The Reality of Climate Change and the Need for Genetics Approaches in

Restoration

Tom WhithamMerriam-Powell Center for Environmental Research at

Northern Arizona University

Not Bob Marley © Heat map self portrait by Tom Whitham

Collaborators in Community Genetics and Genetics-Based RestorationRachel Adams – plant ecology Gery Allan – molecular ecology Petter Axelsson – transgenic trees Joe Bailey – community ecology Randy Bangert – biogeography Brad Blake – greenhouse managerHelen Bothwell – phylogeography Posy Busby – ecological plant pathology Aimée Classen – soil ecology Zacchaeus Compson – aquatic ecology Hillary Cooper – phylogenetics Sam Cushman – landscape genetics Steve DiFazio – molecular ecology Rodolfo Dirzo – community ecology Rachel Durben – community ecology Luke Evans – population ecology Sharon Ferrier – conservation ecology Dylan Fischer – ecophysiologyPaul Flikkema – systems engineering Kevin Floate – insect ecology Jeff Garnas – entomologyCatherine Gehring – microbial ecology Kevin Grady – restoration Steve Hart – ecosystem/soil ecology Erika Hersch – ecological genetics Joakim Hjältén – ecology Lisa Holeski – genetics & chemistry Kevin Hultine – invasive species Dana Ikeda – climate modeling Julia Hull – endophytes Nathalie Isabel – molecular ecology Art Keith – insect community ecology George Koch – ecophysiology Tom Kolb – plant physiology Andrew Krohn - molecular ecology Jamie Lamit – microbial ecology Matthew Lau – network modeling Carri LeRoy – aquatic ecology Rick Lindroth – chemical ecology Jane Marks – aquatic ecology Tamara Max – molecular ecology Richard Michalet - facilitation & ecology Nashelly Meneses – ecological genetics George Newcombe – plant pathology Jackie Parker – plant ecology Brad Potts – quantitative genetics Jen Schweitzer – ecosystems David Smith – landscape ecologySteve Shuster – theoretical genetics Adrian Stone – community ecology Chris Sthultz – plant ecology Faith Walker – mammalian ecology Amy Whipple – ecological genetics Tom Whitham – community ecology Gina Wimp – community ecology Todd Wojtowicz – litter arthropods Troy Wood – ecology Scott Woolbright - molecular genetics Adam Wymore – aquatic ecology Matt Zinkgraf – molecular genetics

GO & NGO collaborators: Mikael Ingraldi – Arizona Game & Fish Dept., Charles Schelz – National Park ServiceMary McKinley – Ogden Nature Center, Gregg Garnett – Bureau of Reclamation, Kris Haskins – The Arboretum at Flagstaff, Paul Burnett – Utah Dept. of Natural Resources, Billy Cordasco – Babbitt Ranches Outreach – NAU Stefan Sommer, Dan Boone, Ryan Belnap, Lara Schmit, Victor Leshyk - NAU

MacroSystems,MRI, FIBR

Projected climate change alters the distributions of saguaro & pinyon pine. Plants that are locally adapted today will become locally maladapted tomorrow. Where

climate change is great such as the American Southwest, for sensitive plant species restoration with local stock will become a bad practice; i.e., we need to “prestore”

for future conditions.

Rehfeldt et al. 2006 Int. J. Plant ScienceCurrent 2030 2060 2090

Extensive naturally occurring genetic variation in populations can be used in restoration to

mitigate the effects of climate change.

Genotype 1 23 4

Photo – Tom Whitham 2007 Morgan, Utah

Genetic variation in traits important for land managers

Nutrient Cycles 34-65%Schweitzer et al. 2004 Ecology Letters, 2005 Ecology, 2005 Oikos, 2011 Population Ecology, Classen et al. 2007 J of Ecology, Fischer et al. 2010 Plant & Soil, Schweitzer et al. 2011 Pop. Ecology, Classen et al. 2013 Ecosphere, Wymore et al. 2016 Molecular Ecology

Plant Growth 25-72% (architecture) Bailey et al. 2004 Evolution, (productivity) Lojewski et al. 2009 Tree Physiology, Grady et al. 2011 Global Change Biology, (sink-source) Compson et al. 2011 Oecologia, (leaf economic traits) Grady et al. 2013 Functional Ecology, Kaluthota et al. 2015 Tree Physiology

Belowground Carbon Storage & Root Production 77%

Fischer et al. 2006 Oecologia, Fischer et al. 2007 NewPhytologist, Lojewski et al. 2012 New Phytologist

Water Cycles & the Terrestrial-AquaticInterface 35-40% fluxes from soil to plant to atmosphere –

Fischer et al. 2004 Oecologia; aquatic relationships – LeRoy et al. 2006 Ecology, LeRoy et al. 2007 J. N. American Benthological

Soc., Wymore et al. 2015 Freshwater Science

Community Stability 32% Keith et al. 2010 Ecology

Review and Meta-Analysis Whitham et al. 2003 Ecology, Whitham et al. 2006 NatureReviews Genetics, Whitham et al. 2008 Science, Bailey etal. 2009 Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B., Wymore et al. 2011 NewPhytologist, Allan et al. 2012, Whitham et al. 2012 Trendsin Plant Science, Fischer et al. 2014 Plant & Soil

Trophic Structure & Networks 80%(tree-insects-birds) Bailey et al. 2006 Ecology Letters, Smith et al. 2011 J of Evolutionary Biology, (aquatic)Marks et al. 2009 Freshwater Biology, Compson etal. 2014 Ecosystems, (terrestrial) Lamit et al. 2015 J of Ecology, Smith et al. 2015 Acta Oecologica, Wymore et al. 2015 Freshwater Ecology, Lau et al. 2016 Ecology,

Understory Plant CommunityComposition & Biomass 14-20%

Lamit et al. 2011 Botany, Adams et al. 2011 American Journal ofBotany, Michalet et al. 2011 Ecology LettersSoil Feedbacks 20%

Pregitzer et al. 2010 Evolutionary Ecology, Smith et al. 2011 Plant & Soil, Gehring et al. 2014 Botany, Schweitzer et al. 2012

Biodiversity 39-78% (Bacteria, Insects, Spiders, Birds, Mammals, Lichens, Endophytes, Pathogens, Mycorrhizae) Wimp et al. 2004 Ecology Letters, Wimp et al. 2007 Molecular Ecology, Shuster et al. 2006 Evolution, Bangert et al. 2006a,b Molecular Ecology, Schweitzer et al. 2008 Ecology, Bangert et al. 2008 Heredity, Sthultz et al. 2009 New Phytologist, Barbour et al. 2009, Lamit et al.

2011 Fungal Ecology, Ferrier et al. 2012 Arthropod-Plant Interactions, Meneses et al.2012 EcoScience, Busby et al. 2013 J of Ecology, Lamit et al. 2014 Am J Botany,

Busby et al. 2014 J of Ecology, Gehring et al. 2014 Frontiers in Microbiology,Busby et al. 2015 Ecology, Axelsson et al. 2015 PLoS One, Compson et al.

2016 Ecosphere, Floate et al. 2016 New Phytologist, Lamit etal. 2016 Fungal Ecology

GMO Effects on Communities 25-33% Axelsson et al. 2011 J. Appl. Ecology, Axelsson et al. 2011 Chemoecology, Hjältén et al. 2012 PLoS One

Climate Change, Exotics, Conservation & ModelingBangert et al. 2004 Conservation Biology, Bangert & Whitham 2007 Evolutionary Ecology, Sthultz et al. 2009 Global Change Biology, Whitham et al. 2010, Grady et al. 2011 Global Change Biology, Bangert et al. 2013 Restoration Ecology, Grady et al. 2013 Functional Ecology, Gehring et al. 2014 Molecular Ecology, Ikeda et al. 2014 Functional Ecology, Cushman et al. 2014 Ecological Applications, Woolbright et al. 2014 Trends in Ecology &

Evolution, Ikeda et al. 2014 PLoS One, Grady et al. 2015 Restoration Ecology,Evans et al. 2015 Heredity

Evolution of Associated SpeciesEvans et al. 2008 Evolution, Evans et al. 2012 Conservation Genetics, Evans et al. 2013 Evolutionary Ecology

G x E Interactions & Gene DiscoveryEvans et al. 2012 Oecologia, Busby et al. 2014 J of Ecology, Lamit et al. 2015 Ecology, Zinkgraf et al. 2016 J Insect Physiology

Rapid Evolution in Plants Redefines CommunitiesSthultz et al. 2009 Global Change Biology, Gehring et al. 2014

Molecular Ecology, Smith et al. 2015 Oecologia

Kevin Grady with 9000 Fremont cottonwoods at NAU research greenhouse - © Photo by Tom Whitham

Key factors that affect cottonwood performance in restoration.

1. Use genetically appropriate stock for future climates.2. Use genetically appropriate stock for each ecoregion for

tomorrow’s climates.3. Use genetic stock that does best in tamarisk altered soils.4. Inoculate with appropriate mycorrhizal mutualists.5. Plant adjacent to willows that act as nurse plants.6. Use intact communities that are coevolved.

(cottonwoods and willows).7. Select for root architecture to reach a deeper water table.8. Use genotypes that support high biodiversity.

1. Use genetically appropriate stock within an ecoregion.

Upper terrace of the Little Colorado RiverPhoto by Tom Whitham

Central CaliforniaEcoregion

Utah High PlateauEcoregion

Sonoran DesertEcoregion

Treat genetically defined ecoregions as if they were different species;i.e., stock should stay within ecoregions or where those regions

will shift with climate change.

Cushman et al. 2014 Ecological Applications, Ikeda et al. 2016 in review

Marble Canyon dust storm “haboob”© Photo by Tom Whitham

2. Use genetically appropriate stock for future climates with up to 3oC offsets.

sega.nau.eduSEGA provides next generation genetics-based infrastructure to conserve biodiversity, communitystructure and ecosystem function with the challenges of:

1. climate change,2. invasive species, and3. other global changes.

$4.5 million NSF/NAUGO and NGO Participants: USFS, NPS, BLM, BOR, TNC, AZ Game & Fish, Babbitt Ranches, Grand Canyon Trust, & The Arboretum at Flagstaff

Reciprocal Fremont cottonwood gardensPhotos by Tom Whitham

High elevation field trial (1496m; Chevelon SEGA)

Low elevation field trial (87m; PVER)

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 +2 +4

High Elevation Garden 1496m

Low Elevation Garden 87m

AN

PP (k

g bi

omas

s yr-

1)Reciprocal field trials at low and high elevations of Sonoran Desert ecoregion.

1. Plants that are locally adapted today will become locally maladapted for tomorrow’s predicted climate.

2. Planting with local stock today won’t be tomorrow’s best practice.

3. A lot restoration money is at stake, so we better get it right (e.g., $626 million riparian BOR restoration project on the Lower Colorado River).

Grady et al. 2011 Global Change Biology, 2013 Functional Ecology, Restoration Ecology 2015

Fremont cottonwoods on Sulphur Creek, Capitol Reef National Park© Photo by Tom Whitham

3. Inoculate with appropriate mycorrhizal mutualists.

Cottonwood Tamariskor Willow

Neighbor in the Field Meinhardt & Gehring 2012 Ecological Applications

Tamarisk disruptscrucial mycorrhizal

mutualism ofFremont cottonwood.

Ectomycorrhizae on fine rootPhoto by C. Gehring

4. Use willows that act a nurse plants for cottonwoods.

Hidden Lake near Glenwood Springs, Colorado© Photo by Tom Whitham

Matt McEttrick, Jackie Parker, and Julia Hull working on Fremont cottonwood/coyote willow (Salis exigua) nurse association at Chevelon SEGA site, Williams, Arizona

Coyote willow nurse plant association with Fremont cottonwood

(Parker et al. 2016 unpub. data)

a. Cottonwoods paired with willows have greater biomass than those growing alone (F=3.86, p=0.05).

b. Male willows are better nurses than female willows(F=5.90, p=0.024).

Fremont cottonwood and Washingtonia palm oasis, Joshua Tree National Park© Photo by Tom Whitham

5. Select for root architecture to reach a deeper water table.

Genotypes fromdesert populationsroot deeper andfaster than genotypesfrom high elevationpopulations.

Jackie Parker’s rootingexpt., unpub. data

Summary: We need to bridge the gap between science and management to mitigate climate change.

To bridge these gaps, we’ve begun a collaboration to incorporate all 8 factors in riparian restoration on the Little Colorado River

and we need new collaborations to do the same at other sites.

Joshua Tree National Park© Photo by Tom Whitham