| Literature DB >> 30519445 |
Cecilia Bessega1,2, Carolina Pometti1,2, Ramiro Pablo López3, Daniel Larrea-Alcázar4, Reneé H Fortunato5, Beatriz Saidman1,2, Juan Cesar Vilardi1,2.
Abstract
The fast expansion of human population around La Paz, Bolivia (3,200-4,100 m.a.s.l.) triggered new suburban settlements in nearby areas in valleys and mountain feet. The white mesquite, Prosopis alba Griseb. (Leguminosae), is a resource (originally used by native communities) that is strongly affected by changes in land use. A gradient in the level of disturbance is found moving away from the La Paz city toward less altitude areas. The main objective of this study was to characterize genetically three P. alba populations with different levels of human disturbance located at different altitudes in Bolivia, in order to provide some guidelines for management and conservation of these species. Based on 10 SSR loci, the populations showed high level of genetic diversity in comparison with other forest species. The population less disturbed and situated at the lowest altitude was the most variable (H e = 0.51-0.42), whereas the less variable was the most disturbed and situated at the highest altitude. Heterozygote excess was observed in all populations. Most of genetic diversity (99%) is contained within populations. Genetic differentiation among populations is low (1%), suggesting low gene flow among populations. No evidence of recent bottlenecks events was detected. The estimates of the effective population size were low in all populations. The results are in agreement with the hypothesis that genetic diversity is reduced by the impact of anthropic disturbance in the population located at higher altitude in comparison with the lightly disturbed situated at lower altitude and farther from urban settlements.Entities:
Keywords: SSR; altitude; bottleneck; genetic diversity; homozygote excess
Year: 2018 PMID: 30519445 PMCID: PMC6262908 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.4610
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Geographical location of the sampled populations of Prosopis alba in Bolivia and enlarged maps showing spatial distribution in Huajchilla (a), Mecapaca (b), and Tahuapalca (c). Note: Images are from Google earth Pro (https://www.google.es/earth/)
Sample size (N), no. alleles (N), allelic richness (A), private alleles (P), observed heterozygosity (H o), expected (H e) and unbiased expected heterozygosity (uH e), inbreeding coefficient (F IS), p(null): probability of heterozygote deficiency due to null alleles tested by Monte Carlo (1,000 replicates)
| Pop | Locus |
|
|
|
|
|
| u |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tahuapalca | Mo05 | 30 | 2 | 2 | 0.00 | 0.47 | 0.42 | 0.43 | −0.111 | – |
| Mo13 | 30 | 5 | 4.25 | 2.00 | 0.63 | 0.63 | 0.64 | −0.012 | – | |
| Mo08 | 30 | 2 | 2 | 0.00 | 0.87 | 0.50 | 0.51 | −0.741 | – | |
| Mo09 | 30 | 5 | 4.73 | 1.00 | 0.53 | 0.66 | 0.67 | 0.189 | 0.017 | |
| GL8 | 29 | 5 | 3.45 | 4.00 | 0.17 | 0.19 | 0.20 | 0.105 | – | |
| GL18 | 30 | 3 | 2.99 | 0.00 | 0.43 | 0.45 | 0.45 | 0.026 | – | |
| GL24 | 30 | 5 | 4.64 | 2.00 | 0.47 | 0.48 | 0.49 | 0.028 | – | |
| GL15 | 30 | 9 | 6.75 | 4.00 | 0.3 | 0.69 | 0.70 | 0.564 | 0.000 | |
| GL12 | 30 | 8 | 6.60 | 3.00 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.74 | −0.004 | – | |
| GL6 | 29 | 3 | 2.48 | 0.00 | 0.48 | 0.41 | 0.42 | −0.182 | – | |
| Mean | 29.8 | 4. | 3.99 | 1.60 | 0.51 | 0.51 | 0.52 | −0.014 | – | |
|
| 0.13 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.52 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.103 | – | |
| Mecapaca | Mo05 | 16 | 2 | 2 | 0.00 | 0.5 | 0.38 | 0.39 | −0.333 | – |
| Mo13 | 16 | 3 | 3 | 0.00 | 0.56 | 0.63 | 0.65 | 0.103 | – | |
| Mo08 | 15 | 2 | 2 | 0.00 | 0.47 | 0.36 | 0.37 | −0.304 | – | |
| Mo09 | 15 | 5 | 5 | 1.00 | 0.93 | 0.67 | 0.7 | −0.386 | – | |
| GL8 | 16 | 1 | 1 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | |
| GL18 | 14 | 2 | 2 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.07 | −0.037 | – | |
| GL24 | 16 | 3 | 3 | 0.00 | 0.31 | 0.53 | 0.54 | 0.405 | 0.004 | |
| GL15 | 16 | 5 | 5 | 0.00 | 0.5 | 0.71 | 0.73 | 0.295 | 0.008 | |
| GL12 | 16 | 3 | 3 | 0.00 | 0.75 | 0.55 | 0.57 | −0.357 | – | |
| GL6 | 16 | 4 | 3.99 | 1.00 | 0.31 | 0.49 | 0.51 | 0.363 | 0.008 | |
| Mean | 15.6 | 3 | 3 | 0.20 | 0.44 | 0.44 | 0.45 | −0.028 | – | |
|
| 0.22 | 0.42 | 0.42 | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.104 | – | |
| Huajchilla | Mo05 | 15 | 2 | 2 | 0.00 | 0.93 | 0.5 | 0.51 | −0.875 | – |
| Mo13 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 0.00 | 0.8 | 0.65 | 0.67 | −0.229 | – | |
| Mo08 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 1.00 | 0.6 | 0.44 | 0.45 | −0.371 | – | |
| Mo09 | 15 | 4 | 4 | 1.00 | 0.87 | 0.64 | 0.66 | −0.349 | – | |
| GL8 | 15 | 1 | 1 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | |
| GL18 | 15 | 3 | 2.93 | 0.00 | 0.2 | 0.18 | 0.19 | −0.084 | – | |
| GL24 | 15 | 2 | 2 | 0.00 | 0.2 | 0.18 | 0.19 | −0.111 | – | |
| GL15 | 15 | 4 | 4 | 0.00 | 0.47 | 0.66 | 0.68 | 0.288 | 0.019 | |
| GL12 | 15 | 5 | 5 | 0.00 | 0.8 | 0.66 | 0.69 | −0.208 | – | |
| GL6 | 14 | 3 | 3 | 0.00 | 0.29 | 0.3 | 0.31 | 0.059 | – | |
| Mean | 14.9 | 3 | 2.99 | 0.20 | 0.52 | 0.42 | 0.44 | −0.209 | – | |
|
| 0.1 | 0.37 | 0.37 | 0.13 | 0.1 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.102 | – | |
| Weighted mean | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | −0.066 | – |
Global estimates of genetic differentiation
| Among Bolivian pops | Among Argentinean pops | Among All | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.029 [0.011–0.049] | 0.018 [0.008–0.026] | 0.209 [0.133–0.281] |
|
| 0.068 [0.021–0.123] | 0.087 [0.035–0.158] | 0.523 [0.363–0.626] |
G ST (Nei & Chesser, 1983) and G'S TH (Hedrick, 2005).
Values among Argentinean populations are based on a random same size matrix from data belonging to Bessega et al. (2016) based on the same 10 SSR loci. [CI95%].
Figure 2Clustering of individuals made by STRUCTURE for K = 3 considering admixture (a) and no‐admixture (b) models. Each individual is represented by a vertical bar that is partitioned into colored segments that represent the individual's estimated membership fractions. Same color in different individuals indicates that they belong to the same cluster. Note: T: Tahuapalca (Bolivia); M: Mecapaca (Bolivia); H: Huajchilla (Bolivia); CD: Campo Duran (Argentina); FF: Fernandez (Argentina)
Figure 3Scatterplot of individuals on the two principal components of DAPC. (a) Bolivian populations (b) Argentinean and Bolivian populations. The graph represents the individuals as dots and the groups as inertia ellipses. Note: T: Tahuapalca (Bolivia); M: Mecapaca (Bolivia); H: Huajchilla (Bolivia); CD: Campo Duran (Argentina), FF: Fernandez (Argentina)
Figure 4Plot of canonical discriminant functions 1 and 2 of P. alba populations, Huajchilla (white diamond), Mecapaca (gray square), and Tahuapalca (black circle) from SSR data
Statistical tests of genetic bottlenecks under the two‐phase model (TPM), and effective population size (Ne) estimates obtained by the linkage disequilibrium (Hill, 1981) and multilocus coancestry coefficient (θ) (Cockerham, 1969) methods in Prosopis alba from the dry Valley of Bolivia
| Population | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Tahuapalca | Mecapaca | Huajchilla | |
| Mean | 59.6 | 31.2 | 29.8 |
| Mean | 4.7 | 3 | 3 |
| Mean | 0.52 | 0.45 | 0.44 |
| Sign test | 0.524 | 0.154 | 0.600 |
| Standarized differences test | 0.149 | 0.157 | 0.365 |
| Wilcoxon Sign rank deficiency test | |||
| 1 tail | 0.577 | 0.180 | 0.367 |
| 2 tail | 0.922 | 0.359 | 0.754 |
|
| 37.7 | 87.9 | ∞ |
| CI [95%] | 19.6–126.2 | 10.5 ‐∞ | 15.9–∞ |
|
| −0.0005 | −0.0015 | 0.0068 |
|
| – | – | 72.9 |
Mean N = mean number of alleles, Mean k: mean number of alleles per locus.
Cornuet and Luikart (1996).
Luikart et al. (1997).
Ne LD estimated by NeEstimator V2.1 (Do et al., 2014).
Coancestry within population (θ) estimated by Loiselle et al. (1995).
Ne estimated as 05/θ (Cockerham, 1969).