Soils were collected from plots with established experimental treatments. MR was assessed in a 5-week laboratory incubation without glucose addition, MBC via substrate-induced respiration. MMQ was calculated as MR/MBC and corrected for soil temperatures (MMQsoil). Using linear mixed effects models (LMMs) and structural equation models (SEMs), we analysed how edaphoclimatic characteristics and treatments interactively affected MMQsoil. Results: MMQsoil was higher in locations with higher mean annual temperature, lower water holding capacity and lower soil organic C concentration, but did not respond to our treatments across sites as neither MR nor MBC changed. We attributed this relative homeostasis to our treatments to the modulating influence of edaphoclimatic variables. For example, herbivore exclusion, regardless of fertilization, led to greater MMQsoil only at sites with lower soil organic C (< 1.7%). Main conclusions: Our results pinpoint the main variables related to MMQsoil across grasslands and emphasize the importance of the local edaphoclimatic conditions in controlling the response of the C cycle to anthropogenic stressors. By testing hypotheses about MMQsoil across global edaphoclimatic gradients, this work also helps to align the conflicting results of prior studies

Nitrogen but not phosphorus addition affects symbiotic N2 fixation by legumes in natural and semi‑natural grasslands located on four continents

The amount of nitrogen (N) derived from symbiotic N2 fixation by legumes in grasslands might be affected by anthropogenic N and phosphorus (P) inputs, but the underlying mechanisms are not known. Methods We evaluated symbiotic N2 fixation in 17 natural and semi-natural grasslands on four continents that are subjected to the same full-factorial N and P addition experiment, using the 15N natural abundance method. Results N as well as combined N and P (NP) addition reduced aboveground legume biomass by 65% and 45%, respectively, compared to the control, whereas P addition had no significant impact. Addition of N and/or P had no significant effect on the symbiotic N2 fixation per unit legume biomass. In consequence, the amount of N fixed annually per grassland area was less than half in the N addition treatments compared to control and P addition, irrespective of whether the dominant legumes were annuals or perennials. Conclusion Our results reveal that N addition mainly impacts symbiotic N2 fixation via reduced biomass of legumes rather than changes in N2 fixation per unit legume biomass. The results show that soil N enrichment by anthropogenic activities significantly reduces N 2 fixation in grasslands, and these effects cannot be reversed by additional P amendment.EEA Santa CruzFil: Vázquez, Eduardo. University of Bayreuth. Department of Soil Ecology. Bayreuth Center of Ecology and Environmental Research (BayCEER); AlemaniaFil: Vázquez, Eduardo. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Department of Soil and Environment; SueciaFil: Schleuss, Per‑Marten. University of Bayreuth. Department of Soil Ecology. Bayreuth Center of Ecology and Environmental Research (BayCEER); AlemaniaFil: Borer, Elizabeth T. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior; Estados UnidosFil: Bugalho, Miguel N. University of Lisbon. Centre for Applied Ecology “Prof. Baeta Neves” (CEABN-InBIO). School of Agriculture; Portugal.Fil: Caldeira, Maria. C. University of Lisbon. Forest Research Centre. School of Agriculture; Portugal.Fil: Eisenhauer, Nico. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; AlemaniaFil: Eisenhauer, Nico. Leipzig University. Institute of Biology; AlemaniaFil: Eskelinen, Anu. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; AlemaniaFil: Eskelinen, Anu. Physiological Diversity, Helmholtz Centrefor Environmental Research; AlemaniaFil: Eskelinen, Anu. University of Oulu. Ecology & Genetics; FinlandiaFil: Fay, Philip A. Grassland Soil and Water Research Laboratory (USDA-ARS); Estados UnidosFil: Haider, Sylvia. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; AlemaniaFil: Haider, Sylvia. Martin Luther University. Institute of Biology. Geobotany and Botanical Garden; AlemaniaFil: Jentsch, Anke. University of Bayreuth. Department of Soil Ecology. Bayreuth Center of Ecology and Environmental Research (BayCEER); AlemaniaFil: Kirkman, Kevin P. University of KwaZulu-Natal. School of Life Sciences; SudáfricaFil: McCulley, Rebecca L. University of Kentucky. Department of Plant and Soil Sciences; Estados UnidosFil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Price, Jodi. Charles Sturt University. Institute for Land, Water and Society; Australia.Fil: Richards, Anna E. CSIRO Land and Water. Northern Territory; Australia.Fil: Risch, Anita C. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL; SuizaFil: Roscher, Christiane. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; AlemaniaFil: Roscher, Christiane. Physiological Diversity, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research; AlemaniaFil: Schütz, Martin. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL; SuizaFil: Seabloom, Eric William. University of Minnesota. Dept. of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior; Estados UnidosFil: Standish, Rachel J. Murdoch University. Harry Butler Institute; Australia.Fil: Stevens, Carly J. Lancaster University. Lancaster Environment Centre; Reino UnidoFil: Tedder, Michelle J. University of KwaZulu-Natal. School of Life Sciences; SudáfricaFil: Virtanen, Risto. University of Oulu. Ecology & Genetics; Finlandia.Fil: Spohn, Marie. University of Bayreuth. Department of Soil Ecology. Bayreuth Center of Ecology and Environmental Research (BayCEER); AlemaniaFil: Spohn, Marie. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Department of Soil and Environment; Sueci

Herbivory and nutrients shape grassland soil seed banks

Anthropogenic nutrient enrichment and shifts in herbivory can lead to dramatic changes in the composition and diversity of aboveground plant communities. In turn, this can alter seed banks in the soil, which are cryptic reservoirs of plant diversity. Here, we use data from seven Nutrient Network grassland sites on four continents, encompassing a range of climatic and environmental conditions, to test the joint effects of fertilization and aboveground mammalian herbivory on seed banks and on the similarity between aboveground plant communities and seed banks. We find that fertilization decreases plant species richness and diversity in seed banks, and homogenizes composition between aboveground and seed bank communities. Fertilization increases seed bank abundance especially in the presence of herbivores, while this effect is smaller in the absence of herbivores. Our findings highlight that nutrient enrichment can weaken a diversity maintaining mechanism in grasslands, and that herbivory needs to be considered when assessing nutrient enrichment effects on seed bank abundance.EEA Santa CruzFil: Eskelinen, Anu. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; AlemaniaFil: Eskelinen, Anu. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research. Department of Physiological Diversity; AlemaniaFil: Eskelinen, Anu. University of Oulu. Ecology & Genetics; FinlandiaFil: Jessen, Maria Theresa. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research. Department of Physiological Diversity; AlemaniaFil: Jessen, Maria Theresa. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; AlemaniaFil: Jessen, Maria Theresa. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ. Department of Community Ecology; AlemaniaFil: Bahamonde, Hector Alejandro. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Ciencias Agrarias y Forestales; Argentina.Fil: Bakker, Jonathan D. University of Washington. School of Environmental and Forest Sciences; Estados UnidosFil: Borer, Elizabeth T. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution & Behavior; Estados UnidosFil: Caldeira, Maria C. University of Lisbon. Forest Research Centre. Associate Laboratory TERRA. School of Agriculture; Portugal.Fil: Harpole, William Stanley. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv); AlemaniaFil: Harpole, William Stanley. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ. Department of Community Ecology; AlemaniaFil: Harpole, William Stanley. Martin Luther University. Institute of Biology; AlemaniaFil: Jia, Meiyu. University of Washington. School of Environmental and Forest Sciences; Estados UnidosFil: Jia, Meiyu. East China University of Technology. School of Water Resources & Environmental Engineering; China.Fil: Jia, Meiyu. Beijing Normal University. College of Life Sciences; China.Fil: Lannes, Luciola S. São Paulo State University-UNESP. Department of Biology and Animal Sciences; Brasil.Fil: Nogueira, Carla. University of Lisbon. Forest Research Centre. Associate Laboratory TERRA. School of Agriculture; Portugal.Fil: Venterink, Harry Olde. Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB). Department of Biology; BélgicaFil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Porath-Krause, Anita J. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution & Behavior; Estados UnidosFil: Seabloom, Eric William. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution & Behavior; Estados UnidosFil: Schroeder, Katie. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution & Behavior; Estados UnidosFil: Schroeder, Katie. University of Georgia. Odum School of Ecology; Estados UnidosFil: Tognetti, Pedro M. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía; Argentina.Fil: Tognetti, Pedro M. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura (IFEVA); Argentina.Fil: Tognetti, Pedro M. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL; SuizaFil: Yasui, Simone-Louise E. Queensland University of Technology. School of Biological and Environmental Sciences; Australia.Fil: Virtanen, Risto. University of Oulu. Ecology & Genetics; FinlandiaFil: Sullivan, Lauren L. University of Missouri. Division of Biological Sciences; Estados UnidosFil: Sullivan, Lauren L. Michigan State University. Department of Plant Biology; Estados UnidosFil: Sullivan, Lauren L. Michigan State University. W. K. Kellogg Biological Station; Estados UnidosFil: Sullivan, Lauren L. Michigan State University. Ecology, Evolution and Behavior Program; Estados Unido