| Literature DB >> 29876058 |
Maren Wellenreuther1,2, Jesús Muñoz3, Jesús R Chávez-Ríos4, Bengt Hansson1, Adolfo Cordero-Rivera5, Rosa A Sánchez-Guillén1,6.
Abstract
Many species are currently changing their distributions and subsequently form sympatric zones with hybridization between formerly allopatric species as one possible consequence. The damselfly Ischnura elegans has recently expanded south into the range of its ecologically and morphologically similar sister species Ischnura graellsii. Molecular work shows ongoing introgression between these species, but the extent to which this species mixing is modulated by ecological niche use is not known. Here, we (1) conduct a detailed population genetic analysis based on molecular markers and (2) model the ecological niche use of both species in allopatric and sympatric regions. Population genetic analyses showed chronic introgression between I. elegans and I. graellsii across a wide part of Spain, and admixture analysis corroborated this, showing that the majority of I. elegans from the sympatric zone could not be assigned to either the I. elegans or I. graellsii species cluster. Niche modeling demonstrated that I. elegans has modified its environmental niche following hybridization and genetic introgression with I. graellsii, making niche space of introgressed I. elegans populations more similar to I. graellsii. Taken together, this corroborates the view that adaptive introgression has moved genes from I. graellsii into I. elegans and that this process is enabling Spanish I. elegans to occupy a novel niche, further facilitating its expansion. Our results add to the growing evidence that hybridization can play an important and creative role in the adaptive evolution of animals.Entities:
Keywords: Ischnura elegans; hybrid zones; introgression; niche shift; range expansion
Year: 2018 PMID: 29876058 PMCID: PMC5980427 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.4024
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Map of sampled populations. Diamonds denote allopatric Ischnura elegans; squares sympatric, introgressed I. elegans; upside triangles allopatric Ischnura graellsii; and downside triangles: I. graellsii sympatric with I. elegans. Solid symbols correspond to populations sampled for molecular analyses
Population and country names that were included in the microsatellite work. Species are denoted as Ie for I. elegans, and Ig for I. graellsii. For each population, the sampling year (Year), Ecology (sympatric or allopatric), number of individual samples (N), number of alleles observed across all loci (Alleles#), the observed heterozygosity (H O), and expected heterozygosity (H e) are given
| Population | Species | Year | Ecology |
| Alleles# |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allopatric populations | ||||||||
| Kaiserslautern | Germany | Ie | 2009 | Allopatric | 18 | 100 | 0.72 | 0.76 |
| Gran Sasso | Italy | Ie | 2008 | Allopatric | 19 | 97 | 0.57 | 0.71 |
| Liverpool | UK | Ie | 2008 | Allopatric | 15 | 76 | 0.65 | 0.70 |
| Córdoba | Spain | Ig | 2008 | Allopatric | 13 | 43 | 0.68 | 0.52 |
| Ribeira de Cobres | Portugal | Ig | 2008 | Allopatric | 16 | 52 | 0.63 | 0.55 |
| Parapatric populations | ||||||||
| Vigueirat | France | Ie | 2008 | Allopatric | 17 | 86 | 0.62 | 0.71 |
| Menorca | Spain | Ie | 2008 | Allopatric | 7 | 32 | 0.33 | 0.40 |
| Introgressed populations | ||||||||
| Doniños | Spain | Ie | 2007 | Sympatry (introgressed) | 20 | 79 | 0.63 | 0.68 |
| Arreo | Spain | Ie | 2008 | Sympatry (introgressed) | 17 | 112 | 0.67 | 0.74 |
| Baldajo | Spain | Ie | 2008 | Sympatry (introgressed) | 19 | 96 | 0.57 | 0.74 |
| Alfaro | Spain | Ie | 2008 | Sympatry (introgressed) | 20 | 105 | 0.64 | 0.73 |
| Europa | Spain | Ie | 2008 | Sympatry (introgressed) | 20 | 90 | 0.68 | 0.75 |
| Amposta | Spain | Ie | 2008 | Sympatry (introgressed) | 20 | 107 | 0.66 | 0.74 |
| Marjal del Moro | Spain | Ie | 2008 | Sympatry (introgressed) | 20 | 93 | 0.68 | 0.72 |
Differentiation between I. elegans populations with Weir and Cockerham's F ST shown in (A) and Jost's DEST in (B) in the lower diagonal with the blue and yellow shading indicating the F ST and DEST values (high values are yellow shaded, and low values have dark blue shading). The upper diagonal shows the ±95% confidence intervals. Populations are denoted by numbers (1 = Kaiserslautern, 2 = Gran Sasso, 3 = Liverpool, 4 = Vigueirat, 5 = Menorca, 6 = Doniños, 7 = Arreo, 8 = Baldajo, 9 = Alfaro, 10 = Estanyo de Europa, 11 = Amposta and 12 = Marjal del Moro, 13 = Córdoba and 14 = Ribeira de Cobres). Populations are colored according to their ecology, with all allopatric I. elegans populations in orange, the introgressed I. elegans populations in dark gray, and the two I. graellsii populations in green
Figure 2Admixture analysis in structure. Panel A shows the estimated admixture proportion of each individual (±90% credible intervals) to the Ischnura elegans cluster. Each individual is represented by a single vertical line broken into two segments which are proportional to the estimated membership to each of the two genetic clusters [Q1 for I. elegans (black), and Q2 for Ischnura graellsii (gray)]. The A panel represents 237 genotypes of three allopatric (Liverpool, Kaiserslautern, and Gran Sasso, respectively), two parapatric (Vigueirat and Menorca), seven sympatric I. elegans populations (Estanyo de Europa, Amposta, Marjal del Moro, Arreo, Alfaro, Doniños, and Baldajo), and two allopatric I. graellsii populations (Ribeira de Cobres and Córdoba). Panel B represents admixture proportions for the 350 artificial hybrids generated with the program hybrid‐lab [first‐generation hybrid (F1; i.e., I. graellsii × I. elegans), first backcross with I. elegans (1EB; i.e., F1 × I. elegans), first backcross with I. graellsii (1GB; F1 × I. graellsii), second backcross with I. elegans (2EB; 1EB × I. elegans), third backcross with I. elegans (3EB; 2EB × I. elegans), and forth backcross with I. elegans (4EB; 3EB × I. elegans)]. Panel C represents individual admixture proportions (±90% credible intervals) of two parapatric populations, seven sympatric I. elegans populations, followed by the three allopatric I. elegans populations, and the two allopatric I. graellsii populations
Summary of the results from the K = 2 admixture models in structure for I. elegans and I. graellsii showing the number of individuals per population assigned to different admixture proportion categories (based on individual assignment to the red cluster in Figure 2)
| Population origin |
| Species | ≥75 | (74–56) | (55–50) | (49–26) | ≤25 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allopatric populations | |||||||
| Germany, Italy and UK | 52 | Ie | 38 | 14 | |||
| Spain and Portugal | 29 | Ig | 8 | 21 | |||
| Parapatric populations | |||||||
| Vigueirat | 16 | Ie | 12 | 3 | 1 | ||
| Menorca | 8 | Ie | 1 | 4 | 2 | 1 | |
| Introgressed populations | |||||||
| Doniños | 20 | Ie | 3 | 17 | |||
| Arreo | 17 | Ie | 3 | 14 | |||
| Baldajo | 19 | Ie | 1 | 15 | 1 | 2 | |
| Alfaro | 20 | Ie | 4 | 12 | 2 | 2 | |
| Estanyo de Europa | 18 | Ie | 14 | 2 | 2 | ||
| Amposta | 20 | Ie | 1 | 18 | 1 | ||
| Marjal del Moro | 18 | Ie | 12 | 6 | |||
Summary of the results from the admixture models in STRUCTURE for artificial hybrids and backcrosses: first‐generation hybrid (F1; i.e., I. graellsii × I. elegans), first backcross with I. elegans (1EB; i.e., F1 × I. elegans), first backcross with I. graellsii (1GB; F1 × I. graellsii), second backcross with I. elegans (2EB; 1EB × I. elegans), third backcross with I. elegans (3EB; 2EB × I. elegans)
| Type of crosses |
| ≥75 | (74–56) | (55–50) | (49–26) | ≤25 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | 50 | 0 | 17 | 24 | 9 | 0 |
| 1GB | 50 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 47 | 0 |
| 2GB | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 49 | 1 |
| 3GB | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 40 | 10 |
| 1EB | 50 | 4 | 42 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| 2EB | 50 | 27 | 23 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3EB | 50 | 42 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Summary of niche identity and background similarity tests. “Divergence” indicates that the compared populations show significant divergence (overlap is less than expected), while “Conservatism” indicates niche conservatism (overlap values are more similar than expected). “**” indicates a significant (p < .01?), and “n.s.” no significant, difference between expected and observed overlap
|
|
| Schoener's | Modified Hellinger | Niche D/I |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Niche identity test | ||||
|
|
| 0.398** | 0.679** | Not identical/not identical |
|
|
| 0.508** | 0.793** | Not identical/not identical |
|
|
| 0.291** | 0.564** | Not identical/not identical |
|
|
| 0.499** | 0.767** | Not identical/not identical |
|
|
| 0.593** | 0.844** | Not identical/not identical |
|
|
| 0.733** | 0.935** | Not identical/not identical |
Figure 3Niche analyses. Results of background similarity test, showing modified Hellinger distance I. The observed similarity between niches is indicated with the red lines with Hellinger values on top, while histograms indicate the null distribution of ecological niche distance generated randomly. Hellinger distance I ranges from 0 (complete different) to 1 (identical). (a) Map of compared region niches (I. elegans from allopatry, I. elegans from sympatry, I. graellsii from allopatry, and I. graellsii from sympatry). Black unequal symbol indicates that niches are more different that by change; gray equal symbols indicate no differences between niches, and white equal symbol indicates that niches are more equal than by change. (b–d) The observed similarities were lower than their respective null distribution for random niche models. (e and f) The observed similarities were similar that their respective null distribution for random niche models. (g) The observed similarities were higher than their respective null distribution for random niche models