| Literature DB >> 24587373 |
Martin F Breed1, Matthew J Christmas1, Andrew J Lowe2.
Abstract
Studying associations between mating system parameters and fitness in natural populations of trees advances our understanding of how local environments affect seed quality, and thereby helps to predict when inbreeding or multiple paternities should impact on fitness. Indeed, for species that demonstrate inbreeding avoidance, multiple paternities (i.e. the number of male parents per half-sib family) should still vary and regulate fitness more than inbreeding--named here as the 'constrained inbreeding hypothesis'. We test this hypothesis in Eucalyptus gracilis, a predominantly insect-pollinated tree. Fifty-eight open-pollinated progeny arrays were collected from trees in three populations. Progeny were planted in a reciprocal transplant trial. Fitness was measured by family establishment rates. We genotyped all trees and their progeny at eight microsatellite loci. Planting site had a strong effect on fitness, but seed provenance and seed provenance × planting site did not. Populations had comparable mating system parameters and were generally outcrossed, experienced low biparental inbreeding and high levels of multiple paternity. As predicted, seed families that had more multiple paternities also had higher fitness, and no fitness-inbreeding correlations were detected. Demonstrating that fitness was most affected by multiple paternities rather than inbreeding, we provide evidence supporting the constrained inbreeding hypothesis; i.e. that multiple paternity may impact on fitness over and above that of inbreeding, particularly for preferentially outcrossing trees at life stages beyond seed development.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24587373 PMCID: PMC3938745 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090478
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Map showing location of Eucalyptus gracilis maternal trees and planting sites.
Maps show samples from the three populations in the Murray Darling Basin, Australia. Insert maps show greater spatial information on sampled populations. Reciprocal transplant planting locations shown at each planting site by a cross (x).
Genetic variability of Eucalyptus gracilis populations at eight microsatellite markers, progeny array size and seedling establishment data.
| Group and parameter | Monarto Woodland | Yookamurra Sanctuary | Scotia Sanctuary |
|
| |||
|
| 20 | 20 | 18 |
|
| 5.31 (0.29) | 4.96 (0.31) | 4.95 (0.23) |
|
| 0.85 (0.04) | 0.81 (0.05) | 0.83 (0.04) |
|
| 0.85 (0.04) | 0.86 (0.03) | 0.83 (0.03) |
|
| −0.03 (0.05) | −0.11 (0.05) | −0.04 (0.04) |
|
| |||
| Progeny array size | 14.70 (0.13) | 13.44 (0.20) | 14.75 (0.14) |
|
| 294 | 295 | 264 |
|
| 244 | 255 | 210 |
|
| 50 | 40 | 54 |
| Establishment rate (%) | 85.02 | 87.63 | 80.77 |
|
| 5.17 (0.08) | 4.89 (0.08) | 4.92 (0.07) |
|
| 0.83 (0.05) | 0.80 (0.05) | 0.82 (0.04) |
|
| 0.71 (0.08) | 0.72 (0.09) | 0.70 (0.07) |
|
| 0.17 (0.08) | 0.14 (0.09) | 0.16 (0.06) |
n, number of samples.
AR, rarefied allelic richness.
H E and H O, unbiased expected and observed heterozygosity, respectively.
F, fixation index.
standard deviations in parentheses.
Mating system parameter estimates for Eucalyptus gracilis from each population.
| Source population | Density (trees ha−1) |
|
|
|
|
| Monarto Woodland | 23.67 (2.29)a | 0.97 (0.02)a | 0.15 (0.01)a | 0.12 (0.02)a | 0.40 (0.03)a |
| Yookamurra Sanctuary | 49.33 (4.63)b | 0.98 (0.01)a | 0.11 (0.02)b | 0.06 (0.01)b | 0.44 (0.02)a |
| Scotia Sanctuary | 20.42 (3.24)a | 0.95 (0.02)b | 0.16 (0.03)a | 0.11 (0.04)a | 0.43 (0.03)a |
t m, outcrossing rate.
t m–t s, biparental inbreeding.
r p, correlated paternity.
k, the number of full-sibships within progeny arrays scaled to progeny array size.
standard deviations in parentheses.
95% confidence interval homogeneous subgroups indicated by ‘a’ and ‘b’.
General linear model comparisons of relationships between genetic predictors and establishment rate (%) of Eucalyptus gracilis progeny arrays.
| Model | % DE |
| ΔAIC |
|
|
| Establishmentrate ∼ | 16.37 | 0.80 | 0.00 | 2 | −4.09 (−9.74 to 1.52) |
| Establishmentrate ∼ | 10.26 | 0.12 | 3.81 | 2 | 30.24 (−41.85 to 100.00) |
| Establishmentrate ∼ | 7.42 | 0.05 | 5.49 | 2 | |
| Establishmentrate ∼ 1 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 7.50 | 1 | |
| Establishmentrate ∼ | 0.01 | 0.01 | 9.65 | 2 |
% DE, per cent deviance explained by model.
wAIC, Akaike weight that shows the relative likelihood of model i.
ΔAIC, indicator of differences between model AIC (a measure of model goodness-of-fit scaled to the number of parameters in the model) and minimum AIC in the model set.
k, number of parameters in each model.
ß, unstandardized regression slope with 5 and 95% bootstrapped percentiles in parentheses in models that were either the best fitting model or had ΔAIC <4.
t m, outcrossing rate.
t m–t s, biparental inbreeding.
r p, correlated paternity.
k, the number of full-sibships within progeny arrays scaled to progeny array size.
1, null model.
Figure 2Scatterplots showing relationships between Eucalyptus gracilis family-level establishment rates and mating system parameters.
Establishment rate percentages per progeny array are shown on the y-axis and mating system parameter values shown on the x-axis. Linear trend lines between genetic parameters and growth shown for relationships where ΔAIC <4 (ΔAIC values presented in Table 3). Trend lines are for all data are solid and trend lines are for data without the outlier are dashed.