| Literature DB >> 31346441 |
Abstract
Widespread tree species cover large geographical areas and play important roles in various vegetation types. Understanding how these species responded to historical climatic changes is important for understanding community assembly mechanisms with evolutionary and conservation implications. However, the location of refugial areas and postglacial history of widespread trees in East Asia remain poorly known. We combined microsatellite data (63 populations, 1756 individuals) and ecological niche modeling to examine the range-wide population diversity, genetic structure, and historical demography of a pioneer tree species, Asian white birch (Betula platyphylla Suk.) across East Asia. We found a north-to-south trend of declining genetic diversity and five clusters, corresponding to geographical regions. Different clusters were inferred to have diverged through Pleistocene climatic oscillations and have different expansion routes, leading to genetic admixture in some populations. Ecological niche models indicated that the distribution of B. platyphylla during the last glacial maximum still had a large latitude span with slight shifts toward southeast, and northern populations had more variable distribution ranges than those in the south during later climatic oscillations. Our results reflect the relatively stable distribution through the last glacial-interglacial cycles and recent multidirectional expansion of B. platyphylla, providing new hypotheses for the response pattern of widespread tree species to climate change. The gradual genetic pattern from northeast to southwest and alternative distribution dynamics possibly resulted from environmental differences caused by latitude and topographic heterogeneity.Entities:
Keywords: East Asia; ecological niche modeling; gene flow; genetic diversity; migration; quaternary oscillations
Year: 2019 PMID: 31346441 PMCID: PMC6635942 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.5365
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Betula platyphylla Suk
Details of sample locations, sample sizes, and descriptive statistics of genetic variability for 63 populations of Betula platyphylla
| Code | Sampling location | Longitude (°E) | Latitude (° |
|
|
|
|
|
| Bottleneck (TPM) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RA | Raohe1, Heilongjiang | 133.66 | 46.53 | 28 | 77 | 5.23 | 0.12 | 0.744 | 0.076 | 0.988 |
| RB | Raohe2, Heilongjiang | 133.82 | 46.52 | 27 | 70 | 4.99 | 0.13 | 0.721 | 0.096 | 0.615 |
| HN | Huanan, Heilongjiang | 131.14 | 46.30 | 19 | 65 | 5.00 | 0.12 | 0.719 | 0.066 | 0.348 |
| JM | Jiamusi, Heilongjiang | 130.46 | 46.59 | 33 | 64 | 4.58 | 0.07 | 0.679 | −0.013 | 0.993 |
| MD | Mudanjiang, Heilongjiang | 129.53 | 44.68 | 33 | 65 | 4.74 | 0.03 | 0.716 | 0.018 | 0.161 |
| HL | Hailin, Heilongjiang | 129.22 | 44.72 | 32 | 70 | 5.00 | 0.05 | 0.723 | 0.049 | 0.461 |
| YC | Yichun, Heilongjiang | 128.90 | 47.75 | 27 | 68 | 5.00 | 0.10 | 0.724 | 0.067 | 0.784 |
| BY | Bayan, Heilongjiang | 127.56 | 46.19 | 31 | 67 | 4.94 | 0.06 | 0.710 | 0.027 | 0.688 |
| AT | Antu, Jilin | 128.85 | 43.09 | 32 | 67 | 4.59 | 0.06 | 0.689 | 0.015 | 0.577 |
| CB | Mt. Changbai, Jilin | 127.67 | 42.06 | 31 | 69 | 4.63 | 0.04 | 0.682 | 0.006 | 0.947 |
| JH | Jiaohe, Jilin | 127.39 | 43.80 | 30 | 54 | 4.38 | 0.00 | 0.674 | 0.038 | 0.042 |
| HD | Huadian, Jilin | 127.13 | 42.85 | 32 | 62 | 4.41 | 0.00 | 0.645 | 0.012 | 0.862 |
| LJ | Linjiang, Jilin | 127.03 | 41.93 | 30 | 59 | 4.51 | 0.03 | 0.682 | 0.057 | 0.615 |
| QY | Qingyuan, Liaoning | 125.29 | 42.05 | 30 | 64 | 4.64 | 0.03 | 0.698 | 0.088 | 0.754 |
| HQ | Huanren1, Liaoning | 125.12 | 41.10 | 30 | 68 | 4.88 | 0.01 | 0.706 | 0.07 | 0.884 |
| HR | Huanren2, Liaoning | 124.95 | 41.33 | 27 | 64 | 4.74 | 0.06 | 0.693 | 0.053 | 0.862 |
| LH | Liaoheyuan, Hebei | 118.45 | 41.33 | 30 | 72 | 5.06 | 0.09 | 0.717 | 0.037 | 0.577 |
| WC | Mulanweichang, Hebei | 117.67 | 41.86 | 31 | 77 | 5.13 | 0.06 | 0.718 | 0.034 | 0.784 |
| WL | Mt. Wuling1, Hebei | 117.49 | 40.56 | 29 | 70 | 4.90 | 0.00 | 0.714 | 0.034 | 0.884 |
| WM | Mt. Wuling2, Hebei | 117.48 | 40.56 | 22 | 63 | 4.81 | 0.01 | 0.721 | −0.034 | 0.652 |
| WN | Mt Wuling3, Hebei | 117.46 | 40.60 | 28 | 69 | 4.89 | 0.06 | 0.715 | 0.057 | 0.754 |
| XW | Mt. Xiaowutai, Hebei | 115.31 | 39.96 | 21 | 61 | 4.79 | 0.00 | 0.719 | 0.001 | 0.784 |
| CF | Chifeng, Neimenggu | 117.51 | 43.94 | 40 | 84 | 5.23 | 0.02 | 0.722 | 0.062 | 0.947 |
| BE | Hulunbeier, Neimenggu | 117.48 | 49.58 | 10 | 61 | 5.67 | 0.14 | 0.772 | 0.002 | 0.216 |
| XL | Xilinhaote, Neimenggu | 116.87 | 44.50 | 30 | 76 | 5.03 | 0.05 | 0.707 | 0.021 | 0.988 |
| DQ | Mt. Daqing, Neimenggu | 111.27 | 40.85 | 39 | 72 | 4.66 | 0.05 | 0.703 | 0.063 | 0.615 |
| DSS | Mt. Dongling, Beijing | 115.49 | 40.04 | 34 | 78 | 4.92 | 0.06 | 0.718 | 0.009 | 0.947 |
| GS | Xiaolongmengoushicao, Beijing | 115.44 | 39.96 | 24 | 66 | 4.72 | 0.01 | 0.708 | −0.013 | 0.539 |
| DS | Xiaolongmennangou, Beijing | 115.43 | 39.96 | 25 | 53 | 4.43 | 0.01 | 0.700 | −0.16 | 0.007 |
| NGC | Xiaolongmennangoucha, Beijing | 115.43 | 39.96 | 26 | 62 | 4.49 | 0.01 | 0.690 | 0.063 | 0.615 |
| WT | Mt. Wutai, Shanxi | 113.64 | 38.88 | 41 | 69 | 4.66 | 0.02 | 0.712 | 0.058 | 0.652 |
| HS | Heshun, Shanxi | 113.26 | 37.41 | 36 | 61 | 4.39 | 0.00 | 0.691 | 0.06 | 0.920 |
| PQ | Pangquangou, Shanxi | 111.47 | 37.82 | 31 | 54 | 4.76 | 0.00 | 0.726 | 0.104 | 0.216 |
| WU | Mt. Wulu, Shanxi | 111.20 | 36.58 | 8 | 45 | 4.50 | 0.00 | 0.692 | −0.03 | ‐ |
| BM | Mt. Baotianman, Henan | 111.94 | 33.50 | 8 | 38 | 3.80 | 0.00 | 0.645 | 0.089 | ‐ |
| FX | Fuxian, Shaanxi | 109.68 | 36.09 | 33 | 52 | 4.11 | 0.00 | 0.678 | −0.015 | 0.246 |
| YN | Fengxian, Shaanxi | 106.84 | 34.18 | 26 | 52 | 3.93 | 0.02 | 0.612 | −0.143 | 0.754 |
| KT | Mt. Kongtong, Gansu | 106.43 | 35.56 | 33 | 63 | 4.65 | 0.01 | 0.701 | 0.071 | 0.688 |
| HX | Huixian, Gansu | 105.73 | 34.08 | 29 | 60 | 4.57 | 0.01 | 0.692 | 0.028 | 0.884 |
| DB | Datong2, Qinghai | 101.57 | 37.13 | 31 | 60 | 4.48 | 0.03 | 0.697 | 0.01 | 0.577 |
| DA | Datong1, Qinghai | 101.57 | 37.14 | 33 | 65 | 4.60 | 0.05 | 0.702 | 0.025 | 0.920 |
| YS | Yaoshuihe, Qinghai | 101.21 | 36.56 | 33 | 59 | 4.53 | 0.03 | 0.699 | 0.077 | 0.754 |
| HB | Habahe, Xinjiang | 86.22 | 47.88 | 30 | 85 | 5.81 | 0.33 | 0.776 | 0.102 | 0.423 |
| XB | Qiba'er, Xinjiang | 86.40 | 48.14 | 34 | 87 | 5.68 | 0.22 | 0.773 | 0.082 | 0.839 |
| XA | Kulebai, Xinjiang | 86.35 | 48.09 | 30 | 88 | 6.03 | 0.23 | 0.795 | 0.137 | 0.500 |
| WB | Wangbachu, Sichuan | 104.32 | 32.74 | 35 | 52 | 3.98 | 0.00 | 0.605 | 0.061 | 0.722 |
| JZ | Jiuzhai, Sichuan | 103.91 | 33.16 | 26 | 58 | 4.44 | 0.05 | 0.644 | 0.014 | 0.188 |
| SX | Shenxianchi, Sichuan | 103.73 | 33.28 | 30 | 60 | 4.41 | 0.09 | 0.669 | 0.058 | 0.995 |
| DL | Daluxiang, Sichuan | 103.67 | 33.57 | 31 | 63 | 4.61 | 0.03 | 0.693 | 0.059 | 0.500 |
| LX | Lixian, Sichuan | 103.21 | 31.42 | 14 | 42 | 3.87 | 0.08 | 0.616 | 0.037 | 0.053 |
| SJ | Shuajingsi, Sichuan | 102.61 | 32.02 | 32 | 58 | 4.36 | 0.00 | 0.680 | 0.007 | 0.385 |
| LD | Luding, Sichuan | 102.27 | 29.80 | 34 | 44 | 3.61 | 0.00 | 0.586 | −0.034 | 0.313 |
| MK | Ma'erkang, Sichuan | 102.22 | 31.90 | 29 | 58 | 4.38 | 0.03 | 0.674 | 0.084 | 0.423 |
| KD | Kangding, Sichuan | 101.96 | 30.03 | 33 | 56 | 4.03 | 0.04 | 0.603 | −0.04 | 0.539 |
| YJ | Yajiang, Sichuan | 101.26 | 30.04 | 23 | 39 | 3.33 | 0.01 | 0.535 | −0.003 | 0.246 |
| BT | Batang, Sichuan | 99.39 | 30.30 | 34 | 45 | 3.26 | 0.01 | 0.490 | 0.064 | 0.722 |
| XZ | Milin, Xizang | 94.25 | 29.22 | 9 | 32 | 3.13 | 0.00 | 0.449 | −0.04 | ‐ |
| YL | Yulongxian, Yunnan | 100.28 | 27.20 | 28 | 32 | 2.69 | 0.00 | 0.418 | 0.103 | 0.577 |
| PD | Pudacuo, Yunnan | 99.94 | 27.90 | 15 | 23 | 2.46 | 0.00 | 0.336 | −0.043 | 0.002 |
| HP | Hongpocun, Yunnan | 99.82 | 27.81 | 32 | 38 | 2.85 | 0.05 | 0.395 | 0.052 | 0.577 |
| DN | Deqin, Yunnan | 98.91 | 28.45 | 29 | 30 | 2.34 | 0.00 | 0.303 | −0.128 | 0.539 |
| RS | Russia far east, Russia | 131.59 | 43.14 | 10 | 53 | 5.05 | 0.01 | 0.727 | −0.001 | 0.053 |
| FJ | Fujiyama, Japan | 138.73 | 35.36 | 15 | 50 | 4.41 | 0.15 | 0.681 | 0.021 | 0.216 |
Abbreviations: A O, observed allele number; A r, allele richness (based on 16 genes); F IS, fixation index; H E, expected heterozygosity; n, sample size; P A, private allelic richness.
p < 0.05.
Figure 2Correlations between latitude and intrapopulation nuclear diversity statistics of Betula platyphylla. A O, observed allele number; A r, allele richness; P A, private allelic richness; H E, expected heterozygosity
Figure 3(a) Proportion of genetic clusters at K = 5 for each of the 1756 white birch individuals. The five clusters are delimited by black lines along the top of the plot. XJ, Xinjiang cluster; YN, Yunnan cluster; NW, northwest China cluster; NC, north China cluster; NE, northeast China cluster. (b) Geographical distribution of the five genetic clusters and composition of the genetic cluster in each population. Population codes are identified in Table 1. (c) Principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) of the relationships between sampled populations of Betula platyphylla
Figure 4Graphical representation of the optimal scenarios of the three steps (a‐c) tested by approximate Bayesian computation. NA refers to effective size of putative ancestral, and t1 and t2 to divergence times (prior settings of population parameters are listed in Table S2). Posterior probabilities (P) of the scenarios and 95% confidence intervals of P (in brackets) computed using a logistic regression estimate are given under each scenario
Differences between the five groups of Betula platyphylla in allele richness (A r), observed heterozygosity (H O), gene diversity (H S), fixation index (F IS), and among‐population differentiation (F ST) investigated with 5,000 permutation tests
| Groups |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| XJ | 5.839 | 0.698 | 0.781 | 0.106 | 0.029 |
| NE | 4.81 | 0.669 | 0.698 | 0.041 | 0.033 |
| NC | 4.81 | 0.694 | 0.712 | 0.025 | 0.018 |
| NW | 4.319 | 0.651 | 0.673 | 0.033 | 0.049 |
| YN | 3.061 | 0.472 | 0.473 | 0.001 | 0.127 |
|
| 0.0002 | 0.0022 | 0.0012 | 0.0226 | 0.194ns |
Abbreviation: ns, not significant.
p < 0.05.
p < 0.01.
The analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) for nSSR data among five groups (XJ, YN, NW, NC, and NE) and all populations of Betula platyphylla
| Source of variation | Sum of squares | Variation components | Percentage of variance (%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Five groups | ||||
| Among groups | 555.51 | 0.196 | 4.58 |
|
| Among populations within groups | 541.00 | 0.098 | 2.29 |
|
| Within populations | 13,572.07 | 3.896 | 93.13 |
|
| Total populations | ||||
| Among populations | 1,107.46 | 0.253 | 5.86 |
|
| Within populations | 13,702.47 | 4.064 | 94.13 | |
p < 0.01 (10,100 permutations).
Historical gene flow and 95% confidence intervals (CI) (in parentheses) between five Betula platyphylla geographical regions using MIGRATE
| Regions |
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| XJ → i | YN → i | NW → i | NC → i | NE → i | ||
| XJ | 0.015 (0.010–0.017) | – | 0.198 (0–0.599) | 1.571 (0.684–2.383) | 2.760 (1.561–3.845) | 2.818 (1.663–3.718) |
| YN | 0.027 (0.021–0.030) | 2.061 (1.044–2.973) | – |
| 8.290 (5.509–10.512) | 8.379 (6.094–9.843) |
| NW | 0.088 (0.084–0.091) | 3.065 (1.227–5.042) |
| – |
| 24.316 (21.067–27.764) |
| NC | 0.098 (0.093–0.100) | 4.009 (1.425–6.467) | 12.351 (9.230–15.000) |
| – |
|
| NE | 0.098 (0.096–0.100) | 2.198 (0.255–4.200) | 7.710 (5.158–10.200) | 17.028 (13.947–20.667) |
| – |
The data in bold are the gene flow between adjacent regions. Directionality of gene flow is read from geographical regions on top being the source populations, whereas geographical units to the left are the recipient populations. θ i, effective population sizes; M, migration rates; Mθ i, the number of immigrants per generation.
Description of the 14 scenarios in ABC analysis for Betula platyphylla and posterior probability of each scenario and its 95% confidence intervals (in parentheses) based on the logistic estimate by DIYABC
| Scenario | Description | Posterior probability |
|---|---|---|
| Step 1 XJ and NE | ||
| Scenario 1 | Both refugia |
|
| Scenario 2 | Expansion from XJ to NE |
|
| Scenario 3 | Expansion from NE to XJ |
|
| Step 2 NE, NC and NW | ||
| Scenario 1 | Expansion from NE to NC |
|
| Scenario 2 | Expansion from NW to NC |
|
| Scenario 3 | All refugia |
|
| Scenario 4 | Admixture in NC from NE and NW |
|
| Scenario 5 | Expansion from NE to NC and then from NC to NW |
|
| Scenario 6 | Expansion from NC to NE and NW |
|
| Scenario 7 | Expansion from NW to NC and then from NC to NE |
|
| Scenario 8 | Expansion from NC to NW |
|
| Step 3 NW and YN | ||
| Scenario 1 | Both refugia |
|
| Scenario 2 | Expansion from YN to NW |
|
| Scenario 3 | Expansion from NW to YN |
|
Figure 5Predicted distribution area under MIH and LGM conditions as compared to current predictions. Black dots are our sample locations