| Literature DB >> 30111882 |
James S Borrell1, Nian Wang2,3, Richard A Nichols2, Richard J A Buggs4,5.
Abstract
Dwarf birch (Betula nana) has a widespread boreal distribution but has declined significantly in Britain where populations are now highly fragmented. We analyzed the genetic diversity of these fragmented populations using markers that differ in mutation rate: conventional microsatellites markers (PCR-SSRs), RADseq generated transition and transversion SNPs (RAD-SNPs), and microsatellite markers mined from RADseq reads (RAD-SSRs). We estimated the current population sizes by census and indirectly, from the linkage-disequilibrium found in the genetic surveys. The two types of estimate were highly correlated. Overall, we found genetic diversity to be only slightly lower in Britain than across a comparable area in Scandinavia where populations are large and continuous. While the ensemble of British fragments maintain diversity levels close to Scandinavian populations, individually they have drifted apart and lost diversity; particularly the smaller populations. An ABC analysis, based on coalescent models, favors demographic scenarios in which Britain maintained high levels of genetic diversity through post-glacial re-colonization. This diversity has subsequently been partitioned into population fragments that have recently lost diversity at a rate corresponding to the current population-size estimates. We conclude that the British population fragments retain sufficient genetic resources to be the basis of conservation and re-planting programmes. Use of markers with different mutation rates gives us greater confidence and insight than one marker set could have alone, and we suggest that RAD-SSRs are particularly useful as high mutation-rate marker set with a well-specified ascertainment bias, which are widely available yet often neglected in existing RAD datasets.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30111882 PMCID: PMC6134035 DOI: 10.1038/s41437-018-0132-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heredity (Edinb) ISSN: 0018-067X Impact factor: 3.821
Fig. 1Historical records of Betula nana in Britain binned to 0.1 degree resolution, showing progressive range decline and fragmentation. Observations are normalized against records of Betula pubescens over the same period. Prevalence maps of B. nana in Finland are provided for comparison in Supplementary Fig. S1
Fig. 2a Sampling locations in England and Scotland (Britain). b Sampling locations in Finland and Norway (Scandinavia). c Map of Northern Europe identifying study regions. Green circles are sampled populations. Black points denote populations from historical records that could not be relocated, and thus may be locally extinct
Betula nana sampling locations, altitude, sample sizes, and census population sizes across the UK and Scandinavia
| Population | ID | Latitude (°N) | Longitude (°E) | Altitude | PCR | RAD | Census size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| Nordkapp | NK | 70.863 | 25.722 | 10 | 30 (0) | 6 | 10–100 |
| Sirbma | SM | 70.052 | 27.561 | 55 | 30 (4) | 6 | 100–1000 |
| Tenontie | TE | 69.944 | 26.722 | 113 | 30 (0) | 6 | 100–1000 |
| Skalluvaara | SK | 69.798 | 27.08 | 217 | 32 (0) | 6 | 100–1000 |
| Kevo Plateau | KP | 69.773 | 26.955 | 318 | 32 (0) | 6 | 100–1000 |
| Kevojarvi | KA | 69.763 | 26.981 | 124 | 31 (2) | 6 | 100–1000 |
| Gearddosjavri | UG | 69.732 | 26.937 | 121 | 23 (2) | 6 | 1000-–10,000 |
| Kevo Reserve | KR | 69.671 | 26.96 | 218 | 31 (0) | 6 | 1000–10,000 |
| Kotilampi | DJ | 69.313 | 26.653 | 216 | 29 (0) | 6 | 100–1000 |
| Partakko | PT | 69.272 | 27.988 | 124 | 28 (0) | 6 | 1000–10,000 |
| Sub-total | 296 (8) | 60 | |||||
|
| |||||||
| Ben Loyal | BL | 58.401 | –4.404 | 300 | 30 (0) | 6 | 10–100 |
| Meall Odhar | MO | 58.163 | –4.423 | 404 | 25 (11) | 6 | 25 |
| Beinn Enaiglair | BE | 57.786 | –5.009 | 480 | 27 (0) | 6 | 10–100 |
| Luichart | LH | 57.725 | –4.9 | 268 | 32 (2) | 6 | 10–100 |
| Ben Wyvis W | BW | 57.65 | –4.602 | 482 | 34 (0) | 6 | 100–1000 |
| Ben Wyvis E | DG | 57.646 | –4.556 | 472 | 21 (0) | - | 10–100 |
| Loch Meig | ME | 57.534 | –4.804 | 450 | 26 (0) | 6 | 10–100 |
| Glen Cannich | GC | 57.345 | –4.856 | 455 | 33 (0) | 6 | 66 |
| Faskanyle | FS | 57.327 | –4.848 | 486 | 31 (0) | - | 100–1000 |
| Dundreggan | DE | 57.231 | –4.754 | 448 | 30 (0) | 6 | 38 |
| An Suidhe | AS | 57.224 | –4.812 | 661 | 30 (2) | 3 | 10–100 |
| Beinn Bhreac | BB | 57.211 | –4.823 | 500 | 33 (0) | 6 | 50 |
| Portclair | PC | 57.204 | –4.639 | 478 | 41 (5) | 6 | 41 |
| River Avon | AV | 57.137 | –3.491 | 549 | 31 (0) | 6 | 60 |
| Monadhliaths | MD | 57.058 | –4.307 | 712 | 33 (5) | 6 | 10–100 |
| Meall an t’slugain | SL | 57.045 | –3.451 | 633 | 31 (0) | 6 | 10–100 |
| Loch Muick E | MU1 | 56.92 | –3.198 | 492 | 31 (0) | 6 | 1000–10,000 |
| Loch Muick W | MU2 | 56.918 | –3.205 | 517 | 32 (0) | 6 | 1000–10,000 |
| Loch Laggan | LG | 56.889 | –4.545 | 364 | 49 (6) | 6 | 49 |
| Loch Loch | LL | 56.846 | –3.647 | 673 | 30 (4) | 6 | 10–100 |
| Ben Gullabin | BG | 56.84 | –3.467 | 594 | 5 (0) | 1 | 5 |
| Loch Rannoch | LR | 56.758 | –4.415 | 499 | 29 (2) | 6 | 29 |
| Rannoch West | RW | 56.65 | –4.785 | 306 | 31 (2) | 6 | 1000–10,000 |
| Rannoch Moor B | RB | 56.603 | –4.74 | 304 | 31 (2) | 6 | 100–1000 |
| Rannoch Moor A | RA | 56.603 | –4.738 | 295 | 30 (0) | - | 100–1000 |
| Lennox | LX | 55.97 | –4.276 | 164 | 9 (0) | 2 | 9 |
| Emblehope | EM | 55.244 | –2.483 | 448 | 2 (0) | 1 | 2 |
| Spadeadam | SA | 55.053 | –2.568 | 275 | 1 (0) | 1 | 1 |
| Teesdale | TD | 54.654 | –2.28 | 499 | 2 (0) | 2 | 2 |
| Sub-total | 770 (41) | 130 | |||||
| Total | 1066 (49) | 190 | |||||
PCR gives sample sizes for PCR-SSR data. RAD gives sample sizes for RAD-SSR, RAD-SNPti, and RAD-SNPtv datasets. Values in parenthesis are the number of putative clones identified
Summary statistics for the four different marker sets used in this study, reported by region, including: sample size; number of loci: number of alleles (nAll); allelic richness (Ar) rarefied to 20 individuals; expected heterozygosity (He); fixation index (FIS) with INEst estimation, which accounts for null alleles, in parentheses; and global FST by region (FST) with 95% confidence interval
| Marker | Ind. | Pop. | Loci | nAll |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| PCR-SSR | 296 | 10 | 18 | 323 | 5.695 | 0.712 | 0.206 (0.057) | 0.021 (0.010–0.068) |
| RAD-SSR | 60 | 10 | 193 | 1177 | 3.961 | 0.425 | 0.273 (0.147) | 0.021 (0.000–0.028) |
| RAD-SNPti | 60 | 10 | 4714 | 8383 | 1.437 | 0.118 | 0.148 | 0.019 (0.013–0.022) |
| RAD-SNPtv | 60 | 10 | 3299 | 5836 | 1.425 | 0.117 | 0.146 | 0.018 (0.013–0.024) |
|
| ||||||||
| PCR-SSR | 751 | 24 | 18 | 369 | 5.479 | 0.677 | 0.179 (0.065) | 0.076 (0.066–0.094) |
| RAD-SSR | 120 | 21 | 193 | 1224 | 2.674 | 0.342 | 0.280 (0.209) | 0.054 (0.044–0.081) |
| RAD-SNPti | 120 | 21 | 4714 | 8839 | 1.434 | 0.111 | 0.122 | 0.089 (0.084–0.094) |
| RAD-SNPtv | 120 | 21 | 3299 | 6144 | 1.426 | 0.108 | 0.119 | 0.092 (0.086–0.098) |
Data by population is reported in Supplementary Tables S6 and S8. In the UK, populations with less than five individuals were excluded from these statistics
Fig. 3Plot of census population size vs. LD-based effective population size estimates for all populations
Fig. 4a, b Scatter plot of linearized pairwise FST vs. pairwise geographic distance for all study populations for Britain (a) and Scandinavia (b). Weak isolation by distance (p < 0.05) was detected in Britain and Scandinavian populations using PCR-SSRs. All other relationships were non-significant. c Plot of census population size estimates and maximum likelihood FST, for each marker type, using all datasets across both regions. Noise has been added to each of the four x-axis categories to facilitate visualization
Fig. 5Dendrograms showing proposed scenarios to describe the evolutionary history of dwarf birch after the last glacial maximum. Line charts show posterior demographic density distributions for scenario 1b across all marker sets independently (dashed lines) and with information combined (black lines)
Posterior demographic parameter estimates with 0.05–0.95 confidence intervals for each marker based on approximate Bayesian computation analysis
| Parameter | SSR | RAD-SSR | RAD-SNPti | RAD-SNPtv | Combined | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peak | CI (0.05–0.95) | Peak | CI (0.05–0.95) | Peak | CI (0.05–0.95) | Peak | CI (0.05–0.95) | Peak | CI (0.05–0.95) | |
| tb1 | 10 | (10–10) | 11 | (10–12) | 12 | (10–17) | 13 | (10–21) | 11 | (10–17) |
| t1 | 45 | (17–308) | 99 | (39–632) | 14 | (10–32) | 27 | (12–132) | 23 | (10–415) |
| t2 | 1021 | (545–1314) | 757 | (488– 1260) | 932 | (559–1254) | 765 | (515–1203) | 789 | (521–1274) |
| NeBr | 6884 | (4429–9703) | 4547 | (4133– 9110) | 4668 | (4183–9332) | 4701 | (4178–9320) | 4650 | (4194–9494) |
| NeSc | 6399 | (4412–9396) | 9143 | (5148– 9774) | 9475 | (6209–9909) | 9234 | (5457–9845) | 9384 | (4800–9826) |
Final column indicates estimates using combined information from all marker distributions
tb1 time of bottleneck in British populations, t1 time of divergence of British populations, t2 time of divergence of British and Scandinavian populations, NeBr British historic (pre-bottleneck) effective population size, NeSc Scandinavian effective population size