| Literature DB >> 28811880 |
Qian-Jin Cao1, Fang-Fang Mei1, Ling Wang1.
Abstract
Many aquatic plant species are distributed over large areas and diverse environments with populations interconnected by abiotic and biotic mediators. Here, we examined differences and similarities in the population genetic structure of six sympatric and widespread aquatic plant species. We sampled the aquatic species from six Chinese lakes found on plateaus, plains, and different river systems and analyzed them using inter-simple sequence repeat (ISSR) markers. Samples originating from each lake tended to cluster together. Of the six species, only Nymphoides peltata and Myriophyllum spicatum could be divided into plateau and plain groups, once Taihu Lake individuals were excluded. Genetic similarities between populations connected by the Yangtze River were not consistently higher than unconnected populations. Populations from Taihu Lake and/or Weishanhu Lake were distant from other lake populations for all species except Potamogeton lucens. The Taihu and Weishanhu populations clustered for Ceratophyllum demersum and Typha latifolia. Hydrophilous C. demersum had the lowest gene flow (Nm = 0.913), whereas the entomophilous Hydrocharis dubia (Nm = 2.084) and N. peltata (Nm = 2.204) had the highest gene flow. The genetic relationships among distant populations of aquatic plants reflect the comprehensive effects of environmental selection pressure and biotic and abiotic connectivity. Differences in environmental factors between plateau and plain lakes and long distance hydrochory have limited importance on aquatic plant genetic structures. Among multiple evolutionary forces, gene flow mediated by birds may play the most important role in the formation of genetic patterns in the six species examined. For example, the close genetic relationship between Taihu Lake and Weishanhu Lake populations, each in different river systems and with different climates, may be related to the migration routes of birds. Differences in gene flow among the six aquatic plants may be attributable to different bird-transport and the fruit traits of each species.Entities:
Keywords: bird‐mediated dispersal; environment; gene flow; hydrologic connectivity; plateau lake
Year: 2017 PMID: 28811880 PMCID: PMC5552939 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.3141
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Sampling sites in this study
| Location/Climate | Lake (population) | River system | Latitude (N) | Longitude (E) | Elevation (m) |
| P (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yunnan‐Guizhou Plateau/Subtropical plateau monsoon climate | |||||||
| Weining, Guizhou | Caohai | Yangtze River | 26°50.65′–26°51.25′ | 104°15.09′–104°16.23′ | 2152–2180 | 10.4 | 950.9 |
| Dali, Yunnan | Erhai | Lancang River | 25°37.37′–25°56.59′ | 100°05.90′–100°16.42′ | 1963–1992 | 15.0 | 1056.6 |
| Plain of middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River/Subtropical monsoon climate | |||||||
| Honghu, Hubei | Honghu | Yangtze River | 29°49.11′–29°51.27′ | 113°20.95′–113°23.67′ | 19–28 | 16.6 | 1343.3 |
| Wuhan, Hubei | Liangzihu | Yangtze River | 30°14.56′–30°16.51′ | 114°32.99′–114°38.52′ | 14–28 | 16.8 | 1263.4 |
| Suzhou, Jiangsu | Taihu | Yangtze River | 31°04.82′–31°07.88′ | 120°21.01′–120°23.88′ | 2–7 | 16.0 | 1092.0 |
| North China Plain/Warm temperate monsoon climate | |||||||
| Weishan, Shandong | Weishanhu | Huaihe River | 34°39.70′–34°40.33′ | 117°16.60′–117°17.04′ | 29–42 | 14.2 | 684.0 |
Latitude, longitude, and elevation were recorded when samples were collected.
T, average annual temperature; P, average annual precipitation from Wang and Dou (1998).
Figure 1Map showing locations of the six lake populations sampled in this study
Figure 2Photo of study species in wild populations. Each panel of (a) to (f) exhibits one species. The red arrows denote the focus species
Figure 3Dendrograms based on analysis of the ISSR binary matrix for lake populations of six aquatic plants using Nei's unbiased genetic identity coefficients (Nei, 1978)
Pairwise population matrix of Nei's unbiased genetic identity for six aquatic plant species
| Species | Genetic identity | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Caohai | Erhai | Honghu | Liangzihu | |
| Erhai | 0.964 | ||||
| Honghu | 0.976 | 0.955 | |||
| Liangzihu | 0.946 | 0.941 | 0.964 | ||
| Taihu | 0.854 | 0.820 | 0.860 | 0.855 | |
|
| Caohai | Erhai | Honghu | Liangzihu | Taihu |
| Erhai | 0.884 | ||||
| Honghu | 0.927 | 0.942 | |||
| Liangzihu | 0.950 | 0.865 | 0.906 | ||
| Taihu | 0.791 | 0.873 | 0.848 | 0.770 | |
| Weishanhu | 0.804 | 0.895 | 0.868 | 0.789 | 0.958 |
|
| Caohai | Honghu | Taihu | ||
| Honghu | 0.824 | ||||
| Taihu | 0.842 | 0.966 | |||
| Weishanhu | 0.917 | 0.888 | 0.890 | ||
|
| Erhai | Honghu | |||
| Honghu | 0.923 | ||||
| Weishanhu | 0.911 | 0.890 | |||
|
| Caohai | Erhai | Honghu | Liangzihu | |
| Erhai | 0.981 | ||||
| Honghu | 0.942 | 0.947 | |||
| Liangzihu | 0.967 | 0.973 | 0.971 | ||
| Taihu | 0.928 | 0.941 | 0.925 | 0.949 | |
|
| Caohai | Honghu | Liangzihu | Taihu | |
| Honghu | 0.887 | ||||
| Liangzihu | 0.871 | 0.940 | |||
| Taihu | 0.881 | 0.886 | 0.863 | ||
| Weishanhu | 0.865 | 0.887 | 0.878 | 0.947 | |
Figure 4Scatter plots of the first and second principle components based on the analysis of ISSR binary data for individuals of six aquatic species in different lakes. Each letter denotes an individual (C, Caohai Lake; E, Erhai Lake; H, Honghu Lake; L, Liangzihu Lake; T, Taihu Lake; and W, Weishanhu Lake). Ellipses highlight close relationships among individuals collected from Taihu Lake and/or Weishanhu Lake. Dotted lines suggest the tendency for individuals from Caohai and Erhai Lakes to scatter from those from Honghu and Liangzihu Lakes
Figure 5Estimated genetic structure of lake populations of six species of aquatic plants, inferred by a Markov chain Monte Carlo clustering (STRUCTURE) at the individual level (K = 2). Black lines indicate different population origins. There are no samples in blank spaces
Genetic diversity, differentiation, and gene flow among populations of six aquatic plants
| Species | Number of lake populations |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 5 | 0.243 (0.026) | 0.185 (0.015) | 0.242 | 1.569 |
|
| 6 | 0.262 (0.027) | 0.169 (0.012) | 0.354 | 0.913 |
|
| 4 | 0.249 (0.027) | 0.178 (0.013) | 0.287 | 1.244 |
|
| 3 | 0.262 (0.024) | 0.211 (0.016) | 0.194 | 2.084 |
|
| 5 | 0.189 (0.020) | 0.154 (0.012) | 0.185 | 2.204 |
|
| 5 | 0.242 (0.031) | 0.165 (0.014) | 0.320 | 1.065 |
H T, Total genetic diversity; H S, Mean genetic diversity within lake populations; G ST, Genetic differentiation index among populations; Nm, potential number of migrants per generation.
The values in parentheses are standard deviations.
Analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA)
| Source of variation |
| SSD | CV | % Total |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Among lakes (populations) | 4 | 1314.71 | 8.11 | 28.09 | <.001 |
| Among subpopulations | 26 | 1135.08 | 4.87 | 16.87 | <.001 |
| Within subpopulations | 147 | 2336.67 | 15.90 | 55.04 | <.001 |
| Total | 177 | 4786.46 | 28.88 | ||
|
| |||||
| Among lakes (populations) | 4 | 1177.06 | 7.40 | 32.37 | <.001 |
| Among subpopulations | 25 | 1109.49 | 5.65 | 20.42 | <.001 |
| Within subpopulations | 144 | 1679.58 | 11.66 | 47.21 | <.001 |
| Total | 173 | 3966.13 | 24.71 | ||
|
| |||||
| Among lakes (populations) | 3 | 1276.37 | 12.76 | 36.73 | <.001 |
| Among subpopulations | 16 | 859.92 | 6.58 | 18.95 | <.001 |
| Within subpopulations | 97 | 1493.10 | 15.39 | 44.32 | <.001 |
| Total | 116 | 3629.39 | 34.73 | ||
|
| |||||
| Among lakes (populations) | 2 | 334.96 | 3.90 | 19.29 | <.001 |
| Among subpopulations | 13 | 614.79 | 6.13 | 33.38 | <.001 |
| Within subpopulations | 82 | 800.50 | 9.76 | 47.33 | <.001 |
| Total | 97 | 1750.25 | 19.79 | ||
|
| |||||
| Among lakes (populations) | 4 | 1053.24 | 6.92 | 20.17 | <.001 |
| Among subpopulations | 18 | 1303.45 | 8.53 | 24.87 | <.001 |
| Within subpopulations | 124 | 2337.72 | 18.85 | 54.95 | <.001 |
| Total | 146 | 4694.41 | 34.30 | ||
|
| |||||
| Among lakes (populations) | 4 | 734.20 | 6.42 | 23.26 | <.001 |
| Among subpopulations | 13 | 838.38 | 9.45 | 34.22 | <.001 |
| Within subpopulations | 83 | 974.49 | 11.74 | 42.52 | <.001 |
| Total | 100 | 2547.07 | 27.61 | ||
df, degree of freedom; SSD, sum of squared deviations; CV, variance component estimates; % total, percentage of total variation.