| Literature DB >> 23789068 |
M Meloni1, A Reid, J Caujapé-Castells, A Marrero, J M Fernández-Palacios, R A Mesa-Coelo, E Conti.
Abstract
Many plant species combine sexual and clonal reproduction. Clonal propagation has ecological costs mainly related to inbreeding depression and pollen discounting; at the same time, species able to reproduce clonally have ecological and evolutionary advantages being able to persist when conditions are not favorable for sexual reproduction. The presence of clonality has profound consequences on the genetic structure of populations, especially when it represents the predominant reproductive strategy in a population. Theoretical studies suggest that high rate of clonal propagation should increase the effective number of alleles and heterozygosity in a population, while an opposite effect is expected on genetic differentiation among populations and on genotypic diversity. In this study, we ask how clonal propagation affects the genetic diversity of rare insular species, which are often characterized by low levels of genetic diversity, hence at risk of extinction. We used eight polymorphic microsatellite markers to study the genetic structure of the critically endangered insular endemic Ruta microcarpa. We found that clonality appears to positively affect the genetic diversity of R. microcarpa by increasing allelic diversity, polymorphism, and heterozygosity. Moreover, clonal propagation seems to be a more successful reproductive strategy in small, isolated population subjected to environmental stress. Our results suggest that clonal propagation may benefit rare species. However, the advantage of clonal growth may be only short-lived for prolonged clonal growth could ultimately lead to monoclonal populations. Some degree of sexual reproduction may be needed in a predominantly clonal species to ensure long-term viability.Entities:
Keywords: Clonal reproduction; Ruta microcarpa; genetic diversity; insular; microsatellite; rare
Year: 2013 PMID: 23789068 PMCID: PMC3686192 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.571
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Sampling localities of the studied populations of R. microcarpa. Information on each population is provided in Table 1
Description of R. microcarpa populations surveyed in this study (see also Fig. 1)
| Population | Sub-Population | Location | Population size | Sample number | Coordinates | Altitude (m) | Area (km2) | Threat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALO | – | Teguerguenche | 63 | 19 | N28° 08.840′ W17° 19.078′ | 633 | 2 | Grazing competition |
| RC | RC1 RC2 | Roque Cano | 63 | 11 15 | N28° 11.048′ W17° 15.265′ N28° 10.445′ W17° 15.633′ | 275 450 | 1 | Competition Landslides Competition |
| MUL | MUL1 MUL2 | Mulagua | 130 | 10 15 | N28° 08.576′ W17° 11.885′ N28° 08.385′ W17° 11.955′ | 471 478 | 1 | Grazing Anthropogenic effect |
| CED | – | Camino del Cedro | 4 | 4 | N28° 08.867′ W17° 12.317′ | 400 | – | – |
Measures of genotypic diversity: ratio between the number of multilocus genotypes and the total number of individuals (G/N); multilocus genotype diversity (DG); genotypic evenness (E). For abbreviations of populations and subpopulations see Table 1
| Population | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ALO | 0.333 | 0.562 | 0.637 |
| RC1 | 0.091 | 0.000 | – |
| RC2 | 0.067 | 0.000 | – |
| MUL1 | 0.100 | 0.000 | – |
| MUL2 | 0.200 | 0.514 | 0.724 |
| CED | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.750 |
| Mean | 0.215 | 0.263 |
Genetic variability within R. microcarpa populations. Abbreviations: A number of alleles, Ho observed heterozygosity, He expected heterozygosity, FIS fixation index; SD, standard deviation. For abbreviations of populations and subpopulations see Table 1
| Population | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALO | 20 | 0.797 ± 0.138 | 0.474 ± 0.077 | −0.680 |
| RC | 14 (RC1)/16 (RC2) | 0.833 ± 0.126 | 0.552 ± 0.078 | −0.509 |
| MUL1 | 13 | 0.500 ± 0.189 | 0.375 ± 0.091 | −0.333 |
| MUL2 | 18 | 0.500 ± 0.126 | 0.448 ± 0.075 | −0.116 |
| CED | 17 | 0.625 ± 0.157 | 0.469 ± 0.093 | −0.333 |
| Overall | 0.651 ± 0.067 | 0.410 ± 0.037 | −0.578 |
Pairwise population estimates of FST (below diagonal) and RST (above diagonal). For abbreviations of populations and subpopulations see Table 1
| ALO | RC | MUL1 | MUL2 | CED | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALO | – | 0.895 | 0.974 | 0.931 | 0.859 |
| RC | 0.399 | – | 0.711 | 0.269 | 0.306 |
| MUL1 | 0.499 | 0.421 | – | 0.898 | 0.775 |
| MUL2 | 0.442 | 0.394 | 0.512 | – | 0.301 |
| CED | 0.492 | 0.466 | 0.471 | 0.285 | – |
P < 0.05;
P < 0.01;
P < 0.001.
Figure 2Scatter plot of FST estimates (Weir and Cockerham 1984) against geographic distances (km) calculated for each pairwise combination of populations.