A. Epigenetic effects at the population level.

We cannot start to understand how epigenetic diversity affects populations without first talking about intraspecific diversity. A species is a group of living individuals that can exchange genes or interbreed. By definition, intraspecific diversity is the variation occurring between individuals belonging to the same species, and it is the main factor underlying diversity at the population level. While many studies on ecosystem functioning focus on the interspecific facet of diversity, diversity also includes an intraspecific facet that is defined by phenotypic, functional, and genetic diversity measured within a single species (Schaaf et al., 2003; Bolnick et al., 2011). Generally speaking, this intraspecific trait variability increases the functional diversity of plant communities, a key component of biodiversity with important implications for species coexistence and ecosystem functioning. Intraspecific genotypic and phenotypic diversity has been demonstrated to account for a big part of the total biodiversity measured in plants and animals, representing in some cases up to a quarter of the total variability measured in communities (Raffard et al. 2018, 2019). In the last couple of decades, it has also become clear that intraspecific variation exists at the epigenetic level, for example, DNA methylation.

Epigenetic variation can be under genetic control, but some parts are independent of it due to spontaneous epimutations (Becker et al., 2011; Van Der Graaf et al., 2015) or following environmental induction (Jiang et al., 2014; Quadrana & Colot, 2016). These independent epimutations hold the most potential for finding novel intraspecific phenotypic differences (Bossdorf et al., 2008; Richards et al., 2017). So far, in‐depth documentation of intraspecific epigenetic variation has been restricted to model plant species such as Arabidopsis thaliana, Oryza sativa, and Zea mays for which extensive genomic and epigenomic resources exist (Becker et al., 2011; Schmitz et al., 2013; Van Der Graaf et al., 2015; Kawakatsu et al., 2016). However, with high throughput sequencing techniques becoming more affordable and accurate every day, new plant species are being added to the pool for which genomic resources are readily available, increasing research on natural genetic and epigenetic variation in non-model species (Richards et al., 2017).

Some studies could show that variation in DNA methylation is common in natural populations exceeding DNA sequence variation when comparing populations from different ecological origins (Herrera & Bazaga, 2010; Richards et al., 2012; Schulz et al., 2014). It is, therefore, essential to consider how epigenetic diversity varies between populations. Take, for example, two populations that are separated in time and/or space and are subjected to different conditions or environmental cues. If environmental conditions can induce the occurrence of new epialleles, these two populations will, in theory, present different epigenetic marks that mirror their specific environmental conditions, and those marks will potentially be inherited by the offspring (Richards, 2006). In line with this expectation, several studies have confirmed that populations show epigenetic differentiation between habitats. For example, in 2012, Richards and colleagues found that variation in some epigenetic loci in Fallopia japonica plants might be associated with specific local conditions (Richards et al., 2012). Another study by Lira-Madeiros et al. (2010) showed that individuals from a single population had similar genetic but divergent epigenetic profiles characteristic for the population in a particular environment. The evidence in these studies suggests that epigenetic variation among populations could reflect local acclimation and thus can play a role in helping individuals to cope with different environments.

The most commonly documented ecological effects of epigenetic diversity on populations involve the productivity or fitness of the population studied, and they can occur through different mechanisms. In 2010, Bossdorf and colleagues found that experimental alteration of DNA methylation strongly affected growth, fitness, and phenology in A. thaliana individuals. In another study, Latzel et al. (2013) suggested that epigenetic variability might affect how different epiRILs ("Epigenetic Recombinant Inbred Lines" Johannes et al., 2009) respond to treatment with salicylic acid and jasmonate, which are the main hormones involved in plant defense responses. In a series of experiments, Fieldes and colleagues showed that demethylation agents affected the fitness and phenological traits of Linum usitatissimum (Fieldes 1994; Fieldes & Amyot 1999; Fieldes et al. 2005). Moreover, evidence is growing that shortfalls in genetic diversity can be balanced by epigenetic diversity and facilitate plant population success. In 2013, Rollins and colleagues used two herbaceous species (Arctotheca populifolia and Petrorhagia nanteuilii) that showed evidence of fast morphological changes to examine if high genetic diversity is necessary for invasion success. Interestingly, they found that these two species had successfully established and adapted to a new habitat range in Australia, despite having considerably low genetic diversity in their native ranges (Rollins et al., 2013). Their findings provide an example of successful colonization processes that do not depend on high genetic diversity and align with similar findings (Richards et al., 2012) and theoretical lines of thought (Geoghegan & Spencer, 2012).

Although most studies on epigenetic effects involve short-lived plant species, methylation differences can also affect morphological and physiological processes in tree species. For example, a study by Raj et al. (2011) suggests that there might be a possible epigenetic basis for differences in transcriptomic profiles between poplar trees growing in distinct environments. In addition, white mangrove trees can exhibit striking morphological differences that might be related to a higher epigenetic diversity (Lira-Madeiros et al., 2010). Furthermore, changes in epigenetic marks have been associated with a wide variety of processes, including aging, organ maturation, and bud set or bud burst (Fraga et al. 2002; Santamaria et al. 2009; Valledor et al. 2010; Carneros et al., 2017; Lu et al., 2019). In recent years, studies on tree species responses that are epigenetically regulated have become more common (reviewed in Bräutigam et al., 2013). However, due to the limitations of working with long-lived species, natural epigenetic variation in tree species remains under-explored (Heer et al., 2018b).

B. Epigenetic effects at the community level.

We have discussed how epigenetic diversity can affect intraspecific diversity and how intraspecific diversity, in turn, changes how populations respond to their environmental conditions. Populations, although, are part of ecological communities. Although several studies have explored the importance of genetic diversity at the community level (Downing et al., 2002; Helm et al., 2009; Taberlet et al., 2012, Lamy et al., 2016), given the limitations of working at large-scale levels, quite a number of these studies disregard intraspecific variation and focus instead on trait means and trait variation among species (Bolnick et al., 2011; Zeng, Durka & Fischer, 2017). Nevertheless, community phenotypes can also arise from intraspecific trait variation (Siefert et al., 2015; Des Roches, 2018; Bongers et al., 2020), and sometimes intra-and interspecific diversity can have opposing effects (Hanh et al., 2017). Little is known about the ecological implications of epigenetic diversity on plant natural populations (Herrera, 2017), and very few studies have tried to assess the contribution of epigenetic variation to ecosystem dynamics in plant communities (Balao, Paun & Alonso, 2017; Herrera, Medrano & Bazaga, 2017; Mounger et al., 2020). However, considering that genetic variation has been proven to affect community-level interactions, it is safe to assume that epigenetic variation can have similar effects on communities. This section will address the three primary biological interactions (competition, predation and symbiosis) occurring within a community and the implications of epigenetic diversity on them.

i. Herbivory

Epigenetic responses to plant herbivory have been discussed in a previous chapter, so we will not detail them here. We will instead focus on how genetic diversity and, consequently epigenetic diversity, might affect interspecific interactions at the community level. Numerous studies have found effects of plant diversity on arthropod species richness and abundance (Koricheva et al. 2000, Crutsinger et al. 2006; Haddad et al., 2009; Robinson et al., 2012) and consumptive interactions (Moreira & Mooney 2013, Abdala-Roberts et al., 2015), with the basis of such effects being variation in ecologically critical functional traits among plant species or genotypes within species (Elle & Hare 2002, Mooney & Singer, 2012; Fernandez-Conradi et al., 2017). The influence of host-plant intraspecific diversity on arthropod communities has been extensively investigated and is a perfect example of how genetic variance can affect community-level interactions (reviewed in Koricheva et al., 2018). Similarly, epigenetic mechanisms can influence how plants respond to herbivory by, for example, inducing plant defenses (Verhoeven et al, 2010, affecting within-plant herbivore distribution (Herrera et al., 2019), or changing phytohormone production and palatability (Latzel et al., 2020). Hence, epigenetic changes can directly affect arthropod communities through different processes.

In this latter example, the authors conducted a so-called Cafeteria test with Larvae from the Egyptian cotton leafworm (Spodoptera littoralis). This moth is a generalist herbivore that feeds on plants of at least 40 families. Due to this extreme polyphagy, it has been used in many bioassay experiments of leaf palatability. In this experiment, the Egyptian cotton leafworm was put on Trifolium repens plants that had been treated with various levels of 5-azacytidine application to induce various levels of methylation, as well as on normally methylated control plants. The caterpillars could then freely choose between the plants and preferred individuals that were intensively treated over control or moderately treated plants (F = 7.22, p < 0.001). To get an indication of the mechanism behind the varying preferences, Latzel et al. measured levels of phytohormones known to be involved in inducible defense production, such as jasmonic acid, which is considered the key hormone in establishing altered gene expression related to inducible defense.

Most plant diversity studies have focused exclusively on its effects within a single trophic level (herbivores), but plant diversity may also indirectly affect higher trophic levels, i.e., enemies and mutualists of herbivores (Haddad et al., 2011; Moreira & Mooney, 2013). There are two ways in which plant diversity can influence higher trophic levels. The first one is related to an increase in the number of herbivores present in a specific community. There is a positive correlation between plant species richness and the diversity of associated consumers. Approximately 90% of herbivorous insects present some degree of host specialization (Bernays & Graham, 1988). If plant species richness increases, so do the number of herbivore species, and if the number of herbivores increases, so will the abundance of mutualists and enemies of those herbivores. The second way is mediated by traits. In this case, plant diversity influences herbivore, mutualist, or enemy traits, such as herbivore susceptibility to enemies (Johnson et al., 2006; Moreira et al., 2012; Moreira & Mooney, 2013). If epigenetic diversity can increase (or decrease) plant species richness and plant diversity, it will also affect arthropod communities.

Changes in aboveground net primary productivity (ANPP) can also influence plant-herbivore interactions. Higher ANPP means more energy available for consumers, and therefore more herbivore species or a higher number of individuals per species will be able to use this energy. Consequently, a higher number of herbivores will result in a higher number of enemies or mutualists. There is evidence that epigenetic diversity positively affects biomass production in Arabidopsis (Latzel et al., 2013). Although further research is needed to assess if this positive effect also extends to other plant species, epigenetic diversity has the potential of influencing herbivore populations by increasing plant biomass production and ANPP.

ii. Competition

Competition is a long-term interaction between organisms in which both organisms suffer adverse effects. Several studies have shown that plasticity in relevant functional traits derived from genetic variation can contribute to the success of invasive plant species by increasing their fitness across a range of habitats (Richards et al., 2006; Muth & Pigliucci, 2007; Walls, 2010; Davidson et al. 2011). Invasive species can have significant effects on ecosystem functioning, and invasions can lead to a loss of plant diversity (Linders et al., 2019). As discussed above, changes in plant diversity can extend to other trophic or organizational levels. Hence the invasive capacity of certain plant species can have effects on plant populations and communities. Interestingly, many invasive plant species appear to perform well despite having low levels of genetic variation. Dlugosch & Parker (2008a,b) reported that even though several plant species had suffered substantial losses of genetic diversity when compared to source populations, only one showed a significant decline in phenotypic variance. Several authors have suggested that epigenetic diversity increases the chances of successful colonization events in invasive species (Richards et al., 2006; Loomis & Fishman, 2009; Douhovnikoff & Dodd, 2015; Slotkin, 2016; Mounger et al., 2020). Even if most of the research in this field is focused on understanding plant invasion dynamics, epigenetic diversity could help explain how pioneer plant species colonize new habitats in successional processes. A recent study by Venturelli and colleagues (2015) showed that some allelochemicals released by Triticum aestivum (and other plant species) inhibit histone deacetylases, a group of enzymes involved in chromatin modification. Even more recently, Puy et al. (2020) showed that differences in DNA methylation of parental individuals affected offspring phenotypes. In their study, offspring of plants under stronger competition presented resource-conservative phenotypes and developed faster, suggesting that transgenerational phenotypic plasticity influenced competitive plant-plant interactions (Puy et al., 2020).

iii. Symbiosis

Symbiotic relationships are long-term interactions between two organisms. The term "symbiosis" includes a broad range of biological interactions that can be classified according to the effects the relationship has on each organism (Relman, 2008). The three major types of symbiotic interactions are mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism. Mutualistic interactions have a positive effect on both organisms, commensalism has a positive effect on one individual while the other is neither benefited nor harmed and in parasitism, the parasite benefits from the host and the host is damaged in some way.

Plants harbor an extreme diversity of symbionts, and their responses to symbiotic microbes and fungal organisms are probably the most studied interactions. Substantial literature documents the range of phenotypic variants conferred by symbiotic organisms, and many examples of mutualist-induced changes that are genotype-dependent in plant traits have been reported (Vannier et al., 2015; Gilbert, Tozer & Westoby, 2019; Wen et al., 2020). Several mechanisms control these interactions, but the plant epigenome has emerged as a critical modulator of pathogenic and symbiotic interactions (Bazin et al., 2012; Yu et al., 2013; Espinas, Saze & Saijo, 2016; Zogli & Libault, 2017). Interestingly, some symbiotic interactions could be considered epigenetic phenomena because plant endophytes can alter gene expression and phenotype without causing changes in the underlying DNA structure (Rodriguez et al., 2008). A major part of the research on epigenetic control of plant-symbiont interactions focuses on mycorrhizal fungi due to the importance of these organisms for processes that can affect plant fitness (e.g., nitrogen-fixing reactions, nutrient uptake, and abiotic and biotic stress tolerance). Nevertheless, some studies have tried to determine the role of epigenetic changes in plant-pollinator interactions, another common type of mutualism, and plant-parasite interactions. For example, in 2009, Marfil and colleagues associated distinctive methylation profiles with aberrant flower phenotypes in Solanum ruiz-lealii plants. This can potentially influence pollination rates, as bumblebees, the only pollinator of Solanum plants, do not visit aberrant flowers (Marfil, Camado & Masueli, 2009). In another study by Kellenberger et al. (2016), demethylation of Brassica rapa plants resulted in reduced attractiveness of the plants to pollinator bees (Kellenberger, Schlüter and Schiestle, 2016). Quite recently, Samarth et al. (2020) have introduced the hypothesis of an "epigenetic summer memory" as a driver of mast flowering (mass synchronized flowering of perennial plants over a wide geographical area), an event that has major impacts on trophic interactions (Kelly, 1994).

Parasitic interactions have received a bit more attention, mainly due to the high economic losses plant parasites cause on crops, and recent studies have attempted to throw some light on the epigenetic regulation of plant-nematode interactions. For example, Hewezi et al. showed that cyst nematodes could induce changes in the root epigenome (Hewezi et al., 2017). In another study, Sahid et al. (2018) suggest that miRNA-mediated changes in the host gene expression might act in a way beneficial to the nematode, and Pratx and colleagues explored the role of the epigenetic machinery of the root-knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita (Pratx et al., 2018). However, despite the advances of the modern literature, to our knowledge, all the research so far has focused on understanding the epigenetic regulation of symbiotic interactions, and there are no studies on the potential effects of epigenetic diversity on community structure or dynamics.

C. Epigenetic effects at the ecosystem and landscape level

We have discussed how variation at the species level can extend into higher organizational levels. When communities are grouped with their abiotic surroundings, they are considered an ecosystem. Genetic diversity and epigenetic diversity shape the structure and dynamics of each level at the population and community levels. In contrast, landscape structure can have significant effects on the genetic diversity of populations (Münzbergová et al., 2013; González et al., 2020; Lehmair et al., 2020). The study of large-scale interactions is limited by the complexity of each system and the sheer number of different variables and processes encompassed in the system. The further up the organizational level we move, the more difficult it becomes to study possible epigenetic effects. From a traditional perspective, studies on genetic diversity at large-scale levels (i.e., over large areas and for many species) are still demanding, given the need for field sampling and the still more or less high costs of genetic analysis. (Taberlet et al., 2012).

Furthermore, plant functional traits can strongly influence ecosystem properties, acting in several contexts that include the effects of dominant or foundation species and keystone species or the interactions between the individuals of the ecosystem (Hooper et al., 2005). Regardless, several studies have shown that the genetic diversity of dominant plant species can affect essential ecosystem functions. Genotypic variation in trees of the Populus genus is a well-studied example of how genetic diversity can influence nutrient cycles and energy fluxes. Differences among several aspen (Populus tremula) genotypes can have substantial effects on litter decomposition and nutrient release (Madritch et al. 2007; Bandau et al., 2016; Hughes et al., 2018). Nutrient fluxes can also be affected by foliar secondary metabolites. For example, condensed tannins (CT) influence carbon and nitrogen cycles specifically by affecting the microbial communities that mediate these cycles. In other hybridizing cottonwoods (Populus fremontii, Populus angustifolia), the chemical composition of the leaf litter impacts the rate of decay and nutrient flux to a degree that is comparable with the effects of species diversity (Schweitzer et al. 2005). Since nutrient fluxes are ecosystem-wide processes, any change in these fluxes will affect every population or community within the ecosystem (Fischer et al., 2007).

Moreover, disparate groups of organisms demonstrate significant relationships between community composition and concentrations of CT in Populus that link above- and below-ground processes. For example, Schweitzer et al. (2008) showed that microbial community composition differs significantly in soils beneath Populus genotypes that varied in their expression of foliar CT. Thus, even when only a few traits vary between genotypes, microorganisms belonging to different functional groups can occur. In another study, Madritch and others (2007) found that the CT concentration of frass deposition of two herbivores affected below-ground respiration and extracellular enzyme activity of microbial communities (Schweitzer et al., 2008).

When including epigenetic diversity into large-scale studies, several layers of complexity are added to the mix. In contrast to genetic or genomic patterns, the strength, the effects of epigenetic diversity at a landscape level, and its evolutionary implications are poorly understood. Generally speaking, disentangling the effects of epigenetic variation from genetic variation is not a straightforward process. Some advances have been made in this regard by using clonally propagated species and common garden experiments (Bossdorf et al., 2008; Richards et al., 2017). Despite the limitations, many recent landscape-level studies have investigated the role of epigenetics in intraspecific trait variation and adaptation (Medrano et al., 2014; Dubin et al., 2015; Preite et al., 2015; Foust et al., 2016; Gugger et al., 2016; Herrera et al., 2016; Keller et al., 2016; Alakärpa et al., 2018; Gáspár, Bossdorf & Durka, 2018). These studies focus on the relationship between genetic and epigenetic variation at the landscape level, correlations between environmental variables and epigenetic marks, and correlations between epigenetic marks and plant phenotypic traits (Whipple & Holeski, 2016).

Genetic variation provides the baseline for phenotypic variation on which evolutionary processes like natural selection can act (Fisher, 1930; Hughes et al., 2008). The magnitude of genetic variation within a population can be quantified in many ways, and it is a fundamental source of biodiversity (Hughes et al., 2008). Although we know relatively little about the range of potential ecological effects (Hughes et al., 2008), there is plenty of evidence that genetic diversity can affect population dynamics (Reusch et al., 2005; Johnson et al., 2006), species interactions (Kagiya et al., 2017), community composition (Booth & Grime, 2003), and ecosystem processes (Hughes & Stachowicz, 2004; Schweitzer et al., 2005; Madritch et al., 2006).

However, recent advances in molecular biology and genomics have shown that genetic variation is not the only cause of phenotypic variation among individuals (Rapp & Wendel, 2005). One of these additional sources of phenotypic plasticity is epigenetic variation (Zhang et al., 2013). Several studies have suggested that epigenetic diversity has a more significant role in phenotypic plasticity than previously thought (Bossdorf et al., 2008; Heer et al., 2018a). It can create variation (heritable or non-heritable) in ecologically important traits such as tree growth, phenology, plant defense responses to herbivory, or even niche width and habitat differentiation (for further details, see chapter 1: "Phenotypic plasticity and adaptation").

In plants, heritable epialleles frequently arise de novo through epimutations in the germline, that is, through stochastic losses or gain of DNA methylation. These heritable epimutations seem to occur mainly at CpG dinucleotides and are highly dependent on genomic context (Taudt et al., 2016), suggesting that genetic variability in plants can influence the levels of DNA methylation (Dubin et al., 2015). Therefore, high genetic diversity can potentially translate into high epigenetic diversity. On the other hand, if epigenetic variation can create heritable variation in functional traits, then epigenetic diversity can, in principle, have positive effects similar to those of DNA sequence diversity on the functioning of populations and ecosystems (Latzel et al., 2013). Epigenetic changes can also be independent of genetic structure and could, in theory, trigger the formation of novel epialleles and promote the movement of DNA transposons that are commonly found in plant genomes. Therefore, novel 'epigenetically induced' heritable phenotypes can increase the ability of plants to adapt to environmental challenges (Richards, 2006; Mirouze & Paszkowski, 2011). Despite recent advances in the field, the effects of epigenetic variation across different ecological organization levels remain poorly understood. However, thanks to modern genomic techniques becoming more affordable and accessible, new efforts have been made to understand the relationship between genetic, epigenetic, and phenotypic variation and the range of effects of epigenetic variation at ecosystem and landscape levels. This chapter will discuss the known effects of genetic and epigenetic diversity and argue that even though more research on the topic is needed, it is safe to assume that epigenetic diversity across large-scale systems may have consequences similar to those of genetic diversity.

Ecological systems are defined by the interactions of organisms and the physical processes affecting those organisms through space and time. As a result, ecological systems are complex, and to simplify the study of specific processes or interactions, ecologists have organized them in hierarchical levels (Lidicker, 2007). The lowest level of ecological organization is the population, defined as individuals of the same species that inhabit a given area simultaneously (Hannan & Freeman, 1977; Berryman, 2002). A collection of local populations that interact with each other and the larger area or region with a balance between extinction and recolonization rates is called a metapopulation (Hastings & Harrison, 1994). Individual populations are further organized into ecological communities. A community is an assemblage of populations of different species that live in a shared environment and interact with one another, forming together a distinctive system (Fauth et al., 1996).

When several communities are grouped in their abiotic surroundings, they are considered an ecosystem (Tansley, 1935). Furthermore, all communities exist in the broader spatial context of the landscape. Each landscape is composed of unique communities and ecosystems, and the broad-scale of geological and climatic patterns occurring around the globe give rise to regional patterns in the geographic distribution of ecosystems. Geographic regions that have similar geographical and climatic conditions support similar types of communities and ecosystems. These broad-scale regions dominated by similar types of ecosystems are referred to as biomes (Clements, 1916), and biomes are further grouped in what we call the biosphere, the sum of all the organisms on the planet and their environment, considered as a system of interacting components.

Two components, structure and dynamics, characterize every ecological level. The system structure results from demographic parameters such as the density of individuals that belong to specific populations or communities, the relative abundance of those individuals, or the number of species found in any given community. This species richness is the simplest measure of community structure, but not all species are equally abundant or affect the community in the same way. Foundation species are the base of a community and play a significant role in defining its structure (Ellison et al., 2005). When a single or a few species predominate within a community, those species are referred to as dominants (Grime, 1987), while a less abundant species with a disproportionate impact on community structure and dynamics are called keystone species (Holling, 1992). Population and community dynamics result from the interactions between the individual organisms and their environment and the individuals' interactions. Dominant or keystone species are essential within a community because small changes affecting this species can affect the whole system. This chapter will focus on how epigenetic diversity can influence ecological processes and interactions at many different organizational levels and how changes in lower levels can affect higher levels.

Summary

Genetic diversity can be defined as any measure that quantifies the magnitude of genetic variability within a population. In the last two decades, it has been shown to have a strong impact on populations, communities, and entire ecosystems (Rapp & Wendel, 2005; Kagiya et al., 2017). For example, genetic diversity reduces the rate at which species diversity declines in experimental grassland communities (Booth & Grime, 2003), increases species richness, and influences community composition in arthropod communities (Johnson et al., 2005; Witham et al., 2008; Robinson et al., 2012). The genetic diversity of dominant plant species can also affect nutrient flux, for instance, via litter decomposition processes (Bandau et al., 2016). On the other hand, phenotypic plasticity is defined as the ability of one genotype to produce more than one phenotype when exposed to different environments (Kelly et al., 2012). Intraspecific trait variability is a direct result of phenotypic plasticity and contributes to amplify the functional diversity of plant communities, a key component of biodiversity with important implications for species coexistence and ecosystem functioning (Medrano et al., 2014). Therefore, genetic diversity is the baseline for phenotypic diversity on which evolutionary processes like natural selection acts (Hughes et al., 2008). However, in recent years it became evident that epigenetic variation can play a role in phenotypic plasticity (Bossdorf et al., 2008; Heer et al., 2018), and several studies have suggested that epigenetic variation can create functional diversity in populations (Latzel et al., 2013). For example, epigenetic mechanisms play a role in allelopathy, and epigenetic changes might be more determinant than genetic variability in the success of plant invasions (Pérez et al., 2012; Hoffman, 2015; Slotkin, 2016). Furthermore, as explained in previous chapters, epigenetic variation can also have a role in how plants respond to environmental stress conditions (Kinosita & Seki, 2015). Although epimutations may arise spontaneously, a significant fraction of all epigenetic variation found within a population has a genetic and environmental basis (Kawakatsu et al., 2016). It is thus reasonable to assume that epigenetic variation can also influence populations and communities, and processes at the ecosystem or landscape levels.

References

Bandau, Franziska, et al. "Genotypic Variability in Populus Tremula L. Affects How Anthropogenic Nitrogen Enrichment Influences Litter Decomposition." Plant and Soil, vol. 410, no. 1–2, Springer International Publishing, Jan. 2017, pp. 467–81, doi:10.1007/s11104-016-3033-8.

Booth, Rosemary E., and J. Philip Grime. "Effects of Genetic Impoverishment on Plant Community Diversity." Journal of Ecology, vol. 91, no. 5, Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111), Oct. 2003, pp. 721–30, doi:10.1046/j.1365-2745.2003.00804.x.

Bossdorf, Oliver, et al. "Epigenetics for Ecologists." Ecology Letters, vol. 0, no. 0, Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111), Nov. 2007, p. 071117033013002–???, doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01130.x.

Heer, Katrin, et al. "The Diversifying Field of Plant Epigenetics." New Phytologist, vol. 217, no. 3, Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111), Feb. 2018, pp. 988–92, doi:10.1111/nph.14985.

Hofmann, Nancy R. "Epigenetic Battles Underfoot: Allelopathy among Plants Can Target Chromatin Modification." The Plant Cell, vol. 27, no. 11, American Society of Plant Biologists, Nov. 2015, p. 3021, doi:10.1105/tpc.15.00916.

Hughes, A. Randall, et al. "Ecological Consequences of Genetic Diversity." Ecology Letters, vol. 11, no. 6, Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111), June 2008, pp. 609–23, doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01179.x.

Johnson, Marc T. J., et al. "Additive and Interactive Effects of Plant Genotypic Diversity on Arthropod Communities and Plant Fitness." Ecology Letters, vol. 0, no. 0, Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111), Oct. 2005, p. 051012084514001, doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00833.x.

Kagiya, Shinnosuke, et al. "Does Genomic Variation in a Foundation Species Predict Arthropod Community Structure in a Riparian Forest?" Molecular Ecology, vol. 27, no. 5, Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111), Mar. 2018, pp. 1284–95, doi:10.1111/mec.14515.

Kawakatsu, T., Huang, S. shan C., Jupe, F., Sasaki, E., Schmitz, R. J. J., Urich, M. A. A., … Ecker, J. R. (2016). Epigenomic diversity in a Global Collection of Arabidopsis thaliana Accessions. Cell, 166(2), 492–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.06.044

Kinoshita, Tetsu, and Motoaki Seki. "Epigenetic Memory for Stress Response and Adaptation in Plants." Plant and Cell Physiology, vol. 55, no. 11, Oxford University Press, Nov. 2014, pp. 1859–63, doi:10.1093/pcp/pcu125.

Latzel, Vít, et al. "Epigenetic Diversity Increases the Productivity and Stability of Plant Populations." Nature Communications, vol. 4, no. 1, Nature Publishing Group, Dec. 2013, p. 2875, doi:10.1038/ncomms3875.

Medrano, Mónica, et al. "Epigenetic Variation Predicts Regional and Local Intraspecific Functional Diversity in a Perennial Herb." Molecular Ecology, vol. 23, no. 20, Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111), Oct. 2014, pp. 4926–38, doi:10.1111/mec.12911.

Pérez, Julio, y Carmen Alfonsi, y Carlos Ramos, y Juan Antonio Gómez, y Carlos Muñoz, y Sinatra K. Salazar. "How some alien species become invasive. Some ecological, genetic and epigenetic basis for bioinvasions". Interciencia, vol. 37, no. 3, 2012, pp. 238-244. Editorial Asociación Interciencia.

Rapp, Ryan A., and Jonathan F. Wendel. "Epigenetics and Plant Evolution." New Phytologist, vol. 168, no. 1, Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111), June 2005, pp. 81–91, doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01491.x.

Robinson, K. M., Ingvarsson, P. K., Jansson, S., Albrectsen, B. R., Soares, J., & Macaya-Sanz, D. (2012). Genetic Variation in Functional Traits Influences Arthropod Community Composition in Aspen (Populus tremula L.). PLoS ONE, 7(5), e37679. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037679

Slotkin, R. Keith. "Plant Epigenetics: From Genotype to Phenotype and Back Again." Genome Biology, vol. 17, no. 1, BioMed Central, Dec. 2016, p. 57, doi:10.1186/s13059-016-0920-5.

Whitham, Thomas G., et al. "Extending Genomics to Natural Communities and Ecosystems." Science (New York, N.Y.), vol. 320, no. 5875, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Apr. 2008, pp. 492–95, doi:10.1126/science.1153918.

Abdala-Roberts, L., Mooney, K. A., Quijano-Medina, T., Campos-Navarrete, M. J., González-Moreno, A., & Parra-Tabla, V. (2015). Comparison of tree genotypic diversity and species diversity effects on different guilds of insect herbivores. Oikos, 124(11), 1527–1535. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.02033

Alakärppä, E., Salo, H. M., Valledor, L., Cañal, M. J., Häggman, H., & Vuosku, J. (2018). Natural variation of DNA methylation and gene expression may determine local adaptations of Scots pine populations. Journal of Experimental Botany, 69(21), 5293–5305. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ery292

Balao, F., Paun, O., & Alonso, C. (2018). Uncovering the contribution of epigenetics to plant phenotypic variation in Mediterranean ecosystems. Plant Biology, 20, 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/plb.12594

Bandau, F., Albrectsen, B. R., Julkunen-Tiitto, R., & Gundale, M. J. (2017). Genotypic variability in Populus tremula L. affects how anthropogenic nitrogen enrichment influences litter decomposition. Plant and Soil, 410(1–2), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-016-3033-8

Bazin, J., Bustos-Sanmamed, P., Hartmann, C., Lelandais-Brière, C., & Crespi, M. (2012). Complexity of miRNA-dependent regulation in root symbiosis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1595), 1570–1579. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0228

Becker, C., Hagmann, J., Müller, J., Koenig, D., Stegle, O., Borgwardt, K., & Weigel, D. (2011). Spontaneous epigenetic variation in the Arabidopsis thaliana methylome. Nature, 480(7376), 245–249. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10555

Bernays, E., & Graham, M. (1988). On the Evolution of Host Specificity in Phytophagous Arthropods. Ecology, 69(4), 886–892. https://doi.org/10.2307/1941237

Berryman, A. A. (2002). Population: A Central Concept for Ecology? Oikos, 97(3), 439–442. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3547665

Bolnick, D. I., Amarasekare, P., Araújo, M. S., Bürger, R., Levine, J. M., Novak, M., … Vasseur, D. A. (2011). Why intraspecific trait variation matters in community ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 26(4), 183–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.01.009

Bongers, F. J., Schmid, B., Durka, W., Li, S., Bruelheide, H., Hahn, C. Z., … Liu, X. (2020). Genetic richness affects trait variation but not community productivity in a tree diversity experiment. New Phytologist, 227(3), 744–756. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16567

Booth, R. E., & Grime, J. P. (2003). Effects of genetic impoverishment on plant community diversity. Journal of Ecology, 91(5), 721–730. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.2003.00804.x

Bossdorf, O., Richards, C. L., & Pigliucci, M. (2008). Epigenetics for ecologists. Ecology Letters, 11(2), 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01130.x

Bräutigam, K., Vining, K. J., Lafon-Placette, C., Fossdal, C. G., Mirouze, M., Marcos, J. G., … Cervera, M.-T. (2013). Epigenetic regulation of adaptive responses of forest tree species to the environment. Ecology and Evolution, 3(2), 399–415. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.461

Camus, P. A., & Lima, M. (2002). Populations, Metapopulations, and the Open-Closed Dilemma: The Conflict between Operational and Natural Population Concepts. Oikos, 97(3), 433–438. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3547664

Carneros, E., Yakovlev, I., Viejo, M., Olsen, J. E., & Fossdal, C. G. (2017). The epigenetic memory of temperature during embryogenesis modifies the expression of bud burst-related genes in Norway spruce epitypes. Planta, 246(3), 553–566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-017-2713-9

Clements, F. E. (1916). Plant succession: an analysis of the development of vegetation. Carnegie Institution of Washington.

Crutsinger, G. M., Collins, M. D., Fordyce, J. A., Gompert, Z., Nice, C. C., & Sanders, N. J. (2006). Plant genotypic diversity predicts community structure and governs an ecosystem process. Science (New York, N.Y.), 313(5789), 966–968. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128326

Davidson, A. M., Jennions, M., & Nicotra, A. B. (2011). Do invasive species show higher phenotypic plasticity than native species and, if so, is it adaptive? A meta-analysis. Ecology Letters, 14(4), 419–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01596.x

Des Roches, S., Post, D. M., Turley, N. E., Bailey, J. K., Hendry, A. P., Kinnison, M. T., … Palkovacs, E. P. (2018). The ecological importance of intraspecific variation. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 2(1), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0402-5

Dlugosch, K. M., & Parker, I. M. (2008). Founding events in species invasions: genetic variation, adaptive evolution, and the role of multiple introductions. Molecular Ecology, 17(1), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03538.x

Dlugosch, K. M., & Parker, I. M. (2008). Invading populations of an ornamental shrub show rapid life history evolution despite genetic bottlenecks. Ecology Letters, 11(7), 701–709. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01181.x

Douhovnikoff, V., & Dodd, R. S. (2015). Epigenetics: a potential mechanism for clonal plant success. Plant Ecology, 216(2), 227–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-014-0430-z

Downing, A. L., & Leibold, M. A. (2002). Ecosystem consequences of species richness and composition in pond food webs. Nature, 416(6883), 837–841. https://doi.org/10.1038/416837a

Dubin, M. J., Zhang, P., Meng, D., Remigereau, M.-S., Osborne, E. J., Paolo Casale, F., … Nordborg, M. (2015). DNA methylation in Arabidopsis has a genetic basis and shows evidence of local adaptation. ELife, 4. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.05255

Elle, E., & Hare, J. D. (2002). Environmentally induced variation in floral traits affects the mating system in Datura wrightii. Functional Ecology, 16(1), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0269-8463.2001.00599.x

Ellison, A. M., Bank, M. S., Clinton, B. D., Colburn, E. A., Elliott, K., Ford, C. R., … Webster, J. R. (2005). Loss of foundation species: consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3(9), 479–486. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295

Espinas, N. A., Saze, H., & Saijo, Y. (2016). Epigenetic Control of Defense Signaling and Priming in Plants. Frontiers in Plant Science, 7(AUG2016), 1201. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01201

Fauth, J. E., Bernardo, J., Camara, M., Resetarits, W. J., Van Buskirk, J., & McCollum, S. A. (1996). Simplifying the jargon of community ecology: A conceptual approach. American Naturalist, 147(2), 282–286. https://doi.org/10.1086/285850

Fernandez-Conradi, P., Jactel, H., Hampe, A., Leiva, M. J., & Castagneyrol, B. (2017). The effect of tree genetic diversity on insect herbivory varies with insect abundance. Ecosphere, 8(1), e01637. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1637

Fieldes, M. A. (1994). Heritable effects of 5-azacytidine treatments on the growth and development of flax ( Linum usitatissimum ) genotrophs and genotypes. Genome, 37(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1139/g94-001

Fieldes, M. A., & Amyot, L. (1999). Epigenetic control of early flowering in flax lines induced by 5-azacytidine applied to germinating seed. Journal of Heredity, 90(1), 199–206. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/90.1.199

Fieldes, M. A., Schaeffer, S. M., Krech, M. J., & Brown, J. C. L. (2005). DNA hypomethylation in 5-azacytidine-induced early-flowering lines of flax. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 111(1), 136–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-005-2005-9

Fischer, D. G., Hart, S. C., LeRoy, C. J., & Whitham, T. G. (2007). Variation in below-ground carbon fluxes along a Populus hybridization gradient. New Phytologist, 176(2), 415–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02167.x

Foust, C. M., Preite, V., Schrey, A. W., Alvarez, M., Robertson, M. H., Verhoeven, K. J. F., & Richards, C. L. (2016). Genetic and epigenetic differences associated with environmental gradients in replicate populations of two salt marsh perennials. Molecular Ecology, 25(8), 1639–1652. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13522

Fraga, M. F., Rodríguez, R., & Cañal, M. J. (2002). Genomic DNA methylation-demethylation during aging and reinvigoration of Pinus radiata. Tree Physiology, 22(11), 813–816. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/22.11.813

Gáspár, B., Bossdorf, O., & Durka, W. (2019). Structure, stability and ecological significance of natural epigenetic variation: a large-scale survey in Plantago lanceolata. New Phytologist, 221(3), 1585–1596. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15487

Geoghegan, J. L., & Spencer, H. G. (2012). Population-epigenetic models of selection. Theoretical Population Biology, 81(3), 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tpb.2011.08.001

Gibert, A., Tozer, W., & Westoby, M. (2019). Plant performance response to eight different types of symbiosis. New Phytologist, 222(1), 526–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15392

González, A. V., Gómez‐Silva, V., Ramírez, M. J., & Fontúrbel, F. E. (2020). Meta‐analysis of the differential effects of habitat fragmentation and degradation on plant genetic diversity. Conservation Biology, 34(3), 711–720. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13422

Grime, J. P. (1987). Dominant and subordinate components of plant communities: implications for succession, stability and diversity. Symposium of the British Ecological Society.

Gugger, P. F., Fitz-Gibbon, S., PellEgrini, M., & Sork, V. L. (2016). Species-wide patterns of DNA methylation variation in Quercus lobata and their association with climate gradients. Molecular Ecology, 25(8), 1665–1680. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13563

Haddad, N. M., Crutsinger, G. M., Gross, K., Haarstad, J., Knops, J. M. H., & Tilman, D. (2009). Plant species loss decreases arthropod diversity and shifts trophic structure. Ecology Letters, 12(10), 1029–1039. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01356.x

Haddad, N. M., Crutsinger, G. M., Gross, K., Haarstad, J., & Tilman, D. (2011). Plant diversity and the stability of foodwebs. Ecology Letters, 14(1), 42–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01548.x

Hahn, C. Z., Niklaus, P. A., Bruelheide, H., Michalski, S. G., Shi, M., Yang, X., … Durka, W. (2017). Opposing intraspecific vs. interspecific diversity effects on herbivory and growth in subtropical experimental tree assemblages. Journal of Plant Ecology, 10(1), 244–251. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rtw098

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The Population Ecology of Organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 929–964. https://doi.org/10.1086/226424

Hastings, A., & Harrison, S. (1994). Metapopulation Dynamics and Genetics. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 25, 167–188. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2097309

Heer, K., Mounger, J., Boquete, M. T., Richards, C. L., & Opgenoorth, L. (2018). The diversifying field of plant epigenetics. New Phytologist, 217(3), 988–992. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14985

Heer, K., Ullrich, K. K., Hiss, M., Liepelt, S., Schulze Brüning, R., Zhou, J., … Rensing, S. A. (2018). Detection of somatic epigenetic variation in Norway spruce via targeted bisulfite sequencing. Ecology and Evolution, 8(19), 9672–9682. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4374

Helm, A., Oja, T., Saar, L., Takkis, K., Talve, T., & Pärtel, M. (2009). Human influence lowers plant genetic diversity in communities with extinction debt. Journal of Ecology, 97(6), 1329–1336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01572.x

Herrera, C. M. (2017). The ecology of subindividual variability in plants: patterns, processes, and prospects. Web Ecology, 17(2), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.5194/we-17-51-2017

Herrera, C. M., & Bazaga, P. (2010). Epigenetic differentiation and relationship to adaptive genetic divergence in discrete populations of the violet Viola cazorlensis. New Phytologist, 187(3), 867–876. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03298.x

Herrera, C. M., Medrano, M., & Bazaga, P. (2016). Comparative spatial genetics and epigenetics of plant populations: heuristic value and a proof of concept. Molecular Ecology, 25(8), 1653–1664. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13576

Herrera, C. M., Medrano, M., & Bazaga, P. (2017). Comparative epigenetic and genetic spatial structure of the perennial herb Helleborus foetidus : Isolation by environment, isolation by distance, and functional trait divergence. American Journal of Botany, 104(8), 1195–1204. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1700162

Herrera, C. M., Medrano, M., Pérez, R., Bazaga, P., & Alonso, C. (2019). Within‐plant heterogeneity in fecundity and herbivory induced by localized <scp>DNA</scp> hypomethylation in the perennial herb Helleborus foetidus. American Journal of Botany, 106(6), 798–806. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajb2.1291

Hewezi, T., Lane, T., Piya, S., Rambani, A., Rice, J. H., & Staton, M. (2017). Cyst nematode parasitism induces dynamic changes in the root epigenome. Plant Physiology, 174(1), 405–420. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.16.01948

Hofmann, N. R. (2015). Epigenetic Battles Underfoot: Allelopathy among Plants Can Target Chromatin Modification. The Plant Cell, 27(11), 3021. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.15.00916

Holling, C. S. (1992). Cross-scale morphology, geometry, and dynamics of ecosystems. Ecological Monographs, 62(4), 447–502. https://doi.org/10.2307/2937313

Hooper, D. U., Chapin, F. S., Ewel, J. J., Hector, A., Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S., … Wardle, D. A. (2005). Effects of biodiversity on ecoystem functioning: A consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs, 75(1), 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-0922

Hughes, A. R., Inouye, B. D., Johnson, M. T. J., Underwood, N., & Vellend, M. (2008). Ecological consequences of genetic diversity. Ecology Letters, 11(6), 609–623. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01179.x

Jiang, C., Mithani, A., Belfield, E. J., Mott, R., Hurst, L. D., & Harberd, N. P. (2014). Environmentally responsive genome-wide accumulation of de novo Arabidopsis thaliana mutations and epimutations. Genome Research, 24(11), 1821–1829. https://doi.org/10.1101/GR.177659.114

Johannes, F., Porcher, E., Teixeira, F. K., Saliba-Colombani, V., Simon, M., Agier, N., … Colot, V. (2009). Assessing the Impact of Transgenerational Epigenetic Variation on Complex Traits. PLoS Genetics, 5(6), e1000530. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000530

Johnson, M. T. J., Lajeunesse, M. J., & Agrawal, A. A. (2006). Additive and interactive effects of plant genotypic diversity on arthropod communities and plant fitness. Ecology Letters, 0(0), 051012084514001. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00833.x

Kagiya, S., Yasugi, M., Kudoh, H., Nagano, A. J., & Utsumi, S. (2018). Does genomic variation in a foundation species predict arthropod community structure in a riparian forest? Molecular Ecology, 27(5), 1284–1295. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14515

Kawakatsu, T., Huang, S. C., Jupe, F., Sasaki, E., Schmitz, R. J., Urich, M. A., … Ecker, J. R. (2016). Epigenomic Diversity in a Global Collection of Arabidopsis thaliana Accessions. Cell, 166(2), 492–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CELL.2016.06.044

Kellenberger, R. T., Schlüter, P. M., & Schiestl, F. P. (2016). Herbivore-Induced DNA Demethylation Changes Floral Signalling and Attractiveness to Pollinators in Brassica rapa. PLOS ONE, 11(11), e0166646. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166646

Keller, T. E., Lasky, J. R., & Yi, S. V. (2016). The multivariate association between genomewide DNA methylation and climate across the range of Arabidopsis thaliana. Molecular Ecology, 25(8), 1823–1837. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13573

Kelly, D. (1994). The evolutionary ecology of mast seeding. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 9(12), 465–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(94)90310-7

Kinoshita, T., & Seki, M. (2014). Epigenetic Memory for Stress Response and Adaptation in Plants. Plant and Cell Physiology, 55(11), 1859–1863. https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcu125

Koricheva, J., & Hayes, D. (2018). The relative importance of plant intraspecific diversity in structuring arthropod communities: A meta-analysis. Functional Ecology, 32(7), 1704–1717. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13062

Koricheva, J., Mulder, C. P. H., Schmid, B., Joshi, J., & Huss-Danell, K. (2000). Numerical responses of different trophic groups of invertebrates to manipulations of plant diversity in grasslands. Oecologia, 125(2), 271–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420000450

Lamy, T., Laroche, F., David, P., Massol, F., & Jarne, P. (2017). The contribution of species-genetic diversity correlations to the understanding of community assembly rules. Oikos, 126(6), 759–771. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.03997

Latzel, V., Allan, E., Bortolini Silveira, A., Colot, V., Fischer, M., & Bossdorf, O. (2013). Epigenetic diversity increases the productivity and stability of plant populations. Nature Communications, 4(1), 2875. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3875

Latzel, V., Münzbergová, Z., Skuhrovec, J., Novák, O., & Strnad, M. (2020). Effect of experimental DNA demethylation on phytohormones production and palatability of a clonal plant after induction via jasmonic acid. Oikos, oik.07302. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.07302

Lehmair, T. A., Pagel, E., Poschlod, P., & Reisch, C. (2020). Surrounding landscape structures, rather than habitat age, drive genetic variation of typical calcareous grassland plant species. Landscape Ecology, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01120-7

Lidicker, W. Z. (2007). Levels of organization in biology: on the nature and nomenclature of ecology’s fourth level. Biological Reviews, 83(1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00032.x

Linders, T. E. W., Schaffner, U., Eschen, R., Abebe, A., Choge, S. K., Nigatu, L., … Allan, E. (2019). Direct and indirect effects of invasive species: Biodiversity loss is a major mechanism by which an invasive tree affects ecosystem functioning. Journal of Ecology, 107(6), 2660–2672. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13268

Lira-Medeiros, C. F., Parisod, C., Fernandes, R. A., Mata, C. S., Cardoso, M. A., & Ferreira, P. C. G. (2010). Epigenetic Variation in Mangrove Plants Occurring in Contrasting Natural Environment. PLoS ONE, 5(4), e10326. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010326

Loomis, E. S., & Fishman, L. (2009). A Continent‐Wide Clone: Population Genetic Variation of the Invasive Plant Hieracium aurantiacum (Orange Hawkweed; Asteraceae) in North America. International Journal of Plant Sciences, 170(6), 759–765. https://doi.org/10.1086/599241

Lu, W., Xiao, L., Quan, M., Wang, Q., El‐Kassaby, Y. A., Du, Q., & Zhang, D. (2020). Linkage‐linkage disequilibrium dissection of the epigenetic quantitative trait loci (epiQTLs) underlying growth and wood properties in Populus. New Phytologist, 225(3), 1218–1233. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16220

Madritch, M. D., Donaldson, J. R., & Lindroth, R. L. (2007). Canopy herbivory can mediate the influence of plant genotype on soil processes through frass deposition. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 39(5), 1192–1201. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOILBIO.2006.12.027

Madritch, M., Donaldson, J. R., & Lindroth, R. L. (2006). Genetic identity of Populus tremuloides litter influences decomposition and nutrient release in a mixed forest stand. Ecosystems, 9(4), 528–537.

Marfil, C. F., Camadro, E. L., & Masuelli, R. W. (2009). Phenotypic instability and epigenetic variability in a diploid potato of hybrid origin, Solanum ruiz-lealii. BMC Plant Biology, 9(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-9-21

Medrano, M., Herrera, C. M., & Bazaga, P. (2014). Epigenetic variation predicts regional and local intraspecific functional diversity in a perennial herb. Molecular Ecology, 23(20), 4926–4938. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12911

Mirouze, M., & Paszkowski, J. (2011). Epigenetic contribution to stress adaptation in plants. Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 14(3), 267–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PBI.2011.03.004

Mooney, K. A., & Singer, M. S. (2012). Plant effects on herbivore-enemy interactions in natural systems. Trait-Mediated Indirect Interactions: Ecological and Evolutionary Perspectives, 107–130.

Moreira, X., & Mooney, K. A. (2013). Influence of plant genetic diversity on interactions between higher trophic levels. Biology Letters, 9(3), 20130133. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2013.0133

Moreira, X., Mooney, K. A., Zas, R., & Sampedro, L. (2012). Bottom-up effects of host-plant species diversity and top-down effects of ants interactively increase plant performance. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279(1746), 4464–4472. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.0893

Mounger, J., Ainouche, M., Bossdorf, O., Cavé-Radet, A., Li, B., Parepa, M., … Richards, C. (n.d.). Epigenetics and the success of invasive plants. https://doi.org/10.32942/OSF.IO/69PM8

Münzbergová, Z., Cousins, S. A. O., Herben, T., Plačková, I., Mildén, M., & Ehrlén, J. (2013). Historical habitat connectivity affects current genetic structure in a grassland species. Plant Biology, 15(1), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1438-8677.2012.00601.x

Muth, N. Z., & Pigliucci, M. (2007). Implementation of a novel framework for assessing species plasticity in biological invasions: responses of Centaurea and Crepis to phosphorus and water availability. Journal of Ecology, 95(5), 1001–1013. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01268.x

Papazian, S., Girdwood, T., Wessels, B. A., Poelman, E. H., Dicke, M., Moritz, T., & Albrectsen, B. R. (2019). Leaf metabolic signatures induced by real and simulated herbivory in black mustard (Brassica nigra). Metabolomics, 15(10), 130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11306-019-1592-4

Pratx, L., Rancurel, C., Da Rocha, M., Danchin, E. G. J., Castagnone-Sereno, P., Abad, P., & Perfus-Barbeoch, L. (2018). Genome-wide expert annotation of the epigenetic machinery of the plant-parasitic nematodes Meloidogyne spp., with a focus on the asexually reproducing species. BMC Genomics, 19(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-018-4686-x

Preite, V., Snoek, L. B., Oplaat, C., Biere, A., van der Putten, W. H., & Verhoeven, K. J. F. (2015). The epigenetic footprint of poleward range-expanding plants in apomictic dandelions. Molecular Ecology, 24(17), 4406–4418. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13329

Puy, J., de Bello, F., Dvořáková, H., Medina, N. G., Latzel, V., & Carmona, C. P. (2020). Competition‐induced transgenerational plasticity influences competitive interactions and leaf decomposition of offspring. New Phytologist, nph.17037. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.17037

Quadrana, L., & Colot, V. (2016). Plant Transgenerational Epigenetics. Annual Review of Genetics, 50(1), 467–491. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genet-120215-035254

Raffard, A., Cucherousset, J., Santoul, F., Gesu, L. Di, & Blanchet, S. (2018). Intraspecific variation and warming have comparable effects on eco-evolutionary dynamics. BioRxiv, 332619. https://doi.org/10.1101/332619

Raffard, A., Santoul, F., Cucherousset, J., & Blanchet, S. (2019). The community and ecosystem consequences of intraspecific diversity: a meta-analysis. Biological Reviews, 94(2), 648–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12472

Raj, S., Bräutigam, K., Hamanishi, E. T., Wilkins, O., Thomas, B. R., Schroeder, W., … Campbell, M. M. (2011). Clone history shapes Populus drought responses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(30), 12521–12526. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1103341108

Rapp, R. A., & Wendel, J. F. (2005). Epigenetics and plant evolution. New Phytologist, 168(1), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01491.x

Reusch, T. B. H., Ehlers, A., Hämmerli, A., & Worm, B. (2005). Ecosystem recovery after climatic extremes enhanced by genotypic diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(8), 2826–2831. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0500008102

Relman, D. A. (2008). “Til death do us part”: Coming to terms with symbiotic relationships. Nature Reviews Microbiology, Vol. 6, pp. 721–724. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro1990

Richards, C. L., Alonso, C., Becker, C., Bossdorf, O., Bucher, E., Colomé-Tatché, M., … Verhoeven, K. J. F. (2017). Ecological plant epigenetics: Evidence from model and non-model species, and the way forward. Ecology Letters, 20(12), 1576–1590. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12858

Richards, C. L., Bossdorf, O., Muth, N. Z., Gurevitch, J., & Pigliucci, M. (2006, August 1). Jack of all trades, master of some? On the role of phenotypic plasticity in plant invasions. Ecology Letters, Vol. 9, pp. 981–993. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00950.x

Richards, C. L., Schrey, A. W., & Pigliucci, M. (2012). Invasion of diverse habitats by few Japanese knotweed genotypes is correlated with epigenetic differentiation. Ecology Letters, 15(9), 1016–1025. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01824.x

Richards, E. J. (2006). Inherited epigenetic variation — revisiting soft inheritance. Nature Reviews Genetics, 7(5), 395–401. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1834

Robinson, K. M., Ingvarsson, P. K., Jansson, S., Albrectsen, B. R., Soares, J., & Macaya-Sanz, D. (2012). Genetic Variation in Functional Traits Influences Arthropod Community Composition in Aspen (Populus tremula L.). PLoS ONE, 7(5), e37679. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037679

Rodriguez, R. J., Henson, J., Van Volkenburgh, E., Hoy, M., Wright, L., Beckwith, F., … Redman, R. S. (2008). Stress tolerance in plants via habitat-adapted symbiosis. The ISME Journal, 2(4), 404–416. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2007.106

Rollins, L. A., Moles, A. T., Lam, S., Buitenwerf, R., Buswell, J. M., Brandenburger, C. R., … Sherwin, W. B. (2013). High genetic diversity is not essential for successful introduction. Ecology and Evolution, 3(13), 4501–4517. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.824

Schaaf, L. J., Odling-Smee, F. J., Laland, K. N., & Feldman, M. W. (2003). Niche construction: the neglected process in evolution. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt24hqpd

Schmitz, R. J., He, Y., Valdés-López, O., Khan, S. M., Joshi, T., Urich, M. A., … Ecker, J. R. (2013). Epigenome-wide inheritance of cytosine methylation variants in a recombinant inbred population. Genome Research, 23(10), 1663–1674. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.152538.112

Schulz, B., Eckstein, R. L., & Durka, W. (2014). Epigenetic variation reflects dynamic habitat conditions in a rare floodplain herb. Molecular Ecology, 23(14), 3523–3537. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12835

Schweitzer, J. A., Madritch, M. D., Bailey, J. K., LeRoy, C. J., Fischer, D. G., Rehill, B. J., … Whitham, T. G. (2008). From Genes to Ecosystems: The Genetic Basis of Condensed Tannins and Their Role in Nutrient Regulation in a Populus Model System. Ecosystems, 11(6), 1005–1020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-008-9173-9

Schweitzer, J. A., Bailey, J. K., Hart, S. C., & Whitham, T. G. (2005). Nonadditive effects of mixing cottonwood genotypes on litter decomposition and nutrient dynamics. Ecology, 86(10), 2834–2840. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-1955

Shahid, S., Kim, G., Johnson, N. R., Wafula, E., Wang, F., Coruh, C., … Axtell, M. J. (2018). MicroRNAs from the parasitic plant Cuscuta campestris target host messenger RNAs. Nature, 553(7686), 82–85. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25027

Siefert, A., Violle, C., Chalmandrier, L., Albert, C. H., Taudiere, A., Fajardo, A., … Wardle, D. A. (2015, December 1). A global meta-analysis of the relative extent of intraspecific trait variation in plant communities. Ecology Letters, Vol. 18, pp. 1406–1419. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12508

Slotkin, R. K. (2016). Plant epigenetics: from genotype to phenotype and back again. Genome Biology, 17(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-016-0920-5

Taberlet, P., Zimmermann, N. E., Englisch, T., Tribsch, A., Holderegger, R., Alvarez, N., … Gugerli, F. (2012). Genetic diversity in widespread species is not congruent with species richness in alpine plant communities. Ecology Letters, 15(12), 1439–1448. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12004

Tansley, A. G. (2013). The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. In The Future of Nature: Documents of Global Change (pp. 220–229). https://doi.org/10.2307/1930070

Taudt, A., Colomé-Tatché, M., & Johannes, F. (2016). Genetic sources of population epigenomic variation. Nature Reviews Genetics, 17(6), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg.2016.45

van der Graaf, A., Wardenaar, R., Neumann, D. A., Taudt, A., Shaw, R. G., Jansen, R. C., … Johannes, F. (2015). Rate, spectrum, and evolutionary dynamics of spontaneous epimutations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(21), 6676–6681. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1424254112

Vannier, N., Mony, C., Bittebière, A.-K., & Vandenkoornhuyse, P. (2015). Epigenetic Mechanisms and Microbiota as a Toolbox for Plant Phenotypic Adjustment to Environment. Frontiers in Plant Science, 6(DEC), 1159. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.01159

Venturelli, S., Belz, R. G., Kämper, A., Berger, A., von Horn, K., Wegner, A., … Becker, C. (2015). Plants release precursors of histone deacetylase inhibitors to suppress growth of competitors. Plant Cell, 27(11), 3175–3189. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.15.00585

Walls, R. L. (2010). Hybridization and Plasticity Contribute to Divergence Among Coastal and Wetland Populations of Invasive Hybrid Japanese Knotweed s.l. (Fallopia spp.). Estuaries and Coasts, 33(4), 902–918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-009-9190-8

Wen, Z., Pang, J., Tueux, G., Liu, Y., Shen, J., Ryan, M. H., … Siddique, K. H. M. (2020). Contrasting patterns in biomass allocation, root morphology and mycorrhizal symbiosis for phosphorus acquisition among 20 chickpea genotypes with different amounts of rhizosheath carboxylates. Functional Ecology, 34(7), 1311–1324. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13562

Whipple, A. V., & Holeski, L. M. (2016). Epigenetic Inheritance across the Landscape. Frontiers in Genetics, 7(OCT), 189. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2016.00189

Whitham, T. G., Bailey, J. K., Schweitzer, J. A., Shuster, S. M., Bangert, R. K., LeRoy, C. J., … Wooley, S. C. (2006). A framework for community and ecosystem genetics: from genes to ecosystems. Nature Reviews Genetics, 7(7), 510–523. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1877

Whitham, T. G., Difazio, S. P., Schweitzer, J. A., Shuster, S. M., Allan, G. J., Bailey, J. K., & Woolbright, S. A. (2008). Extending genomics to natural communities and ecosystems. Science (New York, N.Y.), 320(5875), 492–495. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1153918

Yu, A., Lepère, G., Jay, F., Wang, J., Bapaume, L., Wang, Y., … Navarro, L. (2013). Dynamics and biological relevance of DNA demethylation in Arabidopsis antibacterial defense. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(6), 2389–2394. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211757110

Zeng, X., Durka, W., & Fischer, M. (2017). Species-specific effects of genetic diversity and species diversity of experimental communities on early tree performance. Journal of Plant Ecology, 10(1), 252–258. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rtw108

Zhang, Y. Y., Fischer, M., Colot, V., & Bossdorf, O. (2013). Epigenetic variation creates potential for evolution of plant phenotypic plasticity. New Phytologist, 197(1), 314–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12010Zogli, P., & Libault, M. (2017, October 1). Plant response to biotic stress: Is there a common epigenetic response during plant-pathogenic and symbiotic interactions? Plant Science, Vol. 263, pp. 89–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2017.07.008