| Literature DB >> 25412495 |
Daniel Vitales1, Alfredo García-Fernández2, Jaume Pellicer3, Joan Vallès1, Arnoldo Santos-Guerra4, Robyn S Cowan3, Michael F Fay3, Oriane Hidalgo5, Teresa Garnatje6.
Abstract
The radiation of the genus Cheirolophus (Asteraceae) in Macaronesia constitutes a spectacular case of rapid diversification on oceanic islands. Twenty species - nine of them included in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - have been described to date inhabiting the Madeiran and Canarian archipelagos. A previous phylogenetic study revealed that the diversification of Cheirolophus in Macaronesia started less than 2 Ma. As a result of such an explosive speciation process, limited phylogenetic resolution was reported, mainly due to the low variability of the employed molecular markers. In the present study, we used highly polymorphic AFLP markers to i) evaluate species' boundaries, ii) infer their evolutionary relationships and iii) investigate the patterns of genetic diversity in relation to the potential processes likely involved in the radiation of Cheirolophus. One hundred and seventy-two individuals representing all Macaronesian Cheirolophus species were analysed using 249 AFLP loci. Our results suggest that geographic isolation played an important role in this radiation process. This was likely driven by the combination of poor gene flow capacity and a good ability for sporadic long-distance colonisations. In addition, we also found some traces of introgression and incipient ecological adaptation, which could have further enhanced the extraordinary diversification of Cheirolophus in Macaronesia. Last, we hypothesize that current threat categories assigned to Macaronesian Cheirolophus species do not reflect their respective evolutionary relevance, so future evaluations of their conservation status should take into account the results presented here.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25412495 PMCID: PMC4239036 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113207
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Geographic location of the 29 sampled populations of Macaronesian Cheirolophus species.
Colour coding circles correspond to genetic structure derived from Bayesian mixture analysis of AFLP markers implemented in BAPS.
Figure 2Phylogenetic analysis of AFLP data.
Unrooted 50% majority rule tree from Bayesian analysis of the combined AFLP dataset for all Macaronesian species of Cheirolophus. Posterior probability values ≥ 70 are shown near each branch.
Figure 3Neighbor-Net of AFLP data obtained from Macaronesian Cheirolophus.
Colour coding profiles delimitate the different species indicating the genetic clusters assigned by BAPS.
Figure 4Results of STRUCTURE analyses of the entire AFLP dataset with K = 2.
Bayesian estimation of genetic structure within Macaronesian Cheirolophus according to the best model proposed by STRUCTURE (K = 2).
Analyses of molecular variance (AMOVA) of Macaronesian Cheirolophus species based on AFLP markers.
| Source of variation | d.f. | Sum of squares | Variance components | Fixation indices | Percentage of variation | P |
| 1. No population structure | ||||||
| Among populations | 28 | 2758.35 | 14.84 | 0.57 | 56.79 | <0.0001 |
| Within populations | 143 | 1614.26 | 11.29 | 43.21 | <0.0001 | |
| 2. Species | ||||||
| Among groups | 19 | 2439.19 | 10.22 | 0.39 | 38.63 | <0.0001 |
| Among populations within groups | 9 | 319.16 | 4.95 | 0.30 | 18.70 | <0.0001 |
| Within populations | 143 | 1614.26 | 11.29 | 0.57 | 42.68 | <0.0001 |
| 3. Islands | ||||||
| Among groups | 6 | 1236.50 | 6.55 | 0.24 | 23.59 | <0.0001 |
| Among populations within groups | 22 | 1521.85 | 9.92 | 0.47 | 35.75 | <0.0001 |
| Within populations | 143 | 1614.26 | 11.29 | 0.59 | 40.67 | <0.0001 |
| 4. STRUCTURE | ||||||
| Among groups | 1 | 557.24 | 5.38 | 0.19 | 18.73 | <0.0001 |
| Among population within groups | 27 | 2201.11 | 12.07 | 0.52 | 42.00 | <0.0001 |
| Within populations | 143 | 161426 | 11.29 | 0.61 | 39.27 | <0.0001 |
| 5. BAPS | ||||||
| Among groups | 10 | 1951.35 | 9.91 | 0.33 | 33.29 | <0.0001 |
| Among population within groups | 18 | 807.00 | 6.58 | 0.37 | 24.55 | <0.0001 |
| Within populations | 143 | 1614.26 | 11.29 | 0.58 | 42.15 | <0.0001 |
The four possible scenarios considered were: no population structure (1), species delimitation (2), islands groups (3) STRUCTURE clustering (4) and BAPS clustering (5).