Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32313687›Full record

ArticleEvolution letters2020

Where is the optimum? Predicting the variation of selection along climatic gradients and the adaptive value of plasticity. A case study on tree phenology.

Julie Gauzere, Bertrand Teuf, Hendrik Davi, Luis-Miguel Chevin, Thomas Caignard, Bérangère Leys, Sylvain Delzon, Ophélie Ronce, Isabelle Chuine

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolution letters, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Julie GauzereCEFE, CNRS, Univ Montpellier, Univ Paul Valéry Montpellier 3, EPHE IRD Montpellier France.
Bertrand TeufCEFE, CNRS, Univ Montpellier, Univ Paul Valéry Montpellier 3, EPHE IRD Montpellier France.
Hendrik DaviINRA UR 0629 URFM F-84914 Avignon France.
Luis-Miguel ChevinCEFE, CNRS, Univ Montpellier, Univ Paul Valéry Montpellier 3, EPHE IRD Montpellier France.
Thomas CaignardUniv. Bordeaux, INRAE, BIOGECO Bordeaux France.
Bérangère LeysCEFE, CNRS, Univ Montpellier, Univ Paul Valéry Montpellier 3, EPHE IRD Montpellier France.
Sylvain DelzonUniv. Bordeaux, INRAE, BIOGECO Bordeaux France.
Ophélie RonceInstitut des Sciences de l'Évolution, Université de Montpellier, CNRS, IRD EPHE Montpellier France.
Isabelle ChuineCEFE, CNRS, Univ Montpellier, Univ Paul Valéry Montpellier 3, EPHE IRD Montpellier France.
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRUniversité de Bordeaux · FRÉcologie des Forêts Méditerranéennes · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many theoretical models predict when genetic evolution and phenotypic plasticity allow adaptation to changing environmental conditions. These models generally assume stabilizing selection around some optimal phenotype. We however often ignore how optimal phenotypes change with the environment, which limit our understanding of the adaptive value of phenotypic plasticity. Here, we propose an approach based on our knowledge of the causal relationships between climate, adaptive traits, and fitness to further these questions. This approach relies on a sensitivity analysis of the process-based model phenofit, which mathematically formalizes these causal relationships, to predict fitness landscapes and optimal budburst dates along elevation gradients in three major European tree species. Variation in the overall shape of the fitness landscape and resulting directional selection gradients were found to be mainly driven by temperature variation. The optimal budburst date was delayed with elevation, while the range of dates allowing high fitness narrowed and the maximal fitness at the optimum decreased. We also found that the plasticity of the budburst date should allow tracking the spatial variation in the optimal date, but with variable mismatch depending on the species, ranging from negligible mismatch in fir, moderate in beech, to large in oak. Phenotypic plasticity would therefore be more adaptive in fir and beech than in oak. In all species, we predicted stronger directional selection for earlier budburst date at higher elevation. The weak selection on budburst date in fir should result in the evolution of negligible genetic divergence, while beech and oak would evolve counter-gradient variation, where genetic and environmental effects are in opposite directions. Our study suggests that theoretical models should consider how whole fitness landscapes change with the environment. The approach introduced here has the potential to be developed for other traits and species to explore how populations will adapt to climate change.

Indexed as

Abies albaAdaptive plasticitybudburst dateco‐ and counter‐gradientelevation gradientFagus sylvaticafitness landscapeQuercus petraeaselection gradient

Identifiers

PMID32313687
PMCPMC7156102
OpenAlexW3012142988

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.