Back

Garden, greenhouse or climate chamber? Experimental conditions influence whether genetic differences are phenotypically expressed

Karitter, P.; March-Salas, M.; Ensslin, A.; Rauschkolb, R.; Godefroid, S.; Poorter, H.; Scheepens, J. F.

2023-12-08 ecology
10.1101/2023.12.06.570376 bioRxiv
Show abstract

O_LICommon-environment experiments are important to study genetically-based phenotypic variation within and among plant populations. Such experiments can be performed in an experimental garden, greenhouse or climate chamber. However, phenotypic expression may be strongly affected by the environmental conditions and influenced by parental and storage effects. Hence, it is unclear if results from common-environment experiments are reproducible across multiple experimental setups. C_LIO_LIIn this study, we assessed the effects of three different growth facilities - outdoor garden, greenhouse, and climate chamber -, on phenotypic expression. We compared ancestral and descendant genotypes of the same population of Leontodon hispidus. We also evaluated differences in phenotypic expression between plants grown after one (F1) vs. two (F2) intermediate generations. C_LIO_LIWe observed strong differences among plants growing in different growth facilities. Furthermore, we found that descendants had larger rosettes than ancestors only in the greenhouse and they flowered later than ancestors exclusively in the climate chamber. We did not find significant differences between intermediate generations within the growth facilities. C_LIO_LIOverall, our study demonstrates that environmental variation among growth facilities can dictate the presence and magnitude of phenotypic differences. This implies that absence of evidence for phenotypic differences is not evidence of absence. Experimental systems should be carefully designed to provide meaningful conditions related to the research question. Finally, growing a second intermediate generation did not impact the genetic differences of ancestors and descendants within the facilities, supporting that only one intermediate generation may be sufficient to reduce detectable parental and storage effects. C_LI

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 14%
13.7%
2
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.7%
3
Plants
39 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.0%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 21%
6.1%
5
Frontiers in Plant Science
240 papers in training set
Top 2%
6.0%
6
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.0%
50% of probability mass above
7
Annals of Botany
43 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.6%
8
American Journal of Botany
41 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
9
Basic and Applied Ecology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.4%
10
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.9%
11
Plant Biology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.6%
12
Plant Methods
39 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.6%
13
Oecologia
23 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.6%
14
Agronomy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.6%
15
Hydrobiologia
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
16
BMC Ecology and Evolution
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
17
Oikos
74 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
18
Journal of Ecology
47 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
19
PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET
21 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
20
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
21
Molecular Ecology
304 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
22
Plant Pathology
16 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
23
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.7%
24
Genes
126 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
25
Crop Science
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
26
Evolutionary Applications
91 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
27
Pest Management Science
32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
28
Planta
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
29
The Plant Genome
53 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%