| Literature DB >> 32391044 |
Lu Xia1,2, Qifang Geng3, Shuqing An1,2.
Abstract
Hundreds of plants and half a kilogram of seeds of Spartina alterniflora, which were collected from Morehead City in North Carolina, Sapelo Island in Georgia, and Tampa Bay in Florida, were introduced to China in 1979. However, according to documented records, S. alterniflora from different origins were introduced to different areas when the species was first introduced to the coastal areas of China in the 1980s. In order to understand the relationship between the invasive S. alterniflora populations of China and the native S. alterniflora populations of the United States, and whether the genetic structure and genetic diversity of the invasive populations of China were affected by different introductions in the 1980s, molecular markers were used to determine the levels of gene flow and its effect on population differentiation. A total of 715 samples of S. alterniflora were collected from nine invasive populations in China and nine native populations from the United States. The genetic diversity and genetic structure of invasive and native populations were compared using microsatellite markers. The heterozygosity of Chinese invasive populations of S. alterniflora (HO = 0.538, HE = 0.725) were similar with those of native populations (HO = 0.530, HE = 0.744), which may attribute to its multiple introductions with the multisource populations from different geographic areas of the United States. However, the lower allelic diversities of Chinese invasive populations were detected, which may be due to the founder effect, or the bottleneck, which supports the theory that the allelic diversity is more sensitive to population bottlenecks than heterozygosity. The results of the STRUCTURE analysis among all sampling sites showed that the value of ΔK was largest when K = 2, which indicated that the invasive S. alterniflora populations in China had completed differentiated from the native populations of the United States. This may be because of admixture and hybridization of three non-overlapping original populations, or the postintroduction rapid evolution in China, and reproductive isolation under long-term geographic isolation. There was significant differentiation among invasive populations, which was mainly affected by different human-mediated introductions in 1980s. Significant genetic structure (K = 7) and high genetic differentiation (Fst = 0.30193) were detected in Chinese invasive populations, which may due to the low natural gene flow among populations. The genetic structure of the invasive populations in China was still affected by the human-mediated introductions in the 1980s, and the different initial introductions might promote differentiation among the invasive populations. In fact, the human-mediated long-distance dispersal should take the most of responsibility for the rapid spread of S. alterniflora along the coast of China. Multisource introductions of S. alterniflora are perhaps helpful for local adaptation but itself cannot cause rapid spread along the whole coast of China. Meanwhile, we suggest that the prevention of gene exchange among populations of S. alterniflora is the first and most important step in the control of the species on the coast of China, because admixture and hybridization of isolated populations might generate new heterosis and increase the difficulty of managing S. alterniflora in China.Entities:
Keywords: gene flow; genetic diversity; genetic structure; hybridization; multiple introductions; rapid evolution
Year: 2020 PMID: 32391044 PMCID: PMC7193035 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2020.00284
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Genet ISSN: 1664-8021 Impact factor: 4.599
Sources of Spartina alterniflora in each population on the coast of China when it was introduced in the 1980s.
| Province/City | Number | Source | Time | References |
| Hebei (Tianjin) | 101,100 | North Carolina | 1986 | |
| Hebei (Tangshan) | Unknown | 1980s | ||
| Hebei (Cangzhou) | Unknown | 1998 | ||
| Shandong | 101,100; 301,300 | North Carolina and Georgia | 1983 | |
| Jiangsu (the abandoned Yellow River estuary) | Unknown | 1982 | ||
| Jiangsu (Yancheng) | 301,300 | Georgia | 1983 | |
| Jiangsu (Qidong) | 301,300 | Georgia | 1983 | |
| Jiangsu (Dongtai) | Unknown | 1987–1988 | ||
| Zhejiang | 201,200; 301,300 | Georgia and Florida | 1983 | |
| Fujian | 101,100; 201,200; 301,300 | North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida | 1981 | |
| Guangdong | 201,200 | Florida | 1983 | |
| Guangxi | 101,100; 201,200; 301,300 | North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida | 1986 |
FIGURE 1Introduction and sampling sites of Spartina alterniflora on the coast of China. (A) General view; the red arrow shows the direction of the China coastal current, and the introduction sites of (B) Liaoning Province; (C) Hebei Province (Tianjin); (D) Shandong Province; (E) Jiangsu Province; (F) Zhejiang Province; (G) Fujian Province; (H) Guangdong Province; and (I) Guangxi Province.
Geographic location and population genetic parameters for each site sampled.
| Code | Location | Latitude (N) | Longitude (E) | N | A | ||||
| LN | Huludao, Liaoning Province, China | 40°52’42.48″ | 121°01’19.38″ | 33 | 2.125 | 2.014 | 0.270 | 0.224 | −0.191 |
| HB | Tianjin, China | 38°59’06.00″ | 117°42’53.04″ | 32 | 6.000 | 5.605 | 0.606 | 0.674 | 0.118 |
| SD | Dongying, Shandong Province, China | 37°50’28.50″ | 119°05’15.54″ | 42 | 2.250 | 2.094 | 0.654 | 0.440 | −0.478 |
| JS | Yancheng, Jiangsu Province, China | 33°16’07.44″ | 120°47’23.94″ | 38 | 4.875 | 4.627 | 0.500 | 0.651 | 0.245 |
| ZJ | Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, China | 28°06’10.44″ | 121°00’14.58″ | 39 | 4.375 | 3.948 | 0.430 | 0.531 | 0.203 |
| FJ | Putian, Fujian Province, China | 25°15’14.10″ | 119°00’08.88″ | 22 | 5.375 | 5.335 | 0.633 | 0.627 | 0.015 |
| XG | Xianggang, China | 22°26’23.34″ | 113°56’53.58″ | 45 | 3.125 | 3.002 | 0.343 | 0.384 | 0.116 |
| GD | Zhuhai, Guangdong Province, China | 22°15’18.66″ | 113°35’20.58″ | 37 | 2.375 | 2.190 | 0.885 | 0.452 | −0.957 |
| GX | Beihai, Guangxi Province, China | 21°41’07.20″ | 109°09’23.22″ | 56 | 6.375 | 5.730 | 0.555 | 0.665 | 0.174 |
| NC3 | Morehead City, NC, USA | 34°43’18.69″ | 76°40’28.76″ | 40 | 7.375 | 6.630 | 0.534 | 0.625 | 0.158 |
| NC2 | Morehead City, NC, USA | 34°42’11.98″ | 76°47’58.14″ | 40 | 7.500 | 6.897 | 0.553 | 0.634 | 0.146 |
| NC1 | Morehead City, NC, USA | 34°42’01.21″ | 76°49’50.49″ | 41 | 7.750 | 6.898 | 0.566 | 0.672 | 0.170 |
| GA3 | Altamaha Estuary, GA, USA | 31°27’17.35″ | 81°21’50.52″ | 42 | 8.125 | 7.181 | 0.524 | 0.662 | 0.222 |
| GA2 | Altamaha Estuary, GA, USA | 31°25’11.72″ | 81°17’23.51″ | 43 | 9.125 | 7.855 | 0.518 | 0.725 | 0.296 |
| GA1 | Altamaha Estuary, GA, USA | 31°24’54.84″ | 81°17’47.43″ | 41 | 8.375 | 7.414 | 0.538 | 0.700 | 0.245 |
| FL3 | Tampa Bay, FL, USA | 29°51’06.25″ | 83°37’02.98″ | 41 | 7.250 | 6.404 | 0.484 | 0.612 | 0.221 |
| FL2 | Tampa Bay, FL, USA | 29°51’01.44″ | 83°37’13.76″ | 42 | 7.625 | 6.548 | 0.518 | 0.640 | 0.202 |
| FL1 | Tampa Bay, FL, USA | 29°50’34.85″ | 83°37’01.95″ | 41 | 8.500 | 7.120 | 0.530 | 0.683 | 0.237 |
Population genetic parameters of Chinese and American Spartina alterniflora.
| N | A | ||||
| China | 344 | 4.097 | 3.838 | 0.542 | 0.516 |
| USA | 371 | 7.958 | 6.994 | 0.529 | 0.611 |
Analysis of molecular variance showing degrees of freedom (d.f.), sum of squares (SS), variance components (Var.), percentage of variances (%).
| Source of variation | d.f. | SS | Var. | % | F statistics | F |
| Among populations | 8 | 550.162 | 0.88006 | 30.19 | –0.04295 | |
| Within populations | 335 | 652.343 | –0.08740 | –3.00 | 0.30193 | |
| Within individuals | 334 | 730.000 | 2.12209 | 72.81 | 0.27195 | |
| Total | 687 | 1, 932.506 | 2.91475 | |||
| Among populations | 8 | 129.760 | 0.17576 | 10.28 | 0.12890 | |
| Within populations | 362 | 626.564 | 0.19763 | 11.56 | 0.10284 | |
| Within individuals | 371 | 495.500 | 1.33558 | 78.15 | 0.21849 | |
| Total | 741 | 1251.825 | 1.70897 | |||
Genetic differentiation between populations of Spartina alterniflora at eight microsatellite loci.
| (A) | ||||||||||
| LN | HB | SD | JS | ZJ | FJ | XG | GD | GX | ||
| LN | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | |
| HB | 0.35113 | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | |
| SD | 0.56222 | 0.26527 | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | |
| JS | 0.47240 | 0.15118 | 0.30227 | * | * | * | * | * | * | |
| ZJ | 0.31917 | 0.12467 | 0.32710 | 0.25278 | * | * | * | * | * | |
| FJ | 0.41437 | 0.08146 | 0.27577 | 0.16666 | 0.13817 | * | * | * | * | |
| XG | 0.48148 | 0.28666 | 0.47472 | 0.39842 | 0.28518 | 0.34836 | * | * | * | |
| GD | 0.56815 | 0.27143 | 0.49464 | 0.33050 | 0.42084 | 0.33986 | 0.44268 | * | * | |
| GX | 0.24262 | 0.06302 | 0.24355 | 0.17463 | 0.04418 | 0.05575 | 0.22705 | 0.31109 | * | |
| NC | * | * | ||||||||
| GA | 0.03518 | * | ||||||||
| FL | 0.06166 | 0.06871 | ||||||||
FIGURE 2Pairwise population assignment. (A) Pairwise population assignment between American and Chinese populations of Spartina alterniflora. (B) Pairwise population assignment between populations of S. alterniflora in North Carolina and Georgia. (C) Pairwise population assignment between populations of S. alterniflora in North Carolina and Florida. (D) Pairwise population assignment between populations of S. alterniflora in Georgia and Florida.
FIGURE 3Unweighted pair-group method with arithmetic average dendrogram based on Nei’s (1973) genetic distance among the populations of Spartina alterniflora.
FIGURE 4The population genetic structure of Spartina alterniflora across invasive and native ranges (A) and the Delta K analysis (B).
FIGURE 5Geographic distribution of the genetic groups on the coast of America detected using STRUCTURE analysis of Spartina alterniflora based on SSR data. K-values of the panel ΔK = 2 (A) and ΔK = 3 (B).
FIGURE 6Geographic distribution of the genetic groups on the coast of China detected using STRUCTURE analysis of Spartina alterniflora based on SSR data (ΔK = 7).
FIGURE 7Recent migration rate between pairs of neighboring populations (A) in China; (B) in United States.
FIGURE 8(A) Population allelic richness (AR) in relation to latitude of Spartina alterniflora in China; (B) population expected heterozygosity (HE) in relation to latitude of S. alterniflora in China; (C) population allelic richness (AR) in relation to the number of sources when S. alterniflora was introduced into coastal China for the first time (1980s), and it is not including HB and JS; (D) population expected heterozygosity (HE) in relation to the number of sources when S. alterniflora was introduced into coastal China for the first time (1980s), not including HB and JS; (E) population allelic richness (AR) in relation to the number of sources when S. alterniflora was introduced into coastal China for the first time (1980s), including HB and JS; (F) population expected heterozygosity (HE) in relation to the number of sources when S. alterniflora was introduced into coastal China for the first time (1980s), including HB and JS.