| Literature DB >> 31850008 |
Lei Shang1,2, Lin-Feng Li1, Zhi-Ping Song1, Yi Wang3, Ji Yang4, Chuan-Chao Wang5, Shi-Yun Qiu1, Jing-Xin Huang1,6, Ming Nie1, Lorne M Wolfe1,7, Bo Li1.
Abstract
Biological invasion represents a global issue of concern due to its large negative impacts on native ecosystems and society. Elucidating the evolutionary history and genetic basis underpinning invasiveness is critical to understanding how alien species invade and adapt to novel environments. Smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora, 2n = 6x = 62) is a notorious invasive species that causes heavily negative effects on native ecosystems worldwide. Here we addressed the evolutionary mechanisms underlying the invasion and dispersal history of this species along the China coast in the past decades. We employed nine microsatellites and three chloroplast fragments to investigate phylogeographic structure and genetic diversity of 11 native US and 11 invasive Chinese S. alterniflora populations. Demographic history simulation was also performed for both the native and invasive populations, respectively. Comparative genetic analyses of these natural populations revealed that although all the Chinese populations were introduced only once, high level of genetic diversity with weak geographic structure was observed. In particular, both the genetic features and mathematical simulation illustrated very recent population expansion in the Chinese populations. We found that genetic variants identified in native US populations were mixed in the Chinese populations, suggesting the recombination of these original variants during the invasion process. These genetic attributes indicate that Chinese populations might not have experienced a genetic bottleneck during the invasion process. High genetic diversity and genetic admixture might have contributed to the success of invasion of S. alterniflora in China. Our study provides a framework of how the smooth cordgrass spreads along the China coast as well as its potential genetic mechanisms underlying the invasion.Entities:
Keywords: Spartina alterniflora; genetic admixture; mathematical simulation; plant invasion; population variation; rapid evolution
Year: 2019 PMID: 31850008 PMCID: PMC6896949 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2019.01467
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Measures of clonal and genetic diversity of native and invasive Spartina alterniflora.
| Region | Site |
|
|
| Clonal |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| U-MC † | 2 | 0.485 | 0.810 | 0.90 | 6.210 | 1.918 | 0.682 | 0.810 | 0.146** |
| U-SI † | 3 | 0.689 | 0.978 | 0.96 | 5.708 | 1.877 | 0.648 | 0.805 | 0.180** | |
| U-TB † | 2 | 0.409 | 0.228 | 0.25 | 2.835 | 1.151 | 0.544 | 0.627 | 0.100** | |
| U-NE | 2 | 0.530 | 0.886 | |||||||
| U-SV | 1 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |||||||
| U-CC | 0.92 | 2.492 | 0.982 | 0.428 | 0.520 | 0.151** | ||||
| U-RI | 0.93 | 2.831 | 1.040 | 0.354 | 0.523 | 0.243** | ||||
| U-LS | 0.86 | 3.067 | 1.204 | 0.496 | 0.607 | 0.151** | ||||
| U-DJ | 2 | 0.429 | 0.716 | 0.98 | 4.886 | 1.657 | 0.564 | 0.778 | 0.250** | |
| U-TP | 4 | 0.644 | 0.681 | 0.94 | 3.415 | 1.393 | 0.605 | 0.671 | 0.092** | |
| U-GV | 4 | 0.867 | 0.669 | 1.00 | 3.311 | 1.270 | 0.483 | 0.679 | 0.275** | |
| U-BR | 1 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.96 | 2.180 | 0.971 | 0.315 | 0.520 | 0.355** | |
| U-ML | 2 | 0.533 | 0.594 | |||||||
| U-FP | 1 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.86 | 4.196 | 1.488 | 0.614 | 0.756 | 0.161** | |
| Mean ± SD | 3.739 | 1.359 | 0.521 | 0.663 | 0.191 | |||||
| 1.337 | 0.340 | 0.119 | 0.114 | 0.080 | ||||||
| US Populations | 10 | 0.794 | 1.250 | 0.87 | 6.614 | 2.020 | 0.565 | 0.810 | 0.300** | |
| Mean ± SD | 4.917 | 1.648 | 0.625 | 0.747 | 0.142 | |||||
| 1.821 | 0.431 | 0.072 | 0.104 | 0.041 | ||||||
| US Source Populations | 5 | 0.752 | 1.041 | 0.76 | 7.005 | 2.050 | 0.657 | 0.825 | 0.200** | |
|
| C-TH | 1 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.91 | 1.803 | 0.641 | 0.304 | 0.403 | 0.235** |
| C-TJ | 2 | 0.485 | 0.810 | 0.99 | 4.129 | 1.610 | 0.641 | 0.744 | 0.124** | |
| C-DY | 1 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.96 | 3.295 | 1.309 | 0.534 | 0.691 | 0.215** | |
| C-LY | 2 | 0.509 | 0.851 | 1.00 | 3.280 | 1.319 | 0.574 | 0.693 | 0.154** | |
| C-YC | 2 | 0.533 | 0.891 | 0.96 | 3.888 | 1.566 | 0.630 | 0.731 | 0.126** | |
| C-CM | 2 | 0.556 | 0.929 | 0.85 | 4.227 | 1.491 | 0.584 | 0.723 | 0.163** | |
| C-WL | 2 | 0.467 | 0.780 | 0.93 | 2.729 | 0.980 | 0.462 | 0.544 | 0.137** | |
| C-NH | 1 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.84 | 2.313 | 0.919 | 0.409 | 0.520 | 0.121** | |
| C-NF | 3 | 0.644 | 0.829 | 0.91 | 3.599 | 1.383 | 0.556 | 0.683 | 0.124** | |
| C-ZH | 2 | 0.556 | 0.929 | 0.60 | 2.486 | 1.070 | 0.583 | 0.563 | −0.024** | |
| C-ZJ | 2 | 0.356 | 0.396 | 0.28 | 2.516 | 0.909 | 0.426 | 0.510 | 0.049** | |
| Mean ± SD | 3.115 | 1.200 | 0.519 | 0.619 | 0.129 | |||||
| 0.801 | 0.314 | 0.105 | 0.114 | 0.071 | ||||||
| Chinese Populations | 3 | 0.591 | 0.932 | 0.85 | 4.685 | 1.728 | 0.532 | 0.745 | 0.282** |
Ha, number of chloroplast haplotype; Hd, haplotype diversity; Pi, nucleotide diversity; Ae, number of effective alleles; I, Shannon’s information index; Ho, observed heterogeneity; He, unbiased expected heterogeneity; Fi, individual inbreeding coefficient; **, p < 0.01, for significant deviation from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium. † Native source populations from which S. alterniflora was introduced to China in 1979.
Figure 1Spartina alterniflora populations. (A) Bar plot estimated by STRUCTURE representing assignments of genotypes of S. alterniflora from all populations to each cluster (K = 2). (B) PCoA of S. alterniflora between US and Chinese populations. (C) PCoA of S. alterniflora between US source populations and the other US populations. (D) PCoA of S. alterniflora between US source populations and Chinese populations.
Results of AMOVA showing distribution of genetic variation of S. alterniflora in US and China based on microsatellite dataset.
| Source of variation | d.f. | Sum of | Percentage of variance explained |
|---|---|---|---|
| All populations combined (n=22) | |||
| Between ranges | 1 | 129.465 | 2.37% |
| Among population within ranges | 20 | 949.136 | 16.80% |
| Within populations | 1,020 | 4,690.337 | 80.83% |
| Total | 1,041 | 5,768.938 | |
| Native populations only (n=11) | |||
| Among populations | 10 | 383.196 | 16.78% |
| Within populations | 412 | 1,905.709 | 83.22% |
| Total | 422 | 2,288.905 | |
| Native source populations only (n=3) | |||
| Among populations | 2 | 39.981 | 7.26% |
| Within populations | 138 | 765.161 | 92.74% |
| Total | 140 | 805.143 | |
| Invasive populations only (n=11) | |||
| Among populations | 10 | 565.94 | 17.44% |
| Within populations | 608 | 2,784.628 | 82.56% |
| Total | 618 | 3,350.568 |
Figure 2Geographic distribution of 10 chloroplast haplotypes detected in S. alterniflora. Pie charts represent the proportion and distribution of haplotypes across (A) native US and (B) invasive China ranges. Population and haplotype names in the map are the same as those in and .
Analysis of molecular variance for populations of S. alterniflora based on chloroplast dataset.
| Source of variation | d.f. | Sum of | Percentage of variance explained | F-statistics |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All populations combined (n=22) | ||||
| Between ranges | 1 | 1.761 | 19.00% | FCT=0.002 |
| Among population within ranges | 20 | 31.788 | 41.78% | FST=0.420 |
| Within populations | 185 | 38.045 | 58.03% | FSC=0.419 |
| Total | 206 | 71.585 | ||
| Native populations only (n=11) | ||||
| Among populations | 10 | 17.286 | 43.86% | FST=0.439 |
| Within populations | 81 | 18.833 | 56.14% | |
| Total | 91 | 36.120 | ||
| Invasive populations only (n=11) | ||||
| Among populations | 10 | 14.492 | 39.58% | FST=0.400 |
| Within populations | 104 | 19.212 | 60.42% | |
| Total | 114 | 33.704 |
Sign test and Wilcoxon sign rank test of bottleneck estimates in S. alterniflora populations.
| Region | Population | Sign test | Wilcoxon sign rank test | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IAM | SMM | SMM | IAM | TPM | SMM | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| U-MC † | 6/3 | 0.487 | 5/4 | 0.519 | 3/6 | 0.108 | 0.082 | 0.455 | 0.898 |
|
| U-SI † | 6/3 | 0.492 | 4/5 | 0.269 | 3/6 | 0.109 | 0.102 | 0.820 | 0.990 |
| U-TB † | 2/7 | 0.036* | 2/7 | 0.031* | 2/7 | 0.018* | 0.898 | 0.936 | 0.997 | |
| U-CC | 2/7 | 0.048* | 1/8 | 0.011* | 1/8 | 0.008** | 0.986 | 0.993 | 0.993 | |
| U-RI | 1/8 | 0.006** | 1/8 | 0.005** | 1/8 | 0.004** | 0.993 | 0.997 | 0.998 | |
| U-LS | 5/4 | 0.549 | 4/5 | 0.284 | 2/7 | 0.027* | 0.545 | 0.850 | 0.990 | |
| U-DJ | 9/0 | 0.009** | 8/1 | 0.071 | 5/4 | 0.552 | 0.001** | 0.005** | 0.715 | |
| U-TP | 4/5 | 0.288 | 4/5 | 0.287 | 3/6 | 0.102 | 0.455 | 0.875 | 0.986 | |
| U-GV | 8/1 | 0.050 | 7/2 | 0.216 | 6/3 | 0.453 | 0.064 | 0.082 | 0.285 | |
| U-BR | 2/7 | 0.032* | 2/7 | 0.028* | 1/8 | 0.003** | 0.981 | 0.997 | 0.999 | |
| U-FP | 8/1 | 0.061 | 5/4 | 0.556 | 5/4 | 0.558 | 0.003** | 0.082 | 0.455 | |
|
| C-TH | 6/3 | 0.295 | 5/4 | 0.623 | 3/6 | 0.123 | 0.285 | 0.590 | 0.976 |
| C-TJ | 7/2 | 0.237 | 3/6 | 0.110 | 0/9 | 0.000** | 0.010* | 0.898 | 1.000 | |
| C-DY | 8/1 | 0.056 | 6/3 | 0.452 | 3/6 | 0.101 | 0.002** | 0.125 | 0.898 | |
| C-LY | 6/3 | 0.453 | 4/5 | 0.281 | 1/8 | 0.004** | 0.024* | 0.850 | 0.997 | |
| C-YC | 7/2 | 0.227 | 3/6 | 0.100 | 0/9 | 0.000** | 0.082 | 0.918 | 1.000 | |
| C-CM | 8/1 | 0.051 | 8/1 | 0.061 | 5/4 | 0.569 | 0.007** | 0.064 | 0.285 | |
| C-WL | 8/1 | 0.031* | 7/2 | 0.159 | 6/3 | 0.416 | 0.003** | 0.005** | 0.082 | |
| C-NH | 3/6 | 0.142 | 3/6 | 0.123 | 3/6 | 0.135 | 0.820 | 0.918 | 0.981 | |
| C-NF | 6/3 | 0.474 | 2/7 | 0.027* | 0/9 | 0.000** | 0.367 | 0.990 | 1.000 | |
| C-ZH | 5/4 | 0.573 | 3/6 | 0.112 | 3/6 | 0.103 | 0.590 | 0.898 | 0.990 | |
| C-ZJ | 6/3 | 0.309 | 6/3 | 0.381 | 6/3 | 0.427 | 0.213 | 0.455 | 0.545 | |
| China | 9/0 | 0.010* | 3/6 | 0.113 | 0/9 | 0.000** | 0.001** | 0.850 | 1.000 | |
IAM, infinite alleles model; TPM, two-phased model; SMM, stepwise mutation model; HE/HD, ratio of number of locus with heterozygote excess against deficiency; *, P<0.05; **, P<0.01. † Native source populations from which S. alterniflora was introduced to China in 1979.