Can This Wildflower Keep Up With Climate Change?

A field experiment in the Rockies shows how climate change is outpacing nature’s ability to adapt — and what that means for conservation

I once helped relocate a rare alpine plant species. Tiny, unassuming, and adapted to a very narrow slice of mountain life. We packed them gently, like newborn chicks, and moved them to slightly warmer slopes to see how they’d fare. Some died, some held on. A few even thrived.

That field experiment stuck with me. It showed how fragile adaptation can be and how powerful it is, too.

So when I read Anderson et al. (2025)’s new study on Boechera stricta, a wild mustard native to the Rocky Mountains, I couldn’t stop nodding. This wasn’t just another climate model. This was a real-world test of whether a wild plant could keep up with the pace of climate change. Well, and whether we can do anything to help.

Turns out, we might be able to. But the answer’s a bit more complicated than a simple yes or no.

The research team behind this study did something refreshingly rare: they took an experimental approach to climate adaptation. Instead of relying only on models, they transplanted plants from 15 genetically distinct populations of Boechera stricta, a perennial mustard found across western North America, into gardens in Idaho, Montana, and Colorado.

Why? They wanted to know how different populations would fare when moved to warmer or higher elevations, simulating the kind of environmental shifts that climate change is already forcing on ecosystems. Think of it like testing a group of runners on different racetracks to see who keeps pace and who stumbles.

The study used both historical climate data and future projections to assess what’s coming for these populations. One projection modeled a +5.5°C temperature increase by 2090; essentially, a future where things get a lot hotter and drier, fast.

Here’s where it gets really interesting: the researchers found that most plant populations already perform worse in climates similar to what the future holds.

“In hotter and drier sites, survival, growth and reproduction generally declined,” said researcher Dr. Jill Anderson in a press release. “That suggests that the future climate may be quite stressful for this plant.”

Even more concerning? Some populations were already maladapted to their current climate. Meaning: they’re not just unprepared for the future, they’re already struggling in the present .

This matters, because we often assume species are well-adapted to where they live. But what if the climate’s already changed enough that those assumptions no longer hold?

What Anderson et al. also discovered is that while some populations did better when moved (essentially undergoing a kind of “climate rescue” by relocation), no single population outperformed all others across the board. In short, there’s no silver bullet seed source you can move around and expect consistent success.

The variation in success among populations underscores the complexity of evolutionary adaptation. It’s like trying to plan a team of marathoners when each one performs best under totally different weather conditions, and none of them have ever run in 40°C heat.

The bigger takeaway is that climate adaptation is going to require more than just moving things around or hoping for the best. As Dr. Anderson put it, “The plants already seem to be suffering in their home environment, and that will likely get worse in the future.” Which means we may need to think more proactively — not just conserving species as they are, but supporting them as they change .

For conservation, that raises some big, thorny questions.

Should we assist migration by moving populations to more suitable future climates, even if it means interfering with natural distribution?

Can gene flow from better-adapted populations rescue those at risk, or will that backfire if the newcomers can’t establish?

There’s no easy answer, but this research gives us a much-needed reality check: the future of many native species may hinge on whether we’re willing to act before it’s too late.

It also adds nuance to how we think about “adaptation.” It’s not a straight line from challenge to solution. It’s messy, context-dependent, and full of trade-offs. A population that thrives in one location might flop in another — even if the climate looks “suitable” on paper.

This brings us back to a deeper truth: local adaptation is both a gift and a curse. It’s what makes ecosystems so rich and diverse, but it also makes them vulnerable to rapid change.

When I think about the tiny alpine plant I once helped move, I realize how much its story echoes that of Boechera stricta. And maybe, in some way, our story too.

Climate change isn’t just a backdrop; it’s the main stage now. And our ability to survive it, as species or societies, depends on how well we understand variation, resilience, and the uncomfortable choices ahead.

Sometimes, survival isn’t about being the strongest. It’s about being just adaptable enough to stay in the game.

Let’s make sure more species get that chance.

Published in Fossils et al. Follow to learn more about Paleontology and Evolution.

Do you want to become a writer for this Publication? Read the Submission Guidelines and fill out This Form.

Do you want to read more stories like this? You can now subscribe to my newsletter and join a community of over 11,000 Earth lovers!

I’m thrilled you’re here. Stay curious, and thank you for sharing this journey with me!

Best,

Sílvia P-M, PhD Climate Ages