| Literature DB >> 25100675 |
Melissa A Millar1, David J Coates2, Margaret Byrne2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Understanding patterns of pollen dispersal and variation in mating systems provides insights into the evolutionary potential of plant species and how historically rare species with small disjunct populations persist over long time frames. This study aims to quantify the role of pollen dispersal and the mating system in maintaining contemporary levels of connectivity and facilitating persistence of small populations of the historically rare Acacia woodmaniorum.Entities:
Keywords: Acacia woodmaniorum; correlated paternity; disjunct populations; dispersal distance; entomophilous pollination; gene flow; mating system; paternity analysis; pollen immigration
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25100675 PMCID: PMC4171076 DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcu167
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Bot ISSN: 0305-7364 Impact factor: 4.357
Fig. 1.Map of the distribution (shading) and sampling locations (stars) of Acacia woodmaniorum. Grey lines show altitudinal contours. Population names correspond to those in Table 1.
Population size, isolation distances, number of mother plants sampled, size of progeny arrays and number of progeny used for analysis of correlated paternity, other mating system parameters and paternity for 525 progeny of Acacia woodmaniorum
| Population | Size | Isolation (m) | Isolation from large population (m) | No. of mother plants sampled | Size of progeny arrays (= no. of pods) per mother plant | Total no. of progeny used | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correlated paternity analysis | Mating system and paternity analysis | ||||||
| JHBS | 22 | 120 | 1000 | 3 | 9, 10, 10 | – | 29 |
| JHBSW | 17 | 120 | 980 | 2 | 6,12 | – | 18 |
| MASC | 8 | 100 | 170 | 4 | 7, 12, 14, 16 | – | 49 |
| MDSE | 7 | 100 | 450 | 4 | 16, 18, 18, 18 | – | 70 |
| Terapod | 10 | 700 | 940 | 5 | 1, 2, 6, 7, 9 | – | 25 |
| Blue Hill | 145 | 1870 | 1870 | 6 | 12, 16, 18, 19, 19, 20 | – | 104 |
| WD | 29 | 910 | 970 | 3 | 7, 15, 18 | – | 40 |
| WE | 16 | 180 | 180 | 4 | 10, 16, 18, 26 | – | 70 |
| MA2 | 10 | 2, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 9 | 120 | – | |||
| Total | 41 | 525 | 120 | 405 | |||
Statistics of correlation analysis between population parameters for eight small disjunct populations of Acacia woodmaniorum
| Size | Degree of isolation | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| d.f. | d.f. | |||||
| Degree of isolation | 0·7845 | 7 | 0·0034 | – | – | – |
| Isolation from a large population | 0·6581 | 7 | 0·0145 | 0·8122 | 7 | 0·0143 |
Probability of exclusion (PE2) for nine loci and details of paternity assignments obtained using the NEWPATXL and CERVUS programs as percentages of progeny, for eight small disjunct populations of Acacia woodmaniorum
| Population | NEWPATXL | CERVUS | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Within-population assignment confidence | Pollen immigration | |||||||
| Pollen immigration | PE2 | ≥95 % | 80–95 % | <80 % | Not identified | Minimum* pollen immigration | Maximum† pollen immigration | |
| JHBS | 14·3 | 0·908 | 25·0 | 32·1 | 14·3 | 10·7 | 17·9 | 42·9 |
| JHBSW | 11·1 | 0·964 | 5·6 | 5·6 | 5·6 | 22·2 | 61·1 | 88·9 |
| MASC | 47·8 | 0·972 | 36·7 | 6·1 | 0·0 | 0·0 | 57·1 | 57·1 |
| MDSE | 44·9 | 0·936 | 28·6 | 15·7 | 0·0 | 0·0 | 55·7 | 55·7 |
| Terapod | 58·3 | 0·962 | 20·8 | 25·0 | 0·0 | 0·0 | 54·2 | 54·2 |
| Blue Hill | 18·8 | 0·954 | 7·8 | 25·5 | 49·0 | 4·9 | 12·7 | 66·7 |
| WD | 33·3 | 0·919 | 25·0 | 27·5 | 25·0 | 0·0 | 22·5 | 47·5 |
| WE | 42·0 | 0·933 | 30·4 | 27·5 | 1·4 | 0·0 | 40·6 | 42·0 |
| Mean | 33·8 | 0·944 | 22·5 | 20·6 | 11·9 | 4·7 | 40·2 | 56·9 |
The percentage of progeny with pollen sources not identified within the population is presented for NEWPATXL. For CERVUS, most likely fathers were assigned to progeny at confidence intervals of ≥95 % 80–95 %, <80 %, or, when listed as ‘not identified’, where a single most likely father was likely to exist within the population but could not be identified, i.e. more than one potential father was identified within the population, both having equal likelihoods of being the father. Values are expressed as percentages of the number of progeny analysed.
*Minimum pollen immigration estimate includes progeny which could not be assigned a most likely father within the population.
†Maximum pollen immigration estimate includes progeny which could not be assigned any father from within the population, at a confidence level of <80 %.
Statistics of correlation analysis for minimum and maximum pollen immigration rates (CERVUS) to population parameters for eight small disjunct populations of Acacia woodmaniorum
| Population parameter | Minimum pollen immigration | Maximum pollen immigration | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| d.f. | d.f. | |||||
| Size | 0·4410 | 7 | 0·0725 | 0·0508 | 7 | 0·5913 |
| Degree of isolation | 0·4008 | 7 | 0·0920 | 0·0099 | 7 | 0·8143 |
| Isolation from a large population | 0·3820 | 7 | 0·1024 | 0·1246 | 7 | 0·3912 |
Estimates of mating system parameters for eight small disjunct populations of Acacia woodmaniorum including the multilocus outcrossing rate (tm), the single locus outcrossing rate (ts), the apparent level of selfing due to biparental inbreeding (tm – ts), the correlation of selfing among maternal plants (rs), the multilocus correlated paternity (rpm), the effective number of pollen donors (Ne) and Wright's fixation index for parental (Fpar) and progeny generations (Fprog)
| Population | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JHBS | 0·911 (0·047) | 0·921* (0·028) | –0·010 (0·034) | 0·119 (0·088) | 0·022 (0·018) | 45 | 0·000 (0·096) | –0·123 (0·102)* |
| JHBSW | 1·000 (0·000) | 0·996* (0·000) | 0·004* (0·001) | 0·106* (0·000) | 0·000 (0·000) | ∞ | –0·078 (0·074)* | –0·142 (0·073)* |
| MASC | 1·000 (0·000) | 0·999* (0·000) | 0·001* (0·000) | 0·106 (0·085) | 0·052 (0·081) | 19 | –0·118 (0·062)* | –0·099 (0·158) |
| MDSE | 1·000 (0·005) | 0·940* (0·020) | 0·060* (0·020) | 0·10 7 (0·078) | 0·104 (0·081) | 10 | –0·186 (0·098)* | 0·043 (0·053) |
| Terapod | 1·000 (0·000) | 0·991 (0·027) | 0·009 (0·027) | 0·110 (0·130) | 0·003 (0·118) | 333 | 0·043 (0·076) | 0·062 (0·052)* |
| Blue Hill | 0·995 (0·015) | 0·968* (0·010) | 0·024 (0·015) | 0·0940* (0·009) | 0·179* (0·044) | 6 | 0·108 (0·080)* | 0·058 (0·060) |
| WD | 0·900* (0·000) | 0·900* (0·000) | 0·000 (0·000) | 0·100* (0·001) | 0·100* (0·001) | 10 | 0·059 (0·107) | –0·293 (0·102)* |
| WE | 1·000 (0·004) | 1·000 (0·000) | 0·000 (0·004) | 0·109* (0·009) | 0·035* (0·015) | 16 | 0·017 (0·097) | –0·182 (0·067)* |
| Total or mean | 0·975 (0·015) | 0·964* (0·014) | 0·011 (0·008) | 0·106* (0·003) | 0·062* (0·022) | 16 | –0·088 (0·036)* | –0·070* (0·034) |
Standard errors are in parentheses.
*Values are significantly different from 1 (tm and ts) or from zero (all other estimates).