| Literature DB >> 27252835 |
Richard S Dodd1, Rainbow DeSilva1.
Abstract
Mediterranean ecosystems comprise a high proportion of endemic taxa whose response to climate change will depend on their evolutionary origins. In the California flora, relatively little attention has been given to the evolutionary history of paleoendemics from a molecular perspective, yet they number among some of the world's most iconic plant species. Here, we address questions of demographic change in Sequoiadendron giganteum (giant sequoia) that is restricted to a narrow belt of groves in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. We ask whether the current distribution is a result of northward colonization since the last glacial maximum (LGM), restriction of a broader range in the recent past (LGM) or independent colonizations in the deeper past. Genetic diversity at eleven microsatellite loci decreased with increasing latitude, but partial regressions suggested this was a function of smaller population sizes in the north. Disjunct populations north of the Kings River were divergent from those south of the Kings River that formed a single cluster in Bayesian assignment tests. Demographic inferences supported a demographic contraction just prior to the LGM as the most likely scenario for the current disjunct range of the species. This contraction appeared to be superimposed upon a long-term decline in giant sequoia over the last 2 million years, associated with increasing aridity due to the Mediterranean climate. Overall, low genetic diversity, together with competition in an environment to which giant sequoia is likely already poorly adapted, will pose major constraints on its success in the face of increasing aridity.Entities:
Keywords: Demographic change; Pleistocene; Sierra Nevada; genetic structure; giant sequoia; population decline
Year: 2016 PMID: 27252835 PMCID: PMC4870217 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.2122
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1“The Sentinel” giant sequoia in Giant Forest, Kings Canyon National Park.
Figure 2Distribution of giant sequoia groves in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California. Northern and southern groves shown in separate topographic images. Red shapes denote extant groves, with sampled locations appearing as named groves.
Sample locations and mean genetic parameters for giant sequoia
| Grove | Lat | Long | Grove area (ha) |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placer | 39.057 | −120.574 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 2.08 | 0.29 | 0.25 |
| N Calaveras | 38.279 | −120.302 | 24 | 8 | 29 | 3.34 | 0.58 | 0.50 |
| S Calaveras | 38.247 | −120.240 | 184 | 8 | 21 | 3.57 | 0.63 | 0.53 |
| Tuolomne | 37.769 | −119.807 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 2.65 | 0.53 | 0.32 |
| Merced | 37.750 | −119.839 | 8 | 2 | 8 | 3.05 | 0.55 | 0.56 |
| Mariposa | 37.509 | −119.604 | 101 | 5 | 15 | 3.52 | 0.654 | 0.51 |
| Nelder | 37.435 | −119.590 | 195 | 8 | 29 | 3.73 | 0.696 | 0.58 |
| McKinley | 37.023 | −119.105 | 22 | 7 | 19 | 3.31 | 0.570 | 0.57 |
| Cabin Creek | 36.806 | −118.941 | 40 | 7 | 21 | 3.40 | 0.619 | 0.55 |
| Converse Basin | 36.809 | −118.977 | 1498 | 10 | 21 | 3.71 | 0.673 | 0.63 |
| Lockwood | 36.793 | −118.841 | 40 | 4 | 10 | 3.52 | 0.622 | 0.55 |
| Windy Gulch | 36.766 | −118.811 | 405 | 3 | 13 | 4.07 | 0.683 | 0.61 |
| Grant | 36.750 | −118.984 | 130 | 2 | 2 | – | – | 0.55 |
| Redwood Mtn | 36.694 | −118.916 | 1271 | 7 | 17 | 3.48 | 0.593 | 0.52 |
| Giant Forest | 36.565 | −118.752 | 855 | 5 | 17 | 3.72 | 0.637 | 0.57 |
| Atwell Mill | 36.468 | −118.674 | 383 | 7 | 18 | 3.70 | 0.631 | 0.60 |
| Mountain Home | 36.358 | −118.706 | 97 | 4 | 8 | 3.70 | 0.624 | 0.57 |
| Black Mtn 1 | 36.230 | −118.681 | 1620 | 4 | 17 | 3.68 | 0.623 | 0.54 |
| Black Mtn 2 | 36.140 | −118.513 | 498 | 6 | 30 | 3.63 | 0.622 | 0.49 |
| Wheel Meadow | 36.118 | −118.679 | 669 | 9 | 13 | 3.83 | 0.650 | 0.60 |
| Packsaddle | 36.102 | −118.649 | 669 | 5 | 16 | 2.94 | 0.555 | 0.47 |
| South Fork | 35.929 | −118.592 | 137 | 5 | 12 | 4.00 | 0.653 | 0.64 |
| Deer Creek | 35.872 | −118.609 | 21 | 4 | 5 | 2.82 | 0.520 | 0.33 |
Numbers of families sampled per grove (F), number of individuals sampled per grove (N), allelic diversity (A R) adjusted to sample size 5, expected heterozygosity (H E), observed heterozygosity (H O).
Sample size too small for estimate.
Figure 3(A) Evolutionary scenarios used in DIYABC. From left to right: 1. sequential colonization northward; 2. mass colonization of northern groves from southern groves; 3. divergence following range reduction during the Pleistocene; and 4. ancient independent colonizations from the eastern Sierra Nevada. All colonization events were followed by a bottleneck shown as thin line. t col1: time of first colonization northward for the sequential scenario and for all northern colonizations for the mass colonization model; t div1: divergence time for scenario 3 Pleistocene divergence; t div2: divergence time for scenario 4 ancient colonization; t anc: time of ancestral change in population size. (B) Output from STRUCTURE (Pritchard et al. 2000) showing individual assignments to clusters. Figure produced using DISTRUCT (Rosenberg 2004).
Posterior parameter estimates from DIYABC computations assuming a mean generation time of 305 years
| Parameter | Median | 95% CI | RMAE |
|---|---|---|---|
| N1 | 5380 | 1460–9720 | 0.223 |
| N2 | 480 | 176–684 | 0.208 |
| N3 | 284 | 120–938 | 0.198 |
| N4 | 592 | 327–694 | 0.189 |
| N5 | 329 | 91–664 | 0.194 |
|
| 1870 | 589–6640 | 0.281 |
|
| 23,000 | 2380–92,900 | 0.345 |
|
| 68.3 (20.8) | 22–174 (6.7–53.1) | 0.219 |
|
| 7610 (2321) | 1840–9910 (561–3023) | 0.370 |
N1: effective population size of southern groves; N2: effective population size of McKinley grove; N3: effective population size of Mariposa and Nelder groves; N4: effective population size of Tuolumne and Merced groves; N5: effective population size of North and South Calaveras groves; N div: effective size of population prior to divergence; N anc: effective population size of ancestral population prior to decline; t d: time since divergence; t anc: time since decline.