| Literature DB >> 22393518 |
E Lasso, J W Dalling, E Bermingham.
Abstract
Fifty years ago, Baker and Fedorov proposed that the high species diversity of tropical forests could arise from the combined effects of inbreeding and genetic drift leading to population differentiation and eventually to sympatric speciation. Decades of research, however have failed to support the Baker-Fedorov hypothesis (BFH), and it has now been discarded in favor of a paradigm where most trees are self-incompatible or strongly outcrossing, and where long-distance pollen dispersal prevents population drift. Here, we propose that several hyper-diverse genera of tropical herbs and shrubs, including Piper (>1,000 species), may provide an exception. Species in this genus often have aggregated, high-density populations with self-compatible breeding systems; characteristics which the BFH would predict lead to high local genetic differentiation. We test this prediction for five Piper species on Barro Colorado Island, Panama, using Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (AFLP) markers. All species showed strong genetic structure at both fine- and large-spatial scales. Over short distances (200-750 m) populations showed significant genetic differentiation (Fst 0.11-0.46, P < 0.05), with values of spatial genetic structure that exceed those reported for other tropical tree species (Sp = 0.03-0.136). This genetic structure probably results from the combined effects of limited seed and pollen dispersal, clonal spread, and selfing. These processes are likely to have facilitated the diversification of populations in response to local natural selection or genetic drift and may explain the remarkable diversity of this rich genus.Entities:
Keywords: AFLP; Barro Colorado Island; Clonal reproduction; Gene flow; Piperaceae
Year: 2011 PMID: 22393518 PMCID: PMC3287332 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.40
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Life history characteristics for five Piper shrub species. All species are insect-pollinated
| Species | Habitat | Breeding system | Yearly seed production(1) | % asex. recruitment(1) | Seed disperser(2) | Flowering phenology(2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U | SC | 177 | 42 | Bt | Br | |
| U | SC | 940 | 36 | Bt | Br | |
| U | SC | 8,606 | 7 | Bt | Br | |
| G | SI | 14,512 | 13 | Bt, Bd, A | Co | |
| G | SC | 14,432 | 6 | Bt, Bd, A | Co |
Habitat: U = Understory; G = Gap.
Breeding system: SC = self-compatible; SI = self –incompatible.
Seed disperser: A = ants; Bt = Bats; Bd = birds.
Flowering and Fruiting: Br = brief; Co = continuous.
(1) = Lasso et al. 2009; (2) = Thies 1998.
The slope b of the regression of pairwise kinship coefficients on the logarithm of geographic distance, the kinship coefficient between neighbors plants (F(1)), the Sp statistic estimated, and the significance level of the test (P) for the regression slope
| Species | n | F(1) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plot 1 | All | 182 | –0.0820 | 0.1900 | 0.1012 | 0 | |
| Excluding clones | 105 | –0.0390 | 0.0951 | 0.0431 | 0 | ||
| Plot 2 | All | 164 | –0.0766 | 0.3283 | 0.1141 | 0 | |
| Excluding clones | 98 | –0.0705 | 0.2947 | 0.1000 | 0 | ||
| Plot 1 | All | 72 | –0.0518 | 0.3070 | 0.0747 | 0 | |
| Excluding clones | 46 | –0.0390 | 0.0951 | 0.0431 | 0 | ||
| Plot 2 | All | 60 | –0.0856 | 0.4377 | 0.1522 | 0 | |
| Excluding clones | 38 | –0.0372 | 0.2508 | 0.0496 | 0 | ||
| Plot 1 | All | 166 | –0.1062 | 0.2241 | 0.0479 | 0 | |
| Excluding clones | 156 | –0.0140 | 0.0581 | 0.0149 | 0 | ||
| Plot 2 | All | 59 | –0.0164 | 0.0215 | 0.0168 | 0.007 | |
| Excluding clones | 55 | –0.0150 | 0.0209 | 0.0153 | 0.009 | ||
| Plot 3 | All | 26 | –0.0318 | 0.0286 | 0.0328 | 0.007 | |
| There were no clones in this population | |||||||
| Plot 4 | All | 43 | –0.0484 | 0.1619 | 0.0578 | 0 | |
| Excluding clones | 39 | –0.0372 | 0.1627 | 0.0444 | 0.009 | ||
| Plot 3 | All | 43 | –0.1297 | 0.3207 | 0.1909 | 0 | |
| Excluding clones | 32 | –0.0982 | 0.2478 | 0.1305 | 0 | ||
| Plot 4 | All | 41 | –0.0703 | 0.1126 | 0.0792 | 0 | |
| There were no clones in this population | |||||||
Results are presented for each of the two 1-ha plots studied and for all individuals in the population (All) and for only genets (Excluding clones).
Figure 1Correlograms of kinship coefficient (Fij) for all indiviuals in the population (clones and not clones) and for only genetically distinct shoots (excluding clones). Figures (A) and (B) are for P. darienensis in plot 1 and 2, figures (C) and (D) are for P. cordulatum in plot 1 and 2, figures (E) and (F) are for P. aequale plot 1 and 2, figures (G) and (H) are for P. marginatum plot 3 and 4; and figures (I) and (J) are for P. dilatatum plot 3 and 4.
Figure 2Histogram of the distribution of “sp” values reported for 11 temperate species and 34 tropical tree species and for one temperate and five tropical shrub species, and for the five Piper species studied here.
Summary table of Ф and Fst values for all species and plots
| Pairwise comparisons | Distance between populations | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inbreeding coefficient | |||||
| 750 m | 0.28** | 0.22** | 0.27** | 0.27** | |
| 750 m | 0.14** | 0.11** | 0.13** | 0.13** | |
| 750 m | 0.49** | 0.36** | 0.44** | 0.46** | |
| 200 m | 0.23** | 0.18** | 0.22** | 0.22** | |
| 200 m | 0.18* | 0.12** | 0.13** | 0.14** | |
Estimates of Fst were calculated assuming three inbreeding coefficients (F = 0 for random mating to F = 1 for complete selfing).
Populations were found to be more strongly genetically differentiated than expected at random (*P < 0.01; **P < 0.0001).
Figure 3Estimated population structure using the Bayesian algorithm in the software Structure (ver. 2.2). Each individual is represented by a thin vertical bar, which is partitioned in red and green segments in proportion to the estimated ancestry in each source plot. Green for Plots 1 and 3 and red for plots 2 and 4. The dotted line indicates the separation between plots.
Figure 4Map of Barro Colorado Island showing the location of the plots in the understory (plot 1 and plot 2) and in the lab clearings (plot 3 and plot 4). Plots 1 and 2 were 754 m apart, and Plots 3 and 4 were 200 m apart. Arrows show the direction of gene flow and the adjacent numbers are the number of immigrants or individuals with recent immigrant ancestors (with significant high probabilities) moving between populations. Dotted circles represent the foraging area of several radio-tracked Carollia castanea bats from Thies (1998).