Alex Fajardo1, Cristian Torres-Díaz2, Irène Till-Bottraud3. 1. Centro de Investigación en Ecosistemas de la Patagonia (CIEP) Conicyt-Regional R10C1003, Universidad Austral de Chile, Camino Baguales s/n, Coyhaique 5951601, Chile, alex.fajardo@ciep.cl. 2. Laboratorio de Genómica y Biodiversidad, Departamento de Ciencias Básicas, Universidad del Bío-Bío, Casilla 447, Chillán, Chile. 3. Université Grenoble Alpes, Laboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine (LECA), F-38000 Grenoble, France and CNRS, LECA, CNRS F-38000 Grenoble, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Disturbances, dispersal and biotic interactions are three major drivers of the spatial distribution of genotypes within populations, the last of which has been less studied than the other two. This study aimed to determine the role of competition and facilitation in the degree of conspecific genetic relatedness of nearby individuals of tree populations. It was expected that competition among conspecifics will lead to low relatedness, while facilitation will lead to high relatedness (selection for high relatedness within clusters). METHODS: The stand structure and spatial genetic structure (SGS) of trees were examined within old-growth and second-growth forests (including multi-stemmed trees at the edge of forests) of Nothofagus pumilio following large-scale fires in Patagonia, Chile. Genetic spatial autocorrelations were computed on a spatially explicit sampling of the forests using five microsatellite loci. As biotic plant interactions occur among immediate neighbours, mean nearest neighbour distance (MNND) among trees was computed as a threshold for distinguishing the effects of disturbances and biotic interactions. KEY RESULTS: All forests exhibited a significant SGS for distances greater than the MNND. The old-growth forest genetic and stand structure indicated gap recolonization from nearby trees (significantly related trees at distances between 4 and 10 m). At distances smaller than the MNND, trees of the second-growth interior forest showed significantly lower relatedness, suggesting a fading of the recolonization structure by competition, whereas the second-growth edge forest showed a positive and highly significant relatedness among trees (higher among stems of a cluster than among stems of different clusters), resulting from facilitation. CONCLUSIONS: Biotic interactions are shown to influence the genetic composition of a tree population. However, facilitation can only persist if individuals are related. Thus, the genetic composition in turn influences what type of biotic interactions will take place among immediate neighbours in post-disturbance forests.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Disturbances, dispersal and biotic interactions are three major drivers of the spatial distribution of genotypes within populations, the last of which has been less studied than the other two. This study aimed to determine the role of competition and facilitation in the degree of conspecific genetic relatedness of nearby individuals of tree populations. It was expected that competition among conspecifics will lead to low relatedness, while facilitation will lead to high relatedness (selection for high relatedness within clusters). METHODS: The stand structure and spatial genetic structure (SGS) of trees were examined within old-growth and second-growth forests (including multi-stemmed trees at the edge of forests) of Nothofagus pumilio following large-scale fires in Patagonia, Chile. Genetic spatial autocorrelations were computed on a spatially explicit sampling of the forests using five microsatellite loci. As biotic plant interactions occur among immediate neighbours, mean nearest neighbour distance (MNND) among trees was computed as a threshold for distinguishing the effects of disturbances and biotic interactions. KEY RESULTS: All forests exhibited a significant SGS for distances greater than the MNND. The old-growth forest genetic and stand structure indicated gap recolonization from nearby trees (significantly related trees at distances between 4 and 10 m). At distances smaller than the MNND, trees of the second-growth interior forest showed significantly lower relatedness, suggesting a fading of the recolonization structure by competition, whereas the second-growth edge forest showed a positive and highly significant relatedness among trees (higher among stems of a cluster than among stems of different clusters), resulting from facilitation. CONCLUSIONS: Biotic interactions are shown to influence the genetic composition of a tree population. However, facilitation can only persist if individuals are related. Thus, the genetic composition in turn influences what type of biotic interactions will take place among immediate neighbours in post-disturbance forests.
Authors: Suqin Fang; Randy T Clark; Ying Zheng; Anjali S Iyer-Pascuzzi; Joshua S Weitz; Leon V Kochian; Herbert Edelsbrunner; Hong Liao; Philip N Benfey Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2013-01-29 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Junghwa An; Arnaud Bechet; Asa Berggren; Sarah K Brown; Michael W Bruford; Qingui Cai; Anna Cassel-Lundhagen; Frank Cezilly; Song-Lin Chen; Wei Cheng; Sung-Kyoung Choi; X Y Ding; Yong Fan; Kevin A Feldheim; Z Y Feng; Vicki L Friesen; Maria Gaillard; Juan A Galaraza; Leonardo Gallo; K N Ganeshaiah; Julia Geraci; John G Gibbons; William S Grant; Zac Grauvogel; S Gustafsson; Jeffrey R Guyon; L Han; Daniel D Heath; S Hemmilä; J Derek Hogan; B W Hou; Jernej Jakse; Branka Javornik; Peter Kaňuch; Kyung-Kil Kim; Kyung-Seok Kim; Sang-Gyu Kim; Sang-In Kim; Woo-Jin Kim; Yi-Kyung Kim; Maren A Klich; Brian R Kreiser; Ye-Seul Kwan; Athena W Lam; Kelly Lasater; M Lascoux; Hang Lee; Yun-Sun Lee; D L Li; Shao-Jing Li; W Y Li; Xiaolin Liao; Zlatko Liber; Lin Lin; Shaoying Liu; Xin-Hui Luo; Y H Ma; Yajun Ma; Paula Marchelli; Mi-Sook Min; Maria Domenica Moccia; Kumara P Mohana; Marcelle Moore; James A Morris-Pocock; Han-Chan Park; Monika Pfunder; Radosavljević Ivan; G Ravikanth; George K Roderick; Antonis Rokas; Benjamin N Sacks; Christopher A Saski; Zlatko Satovic; Sean D Schoville; Federico Sebastiani; Zhen-Xia Sha; Eun-Ha Shin; Carolina Soliani; N Sreejayan; Zhengxin Sun; Yong Tao; Scott A Taylor; William D Templin; R Uma Shaanker; R Vasudeva; Giovanni G Vendramin; Ryan P Walter; Gui-Zhong Wang; Ke-Jian Wang; Y Q Wang; Rémi A Wattier; Fuwen Wei; Alex Widmer; Stefan Woltmann; Yong-Jin Won; Jing Wu; M L Xie; Genbo Xu; Xiao-Jun Xu; Hai-Hui Ye; Xiangjiang Zhan; F Zhang; J Zhong Journal: Mol Ecol Resour Date: 2010-01-20 Impact factor: 7.090
Authors: Katharina B Budde; Santiago C González-Martínez; Miguel Navascués; Concetta Burgarella; Elena Mosca; Zaida Lorenzo; Mario Zabal-Aguirre; Giovanni G Vendramin; Miguel Verdú; Juli G Pausas; Myriam Heuertz Journal: Ann Bot Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 4.357
Authors: Cristian Torres-Díaz; Moisés A Valladares; Ian S Acuña-Rodríguez; Gabriel I Ballesteros; Andrea Barrera; Cristian Atala; Marco A Molina-Montenegro Journal: Front Plant Sci Date: 2021-04-15 Impact factor: 5.753