First Results of a Geometric Morphometric Analysis of the Leaf Size and Shape Variation in Quercus petraea Across a Wide European Area

Le résumé fourni par la source

The high leaf morphological variability of European white oaks is largely documented in the botanical literature, and several papers have been published in the last two decades focusing on inter- and intraspecific leaf phenotypic plasticity. Studies involving landmark-based geometric morphometrics proved to be useful in highlighting relationships between leaf size and shape variation and environmental factors, phylogenetic patterns, or hybridization events. In this paper, the leaf size and shape variations of 18 populations of Quercus petraea distributed throughout a wide geographical area were analyzed by means of geometric morphometric methods (GMMs). This study involved 10 European countries and investigated the intraspecific leaf variability of Q. petraea within a wide latitudinal and longitudinal gradient. Analyses of variance for shape and centroid size were performed through Procrustes ANOVA. Multivariate analysis procedures, partial least squares method, and regression analyses were used to highlight possible patterns of covariation between leaf shape and size and geographical/environmental variables. The results revealed that the Q. petraea populations analyzed mainly differed in their leaf size, where a decrease was observed according to a north to south geographical gradient. Both leaf size and shape were found to be significantly related to latitude, and, to a lesser extent, to mean annual temperature and the leaf isotopic signature of 15N. All the other variables considered did not provide significant results. Unexpected differences observed comparing the leaf traits of geographically strictly adjacent populations suggest the involvement of local hybridization/introgression events. However, with a few exceptions, Q. petraea turned out to be quite conservative in its leaf shape and size at both the local and continental scale.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.