ArticlePloS one2018
Adaptive differentiation of Festuca rubra along a climate gradient revealed by molecular markers and quantitative traits.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phylogeographic analysis reveals extensive genetic variation of native grassFrontiers in plant science · 2024Article
- Article
- Halophytic Clonal Plant Species: Important Functional Aspects for Existence in Heterogeneous Saline Habitats.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Effect of DNA methylation, modified by 5-azaC, on ecophysiological responses of a clonal plant to changing climate.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Rhizome trait scaling relationships are modulated by growth conditions and are linked to plant fitness.Annals of botany · 2022Article
- Localized environmental heterogeneity drives the population differentiation of two endangered and endemic Opisthopappus Shih species.BMC ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- Evolutionary Rescue as a Mechanism Allowing a Clonal Grass to Adapt to Novel Climates.Frontiers in plant science · 2021Article
- Comparative analysis of adaptive and neutral markers ofEcology and evolution · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Species response to climate change is influenced by predictable (selective) and unpredictable (random) evolutionary processes. To understand how climate change will affect present-day species, it is necessary to assess their adaptive potential and distinguish it from the effects of random processes. This will allow predicting how different genotypes will respond to forecasted environmental change. Space for time substitution experiments are an elegant way to test the response of present day populations to climate variation in real time. Here we assess neutral and putatively adaptive variation in 11 populations of Festuca rubra situated along crossed gradients of temperature and moisture using molecular markers and phenotypic measurements, respectively. By comparing population differentiation in putatively neutral molecular markers and phenotypic traits (QST-FST comparisons), we show the existence of adaptive differentiation in phenotypic traits and their plasticity across the climatic gradient. The observed patterns of differentiation are due to the high genotypic and phenotypic differentiation of the populations from the coldest (and wettest) environment. Finally, we observe statistically significant covariation between markers and phenotypic traits, which is likely caused by isolation by adaptation. These results contribute to a better understanding of the current adaptation and evolutionary potential to face climate change of a widespread species. They can also be extrapolated to understand how the studied populations will adjust to upcoming climate change without going through the lengthy process of phenotyping.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.