| Literature DB >> 26860628 |
Qixiang Lu1, Jinning Zhu2, Dan Yu3, Xinwei Xu4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our current understanding of the evolutionary history of boreal and arctic-alpine plants in their southern range in Asia remains relatively poor. Using three cpDNA non-coding regions and nine nuclear microsatellite (nSSR) loci, we examine the phylogeographic pattern in a broad geographic sampling of the boreal plant Hippuris vulgaris to infer its dispersal and diversification in China. In addition, the species distributions at the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and at present were predicted using ecological niche modeling (ENM).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26860628 PMCID: PMC4748637 DOI: 10.1186/s12862-016-0603-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Fig. 1Network and chronogram of 26 cpDNA haplotypes in Hippuris vulgaris. a Network of genealogical relationships between the 26 cpDNA haplotypes. The black dots represent missing haplotypes. b Chronogram of H. vulgaris inferred from cpDNA haplotypes using BEAST. Grey boxes indicate 95 % highest posterior density intervals. Numbers at nodes are bootstrap values obtained from ML analysis and Bayesian posterior probabilities in phylogeny reconstruction
Fig. 2Distribution of cpDNA haplotypes and nSSR clusters in Hippuris vulgaris mapped using ArcGIS. a Distribution of 14 cpDNA haplotypes in lineage A of H. vulgaris. b Distribution of 12 cpDNA haplotypes in lineage B of H. vulgaris. c Distribution of 28 populations of lineage A with nSSR genetic clustering according to the STRUCTURE analysis. d Distribution of three nSSR subclusters identified in 63 populations of lineage B using STRUCTURE and putative colonization routes among three geographical regions
Analyses of molecular variance based on cpDNA and nSSR data for populations of Hippuris vulgaris
| Source of variation | cpDNA data | Microsatellite data | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| df | Percentage of total variance (%) | df | Percentage of total variance (%) | |
| All populations | ||||
| Among lineages | 1 | 92.78*** | 1 | 64.02*** |
| Among populations within lineages | 79 | 2.75*** | 79 | 13.33*** |
| Within populations | 131 | 4.47*** | 523 | 22.65*** |
| Lineage A | ||||
| Among populations | 17 | 36.90* | 17 | 5.76 |
| Within populations | 25 | 63.10*** | 84 | 94.24*** |
| Lineage B | ||||
| Among populations | 62 | 38.35*** | 62 | 40.01*** |
| Within populations | 106 | 61.65*** | 439 | 59.99*** |
| Lineage B | ||||
| Among regions | 2 | 0.79 | 2 | 12.79*** |
| Among populations within regions | 60 | 37.75*** | 60 | 30.37*** |
| Within populations | 106 | 61.46*** | 439 | 56.84*** |
Note: * P < 0.05, *** P < 0.001
Summary of mismatch distribution parameters and neutrality test for two lineages of Hippuris vulgaris
| SSD |
|
|
| Fu’s |
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lineage A | 0.257 | 0.001 | 0.235 | 0.983 | 2.108 | 0.832 | 0.053 | 0.069 |
| Lineage B | 0.053 | 0.067 | 0.457 | 0.572 | 6.791 | 0.949 | 0.019 | 0.104 |
Fig. 3Potential distributions as probability of occurrence for Hippuris vulgaris in China mapped using ArcGIS. a Potential distributions at the present for lineage A. b Potential distributions at the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) for lineage A. c Potential distributions at the present for lineage B. d Potential distributions at the LGM for lineage B