Visn. Nac. Akad. Nauk Ukr .2015. (7): 32-40

D.V. Dubyna, E.L. Kordyum
Kholodny Institute of Botany of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv


An idea of the system stability determined by lability of its components is one of modern scientific paradigms. In the light of this paradigm, a critical analysis of the classifications of adaptation strategy types of vascular plants is presented and current concepts on phenotypic plasticity in plants and its ecological significance are considered. Under the natural or anthropogenic environmental changes, plants display plasticity at the different levels of their organization that leads to the appearance of numerous phenotypic variations. It is proposed that the main mode of complicated cenobiotic interrelationships of plants, which are immobile and autotrophic, is coexistence, not competition, that is grounded on both the species biological and ecological specificity (ontogenesis duration, reproduction systems, succession of season development) and the level of phenotypic plasticity in the certain conditions of light intensity and spectrum, water supply, as well as by the soil type. Namely, coexistence of species different in biology and ecology provides stability of biocenosis and, thus, stability of the vegetation, without which life on the planet Earth is impossible.
Keywords: adaptation, competition, plasticity, plant, coexistence, stability, phenotypic variation


Language of article: ukrainian


1. Schmalhausen I.I. Path and Regularities of Evolution (Moscow: Izdatelstvo AN SSSR, 1940). [in Russian].

2. Bradshow A.D. Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Adv. Genet. 1965. 13: 115–55.

3. Kuiper P.J.C. Adaptation mechanisms of green plants to environmental stress. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1998. 851: 209–15.

4. Schlichting C.D., Smith H. Phenotypic plasticity: linking molecular mechanisms with evolutionary outcomes. Evol. Ecol. 2002. 16: 189–211.

5. Pigliucci M. Evolution of phenotypic plasticity: where are we going now? Trends Ecol. Evol. 2005. 20: 481–86.

6. Aubin-North N., Renn S.C.P. Genomic reaction norms: using integrative biology to understand molecular mechanisms of phenotypic plasticity. Mol. Ecol. 2009.

7. Kordyum E.L. Ukrayinskyy botanichnyy zhurnal (Ukrainian Botanical Journal). 2012. 69(2) [in Ukrainian].

8. Kelly S.A., Panhuis T.M., Stoehr A.M. Phenotypic plasticity: molecular mechanisms and adaptive significance. Comprehensive Physiology. 2012. 2: 1417–39.

9. Kroon H., Huber H., Stuefer J.F., van Groenendael J.M. A modular concept of phenotypic plasticity in plants. New Phytologist. 2005. 166: 73-82.

10. Scott D. Description of the relationships between plants and environment. In: Vegetation and Environment. Handbook of Vegetation Science. Pt. 6. (eds. Billings W.D., Strain B.R.) (Hague: Dr. W. Junk, 1974). P. 49–69.

11. Whitham T.G., DiFazio S.P., Schweitzer J.A., Shuster S.M., Allan G.J., Bailey J.K.,Woolbright S.A. Extending genomics to natural communities and ecosystems. Science. 2008. 320: 492–93.

12. Zhang X. The epigenetic landscape of plants. Science. 2008. 320: 489.

13. Chinnusamy V., Zhu J.-K. Epigenetic regulation of stress responses in plants. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 2009. 12: 1–7.

14. Bossdorf O., Richards C.L., Pigliucci M. Epigenetics for ecologists. Ecol. Lett. 2008. 11: 106–115.

15. Sultan S.E. Phenotypic plasticity for plant development, function and life history. Trends Plant Sci. 2000. 12: 537–42.

16. Miner B.G., Sultan S.E., Morgan S.G., Padilla D.K., Relyea R.A. Ecological consequences of phenotypic plasticity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2005. 20: 686–92.

17. Mirkin B.M. Zhurnal Obshchei Biologii (Journal of General Biology). 1983. 64: 603–13. [in Russian].

18. Ramenskiy L.G. Sovetskaya Botanika. 1935. (4): 25–42 [in Russian].

19. Ramenskiy L.G. Introduction to the complex soil-botanical research of lands (Moscow: Selkhozgiz, 1938). [in Russian].

20. Ramenskiy L.G. Selectas (Leningrad: Nauka, 1971). [in Russian].

21. Grime J.P. Vegetation classification by reference to strategies. Nature. 1974. 250: 26–31.

22. Grime J.P. Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. American Naturalist. 1977. 111: 1169–94.

23. Grime J.P. Plant Strategies, Vegetation Processes, and Ecosystem Properties (John Wiley & Sons, 2006).

24. Grime J.P., Pierce S. The Evolutionary Strategies that Shape Ecosystems (John Wiley & Sons, 2012).

25. Rabotnov T.A. Bulletin of Moscow Society of Naturalists. Biological series. 1981. 86(3): 68.

26. Whittaker R.H. Communities and Ecosystems (Macmillan, 1975).

27. Romanovskiy Yu.E. Biologicheskie nauki (Biosciences). 1989. 11: 18–31. [in Russian].

28. Pianka E.R. On r- and K-selection. Am. Naturalist. 1970. 104: 592–97.

29. Rabotnov T.A. Ekologiya (Ecology). 1985. 3: 3–12. [in Russian].

30. Stearns S.C. Life-history tactics: a review of the ideas. Quart. Rev. Biol. 1976. 51: 3–47.

31. Kordyum E.L. In: Botany and mycology on a way to the third millennium (ed. Vasser S.P.) (Kyiv : Naukova dumka, 1996). P. 245–55. [in Russian].

32. Tsaryk Y.V. Ukrayinskyy botanichnyy zhurnal (Ukrainian Botanical Journal). 1994. 51: 5–10. [in Ukrainian].

33. Tsaryk Y., Holubets M. (eds.). Strategy populations of plants in natural and anthropogenically modified ecosystems Carpathians (Lviv: Evrosvit, 2001). [in Ukrainian].