| Literature DB >> 22381041 |
Martin F Breed1, Michael G Gardner, Kym M Ottewell, Carlos M Navarro, Andrew J Lowe.
Abstract
The influence of habitat fragmentation on mating patterns and progeny fitness in trees is critical for understanding the long-term impact of contemporary landscape change on the sustainability of biodiversity. We examined the relationship between mating patterns, using microsatellites, and fitness of progeny, in a common garden trial, for the insect-pollinated big-leaf mahogany, Swietenia macrophylla King, sourced from forests and isolated trees in 16 populations across Central America. As expected, isolated trees had disrupted mating patterns and reduced fitness. However, for dry provenances, fitness was negatively related to correlated paternity, while for mesic provenances, fitness was correlated positively with outcrossing rate and negatively with correlated paternity. Poorer performance of mesic provenances is likely because of reduced effective pollen donor density due to poorer environmental suitability and greater disturbance history. Our results demonstrate a differential shift in reproductive assurance and inbreeding costs in mahogany, driven by exploitation history and contemporary landscape context.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22381041 PMCID: PMC3489046 DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01752.x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Lett ISSN: 1461-023X Impact factor: 9.492
Figure 1Possible mating system responses of trees to habitat disturbance, including (a) insufficient pollen/pollinators; (b) increased selfing; (c) increased biparental inbreeding; (d) decreased pollen diversity. Genetically similar trees are represented by colours. Pollination is indicated by lines that show failed pollination by coloured dotted lines followed by a red cross (×); reduced pollination by coloured dotted lines; normal pollination by solid coloured lines; a relative increase in pollination by coloured lines with a green plus (+). Responses (b, increased selfing), (c, increased biparental inbreeding) and (d, decreased pollen diversity) are not mutually exclusive for hermaphroditic and self-compatible species.
Figure 2Study area map showing common garden experiment location (×), sample population locations from mesic (grey filled circles) and dry (black filled circles) provenances. Provenance-context sample sizes shown in parentheses (forest and isolated trees). Inset Table shows mean (mm ± standard error) annual rainfall of provenance-context groups. Inset map shows location of study region, highlighting study area (box).
Fitness, genetic diversity, and mating system summary data for Swietenia macrophylla samples across Central America from contrasting provenances and landscape contexts (nfamily, total number of families (i.e. mother trees) per group; nprogeny, total number of progeny across families per group; growth, mean block adjusted growth; Hj, mean observed multilocus heterozygosity of adults; Ĥj, mean observed multilocus heterozygosity of progeny; tm, multilocus outcrossing rate; tm − ts, biparental inbreeding estimate; rp, multilocus correlated paternity; standard deviations in parentheses; 95% confidence interval homogeneous subgroups indicated by ‘a’, ‘b’and ‘c’)
| Group | Growth (m3) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 71 611 | 0.056 (0.012) | 0.585 (0.24) | 0.590 (0.104) | 0.968 (0.010) | 0.173 (0.020) | 0.208 (0.026) | |
| Mesic | 36 294 | 0.053 (0.013)a | 0.520 (0.224)a | 0.593 (0.139)a | 0.938 (0.018)a | 0.198 (0.031)a | 0.310 (0.045)a |
| Dry | 35 317 | 0.059 (0.010)a | 0.705 (0.162)b | 0.632 (0.056)a | 0.992 (0.033)b | 0.171 (0.038)a | 0.170 (0.030)b |
| Forest | 47 407 | 0.060 (0.010)a | 0.588 (0.224)a | 0.607 (0.096)a | 0.991 (0.020)a | 0.129 (0.026)a | 0.163 (0.024)a |
| Isolated | 24 204 | 0.048 (0.012)b | 0.579 (0.255)a | 0.556 (0.112)a | 0.925 (0.026)b | 0.250 (0.032)b | 0.341 (0.061)b |
| Mesic forest | 24 194 | 0.059 (0.011)a | 0.560 (0.214)a b | 0.604 (0.125)a | 0.987 (0.042)a | 0.148 (0.052)a | 0.254 (0.052)a |
| Mesic isolated | 12 100 | 0.043 (0.012)b | 0.440 (0.232)b | 0.503 (0.115)a | 0.845 (0.041)b | 0.314 (0.027)b | 0.445 (0.086)b |
| Dry forest | 23 213 | 0.062 (0.010)a | 0.687 (0.160)a | 0.611 (0.055)a | 0.992 (0.054)a | 0.149 (0.055)a | 0.153 (0.026)c |
| Dry isolated | 12 104 | 0.054 (0.010)a b | 0.740 (0.167)a | 0.610 (0.082)a | 0.992 (0.103)a | 0.208 (0.086)a | 0.278 (0.084)a |
General linear models of relationships among genetic and environmental predictors and response variable ‘growth’, a fitness proxy of Swietenia macrophylla. Analyses conducted for both isolated and forest landscape context samples grouped to include all samples, samples from only mesic and dry provenances (% DE, percent deviance explained by model i; wAIC, AIC weights shows the relative likelihood of model i; ΔAIC, difference between model AIC and minimum AIC in the set of models; AIC, Akaike’s Information Criterion corrected for small samples sizes; k, number of parameters in the given model; ß, unstandardised regression slopes and standard errors for each predictor variable in models with ΔAIC < 4; tm, outcrossing rate; tm − ts, biparental inbreeding; rp, correlated paternity; PCENV, first component of principal component analysis of environmental variables; 1, null model)
| Model | % DE | ΔAIC | AIC | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| growth ∼ | 18.00 | 0.43 | 0.00 | − 436.70 | 3 | 0.052 (0.013) |
| growth ∼ | 16.92 | 0.27 | 0.93 | − 435.77 | 3 | − 0.024 (0.007) |
| growth ∼ | 23.57 | 0.18 | 1.75 | − 434.95 | 6 | |
| growth ∼ | 12.93 | 0.05 | 4.26 | − 432.44 | 3 | |
| growth ∼ | 20.32 | 0.04 | 4.71 | − 431.98 | 6 | |
| growth ∼ | 18.31 | 0.02 | 6.48 | − 430.22 | 6 | |
| growth ∼ PCENV | 13.39 | 0.01 | 8.31 | − 428.39 | 5 | |
| growth ∼ 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 11.97 | − 424.72 | 2 | |
| growth ∼ | 22.91 | 0.46 | 0.00 | − 215.11 | 3 | 0.048 (0.015) |
| growth ∼ | 18.88 | 0.18 | 1.83 | − 213.27 | 3 | − 0.029 (0.010) |
| growth ∼ | 33.46 | 0.14 | 2.39 | − 212.72 | 6 | |
| growth ∼ | 15.57 | 0.09 | 3.27 | − 211.83 | 3 | − 0.034 (0.014) |
| growth ∼ PCENV | 22.99 | 0.04 | 4.92 | − 210.19 | 5 | |
| growth ∼ | 28.51 | 0.04 | 4.98 | − 210.13 | 6 | |
| growth ∼ | 27.72 | 0.03 | 5.37 | − 209.74 | 6 | |
| growth ∼ 1 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 7.11 | − 208.00 | 2 | |
| growth ∼ | 9.92 | 0.50 | 0.00 | − 223.17 | 3 | − 0.016 (0.008) |
| growth ∼ 1 | 0.00 | 0.25 | 1.41 | − 221.76 | 2 | |
| growth ∼ PCENV | 5.89 | 0.12 | 2.90 | − 220.27 | 3 | |
| growth ∼ | 9.92 | 0.09 | 3.51 | − 219.66 | 3 | |
| growth ∼ | 2.13 | 0.02 | 6.46 | − 216.71 | 5 | |
| growth ∼ | 0.42 | 0.01 | 7.63 | − 215.54 | 6 | |
| growth ∼ | 6.07 | 0.01 | 9.10 | − 214.07 | 6 | |
| growth ∼ | 6.04 | 0.01 | 9.11 | − 214.06 | 6 | |
Figure 3Scatterplots showing relationships between family-level genetic parameters and growth for both provenances. Growth is shown on the y-axis and genetic parameter values are shown on the x-axis. Mesic provenance family data are indicated by grey-filled squares, dry provenance family data indicated by black-filled squares. Linear trend lines between genetic parameters and growth shown for relationships where ΔAIC < 4 (ΔAIC values presented in Table 2), with grey lines for mesic provenances and black lines for dry provenances.
HFC comparisons following Szulkin for both mesic and dry provenances of Swietenia macrophylla (Ĥj and σ2(Ĥj), heterozygosity mean and variance, respectively; f, inbreeding estimate derived from the MLTR selfing rate where f = s/(2 − s); g, interlocus heterozygosity correlation inferred from RMES (David ); r2, the variation in fitness explained by heterozygosity; β, regression slope of fitness-heterozygosity regression; r2, variation in fitness explained by inbreeding; β, regression slope of fitness-inbreeding, the inbreeding load; variance parameters in parentheses; g values followed by ‘*’ or ‘NS’ indicate significant and non-significant interlocus heterozygosity correlation respectively)
| Provenance | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mesic | 0.593 | 0.139 | 0.032 | 0.047 | 0.209 | 0.033* | 0.317 | − 0.042 |
| Dry | 0.632 | 0.056 | 0.004 | 0.020 | 0.016 | − 0.012NS |