title: The evolutionary fate of phenotypic plasticity and functional traits under domestication in manioc: changes in stem biomechanics and the appearance of stem brittleness.
abstract: Domestication can influence many functional traits in plants, from overall life-history and growth form to wood density and cell wall ultrastructure. Such changes can increase fitness of the domesticate in agricultural environments but may negatively affect survival in the wild. We studied effects of domestication on stem biomechanics in manioc by comparing domesticated and ancestral wild taxa from two different regions of greater Amazonia. We compared mechanical properties, tissue organisation and wood characteristics including microfibril angles in both wild and domesticated plants, each growing in two different habitats (forest or savannah) and varying in growth form (shrub or liana). Wild taxa grew as shrubs in open savannah but as lianas in overgrown and forested habitats. Growth form plasticity was retained in domesticated manioc. However, stems of the domesticate showed brittle failure. Wild plants differed in mechanical architecture between shrub and liana phenotypes, a difference that diminished between shrubs and lianas of the domesticate. Stems of wild plants were generally stiffer, failed at higher bending stresses and were less prone to brittle fracture compared with shrub and liana phenotypes of the domesticate. Biomechanical differences between stems of wild and domesticated plants were mainly due to changes in wood density and cellulose microfibril angle rather than changes in secondary growth or tissue geometry. Domestication did not significantly modify "large-scale" trait development or growth form plasticity, since both wild and domesticated manioc can develop as shrubs or lianas. However, "finer-scale" developmental traits crucial to mechanical stability and thus ecological success of the plant were significantly modified. This profoundly influenced the likelihood of brittle failure, particularly in long climbing stems, thereby also influencing the survival of the domesticate in natural situations vulnerable to mechanical perturbation. We discuss the different selective pressures that could explain evolutionary modifications of stem biomechanical properties under domestication in manioc.
authors.affiliation: Université Montpellier 2, UMR AMAP, Montpellier, France; CNRS, UMR AMAP, Montpellier, France.
authors.forename: Léa
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Ménard
authors.forename: Doyle
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: McKey
authors.forename: Gilda S
authors.initials: GS
authors.lastname: Mühlen
authors.forename: Bruno
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Clair
authors.forename: Nick P
authors.initials: NP
authors.lastname: Rowe
mesh_terms: D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D017753:Ecosystem; D004548:Elasticity; D019143:Evolution, Molecular; D002365:Manihot / Q000254:growth & development / Q000502:physiology*; D010641:Phenotype; D018547:Plant Stems / Q000502:physiology*; D013314:Stress, Mechanical
references.citation: New Phytol. 2005 Apr;166(1):305-18
references.pmid: 15760372
references.citation: Heredity (Edinb). 2000 Sep;85 Pt 3:219-30
references.pmid: 11012725
references.citation: Genetics. 1991 Sep;129(1):285-95
references.pmid: 1682215
references.citation: Theor Appl Genet. 2006 Jun;113(1):100-9
references.pmid: 16614831
references.citation: Plant Mol Biol. 2004 Nov;56(4):517-26
references.pmid: 15630616
references.citation: Nature. 1997 Apr 3;386(6624):485-8
references.pmid: 9087405
references.citation: Mol Ecol. 2007 Jul;16(14):3025-38
references.pmid: 17614915
references.citation: Int J Dev Biol. 2005;49(5-6):717-32
references.pmid: 16096977
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 May 11;96(10):5586-91
references.pmid: 10318928
references.citation: New Phytol. 2003 Jun;158(3):543-559
references.pmid: 36056511
references.citation: Genetics. 1995 Sep;141(1):333-46
references.pmid: 8536981
references.citation: Theor Appl Genet. 2002 May;104(6-7):965-975
references.pmid: 12582601
references.citation: Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2009 Oct;53(1):329-34
references.pmid: 19435608
references.citation: Am J Bot. 2005 Aug;92(8):1381-96
references.pmid: 21646158
references.citation: Ann Bot. 2005 Nov;96(6):953-63
references.pmid: 16159942
references.citation: Science. 2000 Dec 22;290(5500):2291-4
references.pmid: 11125139
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Nov 22;108(47):E1195-203
references.pmid: 22065760
references.citation: Mol Ecol. 2002 May;11(5):901-11
references.pmid: 11975706
references.citation: Genome Res. 2005 Dec;15(12):1643-50
references.pmid: 16339361
references.citation: Am J Bot. 2003 May;90(5):663-74
references.pmid: 21659161
references.citation: Am Nat. 2004 Jan;163(1):105-12
references.pmid: 14767840
references.citation: Ann Bot. 2007 Nov;100(5):941-50
references.pmid: 17478546
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2010 Apr 22;277(1685):1253-8
references.pmid: 20018786
references.citation: Ann Bot. 2009 Jun;103(8):1249-59
references.pmid: 19351684
references.citation: New Phytol. 2010 Apr;186(2):318-32
references.pmid: 20202131
references.citation: Planta. 2000 Apr;210(5):691-700
references.pmid: 10805439
references.citation: Mol Ecol. 2001 Aug;10(8):1895-907
references.pmid: 11555234
references.citation: Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2004 May;79(2):461-72
references.pmid: 15191232
references.citation: J Struct Biol. 1999 Dec 30;128(3):257-69
references.pmid: 10633065
references.citation: Nat Genet. 2006 May;38(5):594-7
references.pmid: 16642024