# Intraspecific variation and phenotypic plasticity of olive varieties in response to contrasting environmental conditions

Siham Wakib, Ahmed El Bakkali, Hayat Zaher, Abdelilah Meddich, Cherkaoui El Modafar, Frédéric Lagane, Sylvain Delzon, Karim Barkaoui, Eric Garnier

► To cite this version:

Siham Wakib, Ahmed El Bakkali, Hayat Zaher, Abdelilah Meddich, Cherkaoui El Modafar, et al. Intraspecific variation and phenotypic plasticity of olive varieties in response to contrasting environmental conditions. AoB Plants, 2025, 17 (6), plaf060. 10.1093/aobpla/plaf060. hal-05370715

HAL Id: hal-05370715

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05370715v1

Submitted on 18 Nov 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Studies

# Intraspecific variation and phenotypic plasticity of olive varieties in response to contrasting environmental conditions

Siham Wakib<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="3" />,<fnref n="4" />,* ID, Ahmed El Bakkali<fnref n="3" /> ID, Hayat Zaher<fnref n="4" /> ID, Abdelilah Meddich<fnref n="1" /> ID, Cherkaoui El Modafar<fnref n="1" /> ID, Frédéric Lagane<fnref n="5" />, Sylvain Delzon<fnref n="5" /> ID, Karim Barkaoui<fnref n="6" />,<fnref n="7" /> ID, Eric Garnier<fnref n="2" /> ID

**Section (and Section Editor):** Form & Function (Kate McCulloh)

**Associate Editor:** J.F. Niek Scheepens

**Abstract.** Assessing the extent of genotypic and phenotypic trait variation within a genetically diversified species is crucial to understanding how plants cope with environmental differences. We examine these components in *Olea europaea* L. *europaea*, one of the most widespread and diverse tree crops cultivated in the Mediterranean Basin, a region facing rapid climatic shifts with increasing summer drought. We compared trait values of 83 olive varieties from different Mediterranean countries, grown in two *ex situ* varietal collections with contrasting environments: subhumid and semi-arid climates. Ten leaf-, stem- and branch traits related to resource and water use were compared across 50 varieties within each site, and phenotypic plasticity was assessed for the 17 varieties common to them. Trait plasticity was assessed with the phenotypic dissimilarity index while varietal plasticity was assessed in multidimensional trait space with the multivariate plasticity index. Our results showed considerable phenotypic variability within (up to 59.54%) and between (up to 39.17%) sites. Varieties grown in semi-arid conditions were more conservative, showing denser leaves and wood, and thicker bark. Common varieties exhibited contrasting degrees of plasticity across traits, demonstrating that high plasticity for some traits does not necessarily imply overall plasticity. Additionally, varieties with conservative trait values were not less plastic than more acquisitive varieties. Varieties showed distinct phenotypic adjustments across sites, with trait variations indicating acclimation strategies to reduce water loss in the arid environment. Our results also suggest that acclimation to different environments occurs through the adjustment of multiple traits, complicating plasticity comparisons across varieties.

**Keywords:** intraspecific variation; *Olea europaea* L; phenotypic plasticity; phenotypic traits; plant resource use; trait–environment relationships

## Introduction

Intraspecific trait variation, which plays a key role in modulating trait-environment relationships (Lepš et al. 2011, Violle et al. 2012, Siefert et al. 2015, Kitagawa et al. 2022), involves genetic variation, phenotypic plasticity and ontogenetic changes. Differences in trait values among individuals of the same species can result from genetic variation and adaptations to their geographical or environmental conditions of origin (Hereford 2009). In addition, phenotypic plasticity, defined as the ability of a single genotype to produce different phenotypes across environments through differential gene expression (Linhart and Grant 1996, Valladares et al. 2007), is another major source of trait variation. Fox et al. (2019),

Stotz et al. (2021) and Cavallaro et al. (2023) emphasise the importance of plant phenotypic plasticity as a key acclimation strategy in response to rapid climatic variations. However, uncertainties remain regarding the factors controlling both inter- and intra-specific phenotypic variability (Stotz et al. 2022).

Changes in trait values in response to pedo-climatic variations have been studied both across species (e.g. Niinemets 2001, Moles et al. 2014) and within species (e.g. Weemstra et al. 2021, Welles and Funk 2021), but the patterns are not always consistent for several reasons. As discussed by e.g. Vellend et al. (2014) and Anderegg (2023), genetic and physiological constraints can limit intraspecific variation, and the ecological significance of a single trait can vary considerably from one species or variety to another. These factors

<footnote n="1">¹Laboratoire d'Excellence d'Agrobiotechnologie et Bioingénierie, Centre AgroBiotech, Unité de Recherche Labellisée CNRST (URL05-CNRST), Université Cadi Ayyad, Av Abdelkim El Khattabi, BP 511, 40000 Marrakech, Morocco</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²CEFE, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, EPHE, IRD, Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³INRA, Centre Régional de la Recherche Agronomique de Meknès, UR Amélioration des Plantes et Conservation des Ressources
Phytogénétiques, BP 578, Route Haj Kaddour, VN 50000 Meknès, Morocco</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴INRA, Centre Régional de la Recherche Agronomique de Marrakech, Unité de l'Amélioration des plantes et de la Qualité, BP 533, 40000 Marrakech, Morocco</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵University of Bordeaux, UMR BIOGECO, INRAE, Pessac, France</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶CIRAD UMR AMAP, Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷AMAP, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, CNRS, INRAE, IRD, Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote>*Corresponding author. Laboratoire D'Excellence D'Agrobiotechnologie et Bioingénierie, Centre AgroBiotech, Unité de Recherche Labellisée CNRST (URL05-CNRST), Université Cadi Ayyad, Av Abdelkim El Khattabi, BP 511, 40000 Marrakech, Morocco. E-mail: siham.wakib@ced.uca.ma</footnote>
lead to complex trait-environment relationships, calling for
specific analyses of the acclimation strategy at each level of or-
ganisation. Anderegg (2023) suggests that a better under-
standing of trait-environment relationships at the
intraspecific level requires (i) controlled environment/com-
mon gardens studies to disentangle phenotypic plasticity and
genotypic variation, and (ii) the exploration of trait responses
across different organs and organisational levels of the
organism.

Here, we directly address a significant and persistent re-
search gap in the trait literature by investigating these patterns
in cultivated varieties of olive (Olea europaea L. subsp. euro-
paea var. europaea), a widely cultivated and economically im-
portant tree species, recognised as a drought resistant species
(Fernandez 2014 and references therein), related to its scler-
ophyllous nature and its typically conservative resource use
compared to many other crops (Garnier et al. 2021). The olive
tree is one of the most widespread cultivated species in the
Mediterranean Basin, which notably represents the primary
centre of its cultivation and diversification (Besnard et al.
2018). It is characterized by a large genetic diversity, with at
least 1200 cultivated varieties described (Bartolini et al.
2005), associated with a large phenotypic variation (Ganino
et al. 2006), mostly described by morphological characteris-
tics of the different organs (especially leaves and fruits), which
are primarily used for varietal identification. This reservoir of
diversity can be considered as an asset in the context of the
current climate change affecting the Mediterranean Basin.
This region is currently undergoing an accelerated transition
to more arid zones (MedECC 2020), characterised by in-
creased drought stress resulting from a modified balance be-
tween the evaporative demand of the atmosphere be-
availability of water in the soil. The remarkable genotypic
and phenotypic diversity of olive, coupled with its wide geo-
graphical distribution across the Mediterranean Basin,
presents a unique opportunity to explore the role of different
components of intraspecific variability in plant response to the
environment.

Due to their relevance for plant carbon and water econ-
omies, the responses of leaf and stem traits to climatic condi-
tions have been particularly studied in trees (e.g. Rosas et al.
2019, Fajardo et al. 2024, Kassout et al. 2024). Leaf size
and morphology play a central role in leaf energy balance,
with large leaves often being disadvantageous in hotter, drier,
and high-irradiance environments (Wright et al. 2017 and
references therein). In arid sites, plants tend to have tough
leaves, with high leaf mass per area (LMA) and leaf dry matter
content (LDMC) (Niinemets 2001, Wright et al. 2004,
Poorter et al. 2009), while trends for leaf thickness are less
clear and vary from one study to another (Poorter et al.
2009, Garnier et al. 2019). For stems, a high wood density
has been found to be associated with increased resistance to
drought-induced xylem cavitation (Chave et al. 2009,
Fajardo et al. 2022). In addition, a large sapwood-to-leaf
area ratio is indicative of a low transpiring area per unit
area of stem water-conducting tissue (Tyree and
Zimmermann 2002). This, combined with low specific stem
length, induced by a high wood density, is expected under dri-
er conditions, as it should improve water use at the canopy lev-
el. Finally, it has been suggested that bark thickness, through
its role in water storage and embolism repair, should be higher
in drier environments (Rosell 2019); however, this remains to
be formally tested. Some of these traits are structured along

so-called functional dimensions, including the leaf- and the
wood economics spectrum (LES and WES, respectively). The
LES captures a trade-off between rapid resource acquisition
and efficient resource conservation. Fast-return leaves com-
bine short lifespans, high photosynthetic and respiration rates,
and low structural investment, whereas slow-return leaves
have the opposite characteristics. The WES describes a similar
continuum and captures trade-offs between fast-growing,
low-density wood and slow-growing, mechanically resistant
wood (Reich et al. 1992, Wright et al. 2004, Chave et al.
2009, Díaz et al. 2016, Stotz et al. 2022). Understanding the
extent and the patterns of this phenotypic plasticity and trait
variation under diverse environmental conditions is therefore
crucial. It would not only shed light on ecological acclimation,
but would also provide valuable insights for plant breeding in
the context of future drier climates (Brooker et al. 2022). In
olive (O. europaea L.), breeding is particularly challenging
due to its long juvenile phase, high heterozygosity, and pre-
dominant vegetative propagation, which limit genetic recom-
bination (Valverde et al. 2024). Despite these constraints,
breeding programmes have focused on traits such as early
bearing, fruit size, oil content, and disease resistance (León
et al. 2015, Valverde et al. 2023). Recent studies have also
highlighted the importance of incorporating wild olive germ-
plasm to enhance resilience to biotic and abiotic stresses
(Díaz-Rueda et al. 2020). Therefore, assessing intraspecific
variation in phenotypic traits is crucial for identifying the
traits that can be targeted in breeding programmes to improve
adaptation to changing climates.

In this study, we aimed to assess the intraspecific
variation in 83 olive varieties originating from different
Mediterranean countries and maintained in two varietal col-
lections with very contrasting pedo-climatic conditions, one
in France and the other in Morocco. We evaluated genetic dif-
ferentiation by comparing trait values between varieties with-
in each collection and assessed phenotypic plasticity for a
subset of 17 common varieties between the two collections.
We expand on recent studies assessing the role of various
phenotypic traits for drought adaptation responses in olive
(e.g. Trentacoste et al. 2018, Kassout et al. 2024, Terral
et al. 2025), asking the following questions: (i) What is the ex-
tent of phenotypic variability in olive in response to contrast-
ing pedo-climatic conditions, and how much of this variability
is explained by genetic differences among varieties and pheno-
typic plasticity? We expect that genetic variation between var-
ieties will contribute more than plasticity to explain trait
variability, (ii) Does phenotypic plasticity differ among var-
ieties and among traits? We hypothesise that plasticity will
vary significantly not only among varieties, but also for the
different traits measured. Furthermore, we expect that mor-
phological traits, such as leaf size, which are often less struc-
turally and metabolically constrained, will exhibit greater
plasticity than structural traits (Nicotra and Davidson
2010), (iii) Does plasticity in individual traits (univariate plas-
ticity) reflect overall plasticity (multivariate plasticity)? Here
we hypothesise that high plasticity in a single trait does not ne-
cessarily translate into high plasticity across multiple traits. In
this framework, we define a 'plastic variety' as one that shows
relatively greater trait adjustment across sites compared to
other varieties. Finally, (iv) do olive varieties with relatively
conservative trait values, as assessed by traits of the LES and
WES, exhibit lower plasticity than varieties with relatively ac-
quisitive trait values (Stotz et al. 2021, Cavallaro et al. 2023)?
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Geographic coordinates, irrigation regime, and climatic characteristics (1994–2023) of the two studied olive collections, including mean annual temperature (MAT) and mean annual precipitation (MAP).</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Latitude, longitude</th><th>Altitude (m)</th><th>Irrigation (mm)</th><th>MAT (°C)</th><th>MAP (mm)</th><th>I (mm)</th><th>Climate classification</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Subhumid site<sup>a</sup></td><td>42°59'30"N, 6°12'14"E</td><td>18</td><td>None</td><td>16.9</td><td>605.2</td><td>22.5</td><td>Subhumid</td></tr><tr><td>Semi-arid site<sup>b</sup></td><td>31°49'10"N, 07°25'58"W</td><td>614</td><td>224</td><td>19.1</td><td>238</td><td>15.88</td><td>Semi-arid</td></tr></tbody></table>

Climate classification was based on the De Martonne aridity index (I) calculated as MAP(+ water supply)/(MAT + 10) (de Martonne 1926). This index allows categorization into arid (<10), semiarid (10-20), subhumid (20-30), and humid (>30) climate types.

Indeed, it has been suggested that ‘slow’ plants are less plastic than ‘fast’ plants due to their higher tissue structural investment (Stotz et al. 2021, Carrascosa et al. 2023, but see, e.g. Garnier et al. 2019). We extend the hypothesis to the WES, and expect that varieties with a high wood density, presumably with a low stem and leaf hydraulic conductance and a low leaf photosynthetic capacity (Reich 2014), will be less plastic than those with a low wood density.

# Materials and methods

## Study sites

The study was conducted on trees established in two *ex situ* olive collections (Table 1). The first one is the French Olive Germplasm Bank (‘subhumid site’ hereafter), located on the island of Porquerolles, in the south of France, managed by the Conservatoire Botanique National Méditerranéen (CBNMed). At this site, the bioclimate is classified as meso-Mediterranean, characterized by subhumid conditions according to Daget (1977), with a mean annual precipitation of 605 mm and a De Martonne aridity index of 22.5 (Table 1). The subhumid site includes 193 varieties (Khadari and Pinatel 2018) with trees planted in rows 5 × 7 m apart (1.7 ha, 2 plots). Each variety is represented by two to three trees, which are grouped within the same plot and distributed randomly within rows. The second collection, the World Olive Germplasm Bank of Marrakech (‘semi-arid site’ hereafter), is located at the Tassaout experimental station (INRA Marrakech, Morocco). As summarized in Table 1, this site experiences considerably lower precipitation (238 mm) and a higher mean annual temperature (19°C), resulting in a distinctly arid climate according to the Köppen–Geiger classification (Kottek et al. 2006). A drip irrigation system is used to compensate for the low rainfall (Table 1). Based on the De Martonne aridity index, calculated using precipitation and irrigation as supplementary water supply, this site falls within the semi-arid range. The collection includes 329 olive varieties from 14 different Mediterranean countries identified based on a previous study by El Bakkali et al. (2019), with trees planted in rows 7 × 4 m apart (7 ha, 3 plots). Each variety is represented by two to three trees located within the same plot: in the first plot, trees of the same variety were planted side by side, whereas in the second and third plots they were distributed randomly. Additionally, the sites differ in their soil characteristics, as detailed in Supplementary Table S1.

## Selection of trees

Fifty varieties were selected and screened for phenotypic traits in each collection, among which 17 were common to both collections (referred to as ‘common varieties’ hereafter), while 33 were distinct to each of them (referred to as ‘distinct varieties’ hereafter). To maximize phenotypic diversity, varieties were

selected from a large range of geographic origins. The semi-arid site comprised a set of varieties originating from 12 Mediterranean countries, while the set of varieties in the subhumid site, although primarily French (37 varieties), also included 13 varieties from 6 other Mediterranean countries and Iran (Fig. 1). This selection also ensured representation of the different genetic backgrounds previously identified by Khadari and El Bakkali (2018) and El Bakkali et al. (2019) (see Supplementary Tables S2 and S3).

In the subhumid site, trees were planted between 1979 and 1991, while in the semi-arid site, planting dates ranged from 2003 to 2009. Trunk diameter was measured at 50 cm above ground level. The average trunk diameter was 21.79 ± 6.81 cm and 19.09 ± 4.24 cm (mean ± standard deviation) for the subhumid and semi-arid sites, respectively. The similar trunk diameter across sites suggests that trees have reached a similar size. All trees were adult, fruit bearing individuals (above 15–20 years old at the minimum), indicating that they have all reached a comparable development stage.

## Trait measurements

Measurements were conducted between 2019 and 2022 in the subhumid site and in 2023 in the semi-arid site, on mature leaves and current-year growth stems. Two to three trees were studied for each variety, with samples collected from the upper, outer, and well-lit parts of the tree canopy, specifically from the southwest and southeast sides.

Ten phenotypic traits were chosen for their relevance to the plant’s carbon and water economies (Table 2; cf. Pérez-Harguindeguy et al. 2013).

## Leaf traits

Ten to twelve one-year-old leaves per variety were collected. Immediately after being cut from the branch, the leaves were placed into a test tube filled with deionized water to submerge the petioles. They were then put in a cool box before being transferred to a refrigerator for at least 12 h to ensure full hydration (Garnier et al. 2001). After removing the petiole, leaf fresh mass (LFM) and leaf thickness (LT) of the fully hydrated leaves were measured respectively using a precision balance and a digital micrometre (Digimatic IP65 (0–25 mm), Mitutoyo, Kawasaki, Japan) at four different points on the leaf lamina. Leaf length (LL) and width (LW) were also recorded to assess the leaf form index, as the ratio of leaf length to leaf width (LL:LW). Leaves were then scanned to determine the leaf area (LA) using the ImageJ software (version 1.54d). Finally, the leaf dry mass (LDM) was determined after the leaves were oven-dried for at least 48 h at 60°C. The LMA was calculated as the ratio of LDM to LA, and the leaf dry matter content (LDMC) as the ratio of LDM to LFM.

<footnote><sup>a</sup>Data obtained from the meteorological station located 2 km northeast of the site; <sup>b</sup>Data obtained from the Ouled Nacer station located 16 km away from the site (31°45'17.0"N, 7°22'58.6"W).</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Map of the Mediterranean region illustrating the spatial distribution of mean annual precipitation across the Mediterranean region and the number of olive varieties studied by country of origin, with location markers indicating the two study sites. Climatic diagrams corresponding to each site are included, with mean monthly temperature (left axis) and precipitation (right axis), and a dotted area indicating the drought period [monthly precipitation <2 times average monthly temperature (Gaussen and Bagnoul 1952)]. Base map adapted from 'Total annual precipitations' by GRID-Arendal, used under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc). Source: https://www.grida.no/resources/5909.</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Description of phenotypic traits studied: units of measurement and functional significance.</caption><thead><tr><td>Trait</td><td>Unit</td><td>Functional significance</td><td>References</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Leaf area (LA)</td><td>cm<sup>2</sup></td><td>Energy and water balance</td><td>Cornelissen et al. (2003) and Wright et al. (2017)</td></tr><tr><td>Leaf width (LW)</td><td>cm</td><td>Photosynthesis optimization</td><td>Givnish (1987)</td></tr><tr><td>Leaf Length to Leaf Width ratio (LL:LW)</td><td>cm cm<sup>-1</sup></td><td>Thermoregulation and mechanical support</td><td>Nicotra et al. (2011)</td></tr><tr><td>Leaf mass per area (LMA)</td><td>g m<sup>-2</sup></td><td>Leaf economics spectrum</td><td>Wright et al. (2004)</td></tr><tr><td>Leaf Dry Mass Content (LDMC)</td><td>mg g<sup>-1</sup></td><td>Investment in support and defence structures</td><td>Wilson et al. (1999)</td></tr><tr><td>Leaf thickness (LT)</td><td>µm</td><td>Structural protection of the photosynthetic tissues</td><td>Pérez-Harguindeguy et al. (2013)</td></tr><tr><td>Specific stem length (SSL)</td><td>cm g<sup>-1</sup></td><td>Light interception</td><td>Poorter et al. (2012)</td></tr><tr><td>Sapwood area to twig leaf area ratio (A<sub>S</sub>:A<sub>L</sub>)</td><td>cm<sup>2</sup> m<sup>-2</sup></td><td>Water balance</td><td>Tyree and Zimmermann (2002) and Mencuccini et al. (2019)</td></tr><tr><td>Branch wood Density (BWD)</td><td>g cm<sup>-3</sup></td><td>Biomechanical support and xylem resistance to embolism</td><td>Hacke et al. (2001) and Chave et al. (2009)</td></tr><tr><td>Relative bark thickness (RBT)</td><td>mm mm<sup>-1</sup></td><td>Resistance to fire and water storage</td><td>Rosell and Olson (2014) and Rosell et al. (2023)</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Stem and branch traits

Six twigs, each with two annual segments (n and n – 1 years), were sampled for each variety at the same location as for the leaf sampling. The measurements were conducted on the most recent part of the stem. After removing the bark, two perpendicular diameter measurements of each twig were taken using a digital calliper, from which the twig area ‘cross-sectional sapwood area’ (A<sub>S</sub>) was calculated. This area is considered a reliable proxy for the vessel cross-sectional area for small twigs, which is typically used to calculate the ‘Huber value’ (Huber 1928). All leaves on each twig were scanned to obtain the twig leaf area (A<sub>L</sub>) using the imageJ software (version 1.54d), and the sapwood area to twig leaf area ratio (A<sub>S</sub>:A<sub>L</sub>) was then calculated (Mencuccini and Bonosi 2001). The length and dry mass of each twig were finally measured to

calculate the specific stem length (SSL) defined as the ratio of stem length to stem dry mass.

Branch wood density (BWD) was determined on six branches per variety. Six cm long segments with a diameter between 0.8 and 1.5 cm were sampled from each branch. Wood density analyses were conducted using X-rays (Polge 1966). Before X-ray imaging, the samples were conditioned in a climatic chamber with 12% humidity for one week to ensure uniform residual humidity of the samples. For each sample, a 2 mm-thick slice was cut. X-ray radiographs of the wood sections were obtained using an ISOVOLT 3003 industrial radiography generator equipped with a V4N X-ray tube (GE Inspection Technologies GmbH, Ahrensburg, Germany). The radial density profiles obtained in duplicate per section were recorded on Ready Pack II M100 films (Carestream INDUSTREX, Rochester, USA). Finally, the
average BWD was calculated using Windendro software (Guay et al. 1992, Torres-Ruiz et al. 2019). The final density values were determined as the mean density-weighted by thickness, previously measured using a digital micrometer (Digimatic MDQ-30 (0–30 mm), Mitutoyo, Kawasaki, Japan). Images of branch cross sections were also used to determine the relative bark thickness (RBT) using ImageJ software (version 1.54d). Four measurements of bark thickness and two measurements of branch diameter, taken from two perpendicular sides, were recorded. The RBT was then calculated as the ratio of the average bark thickness (multiplied by 2) to the average branch diameter (Rosell et al. 2014, Midgley and Lawes 2016).

## Statistical procedures

All statistical analyses were performed using the R software version 4.4.0 (R Core Team 2024; https://www.r-project.org/).

Three different one-way ANOVAs were performed using variety-level means to test the differences in leaf, stem and branch trait values: (i) between the two sites across all 83 varieties to evaluate the overall trait variability, (ii) between the 17 common varieties and the 33 distinct varieties at each site to assess whether trait variation was comparable for the two groups of varieties, and (iii) between the two sites across only the 17 common varieties to evaluate the overall trait plasticity. A two-way ANOVA was then performed using tree-level means to investigate more specifically the 'site × variety' interaction for the common varieties.

To quantify the relative contributions of genetic variation and phenotypic plasticity to overall trait variability, we calculated the percentage of variance explained by each component using the sum of squares from one-way ANOVA results. Variance components include genetic variation, corresponding to the overall differences among varieties across both sites, with variety as a factor; phenotypic plasticity, corresponding to the differences between the common varieties, with site as a factor; and residual variance, representing variation within varieties (i.e. among trees).

To assess the phenotypic plasticity of the 17 common varieties between the two sites, we calculated the phenotypic similarity index (PhD) for each trait using the R function described by Puglielli et al. (2022). The PhD quantifies the intraspecific variability of standardized traits between trees growing under contrasting environmental conditions. It has been calculated as the average pairwise phenotypic dissimilarity between all individual trees of the same variety between sites while considering trait variability among trees within each site. The PhD index ranges from 0 (no plasticity) to 1 (maximum plasticity) (Puglielli et al. 2022). The average plasticity for each trait was calculated using the PhD values of all varieties combined, and the difference between traits was tested using an ANOVA followed by a Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (Tukey HSD) post-hoc test to assess significance.

The multivariate plasticity index (MVPi) was calculated for the common varieties as the average Euclidean distances of the trait values of all individual trees of the same variety between sites, based on their projections in the first three principal components of PCA (Pennacchi et al. 2021). This index considers the covariations among traits. PCAs were conducted within each site, to explore the phenotypic space defined by

the ten traits and classify the varieties along the fast-slow axis reflecting their resource use strategy, from acquisition to conservation. A varimax rotation was performed (using the varimax() function from the 'psych' package; Revelle 2017) to maximize factor loadings on the identified axis. Then, using the projections of individual trees, the average score of each variety on the fast-slow axis was calculated for each site. These scores were then compared with the PhD index of the different traits and the MVPi index using the Pearson correlation coefficients. This allowed us to assess whether varieties with 'fast' or 'slow' strategies were significantly associated with variations in plasticity.

## RESULTS

### Trait variation within and between sites

Trait variability was slightly higher across the 50 varieties studied in the subhumid site as compared to those studied in the semi-arid site for most traits, except for LMA and BWD (Fig. 2; see Supplementary Table S4): the average coefficients of variation calculated for the 10 measured traits were 14.8% for the set of varieties in the subhumid site and 12.4% for the varieties in the semi-arid site. At both sites, the two most variable traits were $A_S:A_L$ and LA, and the two least variable ones were LDMC and BWD. Overall, the average trait values and trait ranges were comparable for the distinct and common varieties (Fig. 2). The only exceptions were for the size-related traits LA and LW in semi-arid site (Fig. 2a and b), where the distinct varieties were found to have larger leaves than the common varieties.

Notwithstanding this large variation within varieties (see Supplementary Table S6), the site effect was well-pronounced for most traits, except for LW, LL:LW, and LT (Fig. 2). A striking result is that the site effect on trait values was generally consistent for the common varieties ($n=17$) and for the entire set of varieties ($n=50$). This holds for all traits, except for LA and SSL (Fig. 2): distinct varieties in the semi-arid site had larger leaves (Fig. 2a) and denser stems (Fig. 2g) than distinct varieties in the subhumid site.

The differences between sites were significant for traits related to leaf and wood structure, with trees in semi-arid site exhibiting higher LMA, LDMC, BWD and RBT (Figs. 2d and e, i, j). Conversely, $A_S:A_L$ was higher in the subhumid site ($4.17 \text{ cm}^2 \text{ m}^{-2}$) compared to the semi-arid site ($2.06 \text{ cm}^2 \text{ m}^{-2}$) (Fig. 2h). These traits showed considerable plasticity contributions (8.63%–39.17%).

Consistent phenotypic plasticity was observed for the common varieties, with nearly all varieties exhibiting a similar trend (direction) for plastic variation in LMA, LDMC and $A_S:A_L$ (Fig. 2d, e and h). For BWD and RBT, the trend was reversed for three varieties, only one of which is identical for both traits ('Bouteillan') (Fig. 2i and j). However, the magnitude of plasticity varied among varieties, reflecting significant 'site × variety' interactions (see Supplementary Table S5).

### Plasticity indices PhD and MVPi

The average PhD values of each trait ranged from 0.25 to 0.61 (see Supplementary Table S7). LDMC showed the largest plasticity (0.61), alongside the structural traits BWD (0.46), and LMA (0.45), followed by $A_S:A_L$ (0.44), while SSL, LT and leaf size and form were the least plastic traits (Fig. 3).
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Variations in leaf (a–f), stem (g—and h), and branch (i and j) traits among the 83 olive varieties in the two sites. The black dots represent the mean trait values of varieties and the black lines indicate the trait variations for the common varieties between the two sites. The horizontal width of the violin reflects the density of the data. Differences between sites for common varieties and the entire set of varieties, as well as the differences between distinct and common varieties in each site are shown (***P < .001; **P < .01; *P < .05; ns = non-significant). Trait abbreviations: LA, leaf area; LW, leaf width; LL: LW, leaf length to width ratio; LMA, leaf mass per area; LDMC, leaf dry matter content; LT, leaf thickness; SSL, specific stem length; A<sub>s</sub>:A<sub>l</sub>, sapwood area to twig leaf area; BWD, branch wood density; RBT, relative bark thickness.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Bar graph showing the mean PhD for the different traits. Different letters indicate significant differences in mean PhD indices among traits (*P*-value < .05) using post-hoc tests. Trait abbreviations: LA, leaf area; LW, leaf width; LL:LW, leaf length to width ratio; LMA, leaf mass per area; LDMC, leaf dry matter content; LT, leaf thickness; SSL, specific stem length; *A*<sub>s</sub>:*A*<sub>l</sub>, sapwood area to twig leaf area; BWD, branch wood density; RBT, relative bark thickness.</figcaption></figure>

The MVPi varied between 3.15 ('Picholine marocaine') and 7.50 ('Baid El Hamam') (Fig. 4). A key feature is that varieties with similar MVPi may show different levels of individual trait plasticity (Fig. 4; Supplementary Table S7). For instance, the most plastic variety 'Baid El Hamam', exhibited high plasticity in terms of LDMC and LL:LW, with moderate plasticity for the other traits. In contrast, 'Lucques', the second most plastic variety, showed low plasticity for LDMC, while its plasticity for BWD was relatively high (Fig. 4).

## Plasticity and resource use

The principal component analyses (PCAs) conducted on each of the two sites revealed slight differences in the correlation patterns among traits (Fig. 5; Supplementary Table S8). The first three axes accounted for 60.6% of the total variance in the subhumid site (Fig. 5a and b) and 68.1% in the semi-arid site (Fig. 5c and d). In both cases, the first axes (25.6% in the subhumid site, 31.8% in the semi-arid site) primarily discriminated varieties based on leaf form and size. This axis can be interpreted as a key dimension of leaf energy balance, given the crucial role of leaf size and form in the regulation of water loss and temperature (Wright et al. 2017). The second axis (19.6% in the subhumid site, 20% in the semi-arid site) reflected differences in leaf structure, particularly LMA and LDMC, and captured the 'fast-slow' axis of variation in both sites. The third axes (15.4% in subhumid site, 16.3% in semi-arid site), corresponded to differences in twig and branch traits, with a substantial contribution of BWD and SSL (see Supplementary Table S8). RBT was significantly associated with the third axis in the semi-arid site, but this association was weaker in the subhumid site (Fig. 5b and d).

To assess whether a trade-off exists between plasticity and resource-conservation strategies, we investigated the relationship between the scores of varieties on the 'fast-slow' axes of the PCAs (see Supplementary Figure S1), and the Phenotypic Dissimilarity index for different traits on the one hand, and the MVPi on the other hand. The only significant correlation

identified was a positive association between the 'fast-slow' score and the plasticity of SSL in the semi-arid site (Fig. 6g). No significant correlation was found with the MVPi in either the subhumid site or semi-arid site.

## DISCUSSION

The study of ten leaf and stem traits of olive varieties across two collections with contrasting environmental conditions, one in France (subhumid site) and the other one in Morocco (semi-arid site), showed substantial variations for all traits within each site. In the semi-arid site, higher temperatures also imply a much higher vapour pressure deficit and consequently stronger atmospheric drought stress independently of irrigation, which revealed consistent environmental effects on both the inter- and intra-varietal levels for most traits, but not systematically towards more conservative values compared to the subhumid site. Our results also reveal substantial differences in plasticity among traits and varieties, underscoring the complexity of assessing plasticity when several traits are considered simultaneously.

## Trait variations across olive varieties

Leaf size variation (area, length, width) across varieties compares well with what was observed in two other olive varietal collections (Cantini et al. 1999, Trentacoste and Puertas 2011), although some varieties certainly have larger leaves than those studied here: e.g. 'Kalamon' -not studied here-, has leaves 1.3 times larger than 'Zard', the variety with the largest leaves in our study: Koubouris et al. 2018. LMA values (218.6–335.4 g m⁻²) compare well with those found in other studies (e.g. Bacelar et al. 2004, Trentacoste et al. 2018). To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to provide values for the other traits for olive varieties.

LMA values of olive were higher than those of other woody crops, both deciduous [e.g. wine grapes (*Vitis vinifera* L.: 52.8–101.8; Martin et al. 2025)] and evergreen [e.g. coffee (*Coffea arabica*: 52.9–142.9 g m⁻²; Martin and Isaac 2021,
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.** Heat map of the PhD. Varieties are ranked according to decreasing values of the MVPi, shown on the right-hand side of the heat map. Each cell represents the plasticity index of a specific variety for a given trait, with colour gradients indicating the range from 0 (no plasticity) to 1 (maximum plasticity) for the 17 common varieties. Trait abbreviations: LA, leaf area; LW, leaf width; LL:LW, leaf length to width ratio; LMA, leaf mass per area; LDMC, leaf dry matter content; LT, leaf thickness; SSL, specific stem length; A<sub>s</sub>:A<sub>L</sub>, sapwood area to twig leaf area; BWD, branch wood density; RBT, relative bark thickness.</figcaption></figure>

Citrus species.: 110.9–147.0; Romero-Trigueros et al. 2017]. Based on the high average LMA value of olive relative to both cultivated and wild species (Wright et al. 2004), the olive tree can be considered as a ‘conservative’ species in the context of the leaf economics spectrum (see also discussion in Garnier et al. 2025). Similarly, values of wood density (0.64–0.86 g cm<sup>-3</sup>) are in the high range compared to other species (Chave et al. 2009, Diaz et al. 2016), suggesting that olive has a relatively high resistance to embolism, especially among woody crops. The substantial range of within-species variation in these traits found here nonetheless leads us to the conclusion that different olive varieties might be fit to different environments.

## Trait variation under contrasting environmental conditions

Although there was considerable variation in trait values among varieties within each site, the differences observed between sites for the 17 common varieties were generally similar to those seen across all varieties at each site. This indicates that, despite differences in varietal composition, environmental conditions exert a strong and consistent influence on trait values. A comparable pattern was also reported by Sauvadet et al. (2021) in cacao clonal gardens established under contrasting climates. In their study, morphological trait differences among clones were relatively consistent across sites, while chemical traits showed stronger site-driven variation. This contrast highlights that, in our case, environmental conditions

had a marked effect even on morphological and anatomical traits, whereas in cacao, site effects were more evident for chemical traits.

Although smaller and thinner leaves are generally expected under more arid conditions (Wright et al. 2017), this was not observed here: leaves had similar dimensions (leaf width and elongation) in both sites (Fig. 2). The mean leaf area was even found to be higher in the semi-arid site where aridity and temperature were higher, but this difference was mainly explained by the leaf size of some varieties with particularly big leaves (e.g. ‘Carolea’) that were not present in the subhumid site and therefore cannot be directly attributed to the environment. Overall, the results suggest a high phenotypic stability of leaf size and dimensions among olive varieties in response to environmental conditions. This contrasts with the results reported in wild olive (O. europaea subsp. europaea var. sylvestris) along a natural environmental gradient in Morocco, where leaves were found to become smaller and more elongated as aridity increased (Kassout et al. 2024).

In contrast, olive trees exhibited denser leaves with higher LMA, higher BWD, and thicker bark in the semi-arid site compared to the subhumid site. The contrasting climatic conditions between these two sites, notably differences in temperature and aridity, are likely key factors driving behind these phenotypic variations. Higher LMA values resulted solely from increased LDMC, as there was no difference in leaf thickness between the two sites, contrary to expectations from previous studies (e.g. Niinemets 2001). Leaves with high LDMC, and/or tissue density, have been found to have
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.** The first (axes 1 and 2) and second (axes 1 and 3) planes of principal component analyses (PCA) conducted on the 17 common varieties. a and b are for the subhumid site; c and d are for the semi-arid site. The black arrows indicate the direction and weighting of the vectors representing the traits under consideration. The large black arrow on the left-hand side of the correlation circles in a and c symbolizes the fast-slow axis of the PCAs. Trait abbreviations: LA, leaf area; LW, leaf width; LL:LW, leaf length to width ratio; LMA, leaf mass per area; LDMC, leaf dry matter content; LT, leaf thickness; SSL, specific stem length; $A_s:A_L$, sapwood area to twig leaf area; BWD, branch wood density; RBT, relative bark thickness.</figcaption></figure>

a low osmotic potential at the turgor loss point (Niinemets 2001, Májeková et al. 2021, Nadal et al. 2023), which is considered a key factor in drought tolerance. Similarly, a high BWD has been associated with a higher resistance to cavitation (Chave et al. 2009, Reich 2014 and references therein). This aligns with a recent study on olive (Terral et al. 2025), which shows that varieties originating from arid areas have smaller vessels at a given branch diameter and, therefore, likely a higher BWD (Fajardo et al. 2022) than varieties from more humid environments. Interestingly, the higher wood density in the semi-arid site was not associated to lower SSL. This may be explained by the small diameter, resulting from slower growth of twigs in this collection (mean ± SD: 1.01 ± 0.15 mm in the semi-arid site vs. 1.19 ± 0.21 mm in the sub-humid site; ANOVA: *F* = 24.39, *P* < 0.001) where the environmental conditions are harsh. Thicker bark is also expected in drier sites with high temperatures, as it confers enhanced water storage and protection (Rosell et al. 2014). To the best of our knowledge, our study is among the first to show such a response of bark thickness at the intraspecific level.

The sapwood area to twig leaf area ratio ($A_s:A_L$) was lower at the semi-arid site, which was unexpected and contrasts with studies conducted on gymnosperms (DeLucia et al. 2000, Mencuccini and Bonosi 2001). However, using a large data set of 1135 tree species, Mencuccini et al. (2019) found only

weak relationships between the $A_s:A_L$ ratio and mean annual precipitation or site aridity, and no significant relationship with mean annual temperature. This ratio appears to be influenced by a complex combination of other traits, including LMA and specific hydraulic conductivity ($K_s$) (Mencuccini et al. 2019), which may vary in different directions at the intraspecific level and compensate for each other. In fact, trees with a lower $A_s:A_L$ ratio tend to have a higher $K_s$, allowing them to maintain an adequate water supply to the leaves despite their lower relative sapwood area.

## Plasticity across olive varieties

The relative contributions of phenotypic plasticity compared to genetic variation varied across traits, ranging from 0.17% to 39.17%. Traits differed significantly in their overall degree of plasticity. Structural and density traits (LMA, LDMC, BWD) were the most plastic, and showed a marked response to the environment, although a few varieties displayed opposite patterns. In contrast, leaf and stem size traits were relatively less plastic, indicating a clear distinction between different types of traits in response to the environment. Interestingly, within the common varieties the two most plastic traits (LDMC and LMA) between sites were those displaying the smallest variation among varieties, suggesting some independence between the processes underlying trait variation.
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6.** Relationships between the scores of varieties on the fast-slow axis (axis 2) of the PCAs presented in Fig. 5A–C and their plasticity assessed by the PhD index for each trait (a–j) and the MVPi index (k), assessed separately for the two collections. Varieties are represented by distinct dots for the subhumid and semi-arid sites. The only statistically significant relationship (*P* < .05 for semi-arid site in g) is represented by a solid line, while the shadowed area shows confidence intervals (95%). Trait abbreviations: LA, leaf area, LW = leaf width, LL:LW = leaf length to width ratio, LMA = leaf mass per area, LDMC = leaf dry matter content, LT = leaf thickness, SSL = Specific stem length, A<sub>s</sub>:A<sub>l</sub> = Sapwood area to twig leaf area, BWD = Branch wood density; RBT, relative bark thickness.</figcaption></figure>

However, this general conclusion hides striking differences among varieties: e.g. a variety that is overall described as ‘not very plastic’ (i.e. ‘Picholine marocaine’; MVPi = 3.15) may actually display high plasticity for certain traits (e.g. RBT; PhD index = 0.66). In contrast, a variety that showed higher overall plasticity (i.e. ‘Lucques’; MVPi = 6.71) had much lower plasticity across most traits (e.g. LDMC; PhD index = 0.09). This raises two unsolved issues for the study of plasticity. On the one hand, using a single composite metric to assess plasticity (such as MPVi) may obscure the underlying mechanisms of acclimation, which might be better captured by using univariate metrics focused on a targeted, relevant trait. On the other hand, as a plant’s response to environmental variation actually involves multiple traits (Pennacchi et al. 2021, Anderegg 2023), a multivariate index might be more appropriate to assess the fit between an organism and its environment. Addressing these issues requires a better understanding of how different trait combinations and plastic responses impact fitness, or fruit yield in the case of olive, in specific environments. Unfortunately we lack such data in our study, making it difficult to clearly evaluate how the observed plasticity leads to improved performance. Future work should

integrate yield-related traits in order to better evaluate whether plastic responses confer a tangible agronomic benefit. This will be essential to identify the most valuable plastic varieties, i.e. those capable of maintaining high and stable performance under environmental stress (Brooker et al. 2022).

Finally, more ‘conservative’ varieties are often assumed to be less plastic than those that are more ‘acquisitive’ (Grime 1977, Grassein et al. 2010, Stotz et al. 2022, Carrascosa et al. 2023). This is likely because more conservative varieties (like any plant) tend to prioritize survival over growth, in relation to high tissue construction costs and slower tissue renewal (Wright et al. 2004, Poorter et al. 2009), leading to limited plasticity. One possible explanation is that phenotypic plasticity itself comes with metabolic and resource costs. As proposed by DeWitt et al. (1998), rapid phenotypic reconfiguration requires substantial energetic investment, which may be incompatible with a resource-conserving strategy. Several studies have reported this trade-off between stress tolerance and phenotypic plasticity (Power et al. 2019, Solé-Medina et al. 2022). In their interspecific analysis based on a literature survey involving 61 woody evergreens, Stotz et al. (2022) found that SLA (the inverse of LMA), a major trait
contributing to the fast-slow axis, was positively related to plasticity in plant biomass allocation and physiology (mainly net photosynthetic rate), but negatively related to plasticity in plant size, and unrelated to plasticity in leaf morphology. As discussed above, this highlights the multidimensional nature of phenotypic plasticity and the paramount importance of trait selection when assessing plasticity. Our results for olive —an evergreen sclerophyll species—are in line with those of Stotz et al. (2022) for leaves and extend their conclusions to stem and branch traits. The only evidence we found of a relationship between the fast-slow axis plasticity was for SSL, and it was contrary to our expectations: SSL was more plastic in more conservative varieties. We might argue that the range of variation in LMA values (which varies approximately two-fold across the studied varieties) was too small to detect any relationship in our study. However, the consistency between our results and the literature survey conducted by Stotz et al. (2022) across species with a larger range of variation in LMA instead suggests that phenotypic plasticity relates only poorly to plant resource use strategy (see also Garnier et al. 2019).

## Towards an olive breeding programme integrating phenotypic plasticity

Using the natural phenotypic diversity of olive is a strategic lever for varietal selection programmes, particularly in the context of climate change. This diversity, which includes phenotypic plasticity, enables the assessment of the ability of varieties to cope with contrasting environments. By studying phenotypic traits linked to the water and carbon use in two *ex situ* varietal collections with very contrasting environmental conditions, we were able to identify traits with a high degree of plasticity, providing a basis for exploring how these plastic responses could influence the olive varieties to persist under harsh conditions. At the same time, stable traits across environments reflect genetic robustness. This is the case, e.g. leaf thickness, which is functionally relevant but invariant across sites. These 'invariant' traits are deemed to have little relevance for breeding under climate change. Our study suggests that the focus should instead be directed towards structural and density related traits of leaves and/or stems.

## Conclusions

Although genetic variation among varieties was substantial, phenotypic plasticity contributed considerably to trait variability (Q1). Our results reveal distinct phenotypic signatures at the two sites, with trait variations globally supporting reduced water loss at the drier site. The direction of changes in trait values was generally consistent among and within varieties for most leaf and stem traits, and especially for density traits (LMA, LDMC, BWD), suggesting that plastic changes in these traits could be considered as the initial steps of an acclimation response in olive. Comparing plasticity among varieties remains challenging due to the complexity of assessing plasticity beyond individual traits (Q2-Q3). A better understanding of how traits combine to impact production in olive would help assess the role of multivariate plasticity in shaping plant responses to aridity. However, we did not find any evidence that more conservative olive varieties were less plastic than more acquisitive ones (Q4). In the context of unpredictable climate change, breeding varieties based on plastic traits

associated with water use could be a key lever for ensuring the sustainability of crops in the Mediterranean Basin.

## Author contributions

S.W. conceived the study, performed the experiments, curated and analysed the data, created the figures, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. A.E.B. contributed to the experiments, supervised the project, and managed project administration. H.Z. and A.M. contributed to resources, methodology, and validation. C.E.M. secured funding, supervised the work, and participated in validation. F.L. and S.D. guided the work related to wood density. K.B. contributed to conceptualization, methodology, supervision, validation, and manuscript review and editing. E.G. contributed to conceptualization, methodology, resources, supervision, validation, and manuscript review and editing. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

## Supplementary data

Supplementary data is available at *AoB Plants* online.

## Conflict of interest

None declared.

## Funding

This work was supported by (i) ClimOliveMed project (2003-001) (under I-Site Muse framework) coordinated by Agropolis Foundation (France), (ii) the ClimGenOlive 0103/2022 project supported by the Hassan II Academy of Sciences and Technology (Morocco), the Ministry of Higher Education, Scientific Research and Innovation (Morocco), and the National Institute of Agronomic Research (Morocco), and (iii) the bilateral PHC Toubkal no. 22/37 (Campus France 47264RC) « DivOSec » project.

## Data availability

The values of leaf, stem, and branch traits averaged for each tree for all varieties are archived at the CNRS institutional repository InDoRES (https://data.indores.fr:443/dataverse/CEFE) with the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.48579/PRO/OQZOB9 (Wakib et al., 2025).

## Ethics approval

The species studied (*Olea europaea* L. subsp. *europaea*) is neither endangered nor protected. Fieldwork and phenotypic measurements were conducted within authorized germplasm collections at the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA, Marrakech, Morocco), and the Conservatoire Botanique National Méditerranéen (CBNMed, Porquerolles, France), with institutional permissions for data collection.

## Literature cited

* Anderegg LD. Why can't we predict traits from the environment?. *New Phytol* 2023;237:1998-2004. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18586

* Bacelar EA, Correia CM, Moutinho-Pereira JM *et al*. Sclerophyll and leaf anatomical traits of five field-grown olive cultivars growing under drought conditions. *Tree Physiol* 2004;24:233-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/24.2.233
Bartolini G, Prevost G, Messeri C *et al*. *Olive Germplasm: Cultivars and World-Wide Collections*. Rome: FAO Library, 2005. www.oleadb.it

Bnesnard G, Terral JF, Cornille A. On the origins and domestication of the olive: a review and perspectives. *Ann Bot* 2018;121:385-403.
https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcx145

Brooker R, Brown LK, George TS *et al*. Active and adaptive plasticity in a changing climate. *Trends Plant Sci* 2022;27:717-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2022.02.004

Cantini C, Cimato A, Sani G. Morphological evaluation of olive germplasm present in Tuscany region. *Euphytica* 1999;109:173-81.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003728800464

Carrascosa A, Silvestre M, Morgado L *et al*. Diversity and mean specific leaf area of Mediterranean woody vegetation changes in response to summer drought across a double stress gradient: the role of phenotypic plasticity. *J Veg Sci* 2023;34:e13180. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.13180

Cavallaro A, Carbonell-Silletta L, Askenazi JO *et al*. Phenotypic plasticity in leaf traits in response to experimental precipitation increase: wettability, foliar water uptake and gas exchange. *Ecohydrology* 2023;16:e2573. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.2573

Chave J, Coomes D, Jansen S *et al*. Towards a worldwide wood economics spectrum. *Ecol Lett* 2009;12:351-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01285.x

Cornelissen JHC, Lavorel S, Garnier E *et al*. A handbook of protocols for standardised and easy measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. *Austral J Bot* 2003;51:335-80. https://doi.org/10.1071/BT02124

Daget P. Le bioclimat méditerranéen: analyse des formes climatiques par le système d'Emberger. *Vegetatio* 1977;34:87-103. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00054477

Delucia EH, Maherali H, Carey EV. Climate-driven changes in biomass allocation in pines. *Glob Chang Biol* 2000;6:587-93. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00338.x

De Martonne E. Une nouvelle function climatologique: L'indice d'aridité [A new climatological function: the Aridity Index]. *La Meteorol* 1926;2:449-58.

DeWitt TJ, Sih A, Wilson DS. Costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity. *Trends Ecol Evol* 1998;13:77-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-5347(97)01274-3

Díaz-Rueda P, Franco-Navarro JD, Messora R. SILVOLIVE, a germplasm collection of wild subspecies with high genetic variability as a source of rootstocks and resistance genes for olive breeding. *Front Plant Sci* 2020;11:629. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00629

Díaz S, Kattge J, Cornelissen JH *et al*. The global spectrum of plant form and function. *Nature* 2016;529:167-71. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16489

El Bakkali A, Essalouh L, Tollon C *et al*. Characterization of Worldwide Olive Germplasm Banks of Marrakech (Morocco) and Córdoba (Spain): towards management and use of olive germplasm in breeding programs. *PLoS One* 2019;14:e0223716. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223716

Fajardo A, Piper FI, García-Cervigón AI. The intraspecific relationship between wood density, vessel diameter and other traits across environmental gradients. *Funct Ecol* 2022;36:1585-98. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.14069

Fajardo A, Siefert A, Laughlin DC. Wood density and leaf size jointly predict woody plant growth rates across (but not within) species along a steep precipitation gradient. *J Ecol* 2024;112:374-88. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.14240

Fernandez JE. Understanding olive adaptation to abiotic stresses as a tool to increase crop performance. *Environ Exp Bot* 2014;103: 158-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2013.12.003

Fox RJ, Donelson JM, Schunter C *et al*. Beyond buying time: the role of plasticity in phenotypic adaptation to rapid environmental change. *Philos Trans R Soc B* 2019;374:20180174. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0174

Ganino T, Bartolini G, Fabbri A. The classification of olive germplasm. *J Hortic Sci Biotechnol* 2006;81:319-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.2006.11512069

Garnier E, Barkaoui K, Alexandre F *et al*. Leaf longevity and structure, fruit mass and phenology in 52 cultivated varieties and wild accessions of olive. *Funct Ecol* 2025. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.70012

Garnier E, Leca E, Barkaoui K. Leaf and pit traits of 35 olive varieties from different genetic groups growing in the French germplasm collection of the Porquerolles Island (Provence, France). *Sci Rep Port-Cros Natl Park* 2021;35:235-60.

Garnier E, Shipley B, Roumet C *et al*. A standardized protocol for the determination of specific leaf area and leaf dry matter content. *Funct Ecol* 2001;15:688-95. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0269-8463.2001.00563.x

Garnier E, Vile D, Roumet C *et al*. Inter-and intra-specific trait shifts among sites differing in drought conditions at the north western edge of the Mediterranean region. *Flora* 2019;254:147-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2018.07.009

Gaussen H, Bagnoulis F. L'indice xérothermique. *Bull Assoc Géogr Français* 1952;29:10-6. https://doi.org/10.3406/bagf.1952.7361

Givnish TJ. Comparative studies of leaf form: assessing the relative roles of selective pressures and phylogenetic constraints. *New Phytol* 1987;106:131-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1987.tb04687.x

Grassein F, Till-Bottraud I, Lavorel S. Plant resource-use strategies: the importance of phenotypic plasticity in response to a productivity gradient for two subalpine species. *Ann Bot* 2010;106:637-45. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcq154

Grime JP. Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. *Am Nat* 1977;111:1169-94. https://doi.org/10.1086/283244

Guay R, Gagnon R, Morin H. A new automatic and interactive tree ring measurement system based on a line scan camera. *Forest Chronicle* 1992;68:138-41. https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc68138-1

Hacke UG, Sperry JS, Pockman WT *et al*. Trends in wood density and structure are linked to prevention of xylem implosion by negative pressure. *Oecologia* 2001;126:457-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420100628

Hereford J. A quantitative survey of local adaptation and fitness trade-offs. *Am Nat* 2009;173:579-88. https://doi.org/10.1086/597611

Huber B. Weitere quantitative Untersuchungen über das Wasserleitungssystem der Pflanzen. *Jahrb Wissenschaft Bot* 1928;67:877-959.

Kassout J, Terral JF, Souali H *et al*. Environment-dependent and intra-specific variations in leaf and size traits of a native wild olive (*Olea europaea* L.) along an aridity gradient in Morocco: a functional perspective. *Plant Ecol* 2024;225:943-59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-024-01445-2

Khadari B, El Bakkali A. Primary selection and secondary diversification: two key processes in the history of olive domestication. *Int J Agron* 2018;2018:5607903. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5607903

Khadari B, Pinatel C. Les variétés à Porquerolles: une collection nationale de référence. *Le Nouvel Olivier* 2018;112:10-5.

Kitagawa R, Masumoto S, Kaneko R *et al*. The contribution of intraspecific trait variation to changes in functional community structure along a stress gradient. *J Veg Sci* 2022;33:e13112. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.13112

Kottek M, Grieser J, Beck C *et al*. World map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. *Meteorol Zeitschr* 2006;15:259-63. https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2006/0130

Koubouris G, Bouranis D, Vogiatzis E *et al*. Leaf area estimation by considering leaf dimensions in olive tree. *Sci Hortic* 2018;240:440-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2018.06.034

León L, Velasco L, de la Rosa R. Initial selection steps in olive breeding programs. *Euphytica* 2015;201:453-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-014-1232-z

Lepš J, de Bello F, Šmilauer P *et al*. Community trait response to environment: disentangling species turnover vs intraspecific trait variability effects. *Ecography* 2011;34:856-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06904.x
Linhart YB, Grant MC. Evolutionary significance of local genetic differ-
entiation in plants. *Annu Rev Ecol Syst* 1996;27:237-77. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.27.1.237

Májeková M, Hájek T, Albert ÁJ *et al*. Weak coordination between leaf drought tolerance and proxy traits in herbaceous plants. *Funct Ecol* 2021;35:1299-311. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13792

Martin AR, Isaac ME. The leaf economics spectrum's morning coffee: plant size-dependent changes in leaf traits and reproductive onset in a perennial tree crop. *Ann Bot* 2021;127:483-93. https://doi.org/10.1093/aobm/mca199

Martin AR, Miller L, Madigan M *et al*. Trait integration varies with re-
source acquisition strategies in a common perennial crop. *Funct
Ecol* 2025;39:1112-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.70013

MedECC. Climate and environmental change in the Mediterranean basin—current situation and risks for the future. First Mediterranean assessment report. In: Cramer W, Guiot J, Marini K (eds.) *Union for the Mediterranean*. Marseille: Plan Bleu, UNEP/MAP, 2020, 632pp. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4768833

Mencuccini M, Bonosi L. Leaf/sapwood area ratios in Scots pine show acclimation across Europe. *Can J For Res* 2001;31:442-56. https://doi.org/10.1139/x00-173

Mencuccini M, Rosas T, Rowland L *et al*. Leaf economics and plant hydraulics drive leaf: wood area ratios. *New Phytol* 2019;224:1544-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15998

Midgley JJ, Lawes MJ. Relative bark thickness: towards standardised measurement and analysis. *Plant Ecol* 2016;217:677-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-016-0587-8

Moles AT, Perkins SE, Laffan SW *et al*. Which is a better predictor of plant traits: temperature or precipitation?. *J Veg Sci* 2014;25:1167-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12190

Nadal M, Quintanilla LG, Pons-Perpinyà J *et al*. Leaf structure and water relations of an allotetraploid Mediterranean fern and its diploid parents. *Physiol Plant* 2023;175:e14043. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.14043

Nicotra AB, Davidson A. Adaptive phenotypic plasticity and plant water use. *Funct Plant Biol* 2010;37:117-27. https://doi.org/10.1071/FP09139

Nicotra AB, Leigh A, Boyce CK *et al*. The evolution and functional sig-
nificance of leaf shape in the angiosperms. *Funct Plant Biol* 2011;38:
535-52. https://doi.org/10.1071/FP11057

Niinemets Ü. Global-scale climatic controls of leaf dry mass per area, density, and thickness in trees and shrubs. *Ecology* 2001;82:453-69. https://doi.org/10.2307/2679872

Pennacchi JP, Lira JM, Rodrigues M *et al*. A systemic approach to the quantification of the phenotypic plasticity of plant physiological traits: the multivariate plasticity index. *J Exp Bot* 2021;72:1864-78. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eraa545

Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Diaz S, Garnier E *et al*. New handbook for standardised measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. *Austral J Bot* 2013;61:167-234. https://doi.org/10.1071/BT12225

Polge H. Établissement des courbes de variation de la densité du bois par exploration densitométrique de radiographies d'échantillons prélevés à la tarière sur des arbres vivants: applications dans les domaines technologique et physiologique. *Ann Sci Forest* 1966;23:1-206. https://doi.org/10.1051/forest/19660101

Poorter H, Niinemets Ü, Poorter L *et al*. Causes and consequences of variation in leaf mass per area (LMA): a meta-analysis. *New Phytol* 2009;182:565-88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02830.x

Poorter H, Niklas KJ, Reich PB *et al*. Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. *New Phytol* 2012;193:30-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03952.x

Power SC, Verboom GA, Bond WJ *et al*. Does a tradeoff between trait plasticity and resource conservatism contribute to the maintenance of alternative stable states?. *New Phytol* 2019;223:1809-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15981

Puglielli G, Carmona CP, Varone L *et al*. Phenotypic dissimilarity index: correcting for intra- and interindividual variability when

quantifying phenotypic variation. *Ecology* 2022;103:e3806.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3806

Reich PB. The world-wide 'fast-slow' plant economics spectrum: a traits manifesto. *J Ecol* 2014;102:275-301. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12211

Reich PB, Walters MB, Ellsworth DS. Leaf life-span in relation to leaf, plant, and stand characteristics among diverse ecosystems. *Ecol Monogr* 1992;62:365-92. https://doi.org/10.2307/2937116

Revelle WR. psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. 2017. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych

Romero-Trigueros C, Nortes PA, Alarcón JJ *et al*. Effects of saline re-
claimed waters and deficit irrigation on Citrus physiology assessed
by UAV remote sensing. *Agric Water Manag* 2017;183:60-9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.09.014

Rosas T, Mencuccini M, Barba J *et al*. Adjustments and coordination of hydraulic, leaf and stem traits along a water availability gradient. *New Phytol* 2019;223:632-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15684

Rosell JA. Bark in woody plants: understanding the diversity of a multi-functional structure. *Integr Comp Biol* 2019;59:535-47. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icz057

Rosell JA, Gleason S, Méndez-Alonzo R *et al*. Bark functional ecology: evidence for tradeoffs, functional coordination, and environment producing bark diversity. *New Phytol* 2014;201:486-97. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12541

Rosell JA, Marcati CR, Olson ME *et al*. Inner bark vs sapwood is the main driver of nitrogen and phosphorus allocation in stems and roots across three tropical woody plant communities. *New Phytol* 2023;239:1665-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.19085

Rosell JA, Olson ME. The evolution of bark mechanics and storage across habitats in a clade of tropical trees. *Am J Bot* 2014;101:764-77. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1400109

Sauvadet M, Dickinson AK, Somarriba E *et al*. Genotype-environment interactions shape leaf functional traits of cacao in agroforests. *Agron Sustain Dev* 2021;41:31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-021-00690-3

Siefert A, Violle C, Chalmandrier L *et al*. A global meta-analysis of the relative extent of intraspecific trait variation in plant communities. *Ecol Lett* 2015;18:1406-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12508

Solé-Medina A, Robledo-Arnuncio JJ, Ramírez-Valiente JA. Multi-trait genetic variation in resource-use strategies and phenotypic plasticity correlates with local climate across the range of a Mediterranean oak (*Quercus faginea*). *New Phytol* 2022;234:462-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.17968

Stotz GC, Salgado-Luarte C, Escobedo VM *et al*. Global trends in phenotypic plasticity of plants. *Ecol Lett* 2021;24:2267-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13827

Stotz GC, Salgado-Luarte C, Escobedo VM *et al*. Phenotypic plasticity and the leaf economics spectrum: plasticity is positively associated with specific leaf area. *Oikos* 2022;202:e09342. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.09342

Terral JF, Creusot P, Limier B *et al*. The potential of sap conduction in the olive tree is linked to aridity conditions of the main cultivation area of varieties and allow to uncover their sensitivity to ongoing climate change. *Sci Hortic* 2025;339:113856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2024.113856

Torres-Ruiz JM, Kremer A, Carins Murphy MR *et al*. Genetic differentiation in functional traits among European sessile oak populations. *Tree Physiol* 2019;39:1736-49. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpz090

Trentacoste ER, Contreras-Zanessi O, Beyá-Marshall V *et al*. Genotypic variation of physiological and morphological traits of seven olive cultivars under sustained and cyclic drought in Mendoza, Argentina. *Agric Water Manag* 2018;196:48-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2017.10.018

Trentacoste ER, Puertas CM. Preliminary characterization and morpho-agronomic evaluation of the olive germplasm collection
of the Mendoza province (Argentina). *Euphytica* 2011;177:99-109.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-010-0270-4

Tyree MT, Zimmermann MH. Hydraulic architecture of whole plants and plant performance. In: Xylem *Structure and the Ascent of sap*. Dordrecht: Springer, 2002, 175-214. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-04931-0_6

Valladares F, Gianoli E, Gómez JM. Ecological limits to plant phenotypic plasticity. *New Phytol* 2007;**176**:749-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02275.x

Valverde P, Barranco D, López-Escudero FJ *et al*. Efficiency of breeding olives for resistance to Verticillium wilt. *Front Plant Sci* 2023;**14**:1149570. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1149570

Valverde P, Diez CM, Deger RE *et al*. Genotypic influence in the juvenile to adult transition in olive seedlings. *Front Plant Sci* 2024;**15**:1343589. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2024.1343589

Vellend M, Lajoie G, Bourret A *et al*. Drawing ecological inferences from coincident patterns of population-and community-level bio-diversity. *Mol Ecol* 2014;**23**:2890-901. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12756

Violle C, Enquist BJ, McGill BJ *et al*. The return of the variance: intra-specific variability in community ecology. *Trends Ecol Evol* 2012;**27**:244-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.11.014

Weemstra M, Freschet GT, Stokes A *et al*. Patterns in intraspecific variation in root traits are species-specific along an elevation gradient. *Funct Ecol* 2021;**35**:342-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13723

Welles SR, Funk JL. Patterns of intraspecific trait variation along an aridity gradient suggest both drought escape and drought tolerance strategies in an invasive herb. *Ann Bot* 2021;**127**:461-71. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mca173

Wilson PJ, Thompson KE, Hodgson JG. Specific leaf area and leaf dry matter content as alternative predictors of plant strategies. *New Phytol* 1999;**143**:155-62. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.1999.00427.x

Wright IJ, Dong N, Maire V *et al*. Global climatic drivers of leaf size. *Science* 2017;**357**:917-21. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal4760

Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M *et al*. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. *Nature* 2004;**428**:821-7. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02403