| Literature DB >> 28028460 |
Pilar Suárez-Montes1, Mariana Chávez-Pesqueira1, Juan Núñez-Farfán1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Theory predicts that habitat fragmentation, by reducing population size and increasing isolation among remnant populations, can alter their genetic diversity and structure. A cascade of effects is expected: genetic drift and inbreeding after a population bottleneck, changes in biotic interactions that may affect, as in the case of plants, pollen dynamics, mating system, reproductive success. The detection of the effects of contemporary habitat fragmentation on the genetic structure of populations are conditioned by the magnitude of change, given the few number of generations since the onset of fragmentation, especially for long-lived organisms. However, the present-day genetic structure of populations may bear the signature of past demography events. Here, we examine the effects of rainforest fragmentation on the genetic diversity, population structure, mating system (outcrossing rate), indirect gene flow and contemporary pollen dynamics in the understory herb Aphelandra aurantiaca. Also, we assessed its present-day genetic structure under different past demographic scenarios.Entities:
Keywords: Aphelandra aurantiaca; Gene flow; Habitat fragmentation; Los Tuxtlas; Mating system; Outcrossing rate; Population expansion; Tropical rainforest
Year: 2016 PMID: 28028460 PMCID: PMC5183091 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.2764
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 3.061
Figure 1Populations of Aphelandra aurantiaca sampled for genetic analyses at Los Tuxtlas rainforest.
Colors represent fragment size classes: blue (small), red (medium), green (large). Names of populations as in Table 1.
Genetic diversity of twelve populations of Aphelandra aurantiaca at the Los Tuxtlas tropical rainforest.
| Size | Fragments | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Small | 1 SM | 8 | 5.72 (2.10) | 0.25(0.35) | 0.57 (0.12) | 0.66 (0.12) | 0.134 (0.034, 0.201) | 68.2 |
| 2 SM | 5 | 5.72 (1.79) | 0.25(0.32) | 0.63 (0.21) | 0.63 (0.16) | −0.012 (−0.110, 0.047) | 131.6 | |
| 3 SM | 8 | 4.45 (1.96) | 0.20(0.35) | 0.38 (0.24) | 0.54 (0.21) | 0.290 (0.154, 0.361) | 19.2 | |
| 4 SM | 4 | 5.54 (2.54) | 0.18(0.20) | 0.59 (0.19) | 0.61 (0.17) | 0.038 (−0.051, 0.092) | 70.1 | |
| 5 SM | 5 | 5.09 (1.57) | 0.14(0.20) | 0.64 (0.21) | 0.63 (0.14) | −0.012 (−0.105, 0.045) | 30.6 | |
| Total small | 9.0 (3.39) | 0.74(0.48) | 0.57 (0.16) | 0.65 (0.11) | 0.114 (0.071, 0.150) | 119.2 (86.4–176.1) | ||
| Medium | 6 Med | 17 | 6.63 (2.94) | 0.27(0.25) | 0.50 (0.14) | 0.64 (0.13) | 0.217 (0.094, 0.312) | 35.7 |
| 7 Med | 120 | 5.45(3.44) | 0.23(0.33) | 0.52 (0.24) | 0.56 (0.17) | 0.076 (−0.050, 0.176) | 69.9 | |
| 8 Med | 35 | 5.81 (3.86) | 0.21(0.47) | 0.66 (0.19) | 0.63 (0.15) | −0.045 (−0.136, 0.014) | 39.4 | |
| Total medium | 8.72 (5.98) | 0.65(0.65) | 0.56 (0.16) | 0.63 (0.15) | 0.109 (0.045, 0.16) | 146.7 (89.1–326.3) | ||
| Large | 9 Lrg | 640 | 6.27 (2.86) | 0.22(0.25) | 0.611 (0.18) | 0.64 (0.16) | 0.047 (−0.032, 0.101) | infinite |
| 10 Lrg | 640 | 6.27 (2.32) | 0.26(0.28) | 0.55 (0.18) | 0.59 (0.12) | 0.068 (−0.031, 0.138) | 510.1 | |
| 11 Lrg | 640 | 4.81 (1.47) | 0.14(0.25) | 0.64 (0.19) | 0.60 (0.15) | −0.066 (−0.176, 0.014) | 24.7 | |
| 12 Lrg | 640 | 5.09 (2.16) | 0.16(0.15) | 0.53 (0.22) | 0.56 (0.19) | 0.060 (−0.060, 0.144) | 31.4 | |
| Total large | 8.54 (4.32) | 0.60(0.43) | 0.59 (0.16) | 0.622 (0.14) | 0.051 (0.005, 0.089) | 205.7 (123–480.6) | ||
Notes.
hectares by fragment
number of alleles per locus
private allelic richness
observed heterozygosity
expected heterozygosity
inbreeding
effective population size
standard deviation
95% confidence interval. Total values for each category of fragment size are provided
Mating system and pollen structure parameters of Aphelandra aurantiaca from Los Tuxtlas.
| Fragment size: | Medium | Large | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population: | 6 Med | 7 Med | 9 Lrg | 11 Lrg |
| Density/m2 | 1.6 | 0.20 | 0.18 | 0.18 |
| 11 | 6 | 10 | 6 | |
| 91 | 56 | 75 | 32 | |
| 0.13 (0.11) | −0.20 (0.01) | 0.10 (0.11) | 0.09 (0.09) (0.03, 0.12) | |
| (0.06, 0.19) | (−0.22, −0.18) | (0.04, 0.13) | (0.03, 0.12) | |
| 0.13 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.04 | |
| (0.05, 0.2) | (−0.04, 0.1) | (−0.05, 0.1) | (−0.09, 0.14) | |
| 0.86 (0.06) | 0.90 (0.05) | 0.67 (0.11) | 1.0 (0.09) | |
| (0.80, 0.93) | (0.87, 0.92) | (0.63, 0.73) | (0.89, 1.0) | |
| 0.71 (0.07) | 0.85 (0.06) | 0.65 (0.13) | 0.77 (0.11) | |
| (0.60, 0.76) | (0.78, 1.0) | (0.61, 0.68) | (0.63, 0.86) | |
| 0.15 (0.05) | 0.04 (0.05) | 0.02 (0.03) | 0.24 (0.14) | |
| (−0.05, 0.2) | (−0.05, 0.1) | (−0.04, 0.09) | (−0.02, 0.52) | |
| Correlation paternity | Φ | Φ | Φ | Φ |
| 0.30 | 0.10 | 0.16 | 0.26 | |
| Effective pollen donors: | 1.00 | 2.88 | 2.57 | 1.23 |
| Genetic Neighborhood: | 0.62 | 14.4 | 14.30 | 6.85 |
| Pollen distance | 0.41 | 1.09 | 1.08 | 1.04 |
Notes.
inbreeding of progeny (estimated in GENETIX) and inbreeding coefficient of maternal parents (estimated in MLTR)
multilocus outcrossing rate
single-locus outcrossing rate
biparental inbreeding
standard deviation 95% bootstrap confidence interval (B.C.I) and parametric confidence interval (P.C.I.)
Correlation of paternity corrected by inbreeding and selfing rate
p < 0.05.
Figure 2Genetic network obtained from Population Graph for Aphelandra aurantiaca populations at Los Tuxtlas.
The differences in node (circles) size reflect differences in genetic variability within populations. Edge length (lines connecting nodes) represents the among population component of genetic variation. The figure shows normal edges whose length is proportional to that expected under a model of isolation by distance (thin black lines); extended edges (yellow) indicate long distance dispersal events, and compressed edges (thick black lines) indicate reduced gene permeability of the landscape.
Gene flow estimates for Aphelandra aurantiaca between small, medium, and large fragments.
| Pair fragmented populations | BayesAss | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | Based on | Short-term gene flow |
| Small | Medium | 152 | 0.0459 (0.016–0.075) |
| Large | 38.5 | 0.0408 (0.011–0.070) | |
| Medium | Small | 152 | 0.0042 (−0.0014–0.009) |
| Large | 37.2 | 0.0149 (0.003–0.026) | |
| Large | Small | 35.5 | 0.2069 (0.175–0.238) |
| Medium | 37.2 | 0.2672 (0.235–0.299) | |
Notes.
Migration rate (m) estimated using BayesAss v 3.0 (Wilson & Rannala, 2003) for paired fragment sizes (small, medium, and large). Where m [1][0] is the fraction of individuals in population 0 that are migrants from population 1.
Indirect measures of gene flow (Nm) for each paired fragment size were calculated with the formula of Wright (1951): .