| Literature DB >> 29151883 |
Jing Wang1, Bin Ai1, Hanghui Kong1, Ming Kang1,2.
Abstract
Limestone karsts in southern China are characterized by high edaphic and topographic heterogeneity and host high levels of species richness and endemism. However, the evolutionary mechanisms for generating such biodiversity remain poorly understood. Here, we performed species delimitation, population genetic analyses, simulations of gene flow and analyses of floral morphological traits to infer the geographic history of speciation in a species complex of Primulina eburnea from limestone karsts of southern China. Using Bayesian species delimitation, we determined that there are seven distinct species that correspond well to the putative morphological species. Species tree reconstruction, Structure and Neighbor-Net analyses all recovered four lineages in agreement with currently species geographic boundaries. High levels of genetic differentiation were observed both within and among species. Isolation-migration coalescent analysis provides evidence for significant but low gene flow among species. Approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) analysis supports a scenario of historical gene flow rather than recent contemporary gene flow for most species divergences. Finally, we found no evidence of divergent selection contributing to population differentiation of a suite of flower traits. These results support the prevalence of allopatric speciation and highlight the role of geographic isolation in the diversification process. At small geographic scales, limited hybridization occurred in the past between proximate populations but did not eliminate species boundaries. We conclude that limited gene flow might have been the predominant evolutionary force in promoting population differentiation and speciation.Entities:
Keywords: Primulina eburnea; allopatric speciation; biodiversity hot spots; gene flow; genetic drift; species delimitation
Year: 2017 PMID: 29151883 PMCID: PMC5680421 DOI: 10.1111/eva.12495
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evol Appl ISSN: 1752-4571 Impact factor: 5.183
Figure 1Map of the collection sites of the Primulina eburnea complex. Populations are color coded by species. Numbered localities correspond to population number listed in Table S1. Study region indicated by a rectangle in the lower right corner
Figure 2Four scenarios of gene flow (indicated by shading) simulated under the neutral coalescent and evaluated using approximate Bayesian computation from the four lineages among EubW, EX, Lut and PAS (four‐species model); three species among Pol, Alu and Sui (three‐species model) and two species between EbuE and Xiz (two‐species model). Lineage and species abbreviations are defined in Table 1
Summary statistics of polymorphism for the seven taxa based on six single‐copy nuclear genes and 414 SNP loci
| Lineage abbreviation | Species abbreviation | Species | nDNA | SNP | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| π |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| EbuW | EbuW |
| 72 | 47 | 30 | .891 | .0066 | 115 | 75.4 | 1.8 | 1.3 | .128 | .158 |
| Lut | Lut |
| 30 | 19 | 13 | .847 | .0038 | 50 | 73.9 | 1.7 | 1.4 | .206 | .236 |
| PAS | Pol |
| 18 | 27 | 11 | .898 | .0051 | 25 | 53.1 | 1.5 | 1.3 | .215 | .160 |
| Alu |
| 24 | 25 | 15 | .935 | .0066 | 47 | 61.8 | 1.6 | 1.3 | .176 | .170 | |
| Sui |
| 13 | 9 | 7 | .859 | .0028 | 18 | 48.3 | 1.5 | 1.3 | .214 | .156 | |
| EX | EbuE |
| 67 | 45 | 35 | .923 | .0059 | 104 | 90.1 | 1.9 | 1.4 | .196 | .256 |
| Xiz |
| 23 | 12 | 6 | .617 | .0027 | 25 | 45. 9 | 1.5 | 1.2 | .113 | .096 | |
n, number of individuals; S, number of segregating sites; h, number of haplotypes; H d, haplotype diversity; π, nucleotide diversity; PPL, percentage of polymorphic SNP loci; A, number of alleles; A , effective number of alleles; H O, observed heterozygosity; H E, expected heterozygosity.
Figure 5Neighbor‐Net network showing genetic relatedness based on uncorrected p‐distances from six single‐copy nuclear loci (a) and 414 SNP markers (b). Individuals are colored by species. Four lineages are indicated: EbuW, EX, Lut and PAS
Results of the analyses of molecular variance (AMOVA) based on nuclear DNA sequence (nDNA) and SNP datasets
| Source of variation | nDNA | SNP | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| d.f. | Percentage of variation | d.f. | Percentage of variation | |
| All populations | ||||
| Among populations | 37 | 68.0 | 42 | 59.1 |
| Within populations | 209 | 32.0 | 725 | 40.9 |
| Four lineages | ||||
| Among clades | 3 | 28.5 | 3 | 43.5 |
| Among populations within clades | 34 | 41.9 | 39 | 20.1 |
| Within populations | 209 | 29.6 | 725 | 36.4 |
| Seven species | ||||
| Among species | 6 | 63.2 | 6 | 43.6 |
| Among populations within species | 31 | 8.3 | 36 | 18.8 |
| Within populations | 209 | 28.5 | 725 | 37.6 |
p < .0001; p values were estimated based on a permutation test (1,000 randomizations).
Summary of the pairwise F ST values among Primulina species based on six single‐copy nuclear genes (upper triangular) and 414 SNPs (lower triangular)
| EbuW | EbuE | Lut | Pol | Alu | Sui | Xiz | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EbuW | .495 | .578 | .531 | .528 | .555 | .570 | |
| EbuE | .528 | .611 | .545 | .531 | .560 | .365 | |
| Lut | .439 | .559 | .711 | .624 | .710 | .751 | |
| Pol | .387 | .393 | .414 | .417 | .513 | .702 | |
| Alu | .369 | .403 | .419 | .115 | .204 | .646 | |
| Sui | .403 | .376 | .420 | .091 | .070 | .739 | |
| Xiz | .602 | .272 | .622 | .549 | .516 | .541 |
All F ST values are significant (p < .001). Species abbreviations are given in Table 1.
Figure 3Estimated species trees from six single‐copy nuclear loci using the framework of the multispecies coalescent algorithm implemented in *beast: (a) DensiTree visualization of consensus; (b) consensus tree. Posterior probabilities are given at each node. The four recovered lineages were defined as Lut, EbuW, EX and PAS
Figure 4(a) Phylogenetic tree of the 38 populations based on six single‐copy nuclear loci with posterior probabilities >50 indicated on the nodes. The out‐group was trimmed. Populations are color coded by species, and the four lineages are indicated: EbuW, EX, Lut and PAS; (b) Bayesian assignment of 247 individuals using structure with K = 2, 5 and 8. Each individual is represented by a vertical bar and grouped by population and species. Population names correspond to Table S1
Summary of Bayes factor delimitation of species (BFD) analyses
| Model | Path sampling | Stepping stone sampling | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood | BF | Likelihood | BF | |
| Seven‐species | −35,858 | 0 | −39,888 | 0 |
| Six‐species (a) | −43,380 | 15,044 | −52,385 | 24,994 |
| Six‐species (b) | −38,432 | 5,148 | −44,575 | 9,374 |
| Five‐species | −38,701 | 5,686 | −42,499 | 5,222 |
| Four‐species | −39,464 | 7,212 | −44,996 | 10,216 |
Bayes factor (BF) values represent two times the difference in marginal likelihood estimates between each model and the best‐fit model (“seven‐species”).
Seven‐species: P. eburnea (west), P. eburnea (east), P. xiziae, P. lutea, P. polycephala, P. alutacea, P. suichuanensis; six‐species (a): [P. eburnea (west)+ P. eburnea (east)], P. xiziae, P. lutea, P. polycephala, P. alutacea, P. suichuanensis; six‐species (b): P. eburnea (west), [P. eburnea (east) + P. xiziae], P. lutea, P. polycephala, P. alutacea, P. suichuanensis; five‐species: P. eburnea (west), P. eburnea (east), P. xiziae, P. lutea, (P. polycephala + P. alutacea + P. suichuanensis); and four‐species: P. eburnea (west), [P. eburnea (east) + P. xiziae], P. lutea, (P. polycephala + P. alutacea + P. suichuanensis).
Maximum likelihood estimates of population migration rate (2N x M x>y) with the isolation–migration (IMa2) analyses
| Species pair (species 0 and species 1) | 2 | 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Among four lineages | ||
| EbuW and PAS | .002 (0, .245) | .067 |
| EbuW and Lut | .004 (0, .165) | .037 |
| EbuW and EX | .049 | .002 (0, .130) |
| PAS and Lut | .003 (0, .181) | .003 (0, .155) |
| PAS and EX | .055 | .072 |
| Lut and EX | .002 (0, .124) | .077 |
| Among Pol, Alu and Sui | ||
| Pol and Alu | .260 (0, 1.070) | .168 (0, .744) |
| Pol and Sui | .002 (0, .362) | .001 (0, .240) |
| Alu and Sui | .005 (0, .487) | .004 (0, .550) |
| Between EubE and Xiz | ||
| EbuE and Xiz | .096 (0, .446) | .088 |
Values between parentheses represent the range of 95% highest posterior densities of migration rate. 2N x M x>y: the population migration rate from population y to population x. *p < .05 and ** p < .01 are statistical significance of likelihood ratio test. Lineage and species abbreviations are defined in Table 1.
Summary results of gene flow model selection based on posterior probabilities under the rejection method using F ST
| Model | Zero | Historical | Constant | Recent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Lut, (EbuW, (EX, PAS)) | 0 |
| .282 | 0 |
| (Pol, (Alu, Sui)) | 0 |
| .258 | 0 |
| (EbuE, Xiz) | 0 | .494 |
| 0 |
The four models of gene flow are illustrated in Figure 2. The model with the highest posterior probability is in bold. Lineage and species abbreviations are defined in Table 1.
Mean values and standard errors (in parentheses) of the genealogical sorting index (gsi) for both empirical and simulated datasets for the four scenarios modeled (see Figure 2)
| Species | Empirical | Simulation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zero | Historical | Constant | Recent | ||
| EbuW | 1 | .92 (.05) | .91 (.06) | .38 (.04) | .38 (.04) |
| EbuE | .95 | .93 (.04) | .92 (.05) | .40 (.05) | .40 (.05) |
| Lut | 1 | .97 (.05) | .88 (.09) | .31 (.04) | .31 (.04) |
| Pol | 1 | .81 (.14) | .81 (.14) | .25 (.04) | .25 (.04) |
| Alu | .84 | .82 (.10) | .82 (.11) | .29 (.04) | .29 (.04) |
| Sui | .92 | .75 (.15) | .75 (.15) | .23 (.04) | .23 (.04) |
| Xiz | 1 | .88 (.11) | .87 (.11) | .28 (.04) | .28 (.04) |
See Table 1 for species abbreviations.
Figure 6Comparison of and values and their 95% confidence intervals. values were calculated from two principal components for the five flower traits. The analyses were performed on three separate datasets: EbuW, EbuE and PAS