Table 1.
Summary of studies of terrestrial plants designed to examine plastic and/or genetic responses of traits driven by climate change
| Family | Species | Trait type | Genetic | Plastic | Adapt | Cause | Time | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. Studies showing direct evidence for genetic and/or plastic changes due to climate change | ||||||||
| Brassicaceae | Brassica rapa | PH, PY | Y(2,3) | Y(4)/N(2,3) | Y(1,2) | Y(2,3) | RS | Franks et al. (2007), Franks and Weis (2008), Franks (2011) |
| Lamiaceae | Thymus vulgaris | PF | Y(6) | . | Y(2) | Y(1) | FD | Thompson et al. (2007, 2013) |
| Poaceae | Andropogon gerardii | PY, GR | Y(2,3,6) | Y(2,3,4) | Y(3)* | Y(3) | EX | Avolio et al. (2013), Avolio and Smith (2013) |
| Poaceae | Triticum dicoccoides and Hordeum spontaneum | PH, AF | Y(2,6) | . | . | Y(2) | RS | Nevo et al. (2012) |
| Polygonaceae | Polygonum cespitosum | PY, GR | Y(2,3) | Y(2,3) | Y(1,2)* | Y(2,3) | RS | Sultan et al. (2013) |
| B. Studies showing strongly suggestive evidence for genetic and/or plastic changes due to climate change | ||||||||
| Betulaceae | Betula pubescens and Betula pendula | PH | Y(2,3) | Y(2) | Y(2)† | Y(1) | EX | Billington and Pelham (1991) |
| Brassicaceae | Arabidopsis thaliana | PH | Y(2,4) | Y(2,3) | N(2) | Y(2,3) | EX | Springate et al. (2011) |
| Brassicaceae | Boechera stricta | PH | Y(2,3) | Y(2,4) | Y(1,2)† | Y(2) | EX, FD | Anderson et al. (2012a) |
| Brassicaceae | Brassica juncea | PH, GR | Y(2,3,4) | Y(2,3) | N(1,2) | Y(3) | EX | Potvin and Tousignant (1996) |
| Brassicaceae | Erysimum capitatum | GR | Y(2,5) | Y(2,4) | Y(1)† | Y(1) | EX | Kim and Donohue (2011) |
| Caryophyllaceae | Colobanthus quitensis | PY, GR | Y(2,4) | Y(2,3) | Y(1)* | . | EX | Molina Montenegro et al. (2012) |
| Fagaceae | Fagus sylvatica and Quercus petraea | PH | Y/N(2,5) | Y(2,5) | . | Y(1) | EX | Vitasse et al. (2010) |
| Fagaceae | Quercus suber | PY, GR | Y(2,5) | Y(2,4) | Y(1) | Y(2) | EX | Ramírez-Valiente et al. (2010) |
| Myrtaceae | Eucalyptus globulus | PY | Y(2,3,5) | . | Y(4) | Y(2) | EX | Dutkowski and Potts (2012) |
| Poaceae | Festuca lenensis | GR | Y(2,5) | Y(2,3,4) | Y(1) † | Y(2) | EX | Liancourt et al. (2012) |
| Rhizophoraceae | Rhizophora mangle L. | PY, GR | . | Y(3,5) | . | Y(3) | EX | Ellison and Farnsworth (1997) |
| Betulaceae | Betula pendula | AF | Y(6) | . | . | Y(2) | DO | Kelly et al. (2003) |
| Fagaceae | Fagus sylvatica | AF | Y(5,6) | . | . | Y(2) | DO | Jump et al. (2006) |
| Pinaceae | Pinus banksiana | GR | Y(2) | Y(2,4) | . | Y(2) | DO | Savva et al. (2008) |
| Pinaceae | Pinus contorta | GR | Y(2,5) | Y(2,5)‡ | . | Y(2) | DO, FD | McLane et al. (2011) |
| Pinaceae | Pseudotsuga menziesii | GR | Y(2,3) | Y(2,4,5) | Y(2) | Y(2) | DO, MD | Martinez-Meier et al. (2009) |
| Mutiple | 27 different sp. | AF | Y(5,6) | . | . | Y(1) | MD | Alsos et al. (2012) |
| Pinaceae | Abies sachalinensis | GR | Y(2,5) | Y(2,5) | Y(1) † | Y(1) | MD | Ishizuka and Goto (2012) |
| Pinaceae | Pinus contorta | GR | Y(2,3) | Y(2,5)* | . | Y(1) | MD | Wang et al. (2010) |
| Pinaceae | Pinus sylvestris | PH | Y(2,3,5) | Y(2)* | Y(2) † | Y(2) | MD | Savolainen et al. (2004) |
| Pinaceae | Pinus sylvestris | PH, AF | Y(2,5,6) | Y(2,4) | Y(1,2) | Y(1) | MD | Savolainen et al. (2007, 2011) |
| Asteraceae | Artemisia californica | PH, PY, GR | Y(2,3,5) | Y(2,3,4) | Y(1,2) † | Y(2,3) | . | Pratt and Mooney (2013) |
| Brassicaceae | Brassica rapa | PH, GR | Y(2) | Y(2) | Y(1) | Y(3) | . | Lau and Lennon (2012) |
| Fabaceae | Chamaecrista fasciculata | PH, GR | Y(2,3,5) | Y(2,4) | Y(1,2)† | Y(1) | . | Etterson and Shaw (2001), Etterson (2004) |
| Phrymaceae | Mimulus laciniatus | GR | Y(2,5) | . | Y/N(2) | Y(1) | . | Sexton et al. (2009) |
| Pinaceae | Picea sitchensis | PH, GR | Y(2,4,5) | Y(2,3,4) | Y(1) | Y(2) | . | Mimura and Aitken (2010) |
| Pinaceae | Picea sitchensis × P. glauca | AF | Y(3,5,6) | . | . | . | . | Hamilton et al. (2013) |
| Pinaceae | Pinus pinaster | PY | Y(2,5) | Y(2,4,5) | . | Y(2) | . | Corcuera et al. (2011) |
| Pinaceae | Pinus sylvestris | GR | Y(2,3) | Y(2,3) | . | Y(1) | . | Richter et al. (2012) |
| Poaceae | Festuca eskia | GR, AF | Y(2,5,6) | Y(2,4) | Y(1)* | Y(2) | . | Gonzalo-Turpin and Hazard (2009) |
| Salicaceae | Populus balsamifera L. | PH, PY | Y(3,5) | . | Y(4) | Y(2) | . | Keller et al. (2011) |
| Multiple | 4 different sp. | PY, GR | . | Y(3) | . | . | . | He et al. (2007) |
| Mutiple | 57 different sp. | PH | . | Y(3) | . | Y(1) | . | Cleland et al. (2012) |
The 38 studies include five providing strong evidence (A) and 33 providing strongly suggestive evidence (B), based on the criteria of Merilä and Hendry (2014). Shown are Family and Species (genus and species) of the focal plant, and Trait type (type of trait that showed a response to climate change): PH – phenology, PY – physiology, PF – frequency of genetically controlled phenotype, GR – observed responses in some measure of growth (e.g., biomass, stem count, leaf width, reproductive output), AF – allele frequencies or genetic markers. Also given are information on Genetic (evolutionary) and Plastic responses, and whether these responses are Adaptive and Caused by climate change. For genetic and plastic responses, ‘Y’ indicates that evidence was found; ‘N’ indicates that evidence was not found; ‘.’ indicates that it was not investigated. For Adaptive, ‘Y’ indicates that responses increased fitness or were predicted to increase fitness in new climatic conditions; ‘N’ indicates maladaptive responses; ‘.’ indicates that adaptation was not investigates; ‘†’ notes that adaptation was found but was not predicted to be sufficient to keep up with climate change; * notes that adaptation was predicted to be sufficient to keep up with climate change. For Cause, ‘Y’ indicates that the response was directly caused by climate change; ‘.’ indicates that causality was not investigated. Numbers denote the method of investigation invoked. Genetic categories: 2 – Common garden studies, 3 – Comparison to model predictions, 4 – Experimental evolution, 5 – Space for time substitution, 6 – Molecular genetic approaches; Plastic categories: 2 – Common garden studies, 3 – Experimental studies, 4 – Fine-grained population responses, 5 – Individual plasticity in nature; Adapt categories: 1 – Reciprocal transplants, 2 – Phenotypic selection estimates, 3 – Genotypic selection estimates, 4 – Qst-Fst comparison; Cause categories: 1 – Common sense, 2 – Phenotype by environment interactions, 3 – Experimental selection/evolution. For full descriptions of all categories see Merilä and Hendry (2014). Time (type of approach using a time component in data collection): RS – resurrection study, EX – field or greenhouse experiment through time, FD – field observations through time, MD – modeled through time, DO – dendrochronology (tree ring data over time), ‘.’ indicates no temporal component.
Adaptation predicted to be sufficient to keep up with climate change.
Adaptation not predicted to be sufficient to keep up with climate change.
Used a modeling approach to test for plasticity.