| Literature DB >> 22480185 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fine-scale or spatial genetic structure (SGS) is one of the key genetic characteristics of plant populations. Several evolutionary and ecological processes and population characteristics influence the level of SGS within plant populations. Higher fine-scale genetic structure may be expected in peripheral than core populations of long-lived forest trees, owing to the differences in the magnitude of operating evolutionary and ecological forces such as gene flow, genetic drift, effective population size and founder effects. We addressed this question using eastern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis) as a model species for declining to endangered long-lived tree species with mixed-mating system.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22480185 PMCID: PMC3359246 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-12-48
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Figure 1A map showing the geographical distribution [from: .
Geographical location, sample size and stand density of four sampled populations of eastern white cedar
| Province | Population | Code | Range location | Latitude (N) | Longitude (W) | No. of individuals sampled | Stand density (Trees/ha) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Brunswick | Edmundston | ED | Core | 47° 33' 16″ | 68° 13' 53″ | 100 | 46.72 |
| New Brunswick | Perth Andover | PA | Core | 46° 44' 53″ | 67° 42' 34″ | 100 | 58.82 |
| Nova Scotia | Cedar Lake | CL | Peripheral | 44° 50' 22″ | 65° 01' 48″ | 100 | 18.20 |
| Nova Scotia | Rockland | RL | Peripheral | 45° 00' 35″ | 64° 42' 10″ | 94 | 24.00 |
Figure 2Spatial distribution of individual trees in each of the four studied eastern white cedar populations.
Genetic diversity measures, fixation index and their (SE), and effective population size for four sampled populations of eastern white cedar
| Pop type | Province | Population | A | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core | New Brunswick | ED | 63.00 | 10.50 (1.86) | 4.19 (1.15) | 10.08 (2.09) | 11 | 0.640 (0.057) | 0.662 (0.079) | 127 (3.84) | 404 (7.43) | 0.007 (0.062) | 432 |
| PA | 67.00 | 11.17 (2.63) | 4.68 (1.51) | 10.68 (2.51) | 9 | 0.640 (0.087) | 0.640 (0.103) | 145 (4.53) | 500 (9.03) | -0.025 (0.048) | 910 | ||
| Peripheral | Nova Scotia | CL | 53.00 | 8.83 (2.02) | 2.79 (0.44) | 8.42 (2.15) | 6 | 0.571 (0.070) | 0.597 (0.060) | 100 (3.12) | 312 (6.69) | 0.050 (0.034) | 310 |
| RL | 47.00 | 7.83 (2.17) | 2.60 (0.48) | 7.66 (2.27) | 5 | 0.505 (0.111) | 0.519 (0.110) | 77 (2.94) | 267 (7.07) | 0.044 (0.048) | 110 | ||
| Mean | Core | 65.00 | 10.83 (2.24) | 4.43 (1.33) | 10.38 (2.30) | 10 | 0.640 (0.072) | 0.651 (0.091) | 136.00 (4.19) | 452 (8.23) | -0.009 (0.055) | 671 | |
| Peripheral | 50.00 | 8.33 (2.10) | 2.70 (0.46) | 8.04 (2.21) | 5.50 | 0.540 (0.091) | 0.560 (0.085) | 88.50 (3.03) | 289.50 (6.88) | 0.047 (0.041) | 210 | ||
| Overall mean | 57.50 | 9.58 (2.17) | 3.57 (0.89) | 9.21 (2.26) | 7.75 | 0.590 (0.082) | 0.600 (0.088) | 112.25 (3.61) | 370.75 (7.55) | 0.019 (0.048) | 440 |
AT, total number of alleles; A, mean number of alleles per locus; A, effective number of alleles; AR, Allelic richness; AP, number of private alleles; GAO, observed genotype additivity (richness); GAE, expected genotype additivity [49]; H, observed heterozygosity; H, expected heterozygosity; F, fixation index; N, effective population size. Values in parentheses are standard errors.
ED, Emundston; PA, Perth Andover; CL, Cedar Lake; RL, Rockland
Figure 3Patterns of spatial distribution of individual trees in four eastern white cedar populations using Ripley's .
Number of pairs of observation per distance class for the four eastern white cedar populations
| Distance class (m) | Population | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ED | PA | CL | RL | |
| 0-15 | 581 | 651 | 231 | 122 |
| 16-30 | 768 | 1014 | 345 | 262 |
| 31-45 | 919 | 700 | 430 | 327 |
| 46-60 | 1025 | 737 | 473 | 385 |
| 61-75 | 701 | 816 | 469 | 427 |
| 76-90 | 307 | 550 | 567 | 432 |
| 91-105 | 303 | 344 | 435 | 399 |
| 106-120 | 249 | 126 | 324 | 371 |
| 121-135 | 89 | 12 | 308 | 381 |
| 136-150 | 8 | 271 | 301 | |
| 151-165 | 209 | 217 | ||
| 166-180 | 203 | 181 | ||
| 181-195 | 158 | 154 | ||
| 196-210 | 124 | 100 | ||
| 211-225 | 96 | 116 | ||
| 226-240 | 63 | 85 | ||
| 241-255 | 49 | 63 | ||
| 256-270 | 41 | 38 | ||
| 270-285 | 31 | 7 | ||
| 286-300 | 17 | 3 | ||
| 301-315 | 7 | |||
ED, Emundston; PA, Perth Andover; CL, Cedar Lake; RL, Rockland
Figure 4Correlograms of spatial autocorrelation coefficients (. Dashed lines represent upper and lower 95% confidence limits.
Spatial autocorrelation coefficients (r), single-class squared pair-sample t-test (t2) and multi-class and multi-population (ω) heterogeneity tests of spatial autocorrelation coefficients (r) for individual populations, population pairs and subsets of populations
| Populations | Overall multi-distance class or multi population correlogram significance (ω-test criterion) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spatial autocorrelation coefficients ( | |||||||||
| ED | 0.087* | -0.024 | -0.003 | -0.002 | -0.014 | -0.029 | -0.025 | -0.008 | 75.35* |
| PA | 0.030* | 0.007 | 0.012 | -0.005 | -0.020 | -0.012 | -0.020 | -0.002 | 70.49* |
| CL | 0.081* | 0.036* | 0.006 | -0.014 | 0.015 | 0.016 | -0.017 | -0.037 | 134.39* |
| RL | 0.114* | 0.045* | 0.026* | 0.026* | 0.019* | 0.001 | -0.003 | -0.009 | 147.32* |
| Core | 0.058* | -0.007 | 0.003 | -0.003 | -0.017 | -0.018 | -0.022 | -0.006 | 81.11* |
| Peripheral | 0.093* | 0.040* | 0.016* | 0.005* | 0.017* | 0.009* | -0.010 | -0.022 | 154.80* |
| Four pops combined | 0.066* | 0.005 | 0.007* | 0.000 | -0.004 | -0.003 | -0.015 | -0.016 | 65.65* |
| Single-class squared pair-sample | |||||||||
| ED vs. PA | 17.53* | 8.44* | 1.89 | 0.06 | 0.37 | 1.13 | 0.09 | 3.89 | 47.99* |
| ED vs. CL | 0.10 | 17.13* | 0.52 | 0.96 | 5.50* | 8.03* | 0.21 | 0.16 | 51.66* |
| ED vs. RL | 1.34 | 18.83* | 4.25* | 4.70* | 6.67* | 3.07 | 1.71 | 0.02 | 57.02* |
| PA vs. CL | 7.82* | 4.54* | 0.18 | 0.52 | 8.69* | 4.31* | 0.02 | 3.57 | 49.70* |
| PA vs. RL | 12.76* | 6.15* | 0.93 | 5.05* | 10.11* | 0.72 | 1.03 | 4.00 | 62.34* |
| CL vs. RL | 1.55 | 0.24 | 1.48 | 7.07* | 0.07 | 1.20 | 0.85 | 0.16 | 28.08 |
| Core vs. peripheral | 4.72* | 18.64 | 1.58 | 0.73 | 15.08* | 6.83* | 1.04 | 1.23 | 65.26* |
ED, Edmundston; PA, Perth Andover; CL, Cedar Lake; RL, Rockland. * indicates significant values (P ≤ 0.05)
Spatial genetic structure, Sp statistics and estimates of gene flow distances in four eastern white cedar populations
| Region | Population | b-log (^bF) | σg (m) ( | σg (m) ( | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core | ED | 0.047* | -0.013* | -0.001 | -0.001 | -0.008 | -0.017* | 0.018 | 56.73 | 98.29 | 43.96 |
| PA | 0.015* | 0.004 | 0.006 | 0.008 | -0.013 | -0.009* | 0.009 | 106.41 | 119.98 | 53.66 | |
| Peripheral | CL | 0.045* | 0.023* | 0.003 | -0.008 | -0.005 | -0.015* | 0.016 | 64.00 | 167.32 | 74.83 |
| RL | 0.070* | 0.027* | 0.026* | 0.015* | 0.014* | -0.029* | 0.031 | 32.08 | 103.14 | 46.13 | |
| Average core | 0.031 | 0.004 | 0.003 | 0.004 | -0.011 | -0.013 | 0.014 | 81.57 | 109.14 | 48.81 | |
| Average peripheral | 0.057 | 0.025 | 0.015 | 0.004 | 0.005 | -0.022 | 0.023 | 48.04 | 135.23 | 60.48 |
and : mean kinship coefficient (Fij) [57] between individuals belonging to the first (0-15 m), second (15-30 m), third (30- 45 m), fourth (45-60 m) and fifth (60-75 m) distance classes, respectively; b-log (^bF): Slope of the regression of kinship with ln(dist); Sp: statistic defined by the ratio _^bF/(1 - ), where ^bF is the regression slope of the autocorrelogram; is the mean kinship coefficient (Fij) between individuals belonging to the first (0-15 m) distance class [20]; Nb Wright's neighbourhood size; σg, estimate of gene flow distance from Sp, assuming different ratios of effective (De) to census density (D); *, significant (P < 0.05)
ED, Edmundston; PA, Perth Andover; CL, Cedar Lake; RL, Rockland