| Literature DB >> 30576376 |
Yu Ning1, Gao-Jie Wu1, Hua Ma1,2, Ju-Lan Guo1,2, Man-Yin Zhang1,3, Wei Li1,3, Yi-Fei Wang1,2, Suo-Lang Duoerji4.
Abstract
Tussocks are unique vegetation structures in wetlands. Many tussock species mainly reproduce by clonal growth, resulting in genetically identical offspring distributed in various spatial patterns. These fine-scale patterns could influence mating patterns and thus the long-term evolution of wetland plants. Here, we contribute the first genetic and clonal structures of two key species in alpine wetlands on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, Kobresia tibetica and Blysmus sinocompressus, using > 5000 SNPs identified by 2b-RAD sequencing. The tussock-building species, K. tibetica, has a phalanx (clumping) growth form, but different genets could co-occur within the tussocks, indicating that it is not proper to treat a tussock as one genetic individual. Phalanx growth does not necessarily lead to increased inbreeding in K. tibetica. B. sinocompressus has a guerilla (spreading) growth form, with the largest detected clone size being 18.32 m, but genets at the local scale tend to be inbred offspring. Our results highlight that the combination of clone expansion and seedling recruitment facilitates the contemporary advantage of B. sinocompressus, but its evolutionary potential is limited by the input genetic load of the original genets. The tussocks of K. tibetica are more diverse and a valuable genetic legacy of former well-developed wet meadows, and they are worthy of conservation attention.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30576376 PMCID: PMC6303067 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209572
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Community landscape and species.
a. Blysmus sinocompressus; b. community view with the blue circle indicating B. sinocompressus and the red circle indicating K. tibetica; c. Kobresia tibetica. The different bars beneath each picture scale with the actual range.
Fig 2Stand design and sampling scheme.
The solid circles with numbers represent the sampled tussocks. The dashed circles indicate where the soil profiles were taken. The inset shows where the three samples of K. tibetica and the three samples of B. sinocompressus were taken at each tussock.
Fig 3The spatial arrangement of the detected clonal lineages.
Each sampled individual was plotted according to clonal assignment and spatial position. The same symbol indicates the same clonal membership. The symbols between species are not relevant. Blysmus sinocompressus is abbreviated Bly. Kobresia tibetica is abbreviated Kob. The same applies hereafter.
The clone size and diversity information of both species.
| Species | Bly | Kob | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Richness | N | 39 | 41 |
| Gg | 21 | 23 | |
| R | 0.55 | 0.53 | |
| Ramet size | min | 1 | 1 |
| max | 8 | 3 | |
| mean(se) | 1.86(0.37) | 1.78(0.19) | |
| Spatial size(m) | min | 3.10 | |
| max | 18.32 | ||
| mean(se) | 9.854(0.96) | ||
| Diversity | Gs | 11.61 | 18.47 |
| H | 2.76 | 3.02 | |
| E | 0.72 | 0.90 | |
| Distribution | Nmon | 1 | 7 |
| Nmul | 13 | 7 | |
| Nsp | 6 | 0 |
N, number of samples; Gg, number of genets; R, genotypic richness; Ramet size, the amount of ramets per genet; Spatial size, the spatial distance between ramets of the same genet; Gs, Stoddard and Taylor index; H, Shannon-Wiener index; E, evenness index; Nmon, number of monoclonal tussocks; Nmul, number of multiple-clonal tussocks; and Nsp, number of clones spreading over different tussocks.
* indicates that the spatial size of Kob is not available because all the ramets reside within the tussock.
Fig 4Spatial autocorrelation between kinship and geographic distance for both species at the ramet and genet levels.
The dashed blue line envelopes the bootstrap distribution at 1000 resamples. The red line indicates the position of the intercept with a zero-reference line beyond which the genetic relationship is no more similar than that expected by chance alone.
Summary of the genetic diversity information and inbreeding levels for both species.
| Species | Loci information | Heterozygosity | Inbreeding | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | NA | PIC | He | Ho | FIS | |
| Bly | 7256 | 2.063(0.242) | 0.264(0.145) | 0.338 | 0.081 | 0.559 |
| Kob | 19501 | 2.023(0.207) | 0.132(0.108) | 0.153 | 0.143 | 0.093 |
n, number of loci; NA, average allele number per loci with SD in parenthesis; PIC, average polymorphism information content value; He, expected heterozygosity; Ho, observed heterozygosity; and FIS, inbreeding coefficients.
Fig 5Minimum spanning tree (MSN) showing the evolutionary relationship of the clonal lineages.
The size of a node is proportional to the number of assigned ramets. Color represents the tussock where the samples were taken. The wider and darker lines indicate a relatively higher relatedness. The position of the nodes is arbitrary.
Summary of the analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) of both species showing the origin of the variance.
| Species | Source | df | SSD | MSD | Variance | % total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kob | Among tussocks | 13 | 80904.69 | 6223.44 | 1944.52 | 78.51 | <0.001 |
| Within a tussock | 27 | 14368.17 | 532.15 | 532.15 | 21.49 | ||
| Total | 40 | 95272.85 | 2381.82 | ||||
| Bly | Among tussocks | 13 | 40434.1 | 3110.32 | 589.75 | 28.63 | 0.048 |
| Within a tussock | 25 | 36754.33 | 1470.17 | 1470.17 | 71.37 | ||
| Total | 38 | 77188.44 | 2031.28 |