| Literature DB >> 31489497 |
Ichiro Tamaki1, Naomichi Kawashima2,3, Suzuki Setsuko4, Jung-Hyun Lee5, Akemi Itaya6, Kyohei Yukitoshi2, Nobuhiro Tomaru7.
Abstract
Species delimitations by morphological and by genetic markers are not always congruent. Magnolia kobus consists of two morphologically different varieties, kobus and borealis. The latter variety is characterized by larger leaves than the former. For the conservation of M. kobus genetic resources in natural forests, the relationships between morphological and genetic variation should be clarified. We investigated variations in nuclear microsatellites, chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) sequences and leaf morphological traits in 23 populations of M. kobus over the range of species. Two genetically divergent lineages, northern and southern were detected and their geographical boundary was estimated to be at 39°N. The northern lineage consisted of two genetic clusters and a single cpDNA haplotype, while the southern one had multiple genetic clusters and cpDNA haplotypes. The northern lineage showed significantly lower genetic diversity than the southern. Approximate Bayesian computation indicated that the northern and southern lineages had experienced, respectively, population expansion and long-term stable population size. The divergence time between the two lineages was estimated to be 565,000 years ago and no signature of migration between the two lineages after divergence was detected. Ecological niche modeling showed that the potential distribution area in northern Japan at the last glacial maximum was very small. It is thus considered that the two lineages have experienced different population histories over several glacial-inter-glacial cycles. Individuals of populations in the central to northern part of Honshu on the Sea of Japan side and in Hokkaido had large leaf width and area. These leaf characteristics corresponded with those of variety borealis. However, the delimitation of the northern and southern lineages detected by genetic markers (39°N) was not congruent with that detected by leaf morphologies (36°N). It is therefore suggested that variety borealis is not supported genetically and the northern and southern lineages should be considered separately when identifying conservation units based not on morphology but on genetic markers.Entities:
Keywords: Approximate Bayesian computation; Chloroplast DNA sequences; Conservation; Ecological niche modeling; Leaf morphology; Microsatellites
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31489497 PMCID: PMC7196954 DOI: 10.1007/s10265-019-01134-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Plant Res ISSN: 0918-9440 Impact factor: 2.629
Fig. 1Distribution ranges of Magnolia kobus (gray area), the locations of the 23 populations sampled (black dots), proportions of genetic clusters detected by STRUCTURE for nuclear microsatellites (pie chart), chloroplast DNA haplotypes detected (bold type letter) and the network they formed with outgroup data [H, I and J were found in M. kobus, and A–G were found in its congener, M. salicifolia (Tamaki et al. 2018)]. Dotted lines within the Japanese archipelago indicate prefectural borders
Location, sample size, genetic variation and leaf size of 23 Magnolia kobus populations
| Population | Latitude | Longitude | Lineagea | Varietyb | Leaf | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | Name | Length (cm) | Width (cm) | ||||||||||
| 1 | Nakagawa | 44.78 | 142.29 | Northern | 14 | 2 | 14 | 4.02 | 0.700 | 0.074N.S. | 12.9 | 6.7 | |
| 2 | Chimikepp lake | 43.66 | 143.88 | Northern | 27 | 2 | 27 | 4.24 | 0.734 | 0.076N.S. | 14.1 | 7.3 | |
| 3 | Nopporo | 43.05 | 141.51 | Northern | 24 | 2 | 24 | 4.33 | 0.735 | 0.079N.S. | 13.4 | 7.4 | |
| 4 | Furano | 43.25 | 142.41 | Northern | 25 | 2 | 26 | 4.26 | 0.726 | 0.085* | 15.3 | 7.7 | |
| 5 | Ashoro | 43.30 | 143.50 | Northern | 7 | 2 | 8 | 4.06 | 0.731 | 0.098N.S. | 14.8 | 7.6 | |
| 6 | Tomakomai | 42.68 | 141.60 | Northern | 23 | 2 | 23 | 4.12 | 0.700 | 0.087* | 13.2 | 7.2 | |
| 7 | Erimo | 42.05 | 143.29 | Northern | 18 | 2 | 18 | 4.06 | 0.703 | 0.106* | 12.3 | 6.5 | |
| 8 | Towada lake | 40.45 | 140.84 | Northern | 21 | 2 | 21 | 4.11 | 0.708 | 0.081N.S. | 12.7 | 6.7 | |
| 9 | Akita | 39.84 | 140.12 | Northern | 12 | 2 | 12 | 4.54 | 0.758 | 0.096N.S. | 13.2 | 7.1 | |
| 10 | Morioka | 39.72 | 141.20 | Northern | 15 | 2 | 15 | 4.26 | 0.732 | 0.106* | 12.8 | 7.3 | |
| 11 | Arasawa | 38.55 | 140.68 | Southern | 30 | 2 | 30 | 4.84 | 0.798 | 0.191*** | 10.2 | 5.5 | |
| 12 | Kakudayama | 37.77 | 138.82 | Southern | 22 | 2 | 22 | 5.02 | 0.832 | 0.012N.S. | 13.8 | 7.6 | |
| 13 | Kurohime | 36.82 | 138.16 | Southern | 19 | 2 | 19 | 4.85 | 0.793 | 0.082* | 12.0 | 7.0 | |
| 14 | Kurikara | 36.66 | 136.84 | Southern | 17 | 1 | 17 | 5.05 | 0.848 | 0.088* | 13.9 | 7.4 | |
| 15 | Hokyosan | 36.17 | 140.13 | Southern | 28 | 2 | 25 | 5.30 | 0.845 | 0.041N.S. | 9.9 | 5.3 | |
| 16 | Nagara | 35.45 | 140.21 | Southern | 7 | 2 | 7 | 4.41 | 0.789 | 0.026N.S. | 10.1 | 5.3 | |
| 17 | Yamanaka lake | 35.41 | 138.87 | Southern | 31 | 2 | 30 | 5.06 | 0.825 | 0.011N.S. | 10.8 | 5.0 | |
| 18 | Biwa lake | 35.41 | 136.01 | Southern | 28 | 2 | 28 | 4.61 | 0.794 | 0.008N.S. | 13.5 | 6.8 | |
| 19 | Toyooka | 35.48 | 134.80 | Southern | intermediate | 5 | 2 | 5 | 4.76 | 0.857 | 0.340*** | 12.2 | 6.5 |
| 20 | Kirigaya | 34.71 | 132.19 | Southern | 29 | 2 | 28 | 3.68 | 0.676 | 0.125*** | 12.1 | 5.9 | |
| 21 | Kujuzan | 33.12 | 131.24 | Southern | intermediate | 28 | 2 | 28 | 5.09 | 0.837 | 0.075** | 12.4 | 6.0 |
| 22 | Otori-kyo | 31.52 | 131.00 | Southern | intermediate | 7 | 2 | 7 | 4.98 | 0.859 | 0.245*** | 12.8 | 6.3 |
| 23 | Jeju | 33.43 | 126.63 | Southern | – | 16 | 4 | – | 3.34 | 0.580 | 0.146** | – | – |
| Average/overall | |||||||||||||
| Northern | 18.6 | 2.0 | 18.8 | 4.20d | 0.723e | 0.087f | |||||||
| Southern | 20.5 | 2.1 | 20.5 | 4.69d | 0.795e | 0.081f | |||||||
| All | 19.7 | 2.0 | 19.7 | 4.48 | 0.764 | 0.097 | |||||||
Nn number of individuals for analysis of nuclear microsatellite, Nc number of individuals for analysis of chloroplast DNA sequences, Nm number of individuals for analysis of leaf morphology, AR allelic richness based on four diploid individuals, HE expected heterozygosity, FIS fixation index
aLineages were determined by STRUCTURE analysis
bVarieties were determined by leaf morphology
cThe significance of departure from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium was tested by randomization test. P values were adjusted by Bonferroni correction. N.Snot significant; *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001
dSouthern > northern (permutation test, P = 0.017)
eSouthern > northern (permutation test, P = 0.016)
fThe difference in FIS between the two lineages was not significant (permutation test)
Fig. 2Comparison of three population size change (a) and four population divergence (b) models. SNM standard neutral model, PGM population growth model, SRM size reduction model, ISM isolation model, IMM isolation with migration model, IMM model of isolation with one way migration from the northern to the southern lineages, IMM model of isolation with one way migration from the southern to the northern lineages. Direction of migration is backward-in-time
Genetic diversity at 13 nuclear microsatellite loci across 23 Magnolia kobus populations
| Locus | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M6D8a | 24 | 0.796 | 0.917 | 0.125 | 0.670 | 0.620 |
| stm0002b | 19 | 0.761 | 0.892 | 0.154 | 0.636 | 0.573 |
| stm0114b | 17 | 0.388 | 0.585 | 0.350 | 0.559 | 0.337 |
| stm0163b | 21 | 0.823 | 0.893 | 0.080 | 0.457 | 0.413 |
| stm0184b | 30 | 0.839 | 0.924 | 0.097 | 0.593 | 0.552 |
| stm0200b | 33 | 0.781 | 0.828 | 0.062 | 0.265 | 0.224 |
| stm0214b | 19 | 0.740 | 0.867 | 0.150 | 0.580 | 0.511 |
| stm0246b | 34 | 0.911 | 0.952 | 0.045 | 0.503 | 0.482 |
| stm0251b | 16 | 0.642 | 0.738 | 0.125 | 0.377 | 0.280 |
| stm0353b | 22 | 0.860 | 0.927 | 0.076 | 0.534 | 0.500 |
| stm0383b | 36 | 0.880 | 0.936 | 0.059 | 0.520 | 0.488 |
| stm0423b | 37 | 0.815 | 0.935 | 0.134 | 0.718 | 0.678 |
| stm0448b | 12 | 0.672 | 0.813 | 0.185 | 0.547 | 0.449 |
| Average/overall | 24.6 | 0.762 | 0.862 | 0.119 | 0.504 | 0.439 |
A number of alleles, HS average gene diversity within populations, HT gene diversity in the total population, FST Weir & Cockerham’s FST, G′ST Hedrick’s standardized GST, D Jost’s D
aIsagi et al. (1999)
bSetsuko et al. (2005)
Fig. 3Changes in log probability of data (a) and ΔK (b) along the number of genetic clusters (K) in STRUCTURE analysis of 453 Magnolia kobus individuals sampled from 23 populations. Distributions of genetic clusters in each individual from K = 2 to 14 (c)
Results from analysis of molecular variance for nuclear microsatellites and chloroplast DNA haplotypes
| Layer | Nuclear microsatellites | Chloroplast DNA haplotypes | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variance component (%) | Variance component (%) | |||
| Between lineages | 5.8 | 30.8 | ||
| Among populations within lineages | 8.8 | 43.4 | ||
| Among individuals within populations | 85.4 | 25.8 | ||
**P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001
Fig. 4Distributions of average values of leaf length and width within trees for 22 Magnolia kobus populations (the Jeju population, No. 23, was excluded from this analysis). Arrows indicate the ranges of leaf length and width for varieties kobus and borealis according to Ohashi (2015). The population numbers (see Table 1) and variety names are shown on each panel. We classified populations into two varieties based on the distributions of average values of leaf length and width. “intermediate” indicates that we could not determine varieties because the distributions were intermediate between those for two varieties
Fig. 5Geographical changes in leaf shape and area for 22 Magnolia kobus populations (the Jeju population, No. 23, was excluded from this analysis). Leaf shape was extracted with an elliptic Fourier method and converted into principal components (PCs) by SHAPE. Only PCs whose contribution to the overall variance was more than 5% are shown
Posterior mode (95% highest posterior density) of parameters for the Bayesian linear mixed effect model explaining leaf morphological traits for Magnolia kobus
| Parameter | PC1 | PC2 | log (|PC3|) | Leaf area |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.0013 (−0.0019 to 0.0039) | ||||
| −0.0294 (−0.0494 to 0.0006) | ||||
| −0.0206 (−0.0379 to 0.0116) | ||||
| −0.0011 (−0.0030 to 0.0013) | −0.0027 (−0.0487 to 0.0455) | |||
| −0.0004 (−0.0047 to 0.0043) | −0.0843 (−0.1956 to 0.0051) | |||
| 0.0448 (0.0415 to 0.0479) | 0.0204 (0.0188 to 0.0219) | 0.308 (0.269 to 0.362) | 11.61 (10.80 to 12.59) | |
| 0.0406 (0.0398 to 0.0417) | 0.0227 (0.0222 to 0.0232) | 1.059 (1.036 to 1.082) | 13.10 (12.80 to 13.38) |
Leaf shape was extracted with an elliptic Fourier method and converted into principal components (PCs) by SHAPE. β0_Mean is the average intercept among individuals. The other βs are regression coefficients. βs that were significantly deviated from 0 are shown in bold. σs are standard deviation parameters of a normal distribution in the model
BioPC principal component estimated by 19 bioclimatic variables, Q membership coefficient of the northern lineage estimated by STRUCTURE at K = 2
Classification error rate, proportion of votes by random forest (RF) composed of 1,000 trees based on a trained set of 10,000 simulations, best model (shown in bold) selected by RF and its posterior probability
| Analysis | Lineage | Classification error rate | Proportion of votes by RF | Posterior probability | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SNM | PGM | SRM | ISM | IMM | IMMNS | IMMSN | ||||
| Population size change | Northern | 0.193 | 0.032 | 0.006 | – | – | – | – | 0.973 | |
| Southern | 0.192 | 0.012 | 0.136 | – | – | – | – | 0.837 | ||
| Population divergence | 0.323 | – | – | – | 0.019 | 0.043 | 0.329 | 0.842 | ||
Posterior mode (95% highest posterior density) of parameters for population size change and population divergence models
| Lineage | Population size change | Population divergence | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Northern | Southern | ||
| Best model | PGM | SNM | ISM |
| 0.95 (0.18 to 10.17) | 5.63 (2.91 to 14.49) | – | |
| − 1.56 (− 9.36 to − 0.24) | – | Fixed to − 1.56 | |
| – | – | 7.37 (3.01 to 14.20) | |
| – | – | 12.03 (6.97 to 14.91) | |
| – | – | 1.13 (0.47 to 3.20) | |
| Mean | 2.35 (0.45 to 8.53) | 0.90 (0.40 to 3.37) | 0.59 (0.27 to 1.83) |
| 1.90 (0.73 to 4.23) | 2.48 (1.21 to 4.89) | 1.52 (0.68 to 4.04) | |
| Mean | 0.585 (0.488 to 0.664) | 0.421 (0.192 to 0.554) | 0.440 (0.237 to 0.571) |
Direction of migration is backward-in-time. The unit of effective population size is the number of diploid individuals. A negative value of G indicates exponential population growth from the past to the present. The unit of TDIV is generations ago
PGM population growth model, SNM standard neutral model, ISM isolation model, NCUR current effective population size, G population growth rate, NNand NS current effective population size of the northern and southern lineages, respectively, TDIV divergence time, mean μ, shape and mean PGSM parameters of mutation model for nuclear microsatellites
Fig. 6Inferred potential areas for Magnolia kobus at the present, the last inter-glacial (LIG, 130 kya) and the last glacial maximum (LGM, 21 kya) based on the community climate system model (CCSM) and the model for interdisciplinary research on climate (MIROC). P indicates probability of occurrence