| Literature DB >> 24841004 |
Lu Xu1, Hao Wang2, Qiong La3, Fan Lu2, Kun Sun4, Yang Fang2, Mei Yang2, Yang Zhong3, Qianhong Wu2, Jiakuan Chen2, H John B Birks5, Wenju Zhang2.
Abstract
Microrefugia at high altitudes or high latitudes are thought to play an important role in the post-glacial colonization of species. However, how populations in such microrefugia have responded to climate changes in alternating cold glacial and warm interglacial stages remain unclear. Here we present evidence to indicate the Rongbuk Valley of the Mt. Qomolangma (Mt. Everest) area, the highest region on earth, had microrefugia for Hippophae tibetana and discuss how this low shrub was adapted to the extreme climate fluctuations of the last 25,000 years by shifts. By integrating geological, glaciological, meteorological, and genetic information, we found that the Rongbuk Valley was not only a glacial microrefugium but also an interglacial microrefugium for H. tibetana: the former was located on the riverbank below 4800 m above sea level (asl) or lower area and the latter at ∼ 5000 m asl. Our results show that after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), H. tibetana in the valley has undergone upward and downward migrations around ∼ 5000 m driven by climate fluctuations and the population in the glacial microrefugium has suffered extinction or extreme contraction. Moreover, with the rise of temperature in the last four decades, the upper limit of H. tibetana has shifted at least 30 m upward. Combining population history and recent range shift of this species is important in predicting the fate of this endemic species to future climate changes.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24841004 PMCID: PMC4026410 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097601
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
List of populations (POP) and patches (PAT) analysed in the present study with their sampling localities, number of specimens, coordinates, genetic diversity parameters, and chlorotype composition of each population.
| Population No. |
| Altitude (m) | Latitude (N) | Longitude (E) | Nuclear microsatellites | Chloroplast Haplotypes | |||||
|
| A |
|
| Haplotypes (Frequencies, %) |
| π | |||||
| POP 1 | 39 | 4200 | 28°24′23″ | 86°59′14″ | −0.061 | 2.10 | 0.419 | 0.390 | R1(5), R2(85), R3(10) | 0.2780 | 0.00053 |
| POP 2 | 23 | 4400 | 28°18′49″ | 86°55′53″ | −0.041 | 2.18 | 0.430 | 0.403 | R1(44), R2(39), R3(17) | 0.6561 | 0.00148 |
| POP 3 | 51 | 4465 | 28°18′46″ | 86°53′39″ | 0.084 | 2.15 | 0.328 | 0.354 | R1(39), R2(49), R3(12) | 0.6039 | 0.00127 |
| POP 4 | 25 | 4690 | 28°16′38″ | 86°48′26″ | −0.048 | 2.28 | 0.410 | 0.384 | R1(52), R2(36), R3(12) | 0.6100 | 0.00135 |
| POP 5 | 31 | 4805 | 28°14′38″ | 86°49′05″ | 0.031 | 2.25 | 0.422 | 0.429 | R1(36), R2(61), R4(3) | 0.5140 | 0.00098 |
| POP 6 | 28 | 4946 | 28°12′25″ | 86°49′19″ | −0.850 | 1.69 | 0.564 | 0.304 | R1(100) | 0.0000 | 0.00000 |
| POP 7 | 33 | 5000 | 28°10′03″ | 86°50′23″ | 0.011 | 2.15 | 0.405 | 0.403 | R1(30), R2(3), R3(18), R4(12), R5(6), R6(31) | 0.7879 | 0.00343 |
| POP 8 | 35 | 5035 | 28°09′42″ | 86°50′38″ | −0.051 | 2.19 | 0.429 | 0.402 | R1(57), R2(5), R3(26), R4(11) | 0.6084 | 0.00201 |
| PAT 1 | 25 | >5035 | 28°09′08″ | 86°50′52″ | −0.778 | 1.20 | 0.176 | 0.099 | R3(100) | 0.0000 | 0.00000 |
| PAT 2 | 22 | 5047 | 28°09′34″ | 86°50′42″ | −0.707 | 1.40 | 0.305 | 0.177 | R3(100) | 0.0000 | 0.00000 |
| PAT 3 | 15 | 5046 | 28°09′35″ | 86°50′42″ | −0.774 | 1.49 | 0.373 | 0.209 | R2(100) | 0.0000 | 0.00000 |
| PAT 4 | 24 | 5047 | 28°09′37″ | 86°50′42″ | −0.378 | 1.80 | 0.426 | 0.305 | R1(100) | 0.0000 | 0.00000 |
| PAT 5 | 32 | 5066 | 28°09′24″ | 86°50′49″ | −1.000 | 1.20 | 0.200 | 0.100 | R2(100) | 0.0000 | 0.00000 |
| PAT 6 | 16 | >5035 | 28°09′21″ | 86°50′56″ | −0.408 | 1.78 | 0.390 | 0.267 | R2(100) | 0.0000 | 0.00000 |
| PAT 7 | 15 | 5058 | 28°09′32″ | 86°50′52″ | −0.647 | 1.60 | 0.373 | 0.224 | R1(100) | 0.0000 | 0.00000 |
The exact elevations of PAT 1 and PAT 6 are not given because the GPS data of the two spots are not very accurate. N, number of individuals analysed; Nuclear microsatellites data, including F IS, fixation index; A, allelic richness; H O, observed heterozygosity; H E, expected heterozygosity;
*significant Hardy–Weinberg disequilibrium. cpDNA haplotypes and their frequencies, as well as estimates of gene diversity (D) and nucleotide diversity averaged across loci (π) of the populations and patches studied.
Figure 1Sampling locations of Hippophae tibetana and the genetic composition of each population.
(a) Map showing the sampling locations along the Rongbuk Valley, north of Mt. Qomolangma. Populations are represented by yellow circles and the patches are in the yellow rectangular area. Blue triangles represent the end-moraine of each glaciation [47], [52], [54] (M1, Little Ice Age moraine; M2, Rongbude moraine; M3 Rongbuk moraine; M4, Jilong moraine). (b) Temperature change revealed in the Guliya ice-core δ 18O record over the past 35 ka [38]. OSL ages of the moraines [47] are indicated along the time axis. (c) Elevation of each population, chlorotype composition, and proportion shown as pie charts (left column) and the population assignment test results with the software STRUCTURE (right column).
Area, crown diameter, and annual ring of 5 patches and the highest population.
| Patch No. | Altitude (m) | Area (m2) | Crown diameter (cm) | Annual ringsb |
| POP 8 | 5035 | >5000 | 56.6±2.70 | 40 |
| PAT 4 | 5047 | ∼250 | 26.6±3.21 | 37 |
| PAT 3 | 5046 | ∼50 | 17.0±2.34 | 30 |
| PAT 2 | 5047 | ∼30 | 14.4±6.95 | 15 |
| PAT 7 | 5058 | ∼30 | 8.8±1.30 | 21 |
| PAT 5 | 5066 | ∼20 | 8.4±1.14 | 15 |
the mean value ± S.D. of crown diameters of five individuals with the biggest crow; bthe annual rings of the individual with the largest basal stem.
Figure 2Chlorotype network based on the trnT-trnF sequences of H. tibetana.
Circles with letters inside indicate chlorotypes found in the Rongbuk Valley. The other circles represent the remaining B-lineage chlorotypes found in the western part of the species’ geographical range and the outgroup consists of the A-lineage chlorotypes that occupy the central part of the range [43]. Genbank accession numbers of these haptotypes were listed in Table S2 in File S1.
Genetic differences (Fst) among populations and patches using data from five microsatellite loci (Table S1).
| FST | POP2 | POP3 | POP4 | POP5 | POP6 | POP7 | POP8 | PAT1 | PAT2 | PAT3 | PAT4 | PAT5 | PAT6 | PAT7 |
| POP1 | 0.0603 | 0.0928 | 0.0303 | 0.0884 | 0.1950 | 0.0488 | 0.0631 | 0.2147 | 0.1671 | 0.0403 | 0.2473 | 0.2336 | 0.0552 | 0.2564 |
| POP2 | 0.0130 | 0.0158 | 0.0632 | 0.2196 | 0.0377 | 0.0860 | 0.2948 | 0.0863 | 0.1308 | 0.1425 | 0.3274 | 0.0436 | 0.1157 | |
| POP3 | 0.0119 | 0.0525 | 0.1609 | 0.0200 | 0.0834 | 0.2351 | 0.0715 | 0.1225 | 0.1542 | 0.2664 | 0.0897 | 0.0751 | ||
| POP4 | 0.0274 | 0.1638 | −0.0006 | 0.0548 | 0.1820 | 0.0876 | 0.0718 | 0.1757 | 0.2096 | 0.0512 | 0.1592 | |||
| POP5 | 0.1503 | 0.0068 | 0.0345 | 0.2583 | 0.1864 | 0.1882 | 0.1994 | 0.2866 | 0.1632 | 0.1923 | ||||
| POP6 | 0.1244 | 0.1254 | 0.4405 | 0.3579 | 0.2944 | 0.3667 | 0.4813 | 0.3480 | 0.3050 | |||||
| POP7 | 0.0253 | 0.2024 | 0.1357 | 0.1138 | 0.1767 | 0.2330 | 0.1144 | 0.1450 | ||||||
| POP8 | 0.2835 | 0.2057 | 0.1794 | 0.2997 | 0.3171 | 0.1759 | 0.2464 | |||||||
| PAT1 | 0.3075 | 0.2777 | 0.4712 | 0.0054 | 0.2863 | 0.5185 | ||||||||
| PAT2 | 0.2148 | 0.3252 | 0.3430 | 0.0785 | 0.2545 | |||||||||
| PAT3 | 0.3123 | 0.2995 | 0.0710 | 0.3420 | ||||||||||
| PAT4 | 0.5007 | 0.2666 | 0.1225 | |||||||||||
| PAT5 | 0.3066 | 0.5612 | ||||||||||||
| PAT6 | 0.2920 |
The F-statistics (F ST) values were calculated with GENETIX version 4.03, the significance of which was tested by comparison of the 95 and 99% confidence intervals derived from 1,000 bootstrap permutations individuals across sites.
p>0.05,
*p≤0.05,
**p<0.001.
Figure 3Non-metric multidimensional scaling of pairwise F ST and a minimum-spanning tree linking populations and patches.
Populations are indicated by their altitudes (m).
Bottleneck tests and mismatch distribution analysis.
| Population No. | Altitude (m) | Wilcoxon Test | Mismatch distribution analysis | ||
| SMM | TPM | SSD | Raggedness index | ||
| POP 1 | 4200 | 0.0469* | 0.0312* | ns | 0.273ns |
| POP 2 | 4400 | 0.0312* | 0.0156* | ns | 0.164ns |
| POP 3 | 4465 | 0.3125ns | 0.3125ns | 0.028 | 0.195* |
| POP 4 | 4690 | 0.5000ns | 0.3125ns | ns | 0.148ns |
| POP 5 | 4805 | 0.0469* | 0.0312* | ns | 0.218ns |
| POP 6 | 4946 | 0.0625ns | 0.0625ns | – | – |
| POP 7 | 5000 | 0.0312* | 0.0312* | ns | 0.067ns |
| POP 8 | 5035 | 0.0312* | 0.0312* | ns | 0.476* |
| PAT 1 | >5035 | 0.2500ns | 0.2500ns | – | – |
| PAT 2 | 5047 | 0.1250ns | 0.1250ns | – | – |
| PAT 3 | 5046 | 0.1250ns | 0.1875ns | – | – |
| PAT 4 | 5047 | 0.0625ns | 0.0625ns | – | – |
| PAT 5 | 5066 | 0.2500ns | 0.2500ns | – | – |
| PAT 6 | >5035 | 0.1250ns | 0.1250ns | – | – |
| PAT 7 | 5058 | 0.1250ns | 0.1250ns | – | – |
(ns p>0.05, *p≤0.05, **p<0.001).