Will phenotypic plasticity affecting flowering phenology keep pace with climate change?

Abstract

Rising temperatures have begun to shift flowering time, but it is unclear whether phenotypic plasticity can accommodate projected temperature change for this century. Evaluating clines in phenological traits and the extent and variation in plasticity can provide key information on assessing risk of maladaptation and developing strategies to mitigate climate change. In this study, flower phenology was examined in 52 populations of big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) growing in three common gardens. Flowering date (anthesis) varied 91 days from late July to late November among gardens. Mixed-effects modeling explained 79% of variation in flowering date, of which 46% could be assigned to plasticity and genetic variation in plasticity and 33% to genetics (conditional R = 0.79, marginal R = 0.33). Two environmental variables that explained the genetic variation were photoperiod and the onset of spring, the Julian date of accumulating degree-days >5 °C reaching 100. The genetic variation was mapped for contemporary and future climates (decades 2060 and 2090), showing flower date change varies considerably across the landscape. Plasticity was estimated to accommodate, on average, a ±13-day change in flowering date. However, the examination of genetic variation in plasticity suggests that the magnitude of plasticity could be affected by variation in the sensitivity to photoperiod and temperature. In a warmer common garden, lower-latitude populations have greater plasticity (+16 days) compared to higher-latitude populations (+10 days). Mapped climatypes of flowering date for contemporary and future climates illustrate the wide breadth of plasticity and large geographic overlap. Our research highlights the importance of integrating information on genetic variation, phenotypic plasticity and climatic niche modeling to evaluate plant responses and elucidate vulnerabilities to climate change.

The soil microbial community alters patterns of selection on flowering time and fitness‐related traits in Ipomoea purpurea

“…Phenology plays an important role in plant evolutionary processes since the timing of flowering influences pollinator visitation and the potential for gene flow both within and among populations. The regulation of flowering time is primarily driven by abiotic factors, such as vernalization and photoperiod (Amasino, ), but stress, herbivory, genotype, and nutrient deficiencies can also influence phenology (Stanton et al., ; Franks et al., ; Jordan et al., ; Richardson et al., ). Here we add to the few available studies that consider the influence of the microbial community on plant flowering and show that the soil microbial community acts as a selective agent on flowering phenology and combinations of phenology and growth in the common morning glory.…”

ΔTraitSDMs: species distribution models that account for local adaptation and phenotypic plasticity

“…Extensive phenotypic plasticity is often considered favourable for the persistence of populations under rapid climate change (Valladares et al, 2014), although it can delay evolutionary adaption to new environments in the long term (Wund, 2012). However, few studies have been able to tease apart the roles of plasticity vs local adaptation for fitness across large environmental gradients (Mclean et al, 2014;Richardson et al, 2017;Macdonald et al, 2018). These studies are typically based on common-garden experiments where the genetic origins of the populations are known (Wilczek et al, 2014).…”

Range-wide variation in local adaptation and phenotypic plasticity of fitness-related traits in Fagus sylvatica and their implications under climate change

“…Accordingly, numerous models have projected significant range shifts of forest tree species towards higher latitudes and elevations (Urban et al, 2016). However, to date, the two most important processes in the response of tree populations to a rapidly changing climate, local adaptation and phenotypic plasticity (Aitken, Yeaman, Holliday, Wang, & Curtis-Mclane, 2008; Savolainen, Pyhäjärvi, & Knürr, 2007), are not systematically considered by species distribution models (but see Duputié, Rutschmann, Ronce, & Chuine, 2015; Richardson, Chaney, Shaw, & Still, 2017; Valladares et al, 2014). Phenotypic plasticity enables a given genotype to express different phenotypes in response to changing environments, while local adaptation produces new genotypes with a greater ability to cope with the new environment.…”