| Literature DB >> 17107611 |
Pierre R Gérard1, Etienne K Klein, Frédéric Austerlitz, Juan F Fernández-Manjarrés, Nathalie Frascaria-Lacoste.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The structure and evolution of hybrid zones depend mainly on the relative importance of dispersal and local adaptation, and on the strength of assortative mating. Here, we study the influence of dispersal, temporal isolation, variability in phenotypic traits and parasite attacks on the male mating success of two parental species and hybrids by real-time pollen flow analysis. We focus on a hybrid zone population between the two closely related ash species Fraxinus excelsior L. (common ash) and F. angustifolia Vahl (narrow-leaved ash), which is composed of individuals of the two species and several hybrid types. This population is structured by flowering time: the F. excelsior individuals flower later than the F. angustifolia individuals, and the hybrid types flower in-between. Hybrids are scattered throughout the population, suggesting favorable conditions for their local adaptation. We estimate jointly the best-fitting dispersal kernel, the differences in male fecundity due to variation in phenotypic traits and level of parasite attack, and the strength of assortative mating due to differences in flowering phenology. In addition, we assess the effect of accounting for genotyping error on these estimations.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2006 PMID: 17107611 PMCID: PMC1660552 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-6-96
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Dispersal and selfing parameter estimates
| Genotyping error | Dispersal distribution | Parameter estimates | LRT | ||||||
| - | d.f. | ||||||||
| Without | Normal | 9590.3 | - | 1 | 9.6 | < 0.01 | |||
| Exponential | 9586.1 | - | 1 | 1.2 | 0.29 | ||||
| Exp. power | 9585.5 | - | - | - | |||||
| Spatial panmixia | 9612.4 | - | - | 2 | 53.8 | < 10-10 | |||
| Low | Normal | 9565.5 | - | 1 | 25 | < 10-5 | |||
| Exponential | 9554.4 | - | 1 | 2.8 | 0.098 | ||||
| Exp. power | 9553.0 | - | - | - | |||||
| Spatial panmixia | 9615.3 | - | - | 2 | 124.6 | 0 | |||
| High | Normal | 9207.5 | - | 1 | 45.4 | < 10-10 | |||
| Exponential | 9188.7 | - | 1 | 7.8 | < 0.01 | ||||
| Exp. power | 9184.8 | - | - | - | |||||
| Spatial panmixia | 9291.0 | - | - | 2 | 212.4 | 0 | |||
Selfing rate (s), immigration rate (m) and pollen dispersal parameters estimated under models 1 and 2, and confidence intervals at 95% (IC). The quality of fit was evaluated through the log-likelihood (L) of the data set under each model, and tested by a Likelihood-Ratio Test (LRT) comparing fits under the nested model and the complete model (Equation 4) with Exp. Power kernel. K is the LRT statistics and d.f. the number of degrees of freedom. Values of mean dispersal distance estimates () are expressed in meters
Figure 1Log-plot of dispersal kernels estimated under the Gaussian (dotted lines), exponential (dashed lines) and exponential power (plain lines) models, without error rate (black) and with low error rate (dark grey) and high error rate (soft grey). All kernels were estimated under the complete model (model 1).
Temporal assortative mating parameter estimates
| Genotyping error | Parameter estimates | LRT | ||||||||||
| d.f. | ||||||||||||
| Without | 5 | 4.0 | 0.57 | |||||||||
| Low | 5 | 20.4 | < 0.001 | |||||||||
| High | 5 | 37.0 | < 10-5 | |||||||||
Assortative mating parameters relative to phenology (g) estimated under complete model (Equation 4) with Exp. Power kernel, and confidence intervals at 95% (CI). Indices for parameter estimates indicate the difference in number of phenological groups between the two parents (Father-Mother). The effect of relative phenology was tested by removing it (i.e. temporal panmixia) and comparing to the complete model by a LRT.
Figure 2Estimates of relative fecundities of phenological groups, with or without accounting for genotyping error.
Fertility parameter estimates
| Genotyping error | Parameter estimates | LRT | |||||||
| Phenotypical trait | d.f. | ||||||||
| Without | Flowering intensity | 4 | 12.6 | < 0.05 | |||||
| DBH | 3 | 24.2 | < 10-3 | ||||||
| Fruiting intensity | 4 | 2.6 | 0.64 | ||||||
| Gall attacks | 3 | 5.0 | 0.18 | ||||||
| Sexual type | - | 2 | 1.4 | 0.51 | |||||
| Low | Flowering intensity | 4 | 16.0 | < 0.01 | |||||
| DBH | 3 | 34.4 | < 10-5 | ||||||
| Fruiting intensity | 4 | 9.2 | 0.06 | ||||||
| Gall attacks | 3 | 8.2 | < 0.05 | ||||||
| Sexual type | - | 3 | 2.2 | 0.54 | |||||
| High | Flowering intensity | 4 | 35.2 | < 10-5 | |||||
| DBH | 4 | 44.0 | < 10-5 | ||||||
| Fruiting intensity | 4 | 7.8 | 0.10 | ||||||
| Gall attacks | 4 | 4.0 | 0.43 | ||||||
| Sexual type | - | 3 | 5.4 | 0.15 | |||||
Fertility parameters relative to phenotypic traits and gall attacks (f) estimated under complete model (Equation 4) with Exp. Power kernel. The effect of each factor was tested by removing the factor and comparing to the complete model with all factors by a LRT. Indices indicate different levels of each factor (Flowering and Fruiting intensities: 1 = Anecdotal, 2 = Low, 3 = Intermediate, 4 = Abundant, 5 = Massive; DBH: 1 = < 40 cm, 2 = < 80 cm, 3 = < 120 cm, 4 = < 160 cm, 5 = > 200 cm; Gall attacks: 1 = Inexistent, 2 = Low, 3 = Intermediate, 4 = High, 5 = Massive; Sexual type: 1 = Pure males (MM), 2 = Hermaphrodites with a high proportion of male flowers (MH), 3 = Hermaphrodites with a low proportion of male flowers (HM), 4 = Pure hermaphrodites (HH).
Figure 3Outcrossing rates testimated from family arrays sampled on mothers from each phenological group (2 to 5). Standard errors were computed from 1000 bootstrap replicates over families.
Summary of phenotypic trait values in the phenological groups
| Group 1 (Early) | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | Group 5 (Late) | |
| Number of individuals | 34 | 95 | 62 | 46 | 32 |
| DBH | 111.85 (9.50) | 92.44 (4.71) | 77.03 (6.44) | 78.80 (7.86) | 54.53 (8.38) |
| Flowering intensity | 1.50 (0.13) | 2.65 (0.11) | 2.69 (0.12) | 2.52 (0.16) | 1.62 (0.19) |
| Fruiting intensity | 0.65 (0.11) | 1.54 (0.10) | 1.87 (0.13) | 1.83 (0.17) | 0.94 (0.21) |
| Gall attacks | 0.35 (0.14) | 0.27 (0.08) | 0.49 (0.13) | 0.67 (0.17) | 0.53 (0.21) |
| Morphology (CDA 1) | -0.67 (0.13) | -0.48 (0.10) | 0.12 (0.14) | 0.26 (0.17) | 0.93 (0.14) |
Mean values (standard errors) of different phenotypic traits in the five phenological groups. The data were taken from Gérard et al. [28]. Morphology values are the mean coordinates for the first canonical variable from a Canonical Discriminant Analysis. This analysis was performed on four morphological variables in populations of the two species and phenological groups (see [28] for further details).