2017
DOI: 10.1002/ecy.1632
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Distinct genecological patterns in seedlings ofNorway spruce and silver fir from a mountainous landscape

Abstract: Abstract. Understanding the genecology of forest trees is critical for gene conservation, for predicting the effects of climate change and climate change adaptation, and for successful reforestation. Although common genecological patterns have emerged, species-specific details are also important. Which species are most vulnerable to climate change? Which are the most important adaptive traits and environmental drivers of natural selection? Even though species have been classified as adaptive specialists vs. ad… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

5
70
3

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(78 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
5
70
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Despite the ubiquity and eco‐evolutionary implications of P × E , a considerable proportion of studies (>20%) were performed in only one test environment, which prevents its calculation (e.g., Alberto et al, ; Hernandez‐Serrano et al, ; Sebastian‐Azcona, Hacke, & Hamann, ). For instance, only one test environment is used in most studies using F ST – Q ST comparisons (e.g., Frank, Sperisen, et al, ; Hernandez‐Serrano et al, ; Santiso et al, ); Q ST measures population differentiation in functional traits, and may be compared to F ST , a metric widely used to measure population differentiation in neutral molecular markers. Their comparison informs on the role of divergent natural selection in the functional differentiation of populations (see MerilĂ€ & Crnokrak ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Despite the ubiquity and eco‐evolutionary implications of P × E , a considerable proportion of studies (>20%) were performed in only one test environment, which prevents its calculation (e.g., Alberto et al, ; Hernandez‐Serrano et al, ; Sebastian‐Azcona, Hacke, & Hamann, ). For instance, only one test environment is used in most studies using F ST – Q ST comparisons (e.g., Frank, Sperisen, et al, ; Hernandez‐Serrano et al, ; Santiso et al, ); Q ST measures population differentiation in functional traits, and may be compared to F ST , a metric widely used to measure population differentiation in neutral molecular markers. Their comparison informs on the role of divergent natural selection in the functional differentiation of populations (see MerilĂ€ & Crnokrak ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Their comparison informs on the role of divergent natural selection in the functional differentiation of populations (see MerilĂ€ & Crnokrak ). The few instances where Q ST has been calculated in several environments show that Q ST values are not always consistent across test environments, which has important implications for our understanding of the evolutionary forces shaping population differentiation patterns (Frank, Sperisen, et al, ; RamĂ­rez‐Valiente et al, ). Our results thus call for caution on the use of single‐environment studies to infer adaptive divergence among populations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Environmental variables considered at the seed sources included the following: mean annual temperature ( MAT ); mean spring temperature (March – May, MTsp ); continentality (interannual temperature variance, that is, maximum of warmest month minus minimum of coldest month); average maximum diurnal amplitude of temperature during spring (March – May, DTAsp ); sum of growing degree days (based on a threshold of 5°C, DDEG ); average numbers of days during the vegetation season (March – November) with frost ( SFROv ); mean annual precipitation sum ( PREC ); absolute maximum drought ( PREC < 0.01 mm) period length in summer (June – August, DRYPsu ); and annual aridity index ( DMI = PREC / MAT *10 (Martonne, )). All variables were calculated for the period 1931–1960 for each seed source (Frank et al, ). Physical and chemical soil properties—including the available water capacity of 1 m soil depth ( AWC )—were derived from local soil pits that were located within a few meters of one of the three mother trees at each seed source (details see appendix in Frank et al, ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These values represent best linear unbiased predictions of population means (Frank et al. ). The environmental variables included temperature variables, such as mean annual temperature (MAT), and precipitation variables for the time period 1931–1960 that were approximated for each seed source (Frank et al.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The environmental variables included temperature variables, such as mean annual temperature (MAT), and precipitation variables for the time period 1931–1960 that were approximated for each seed source (Frank et al. : Table A1). In addition, elevation was recorded at each seed source.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%