| Literature DB >> 25757072 |
Jingxiang Meng1, Jian-Feng Mao1, Wei Zhao2, Fangqian Xing1, Xinyu Chen1, Hao Liu3, Zhen Xing3, Xiao-Ru Wang4, Yue Li1.
Abstract
Evidence from molecular genetics demonstrates that Pinus densata is a natural homoploid hybrid originating from the parent species Pinus tabuliformis and Pinus yunnanensis, and ecological selection may have played a role in the speciation of P. densata. However, data on differentiation in adaptive traits in the species complex are scarce. In this study, we performed a common garden test on 16 seedling traits to examine the differences between P. densata and its parental species in a high altitude environment. We found that among the 16 analyzed traits, 15 were significantly different among the species. Pinus tabuliformis had much earlier bud set and a relatively higher bud set ratio but poorer seedling growth, and P. yunnanensis had opposite responses for the same traits. P. densata had the greatest fitness with higher viability and growth rates than the parents. The relatively high genetic contribution of seedling traits among populations suggested that within each species the evolutionary background is complex. The correlations between the seedling traits of a population within a species and the environmental factors indicated different impacts of the environment on species evolution. The winter temperature is among the most important climate factors that affected the fitness of the three pine species. Our investigation provides empirical evidence on adaptive differentiation among this pine species complex at seedling stages.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25757072 PMCID: PMC4355066 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118501
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Geographic distribution of the 24 populations included in the field experiment.
The three P. densata groups identified by previous genetic analyses are described as Group East, Group Central and Group West.
Meteorological data of the field experiment in Linzhi, Tibetan, during the field test.
| Year | Average temperature (°C) | Maximum temperature (°C) | Minimum temperature (°C) | July temperature (°C) | January temperature (°C) | Average Surface Temperature (°C) | Precipitation (mm) | Barometric pressure (hp) | Sunshine duration (h) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 9.6 | 29.1 | −10.2 | 17.5 | 4.4 | 13.3 | 735.5 | 709 | 1998.1 |
| 2nd | 9.4 | 28.9 | −13.6 | 16.4 | 3.1 | 13.6 | 530.4 | 709.8 | 1998.5 |
The meteorological data of each year were collected from China Meteorological Data Sharing Service System (http://www.cma.gov.cn/2011qxfw/2011qsjgx/)
1st year from April 2010 to March 2011, 2ndyear from April.2011 to March 2012.
Geographic location and the meteorological data of the sampling populations of P. densata, P. tabuliformis and P. yunnanensis.
| Species | Populations | Longitude (N) | Latitude (E) | Elevation (m) | AT (°C) | AP (mm) | ATJ (°C) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| 1 | Baoshan, Dianxi | 99°28′ | 24°28′ | 1897 | 14.3 | 1223 | 7.7 | |
| 2 | Yuxi,Dianzhong | 102°15′ | 24°15′ | 1849 | 17.5 | 995 | 10.9 | |
| 3 | Yiliang, Dianzhong | 103°43′ | 24°43′ | 1846 | 16 | 1007 | 9 | |
| 4 | Kunming, Dianzhong | 102°58′ | 24°58′ | 2242 | 14.1 | 1028 | 7.5 | |
| 5 | Gongshan,Dianxi | 98°58′ | 25°58′ | 1616 | 16.6 | 1436 | 9.5 | |
| 6 | Lijiang, Dianxi | 100°53′ | 26°53′ | 2493 | 13.3 | 970 | 6.5 | |
| 7 | Zhangdian, Yunnan | 99°01′ | 28°09′ | 3048 | 5.7 | 723 | −1.8 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Group West | 8 | Niyanghe, Tibetan | 94°44′ | 29°45′ | 3203 | 8.5 | 605 | −0.3 |
| 9 | Milin, Tibetan | 94°14′ | 29°14′ | 2960 | 10 | 743 | 1.6 | |
| 10 | Palongzangbu, Tibetan | 95°55′ | 29°52′ | 2804 | 9.3 | 831 | 0.6 | |
| Group Central | 11 | Chayu, Tibetan | 97°80′ | 29°08′ | 3264 | 7.4 | 797 | −0.8 |
| 12 | Kangding, Sichuan | 101°11′, | 30°11′ | 2944 | 6.5 | 828 | −2.5 | |
| Group East | 13 | Baoxing, Sichuan | 102°49′ | 30°45′ | 2330 | 8.6 | 867 | −0.8 |
| 14 | Lixian, Sichuan | 102°40′ | 31°40′ | 2765 | 7.5 | 841 | −1.7 | |
| 15 | Maerkang, Sichuan | 102°55′, | 31°55′ | 2709 | 8 | 754 | −1.2 | |
|
| ||||||||
| 16 | Jiuzhaigou, Sichuan | 103°18′ | 33°18′ | 2393 | 6.7 | 658 | −2.5 | |
| 17 | Ningshan, Shannxi | 108°29′ | 33°28′ | 1423 | 9.3 | 918 | −2.5 | |
| 18 | Lushi, Henan | 110°44′ | 33°44′ | 1713 | 7.3 | 928 | −4.8 | |
| 19 | Lingkongshan, Shanxi | 112°37′ | 36°36′ | 1664 | 8.4 | 571 | −6.6 | |
| 20 | Huzhu, Qinghai | 102°58′ | 36°57′ | 2299 | 2.3 | 395 | −9.5 | |
| 21 | Fangshan, Shanxi | 111°56′ | 37°56′ | 1941 | 4.3 | 528 | −11.7 | |
| 22 | Tumed, Inner Mongolia | 111°47′ | 40°48′ | 1219 | 4.2 | 358 | −14.6 | |
| 23 | Songshan, Beijing | 115°31′ | 40°31′ | 885 | 6.4 | 456 | −10.7 | |
| 24 | Ningcheng, Neimeng | 118°17′ | 42°17′ | 1300 | 7.6 | 360 | −10.4 | |
The meteorological data of each selected populations were collected from WorldClim [62].
16 fitness-related characteristics involving growth, viability, phenology and needle color.
| Abbreviation | Traits | Correspond to fitness |
|---|---|---|
| Germinate | ||
| GR | germination rate | High value with good reproduction |
| viability | ||
| SR of the 1st year (%) | survival rate in autumn of 2011 | High value with good viability |
| SRAW of the 1st year (%) | survival rate after winter of 2011 | High value with good viability |
| SR of the 2nd year (%) | survival rate in autumn of 2012 | High value with good viability |
| SRAW of the 2nd year (%) | survival rate after winter of 2012 | High value with good viability |
| Phenology | ||
| BSR of the 1st year (%) | bud set rate in october of 2011 | High value with early bud set |
| BSR of the 2nd year (%) | bud set rate in october of 2012 | High value with early bud set |
| SGR in the 2nd year (%) | second-growth rate in October of 2012 | High value with long growth circle |
| Needle colors | ||
| RLC in red (%) | ratios of seedlings with needle of red colors | High value with good viability and physiology changed |
| RLC in yellow (%) | ratios of seedlings with needle of yellow colors | High value with poor viability |
| RLC in purpul (%) | ratios of seedlings with needle of purpul colors | High value with good viability and physiology changed |
| RLC in green (%) | ratios of seedlings with needle of green colors | High value with good viability |
| Growth rate | ||
| SH of the 1st year(cm) | stem height in october of 2011 | High value with fast growth |
| SH of the 2nd year (cm) | stem height in october of 2012 | High value with fast growth |
| D0 of the 1st year (mm) | stem diameter in october of 2011 | High value with fast growth |
| D0 of the 2nd year (mm) | stem diameter in october of 2012 | High value with fast growth |
Descriptive statistics and ANOVA of measured traits.
| Species | Mean (Min∼Max) | Variance component(%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statistics |
|
|
| Block(d.f.) | Species(d.f.) | Pop/species(d.f.) | Residuals(d.f.) |
| GR | 0.82(0.72 ∼0.96)a | 0.69(0.49 ∼0.83)b | 0.63(0.39 ∼0.78)b | 0.65(3) | 30.89(2) | 44.86(21) | 23.59(69) |
| SR of the 1st year (%) | 0.41(0.23 ∼0.6)a | 0.32(0.14 ∼0.53)b | 0.25(0.15 ∼0.32)b | 3.57(3) | 31.13(2) | 27.58(21) | 37.72(69) |
| SRAW of the 1st year (%) | 0.11(0.05 ∼0.17)a | 0.15(0.03 ∼0.31)a | 0.10(0 ∼0.17)a | 2.21(3) | 19.46(2) | 24.21(21) | 53.64(69) |
| SR of the 2nd year (%) | 0.10(0.05 ∼0.14)a | 0.14(0.03 ∼0.27)a | 0.09(0 ∼0.17)a | 1.47(3) | 18.95(2) | 23.89(21) | 55.69(69) |
| SRAW of the 2st year (%) | 0.10(0.05 ∼0.14)a | 0.12(0.03 ∼0.24)a | 0.08(0 ∼0.14)a | 1.92(3) | 6.54(2) | 46.56(21) | 44.99(69) |
| BSR of the 1st year (%) | 0.86(0.43 ∼1.00)a | 0.29(0 ∼1)b | 0.04(0 ∼0.25)c | 0.59(3) | 49.75(2) | 41.91(21) | 7.76(69) |
| BSR of the 2nd year (%) | 0.89(0.58∼1)a | 0.52(0.23∼1)b | 0.23 (0.04∼0.74)c | 1.70(3) | 13.08(2) | 33.52(20) | 51.71(55) |
| SGR in the 2nd year (%) | 0.03(0∼ 0.10)b | 0.15(0∼ 0.32)a | 0.10(0∼0.24)ab | 0.93(3) | 10.26(2) | 28.86(21) | 59.95(69) |
| RLC in red (%) | 0.01(0∼0.09)c | 0.17(0∼0.46)b | 0.23(0.09∼0.52)a | 2.39(3) | 21.97(2) | 36.65(21) | 38.98(69) |
| RLC in yellow (%) | 0.38(0.19∼0.60)a | 0.19(0∼0.53)b | 0.01(0∼0.08)c | 2.81(3) | 38.52(2) | 31.03(21) | 27.64(69) |
| RLC in purpul (%) | 0.15(0.04∼0.26)ab | 0.20(0.05∼0.36)a | 0.11(0.04∼0.23)b | 1.66(3) | 7.01(2) | 31.66(21) | 59.68(69) |
| RLC in green (%) | 0.46(0.29∼0.61)b | 0.43(0.20∼0.73)b | 0.64(0.32∼0.83)a | 1.56(3) | 13.88(2) | 50.47(21) | 34.09(69) |
| SH of the 1st year(cm) | 1.41(0.93∼2.05)b | 1.98(1.30∼2.79)b | 1.75(1.20∼2.22)a | 6.24(3) | 11.97(2) | 32.76(20) | 49.04(55) |
| SH of the 2nd year (cm) | 7.45(5.70∼10.16)b | 9.26(5.77∼12.49)ab | 7.97(6.63∼10.07)a | 8.21(3)* | 8.05(2) | 35.23(20) | 48.51(55) |
| D0 of the 1st year (mm) | 1.79(1.64∼1.96)b | 1.79(1.47∼2.08)a | 2.25(1.75∼2.72)a | 5.37(3) | 24.34(2) | 27.64(20) | 42.64(55) |
| D0 of the 2nd year (mm) | 4.8(4.3∼5.7)b | 5.2(3.9∼6.2)a | 5.5(4.1∼7.2)ab | 6.20(3) | 6.74(2) | 28.98(20) | 58.09(55) |
Mean with different superscript letters (a, b, c) are significantly different (P < 0.05) as determined by Duncan multiple range tests.
Data in the table: mean ± sd.
* P < 0.05;
** P < 0.01.
d.f., degrees of freedom.
Fig 2Box-plots of the 16 indices between populations and among species in the seedling stage.
The rectangle region is the main part of the box-plot. The three upper, middle and lower lines represent the 75th, 50th and 25th percentile value of the variables, respectively. The vertical line in the middle of the box-plot is the tentacles line. The upper and lower ends of the line represent the maximum and minimum values of the variable, respectively, except for single or extreme values. “.”represents the single value, where the variable value exceeds 1.5 times the difference between the 75th percentile and 25th percentile. “*” represents the extreme value, where the variable value exceeds 3 times the difference between the 75th percentile and 25th percentile. Boxplots with different superscript letters (a, b, c) are significantly different (P < 0.05) as determined by Duncan multiple range tests.
Loadings on the first four components in PCA.
| Comp1 | Comp2 | Comp3 | Comp4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GR... | −0.737 | 0.222 | 0.158 | −0.190 |
| SR of the 1st year | −0.767 | 0.278 | −0.220 | −0.061 |
| SRAW of the 1st year | −0.655 | −0.438 | −0.439 | 0.190 |
| SR of the 2nd year | −0.732 | −0.417 | −0.359 | 0.191 |
| SRAW of the 2st year | −0.521 | −0.770 | 0.076 | −0.036 |
| BSR of the 1st year | −0.702 | 0.438 | 0.193 | −0.208 |
| BSR of the 2nd year | −0.416 | −0.241 | 0.371 | −0.489 |
| SGR in the 2nd year | 0.305 | −0.627 | −0.083 | 0.201 |
| RLC in red | 0.529 | −0.173 | −0.344 | −0.461 |
| RLC in yellow | −0.483 | 0.575 | −0.074 | 0.501 |
| RLC in purpul | −0.239 | 0.201 | −0.682 | −0.457 |
| RLC in green | −0.533 | −0.374 | 0.496 | −0.047 |
| total | 0.332 | 0.189 | 0.118 | 0.093 |
Fig 3Scatter diagram of the first two principal coordinates (PC1 and PC2) from PCA for the three pine species based on adaptive indices and growth indices.
Fig 4Result of the cluster analysis of the sampled populations for the three pine species based on adaptive indices and growth.
Populations 1–7 are P. yunnanensis, populations 8–15 are P. densata, populations 16–24 are P. tabuliformis.
Correlation coefficient between measured traits and geographical variables of P. yunnanensis, P. densata and P. tabuliformis.
|
|
|
| |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species | AT | AP | ATJ | AT | AP | ATJ | AT | AP | ATJ | ||
| GR | −0.1 | −0.40 | −0.06 | 0.28 | −0.18 | 0.21 | −0.25 | −0.39 | −0.14 | ||
| SR of the 1st year | 0.06 | 0.15 | 0.06 | −0.16 | 0.12 | −0.3 | −0.2 | −0.44 | −0.47 | ||
| SRAW of the 1st year | −0.15 | −0.42 | −0.16 | 0.11 | −0.27 | 0 | 0.16 | 0.07 | 0.06 | ||
| SR of the 2nd year | −0.05 | −0.32 | −0.05 | 0.29 | −0.35 | 0.17 | −0.1 | −0.03 | −0.05 | ||
| SRAW of the 2nd year | −0.2 | −0.27 | −0.2 | 0.55 | −0.65 | 0.50 | 0.21 | 0.33 | 0.26 | ||
| BSR of the 1st year | −0.44 | −0.31 | −0.44 | −0.32 | 0.09 | −0.42 | −.45 | −0.72 | −0.74 | ||
| BSR of the 2nd year | −0.67 | −0.49 | −0.69 | 0.32 | −0.39 | 0.26 | 0.23 | 0 | 0.05 | ||
| SGR in the 2nd year | −0.37 | −0.22 | −0.39 | 0.37 | −0.27 | 0.40 | 0.42 | 0.57 | 0.58 | ||
| RLC in red | −0.56 | −0.47 | −0.56 | −0.39 | 0.11 | −0.22 | 0.08 | 0.29 | 0.14 | ||
| RLC in yellow | 0.02 | 0.15 | 0.04 | −0.02 | 0.43 | −0.22 | −0.03 | −0.21 | 0.05 | ||
| RLC in purple | −0.19 | −0.22 | −0.19 | −0.3 | 0.18 | −0.16 | 0.18 | 0.08 | −0.1 | ||
| RLC in green | 0.63 | 0.52 | 0.63 | 0.56 | −0.61 | 0.51 | −0.12 | 0.09 | −0.03 | ||
| SH of the 1st year | 0.03 | 0.21 | 0.02 | 0.52 | −0.40 | 0.56 | 0.13 | 0.05 | 0.16 | ||
| SH of the 2nd year | 0.07 | 0.26 | 0.07 | 0.45 | −0.39 | 0.47 | 0.1 | 0.09 | 0.22 | ||
| D0 of the 1st year | 0.54 | 0.61 | 0.53 | 0.14 | −0.46 | 0.2 | 0.02 | 0.19 | 0.2 | ||
| D0 of the 2nd year | 0.02 | 0.37 | 0 | 0.49 | −0.12 | 0.46 | −0.14 | −0.03 | 0.1 | ||
AT, Annual average Temperature; AP, Annual Precipitation; ATC, Average temperature of the coldest month.
* P < 0.05;
** P < 0.01.