Cited by 1,155Evolution and Genetic DynamicsEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesGenetic diversity and population structure

A Meta-Analysis of Local Adaptation in Plants

Open access
Leimu, Roosa, Fischer, Markus·2008·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Local adaptation is of fundamental importance in evolutionary, population, conservation, and global-change biology. The generality of local adaptation in plants and whether and how it is influenced by specific species, population and habitat characteristics have, however, not been quantitatively reviewed. Therefore, we examined published data on the outcomes of reciprocal transplant experiments using two approaches. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the performance of local and foreign plants at all transplant sites. In addition, we analysed frequencies of pairs of plant origin to examine whether local plants perform better than foreign plants at both compared transplant sites. In both approaches, we also examined the effects of population size, and of the habitat and species characteristics that are predicted to affect local adaptation. We show that, overall, local plants performed significantly better than foreign plants at their site of origin: this was found to be the case in 71.0% of the studied sites. However, local plants performed better than foreign plants at both sites of a pair-wise comparison (strict definition of local adaption) only in 45.3% of the 1032 compared population pairs. Furthermore, we found local adaptation much more common for large plant populations (>1000 flowering individuals) than for small populations (<1000 flowering individuals) for which local adaptation was very rare. The degree of local adaptation was independent of plant life history, spatial or temporal habitat heterogeneity, and geographic scale. Our results suggest that local adaptation is less common in plant populations than generally assumed. Moreover, our findings reinforce the fundamental importance of population size for evolutionary theory. The clear role of population size for the ability to evolve local adaptation raises considerable doubt on the ability of small plant populations to cope with changing environments.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0004010

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Our models of local and global competition have their equivalents both in previous studies in evolutionary computation and in the study of natural populations.

    “Our models of local and global competition have their equivalents both in previous studies in evolutionary computation (with Quality-Diversity algorithms representing local competition and classical algorithms global) and in the study of natural populations”

    From Dynamics of niche construction in adaptable populations evolving in diverse environments (2023) · cites this paper as Leimu and Fischer, 2008

    The Results section (“Generality of local adaptation in plants”; page unavailable) reports both cases where each plant population performs best in its local environment and cases where one population performs best at both sites. These provide natural-population examples resembling local and global advantages, but the paper does not identify them as equivalents of local and global competition models. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. [5]Hill WG 1982 Rates of changes in quantitative traits from fixation of new mutations. Proc Nat Aca Sci USA 79 142 145 PMC345678 6948296
  2. [6]Frankham R 1995 Effective population size/adult population size ratios in wildlife: A review Genetical Research. Genetic Research 66 95 107 18976539
  3. [7]Spielman D Brook BW Frankham R 2004 Most species are not driven to extinction before genetic factors impact them. Proc Nat Aca Sci U S A 101 15261 15264 PMC524053 15477597
  4. [9]Provine WB 1986 Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology. Chicago University of Chicago Press
  5. [12]Kawecki TJ Ebert D 2004 Conceptual issues in local adaptation. Ecology Letters 7 1225 1241
  6. [13]Stearns SC 1992 The evolution of Life histories. Oxford, UK Oxford University Press
  7. [17]Galloway LF Fenster CB 2000 Population differentiation in an annual legume: local adaptation. Evolution 54 1173 1181 11005286
  8. [18]Becker U Colling G Dostal P Jakobsson A Matthies D 2006 Local adaptation in the monocarpic perennial Carlina Vulgaris at different spatial scales across Europe. Oecologia 150 506 518 16955286
  9. [23]Callaghan TV Carlsson Å Svensson BM 1996 Some apparently paradoxical aspects of the life cycles, demography and population dynamics of plants from the subarctic Abisco area. Ecological Bulletin 45 133 143
  10. [24]Gurevitch J Hedges LV 2001 Meta-analysis: combining the results of independent experiments. Scheiner SM Gurevitch J Design and analysis of ecological experiments. 2nd ed Oxford Oxford University Press 347 369
  11. [25]Weber KE Diggins LT 1990 Increased selection response in larger populations. II. Selection for ethanol vapor resistance in Drosophila melanogaster at two population sizes. Genetics 125 585 597 2116359 PMC1204085
  12. [26]Willi Y Van Buskirk J Schmid B Fischer M 2007 Genetic isolation of fragmented populations is exacerbated by drift and selection. J Evol Biol 20 534 542 17305819
  13. [28]Antonovics J Clay K Schmitt J 1987 The measurement of small-scale environmental heterogeneity using clonal transplants of Anthoxanthum odoratum and Danthonia spicata. Oecologia 71 601 607 28312235
  14. [30]Joshi J 2001 Local adaptation enhances performance of common plant species. Ecology Letters 4 536 544
  15. [31]Thompson JN 2005 Local adaptation I. Geographic selection mosaics. The geographic mosaic of coevolution. Chicago University of Chicago Press
  16. [35]Antonovics J Bradshaw AD 1970 Evolution in closely adjacent plant populations. VIII. Clinal patterns at a mine boundary. Heredity 25 349 362 16639420
  17. [36]Hedges LV Olkin I 1985 Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York Academic Press
  18. [38]Young A Boyle T Brown T 1996 The population genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation. Trends Ecol Evol 11 413 418 21237900
  19. [39]Lande RL Barrowclough GF 1987 Effective population size, genetic variation, and their use in population management. Soulé ME Viable populations and their conservation Cambridge University Press 87 123
  20. [43]Light RJ Pillemer DB 1984 Summing up: the science of reviewing research. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA Harvard University Press
  21. [44]Palmer AR 1999 Detecting publication bias in meta-analysis: a case study of fluctuating asymmetry and sexual selection. Am Nat 154 220 233 29578786

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leimu, R., & Fischer, M.
Affiliations
University of Bern (CH)
Corresponding author
Leimu, Roosa
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2008-12-23
Volume
3
Issue
12
Pages
e4010
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2035317733
Cited by
1,155
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 69 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 102 · 2021: 81 · 2020: 81 · 2019: 94 · 2018: 69 · 2017: 95 · 2016: 79 · 2015: 69 · 2014: 61 · 2013: 67 · 2012: 47
FWCI
1.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • publish.UP (University of Potsdam) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
Keywords
local adaptation, plants, reciprocal transplant, population size, small populations, habitat heterogeneity, life history, evolutionary theory, conservation biology, global change
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Physiological, Geography, Mutation, Population Density, Genes, Plant, Ecosystem, Plant Physiological Phenomena, Biodiversity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review