Table 1.
Predictions and results for genetic clines, plasticity, and selection
| Trait | Predicted: genetic cline | Predicted: plasticity | Results: genetic clines | Results: plasticity | Results: selection and clines | Results: viability vs fecundity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Water‐use efficiency (δ13C) | (–) | Greater trait values in dry environments (low vs high elevation) | Concordant and context dependent | Concordant | Concordant | No |
| Specific leaf area (cm2/g) | (+)* | Lower trait values in dry environments (low vs high elevation) | Concordant and context dependent | Concordant | Concordant | No |
| Flowering time (relative to snowmelt date) | (–) | Earlier flowering under short seasons (high vs low elevation) | Concordant and context dependent | Concordant | Concordant | Yes |
| Height at flowering | (–) | Shorter height at flowering in high elevations | Concordant and context dependent | Concordant | Concordant | No |
We base predictions are on phenotypic variation across natural Boechera stricta populations (Anderson and Gezon 2015) and on climatic adaptation from other systems (e.g., Campbell et al. 2010; Leonardi et al. 2012; Ward et al. 2012; Pratt and Mooney 2013; Read et al. 2014). “Predicted: Genetic cline” indicates the predicted relationship between trait values and source elevation in common gardens, with (–) predicting a negative slope and (+) predicting a positive slope. “Predicted: Plasticity” provides expectations for trait variation with environment. In the two corresponding results columns, we indicate whether genetic clines and phenotypic plasticity were concordant or discordant with predictions. “Results: Selection and clines” conveys whether selection is generally concordant with genetic clines, with fitness optima integrated across time and life history corresponding to local mean trait values. Lastly, “Results: Viability vs fecundity” illustrates whether viability and fecundity selection favor contrasting trait values.