Literature DB >> 30485593

Potential limits to the benefits of admixture during biological invasion.

Brittany S Barker1,2, Janelle E Cocio1, Samantha R Anderson1, Joseph E Braasch1, Feng A Cang1, Heather D Gillette1,3, Katrina M Dlugosch1.   

Abstract

Species introductions often bring together genetically divergent source populations, resulting in genetic admixture. This geographic reshuffling of diversity has the potential to generate favourable new genetic combinations, facilitating the establishment and invasive spread of introduced populations. Observational support for the superior performance of admixed introductions has been mixed, however, and the broad importance of admixture to invasion questioned. Under most underlying mechanisms, admixture's benefits should be expected to increase with greater divergence among and lower genetic diversity within source populations, though these effects have not been quantified in invaders. We experimentally crossed source populations differing in divergence in the invasive plant Centaurea solstitialis. Crosses resulted in many positive (heterotic) interactions, but fitness benefits declined and were ultimately negative at high source divergence, with patterns suggesting cytonuclear epistasis. We explored the literature to assess whether such negative epistatic interactions might be impeding admixture at high source population divergence. Admixed introductions reported for plants came from sources with a wide range of genetic variation, but were disproportionately absent where there was high genetic divergence among native populations. We conclude that while admixture is common in species introductions and often happens under conditions expected to be beneficial to invaders, these conditions may be constrained by predictable negative genetic interactions, potentially explaining conflicting evidence for admixture's benefits to invasion.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cytonuclear interactions; epistasis; genetic diversity; heterosis; invasiveness; multiple introductions

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30485593      PMCID: PMC6344275          DOI: 10.1111/mec.14958

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Ecol        ISSN: 0962-1083            Impact factor:   6.185


  77 in total

1.  Heterosis.

Authors:  James A Birchler; Hong Yao; Sivanandan Chudalayandi; Daniel Vaiman; Reiner A Veitia
Journal:  Plant Cell       Date:  2010-07-09       Impact factor: 11.277

2.  Heterosis, the catapult effect and establishment success of a colonizing bird.

Authors:  John M Drake
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2006-06-22       Impact factor: 3.703

Review 3.  Effects of genotypic and phenotypic variation on establishment are important for conservation, invasion, and infection biology.

Authors:  Anders Forsman
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-12-23       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 4.  Adaptive evolution in invasive species.

Authors:  Peter J Prentis; John R U Wilson; Eleanor E Dormontt; David M Richardson; Andrew J Lowe
Journal:  Trends Plant Sci       Date:  2008-05-28       Impact factor: 18.313

5.  Invading populations of an ornamental shrub show rapid life history evolution despite genetic bottlenecks.

Authors:  Katrina M Dlugosch; Ingrid M Parker
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2008-04-10       Impact factor: 9.492

6.  Genetic mixture of multiple source populations accelerates invasive range expansion.

Authors:  Natalie K Wagner; Brad M Ochocki; Kerri M Crawford; Aldo Compagnoni; Tom E X Miller
Journal:  J Anim Ecol       Date:  2016-08-08       Impact factor: 5.091

7.  The evolution of postzygotic isolation: accumulating Dobzhansky-Muller incompatibilities.

Authors:  H A Orr; M Turelli
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.694

8.  Evolution of invasiveness through increased resource use in a vacant niche.

Authors:  Katrina M Dlugosch; F Alice Cang; Brittany S Barker; Krikor Andonian; Sarah M Swope; Loren H Rieseberg
Journal:  Nat Plants       Date:  2015-06-01       Impact factor: 15.793

9.  Allele identification for transcriptome-based population genomics in the invasive plant Centaurea solstitialis.

Authors:  Katrina M Dlugosch; Zhao Lai; Aurélie Bonin; José Hierro; Loren H Rieseberg
Journal:  G3 (Bethesda)       Date:  2013-02-01       Impact factor: 3.154

10.  Human-aided admixture may fuel ecosystem transformation during biological invasions: theoretical and experimental evidence.

Authors:  Jane Molofsky; Stephen R Keller; Sébastien Lavergne; Matthew A Kaproth; Maarten B Eppinga
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2014-02-23       Impact factor: 2.912

View more
  5 in total

1.  Genetic Diversity and Thermal Performance in Invasive and Native Populations of African Fig Flies.

Authors:  Aaron A Comeault; Jeremy Wang; Silas Tittes; Kristin Isbell; Spencer Ingley; Allen H Hurlbert; Daniel R Matute
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 16.240

2.  Springtail phylogeography highlights biosecurity risks of repeated invasions and intraregional transfers among remote islands.

Authors:  Helena P Baird; Katherine L Moon; Charlene Janion-Scheepers; Steven L Chown
Journal:  Evol Appl       Date:  2020-02-12       Impact factor: 5.183

3.  Population genomic and historical analysis suggests a global invasion by bridgehead processes in Mimulus guttatus.

Authors:  Mario Vallejo-Marín; Jannice Friedman; Alex D Twyford; Olivier Lepais; Stefanie M Ickert-Bond; Matthew A Streisfeld; Levi Yant; Mark van Kleunen; Michael C Rotter; Joshua R Puzey
Journal:  Commun Biol       Date:  2021-03-12

Review 4.  Genomic biosurveillance of forest invasive alien enemies: A story written in code.

Authors:  Richard C Hamelin; Amanda D Roe
Journal:  Evol Appl       Date:  2019-09-10       Impact factor: 5.183

5.  Wild sunflower goes viral: Citizen science and comparative genomics allow tracking the origin and establishment of invasive sunflower in the Levant.

Authors:  Sariel Hübner; Dana Sisou; Tali Mandel; Marco Todesco; Maor Matzrafi; Hanan Eizenberg
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2022-02-15       Impact factor: 6.622

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.