| Literature DB >> 31623551 |
Endre Gy Tóth1,2, Francine Tremblay3, Johann M Housset4,5,6, Yves Bergeron3,4, Christopher Carcaillet5,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genetic processes shape the modern-day distribution of genetic variation within and between populations and can provide important insights into the underlying mechanisms of evolution. The resulting genetic variation is often unequally partitioned within species' distribution range and especially large differences can manifest at the range limit, where population fragmentation and isolation play a crucial role in species survival. Despite several molecular studies investigating the genetic diversity and differentiation of European Alpine mountain forests, the climatic and demographic constrains which influence the genetic processes are often unknown. Here, we apply non-coding microsatellite markers to evaluate the sporadic peripheral and continuous populations of cembra pine (Pinus cembra L.), a long-lived conifer species that inhabits the subalpine treeline ecotone in the western Alps to investigate how the genetic processes contribute to the modern-day spatial distribution. Moreover, we corroborate our findings with paleoecological records, micro and macro-remains, to infer the species' possible glacial refugia and expansion scenarios.Entities:
Keywords: Climatic variability; Differentiation; Diversity; Gene flow; Isolation; Pinus cembra
Year: 2019 PMID: 31623551 PMCID: PMC6798344 DOI: 10.1186/s12862-019-1510-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Fig. 1Hypothetical scenarios of postglacial expansion in the extreme western part of the range of Pinus cembra. a ‘Classic’ temporal scenario of colonization and extinction, based on glacial refugia in the Carpathians or the eastern Alps, and migration through central massifs/valleys with four hypothetical haplotypes (number chosen for the conceptual exercise) illustrating colonization, expansion and extinction processes. b Modern spatial pattern of the hypothetical haplotypes, their main/central (large polygon) and peripheral/fragmented populations (small polygons), their migration routes (arrows), and their eventual extinction or absence of immigration (grey area). c Actual locations of main P. cembra forests in the western Alps (the red dashed line distinguishes main central populations from peripheral/fragmented populations), and locations of first dated supporting subfossils (see Additional file 1). d Schematic illustration of the three hypothetical scenarios explaining the species’ distribution in the western Alps: the ‘Classic’ scenario (Ho1); ‘Southeast Alpine refugia’ scenario (Ho2, based on [25, 26]; and ‘Intra-Alpine southern refugia’ (Ho3 based on [27]). The three scenarios are not exclusive but complementary
Details of the 22 natural populations of Pinus cembra in the western Alps: Situation (central vs marginal); site names of populations; ID-codes (F, France; I, Italy; geographic locations in terms of latitudes and longitudes (in decimal degrees) and mean sampling altitudes at each site (m a.s.l.); and genetic diversity indices
| Situation | Population | ID | Lat. | Lon. | Alt. | n |
|
|
| AR |
|
|
| HWE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Central | Bosco di Alevé (I) | CAL | 44.611 | 7.080 | 2076 | 37 | 6.571 | 2.703 | 2 | 5.306 | 0.617 | 0.549 | −0.104 | 0.452 |
| Aussois (F) | CAU | 45.255 | 6.719 | 2049 | 29 | 6.429 | 3.318 | 1 | 5.636 | 0.578 | 0.598 | 0.086 | 0.235 | |
| Bois des Ayes (F) | CAY | 44.821 | 6.655 | 1991 | 31 | 6.571 | 2.770 | 2 | 5.137 | 0.534 | 0.537 | 0.038 | 0.162 | |
| Chamonix (F) | CBL | 45.917 | 6.897 | 1807 | 39 | 6.286 | 3.017 | 1 | 5.212 | 0.647 | 0.620 | −0.044 | 0.133 | |
| Lago Perso (I) | CLP | 44.906 | 6.795 | 1998 | 30 | 6.286 | 3.126 | 1 | 5.316 | 0.706 | 0.602 | −0.186 | 0.170 | |
| Lanslevillard (F) | CLV | 45.287 | 6.949 | 2003 | 28 | 7.000 | 3.302 | 0 | 5.750 | 0.640 | 0.596 | −0.081 | 0.319 | |
| Lac Miroir, Ceillac (F) | CMI | 44.631 | 6.794 | 2279 | 30 | 6.143 | 2.838 | 0 | 5.047 | 0.667 | 0.581 | −0.113 | 0.253 | |
| Orelle (F) | COR | 45.193 | 6.535 | 1722 | 32 | 6.857 | 3.433 | 0 | 5.645 | 0.713 | 0.614 | −0.154 | 0.194 | |
| La Plagne (F) | CPL | 45.509 | 6.666 | 2005 | 30 | 6.429 | 3.360 | 0 | 5.233 | 0.695 | 0.631 | −0.095 | 0.457 | |
| Méribel (F) | CTU | 45.364 | 6.587 | 1766 | 39 | 6.286 | 2.548 | 0 | 4.756 | 0.644 | 0.555 | −0.133 | 0.272 | |
| Serre Chevalier (F) | CSC | 44.923 | 6.545 | 2140 | 34 | 6.714 | 3.297 | 0 | 5.816 | 0.697 | 0.655 | −0.058 | 0.461 | |
| Mean | 1985.1 | 32.6 | 6.506 | 3.065 | 0.6 | 5.350 | 0.649 | 0.594 | −0.077 | |||||
| Marginal | Aravis-La Clusaz (F) | MAR | 45.897 | 6.471 | 1884 | 28 | 5.571 | 2.780 | 0 | 4.628 | 0.673 | 0.558 | −0.161 | 0.103 |
| Gordolasque (F) | MAU | 44.075 | 7.403 | 1766 | 27 | 5.429 | 3.208 | 0 | 4.941 | 0.722 | 0.618 | −0.156 | 0.477 | |
| Vallon de la Braisse (F) | MBR | 44.286 | 6.807 | 2198 | 24 | 5.714 | 3.267 | 2 | 5.069 | 0.669 | 0.622 | −0.021 | 0.329 | |
| Chamrousse (F) | MCH | 45.112 | 5.891 | 1910 | 30 | 7.143 | 2.898 | 1 | 5.564 | 0.640 | 0.575 | −0.072 | 0.274 | |
| Dévoluy (F) | MDE | 44.612 | 5.945 | 1791 | 46 | 7.857 | 3.044 | 3 | 5.998 | 0.520 | 0.574 | 0.115* | 0.084 | |
| Flaine (F) | MFL | 46.001 | 6.710 | 2011 | 30 | 5.000 | 2.348 | 0 | 4.205 | 0.507 | 0.455 | −0.081 | 0.532 | |
| Gilly-sur-Isère (F) | MGI | 45.597 | 6.383 | 1859 | 50 | 5.714 | 2.660 | 1 | 4.572 | 0.538 | 0.575 | 0.097* | 0.260 | |
| Moulières (F) | MMO | 44.189 | 6.565 | 2049 | 29 | 6.571 | 2.648 | 1 | 5.059 | 0.501 | 0.556 | 0.103* | 0.493 | |
| Roya (F) | MRO | 44.115 | 7.493 | 1722 | 29 | 4.286 | 2.441 | 2 | 3.721 | 0.588 | 0.505 | −0.037 | 0.253 | |
| Taillefer (F) | MTA | 45.054 | 5.921 | 1946 | 29 | 6.429 | 2.975 | 0 | 5.319 | 0.610 | 0.571 | −0.046 | 0.346 | |
| Valgaudemar (F) | MVA | 44.701 | 6.152 | 2073 | 29 | 6.571 | 3.014 | 0 | 5.624 | 0.685 | 0.628 | −0.084 | 0.218 | |
| Mean | 1928.1 | 31.9 | 6.026 | 2.844 | 0.9 | 4.973 | 0.605 | 0.567 | −0.031 | |||||
| Overall mean | 1956.6 | 32.3 | 6.266 | 2.954 | 0.8 | 5.162 | 0.627 | 0.581 | −0.054 | |||||
| Standard deviation | 154.4 | 6.3 | 0.761 | 0.316 | 0.9 | 0.546 | 0.071 | 0.045 | 0.090 |
n, number of sampled individuals; Na, number of different alleles; Ne, number of effective alleles; Np, number of private alleles; AR, allelic richness; Ho, observed heterozygosity; He, expected heterozygosity; FIS, inbreeding coefficient; HWE, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (p-value), *p<0.05.
Results of genetic bottleneck tests for the 22 Pinus cembra populations
| ID | SMM ( | TPM ( | Mode shift | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAL | 1.000 | 0.988 | normal L-shaped | 0.221 (0.174) |
| CAU | 0.988 | 0.852 | normal L-shaped | 0.253 (0.169) |
| CAY | 1.000 | 0.988 | normal L-shaped | 0.215 (0.183) |
| CBL | 0.988 | 0.531 | normal L-shaped | 0.225 (0.131) |
| CLP | 1.000 | 0.813 | normal L-shaped | 0.252 (0.183) |
| CLV | 1.000 | 0.988 | normal L-shaped | 0.217 (0.170) |
| CMI | 0.996 | 0.988 | normal L-shaped | 0.242 (0.174) |
| COR | 0.992 | 0.852 | normal L-shaped | 0.275 (0.151) |
| CPL | 0.961 | 0.344 | normal L-shaped | 0.239 (0.172) |
| CTU | 1.000 | 1.000 | normal L-shaped | 0.257 (0.168) |
| CSC | 0.988 | 0.766 | normal L-shaped | 0.262 (0.151) |
| MAR | 0.992 | 0.945 | normal L-shaped | 0.256 (0.191) |
| MAU | 0.711 | 0.344 | normal L-shaped | 0.293 (0.157) |
| MBR | 0.766 | 0.766 | normal L-shaped | 0.209 (0.175) |
| MCH | 1.000 | 0.996 | normal L-shaped | 0.263 (0.172) |
| MDE | 1.000 | 0.996 | normal L-shaped | 0.246 (0.165) |
| MFL | 1.000 | 0.988 | normal L-shaped | 0.228 (0.176) |
| MGI | 0.996 | 0.766 | normal L-shaped | 0.227 (0.178) |
| MMO | 1.000 | 0.988 | normal L-shaped | 0.235 (0.166) |
| MRO | 0.945 | 0.469 | normal L-shaped | 0.356 (0.190) |
| MTA | 1.000 | 0.961 | normal L-shaped | 0.248 (0.157) |
| MVA | 1.000 | 0.988 | normal L-shaped | 0.266 (0.155) |
SMM, Stepwise Mutation Model; TPM, Two Phase mutation Model
p-value, probability according to one-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test of heterozygote excess
Results of analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) between regions and populations of Pinus cembra.
| Spatial scale | Source of variation | D.f. | Sum of square | Mean square | Estimated variance | Variance (%) | Fixation index ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pop vs. Pop | among pop. | 21 | 256.352 | 12.207 | 0.152 | 6% | 0.065** |
| within pop. | 1432 | 3130.567 | 2.186 | 2.186 | 94% | ||
| total | 1453 | 3386.920 | 2.338 | 100% | |||
| Central vs. Marginal | among regions | 1 | 16.642 | 16.642 | 0.020 | 0.8% | 0.008** |
| within regions | 1452 | 3370.277 | 2.321 | 2.321 | 99.2% | ||
| total | 1453 | 3386.920 | 2.341 | 100% |
significance calculated with 999 permutations: **p < 0.01
Fig. 2Patterns of genetic differentiation: a Matrix of pairwise FST values between the 22 cembra pine (Pinus cembra L.) populations. Colors representing Nei’s genetic distances are defined on the scale at the right side of the figure. b Two-dimensional plot of the two main principal components (PC) and their part of the total variance in % using Principle Component Analysis (PCA). Population abbreviations are as explained in Table 1
Fig. 3Results of Barrier analysis of genetic discontinuities among, and structure of, the 22 cembra pine (Pinus cembra) populations: a Genetic delimitations in the spatial distribution of populations, visualized with red lines with indicated bootstrap support (%). b Estimated population structures for K = 2, K = 3 and K = 4 genetic groups, based on Mean L(K) (±SD) and ΔK values. Population abbreviations are as explained in Table 1. The natural distribution of cembra pine according to the EUFORGEN (2018) database is marked in dark green
Results of standard Mantel tests, partial-Mantel tests and Multiple Matrix Regression with Randomization (MMRR) analyses
| Test | Parameters | R |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mantel | Gen vs. Geo | 0.423 | – | 0.001*** |
| Gen vs. Clim | 0.319 | – | 0.009*** | |
| partial-Mantel | Gen vs. Geo (Clim) | 0.269 | – | 0.011** |
| Gen vs. Clim (Geo) | 0.313 | – | 0.020** | |
| MMRR | Gen vs. Geo + Clim | 0.342 | Geo: 0.002 | 0.531ns |
| Clim: 0.004 | 0.002*** | |||
| Gen vs. Geo + Alt | 0.200 | Geo: 0.011 | 0.001*** | |
| Alt: 0.004 | 0.205ns |
significance calculated with 999 permutations: **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01, ns; not significant
Gen, genetic distance (FST); Geo, geographic distance; Clim, climatic distance partial-Mantel tests: X ~ Y(Z) is the correlation between X and Y matrices, controlling for Z
Fig. 4Results of Mantel tests of correlations: a between genetic differentiation (Nei’s FST) and geographic distance (spatial Euclidean), b between genetic differentiation (Slatkin’s linearized FST) and geographic distance (spatial Euclidean) with 2-D kernel density estimation, c between genetic differentiation (Slatkin’s linearized FST) and climatic distance (climatic Euclidean)