| Literature DB >> 24602239 |
Haile Yineger1, Daniel J Schmidt, Jane M Hughes.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Habitat loss and fragmentation may have detrimental impacts on genetic diversity, population structure and overall viability of tropical trees. The response of tropical trees to fragmentation processes may, however, be species, cohort or region-specific. Here we test the hypothesis that forest fragmentation is associated with lower genetic variability and higher genetic differentiation in adult and seedling populations of Prunus africana in North-western Ethiopia. This is a floristically impoverished region where all but a few remnant forest patches have been destroyed, mostly by anthropogenic means.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24602239 PMCID: PMC4021171 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2156-15-31
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genet ISSN: 1471-2156 Impact factor: 2.797
Comparison of genetic diversity estimates (averaged across 7 loci) between cohorts of populations (Note: Allelic richness per locus and population was based on a minimum sample size of 7 and 6 diploid individuals, respectively in adults and seedlings
| Bradi (L, C) | 26 | 36 | 6.567 | 4.987 | 0.817 | 0.746 | -0.010 | -0.176 | 10.000 | 9.143 |
| DarabaSigsi (L, C) | 29 | 20 | 6.372 | 4.829 | 0.793 | 0.713 | 0.171 | 0.082 | 9.714 | 7.000 |
| Demba (S, C) | 25 | 30 | 6.045 | 4.479 | 0.758 | 0.716 | 0.006 | -0.332 | 9.571 | 6.857 |
| Dishi (S, I) | 33 | 49 | 5.917 | 5.239 | 0.767 | 0.738 | 0.070 | -0.002 | 9.000 | 9.571 |
| Kambo (L, C) | 44 | 28 | 6.185 | 5.442 | 0.768 | 0.739 | 0.096 | -0.006 | 11.000 | 8.286 |
| Metin (S, I) | 12 | 10 | 5.209 | 4.338 | 0.732 | 0.654 | 0.027 | -0.026 | 5.571 | 5.000 |
| Temcha (S, I) | 24 | 30 | 5.623 | 4.564 | 0.757 | 0.692 | -0.06 | -0.038 | 8.143 | 7.143 |
| Wonse (L, I) | 17 | 29 | 5.733 | 4.938 | 0.76 | 0.711 | -0.24 | 0.001 | 7.571 | 8.000 |
| Paired t-test (Adult-Seedling) p-value | | | <.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.2694 | 0.0433 | ||||
| t-value | | | 7.89 | 7.54 | 1.2 | 2.46 | ||||
| DF | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | ||||||
Allelic richness values in this table represent mean values across loci at each population. Hs = gene diversity; FIS = inbreeding coefficient; MNA = mean number of alleles; n = sample size; L = large; C = less-isolated).
Variation in mean allelic richness between large and small, and less-isolated and isolated populations of for the three data sets (Note: Allelic richness per locus and population was based on a minimum sample size of 7 and 6 diploid individuals, respectively in adults and seedlings)
| Combined | Large | 8.3755 | 0.1638 | Large vs small | 0.0201 | 3.14 | 6 |
| | Small | 7.4390 | 0.2495 | | | | |
| | Less-isolated | 8.3370 | 0.2007 | Less-isolated vs isolated | 0.0425 | 2.57 | 6 |
| | Isolated | 7.4775 | 0.2680 | | | | |
| Adults | Large | 6.2143 | 0.1784 | Large vs small | 0.0919 | 2.00 | 6 |
| | Small | 5.6985 | 0.1855 | | | | |
| | Less-isolated | 6.2923 | 0.1135 | Less-isolated vs isolated | 0.0118 | 3.57 | 6 |
| | Isolated | 5.6205 | 0.1500 | | | | |
| Seedlings | Large | 5.0490 | 0.1351 | Large vs small | 0.1539 | 1.63 | 6 |
| | Small | 4.6550 | 0.2002 | | | | |
| | Less-isolated | 4.9343 | 0.1998 | Less-isolated vs isolated | 0.5813 | 0.58 | 6 |
| Isolated | 4.7698 | 0.1994 |
Figure 1Comparison of Jost’s D , ’ and between adult and seedling populations of (Note: error bars show the standard error of the mean; L = large; C = less-isolated).
Figure 2Correlation of genetic vs geographical distances (significance testing at 100000 permutations for Mantel test) (Note: A = Seedlings, B = Adults, C = Overall).
Simple and partial Mantel tests (100000 permutations) to assess effects of fragmentation variables on spatial patterns of genetic differentiation in populations
| | | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | GD | 0.0025 | 0.5692 | 0.0003 | 0.6751 | 0.0214 | 0.4286 |
| | PS | 0.9908 | -0.4488 | 0.9207 | -0.3299 | 0.9861 | -0.3960 |
| | ND | 0.7387 | -0.2068 | 0.7161 | -0.1813 | 0.9412 | -0.4372 |
| Partial Mantel test | | | | | | | |
| GD constant | PS | 0.9881 | -0.4446 | 0.9146 | -0.3229 | 0.9863 | -0.4062 |
| | ND | 0.7132 | -0.1955 | 0.6899 | -0.1672 | 0.9420 | -0.4461 |
| PS constant | GD | 0.0049 | 0.5510 | 0.0006 | 0.6632 | 0.0338 | 0.3887 |
| | ND | 0.6024 | -0.1180 | 0.5613 | -0.0675 | 0.9163 | -0.3986 |
| ND constant | GD | 0.0018 | 0.5976 | 0.0003 | 0.6886 | 0.0213 | 0.4326 |
| PS | 0.9971 | -0.4905 | 0.9501 | -0.3730 | 0.9872 | -0.4005 | |
Note: GD = |pairwise geographical distance between centers of patches|; PS = |pairwise patch size difference|; ND = |pairwise nearest distance difference between edges of patches|.
Posterior probabilities of models supported by the pairwise GESTE analyses of fragmentation variables against population-specific
| Combined | ND, PS, ND*PS | Constant | 0.211 | P(ND) = 0.386 |
| | | | | P(PS) = 0.381 |
| | | | | P(ND*PS) = 0.205 |
| | PS, GD, PS*GD | Constant | 0.213 | P(PS) = 0.399 |
| | | | | P(GD) = 0.393 |
| | | | | P(PS*GD) = 0.194 |
| | ND, GD, ND*GD | Constant, ND*GD, GD, ND | 0.272 | P(ND) = 0.360 |
| | | | | P(GD) = 0.356 |
| | | | | P(ND*GD) = 0.272 |
| Adults | ND, PS, ND*PS | Constant | 0.209 | P(ND) = 0.395 |
| | | | | P(PS) = 0.384 |
| | | | | P(ND*PS) = 0.205 |
| | PS, GD, PS*GD | Constant | 0.205 | P(PS) = 0.405 |
| | | | | P(GD) = 0.402 |
| | | | | P(PS*GD) = 0.189 |
| | ND, GD, ND*GD | Constant, ND*GD, GD, ND | 0.276 | P(ND) = 0.348 |
| | | | | P(GD) = 0.360 |
| | | | | P(ND*GD) = 0.276 |
| Seedlings | ND, PS, ND*PS | Constant, ND*PS, ND, PS | 0.217 | P(ND) = 0.392 |
| | | | | P(PS) = 0.388 |
| | | | | P(ND*PS) = 0.217 |
| | PS, GD, PS*GD | Constant, PS | 0.204 | P(PS) = 0.399 |
| | | | | P(GD) = 0.396 |
| | | | | P(PS*GD) = 0.195 |
| | ND, GD, ND*GD | Constant, ND*GD, GD, ND | 0.268 | P(ND) = 0.357 |
| | | | | P(GD) = 0.359 |
| P(ND*GD) = 0.268 |
Note: ND = Edge to edge distance from the nearest neighbor patch; PS = Patch size or area; GD = Mean of the pairwise center to center patch distance.
Figure 3Location of study sites in NW Ethiopia.