| Literature DB >> 25568043 |
Erik Dahl Kjær1, Lea Vig McKinney1, Lene Rostgaard Nielsen1, Lars Nørgaard Hansen1, Jon Kehlet Hansen1.
Abstract
An emerging infectious pathogen Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus has spread across much of Europe within recent years causing devastating damage on European common ash trees (Fraxinus excelsior) and associated plant communities. The present study demonstrates the presence of additive genetic variation in susceptibility of natural F. excelsior populations to the new invasive disease. We observe high levels of additive variation in the degree of susceptibility with relatively low influence of environmental factors (narrow-sense heritability = 0.37-0.52). Most native trees are found to be highly susceptible, and we estimate that only around 1% has the potential of producing offspring with expected crown damage of <10% under the present disease pressure. The results suggest that the presence of additive genetic diversity in natural F. excelsior populations can confer the species with important ability to recover, but that low resistance within natural European populations is to be expected because of a low frequency of the hypo-sensitive trees. Large effective population sizes will be required to avoid genetic bottlenecks. The role of artificial selection and breeding for protection of the species is discussed based on the findings.Entities:
Keywords: adaptation; conservation genetics; ecological; emerging infectious disease genetics; invasive species
Year: 2011 PMID: 25568043 PMCID: PMC3353348 DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-4571.2011.00222.x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evol Appl ISSN: 1752-4571 Impact factor: 5.183
F-tests for significance of genetic differences within and between populations in damage score (PDS) and necroses score
| Populations | Site × populations | Familes within populations | Site × population × family | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trait | ||||||||
| PDS 2008 | 1.2 | 0.302 | 1.2 | 0.299 | 6.6 | <0.001 | 1.0 | 0.430 |
| PDS 2009 | 1.2 | 0.326 | 2.23 | 0.017 | 6.4 | <0.001 | 1.0 | 0.420 |
| PDS 2010 | 1.2 | 0.307 | 2.05 | 0.032 | 7.3 | <0.001 | 0.8 | 0.840 |
| Necrosis 2008 | 1.6 | 0.122 | 1.82 | 0.065 | 2.8 | <0.001 | 1.2 | 0.170 |
| Necrosis 2009 | 2.8 | 0.010 | 0.91 | 0.544 | 1.9 | 0.002 | 1.3 | 0.066 |
Variance components and genetic parameters
| Source of variation | PDS 2008 (%) | PDS 2009 (%) | PDS 2010 (%) | Necrosis 08 (score) | Necrosis 09 (score) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population | 13 | 12 | 10 | 0.0069 | 0.0196 |
| Family within population | 180 | 157 | 115 | 0.0419 | 0.0423 |
| Plot | 122 | 102 | 114 | 0.0458 | 0.0595 |
| Within plot | 1285 | 1034 | 1015 | 0.6579 | 0.9433 |
| | 722 | 630 | 461 | 0.1678 | 0.17 |
| | 0.45 | 0.49 | 0.37 | 0.23 | 0.16 |
| SE | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.06 |
| | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.06 |
| SE | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.05 |
| Mean | 44 | 57 | 58 | 0.70 | 1.45 |
| CVA (%) | 61 | 44 | 37 | 59 | 28 |
| Population | 16 | 24 | 18 | 0.0177 | 0.0145 |
| Family within population | 152 | 123 | 149 | 0.0533 | 0.0629 |
| Plot | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0243 |
| Within plot | 1009 | 901 | 1112 | 1.1243 | 0.9768 |
| | 607 | 492 | 596 | 0.2132 | 0.2515 |
| | 0.52 | 0.48 | 0.47 | 0.18 | 0.24 |
| SE | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.06 |
| | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.03 |
| SE | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.04 |
| Mean | 51 | 55 | 62 | 1.43 | 2.05 |
| CVA (%) | 48 | 40 | 40 | 32 | 24 |
VA, Additive genetic variation; , Narrow sense heritability, Qst, Genetic differentiation between populations; CVA, Additive genetic coefficient of variation.
Phenotypic (rp), additive genetic (rA) and environmental (re) correlation estimates between percent damage score (PDS) and necroses scores in the 3 years
| Trait | Year | Trait | Year | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Site: | |||||||||
| PDS | 2008 | PDS | 2009 | 0.75 | 0.98 | 0.55 | |||
| PDS | 2010 | 0.68 | 1.00 | 0.47 | |||||
| Necrosis | 2008 | 0.37 | 0.79 | 0.19 | |||||
| 2009 | 0.44 | 0.96 | 0.20 | ||||||
| PDS | 2009 | PDS | 2010 | 0.74 | 0.97 | 0.58 | 0.05 | ||
| Necrosis | 2008 | 0.35 | 0.82 | 0.14 | |||||
| 2009 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 0.28 | ||||||
| PDS | 2010 | Necrosis | 2008 | 0.28 | 0.73 | 0.10 | 0.06 | ||
| 2009 | 0.38 | 0.99 | 0.14 | 0.07 | |||||
| Site: | |||||||||
| PDS | 2008 | PDS | 2009 | 0.71 | 1.00 | 0.41 | |||
| PDS | 2010 | 0.65 | 0.91 | 0.39 | 0.09 | ||||
| Necrosis | 2008 | 0.40 | 0.79 | 0.25 | |||||
| 2009 | 0.32 | 0.80 | 0.04 | ||||||
| PDS | 2009 | PDS | 2010 | 0.74 | 0.96 | 0.54 | 0.07 | ||
| Necrosis | 2008 | 0.31 | 0.71 | 0.16 | |||||
| 2009 | 0.28 | 0.73 | 0.04 | ||||||
| PDS | 2010 | Necrosis | 2008 | 0.32 | 0.65 | 0.20 | 0.06 | ||
| 2009 | 0.27 | 0.69 | 0.05 | 0.08 | |||||
Standard deviation in italics.
Figure 1Frequency of individual breeding values of the 101 tested mother trees (PDS, Percent Damage Score, combined from both test sites).