| Literature DB >> 31892952 |
Mitra Menon1, Erin Landguth2, Alejandro Leal-Saenz3, Justin C Bagley4, Anna W Schoettle5, Christian Wehenkel6, Lluvia Flores-Renteria7, Samuel A Cushman8, Kristen M Waring9, Andrew J Eckert4.
Abstract
A lack of optimal gene combinations, as well as low levels of genetic diversity, is often associated with the formation of species range margins. Conservation efforts rely on predictive modelling using abiotic variables and assessments of genetic diversity to determine target species and populations for controlled breeding, germplasm conservation and assisted migration. Biotic factors such as interspecific competition and hybridization, however, are largely ignored, despite their prevalence across diverse taxa and their role as key evolutionary forces. Hybridization between species with well-developed barriers to reproductive isolation often results in the production of offspring with lower fitness. Generation of novel allelic combinations through hybridization, however, can also generate positive fitness consequences. Despite this possibility, hybridization-mediated introgression is often considered a threat to biodiversity as it can blur species boundaries. The contribution of hybridization towards increasing genetic diversity of populations at range margins has only recently gathered attention in conservation studies. We assessed the extent to which hybridization contributes towards range dynamics by tracking spatio-temporal changes in the central location of a hybrid zone between two recently diverged species of pines: Pinus strobiformis and P. flexilis. By comparing geographic cline centre estimates for global admixture coefficient with morphological traits associated with reproductive output, we demonstrate a northward shift in the hybrid zone. Using a combination of spatially explicit, individual-based simulations and linkage disequilibrium variance partitioning, we note a significant contribution of adaptive introgression towards this northward movement, despite the potential for differences in regional population size to aid hybrid zone movement. Overall, our study demonstrates that hybridization between recently diverged species can increase genetic diversity and generate novel allelic combinations. These novel combinations may allow range margin populations to track favourable climatic conditions or facilitate adaptive evolution to ongoing and future climate change.Entities:
Keywords: CDMetaPOP; cline analysis; conifers; forest management; hybrid zone movement; hybrid zones; range dynamics
Year: 2019 PMID: 31892952 PMCID: PMC6935588 DOI: 10.1111/eva.12795
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evol Appl ISSN: 1752-4571 Impact factor: 5.183
Figure 1Map of sampled populations (squares) with overlaid polygons representing the geographical range of Pinus strobiformis (green) (obtained from Shirk et al., 2018) and P. flexilis (blue). The two horizontal lines represent the geographic locations of the cline centre as estimated from morphological (continuous line) and genomic data (dashed line). The dashed oval represents the full extent of the hybrid zone (as defined here). The inset figure shows the best fit demographic model from Menon et al. (2018b), indicating a history of divergence with gene flow and contemporary gene flow only between P. flexilis and the hybrid zone
Figure 2Layout for the simulation framework implemented in CDMetaPOP. The three colours (blue, brown and green) correspond to patches representing P. flexilis, hybrid zone and P. strobiformis. Arrows represent the directionality of dispersal between groups, with the dashed arrows indicating dispersal reduced by 50%. The scenario names are listed below Phase IV. Patch and movement parameters are detailed in Table S1
Among group (mean F CT ± 1SE) and among population within group (mean F ST ± 1SE) genetic differentiation measures from Phase I to Phase III across Model A and Model B in the simulations
| Model | Phase |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| (A) Secondary contact | I | 0.024 ± 0.0001 | 0.014 ± 0.0002 |
| III(i) | 0.009 ± 5.69e‐05 | 0.0004 ± 3.32e‐05 | |
| III(ii) | 0.026 ± 0.0006 | 0.018 ± 0.0001 | |
| IV(i) | 0.018 ± 0.0003 | 0.008 ± 0.0005 | |
| IV(ii) | 0.041 ± 0.0004 | 0.040 ± 0.0007 | |
| (B) Speciation with gene flow | I | 0.013 ± 0.0001 | 0.002 ± 0.0001 |
| III(i) | 0.009 ± 1.90e‐05 | 0.0004 ± 4.29e‐06 | |
| III(ii) | 0.021 ± 0.0004 | 0.013 ± 0.0006 | |
| III(iii) | 0.030 ± 0.0004 | 0.019 ± 0.0003 | |
| IV(i) | 0.019 ± 0.0002 | 0.008 ± 0.0003 | |
| IV(ii) | 0.034 ± 0.0003 | 0.032 ± 0.0004 | |
| IV(iii) | 0.037 ± 0.0003 | 0.031 ± 0.0004 |
Figure 3Empirical data‐based geographic cline as a function of distance from the southernmost population plotted for (a) cone length (b) seed weight and (c) Q‐score obtained from fastSTRUCTURE
Maximum‐likelihood estimates (MLEs) for geographic cline parameters and the 2 log‐likelihood unit (2 LLU) variation around each parameter
| Data set | Centre (km) | 2LLU (km) | Width (km) | 2LLU (km) | AICc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cone length | 1,054 | 968–1,132 | 845 | 662–1,092 | 752.71 |
| Seed weight | 1,100 | 980–1,264 | 898 | 714–1,117 | 254.12 |
|
| 1,523 | 1,485–1,554 | 117 | 112–233 | 25.98 |
Percentage contribution of each category to the 3 × 3 contingency test using genomic cline centre (α) and geographic cline centre estimates. Values listed are the percentage contribution to the chi‐square statistic
| Positive | Negative | Not outlier | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overlap |
| 0.18 |
|
| Overlap morphological centre |
|
|
|
| Overlap neither |
|
|
|
Bold values indicate positive deviations from the expected value, and italicized values indicate negative deviations.
Figure 5Relative percentage change in the geographic cline centre estimate across generations for all five simulated scenarios in CDMetaPOP. The change at any given generation is relative to the estimate at generation 500 and to the total spatial extent of the simulated landscape
Figure 4Change in the ratio of within‐population‐to‐among‐population variance components (D IS:D ST) for the empirical dataset plotted as a function of geographical distance for 11 sets of 4 populations (a) using 4,857 nearly diagnostic SNPs and (b) using 20 bootstrapped sets of nondiagnostic SNPs. The dotted vertical line represents the Q‐score geographic cline centre. The three colours represent the geographical location of pure P. strobiformis (grey), hybrid zone (brown) and pure P. flexilis (green)