| Literature DB >> 35720535 |
Lu Wang1, Yao Li1, Shuichi Noshiro2, Mitsuo Suzuki3, Takahisa Arai3, Kazutaka Kobayashi3, Lei Xie1, Mingyue Zhang1, Na He4, Yanming Fang1, Feilong Zhang4.
Abstract
Species' phylogeographic patterns reflect the interplay between landscape features, climatic forces, and evolutionary processes. Here, we used two chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) markers (trnL and trnL-F) to explore the role of stepped geomorphology in shaping the phylogeographic structure of Toxicodendron vernicifluum, an economically important tree species widely distributed in East Asia. The range-wide pattern of sequence variation was analyzed based on a dataset including 357 individuals from China, together with published sequences of 92 individuals mainly from Japan and South Korea. We identified five chloroplast haplotypes based on seven substitutions across the 717-bp alignment. A clear east-west phylogeographic break was recovered according to the stepped landforms of mainland China. The wild trees of the western clade were found to be geographically restricted to the "middle step", which is characterized by high mountains and plateaus, while those of the eastern clade were confined to the "low step", which is mainly made up of hills and plains. The two major clades were estimated to have diverged during the Early Pleistocene, suggesting that the cool glacial climate may have caused the ancestral population to retreat to at least two glacial refugia, leading to allopatric divergence in response to long-term geographic isolation. Migration vector analyses based on the outputs of ecological niche models (ENMs) supported a gradual range expansion since the Last Interglacial. Mountain ranges in western China and the East China Sea land bridge were inferred to be dispersal corridors in the western and eastern distributions of T. vernicifluum, respectively. Overall, our study provides solid evidence for the role of stepped geomorphology in shaping the phylogeographic patterns of T. vernicifluum. The resulting east-west genetic discontinuities could persist for a long time, and could occur at a much larger scale than previously reported, extending from subtropical (e.g., the Xuefeng Mountain) to warm-temperate China (e.g., the Taihang Mountain).Entities:
Keywords: East Asia; Toxicodendron vernicifluum; chloroplast haplotype; dispersal corridor; geological isolation; phylogeographic break; refugia; stepped geomorphology
Year: 2022 PMID: 35720535 PMCID: PMC9201781 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.920054
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 6.627
Figure 1(A) Sampling sites of Toxicodendron vernicifluum in East Asia and geographic distribution of the five chloroplast (cp) haplotypes identified in this study. Each pie chart represents a sampling site (see Table 1 for site codes) and each haplotype is represented with a different color as shown in (B). Sectors marked by black lines represent cultivated trees. (B) Median-joining network of cpDNA haplotypes estimated by POPART. Numbers in brackets on branches indicate the number of mutations between haplotypes when branches represent more than one mutation. Outgroups include Toxicodendron griffithii (gri.), Toxicodendron radicans (rad.), Toxicodendron trichocarpum (tri.), Toxicodendron succedaneum (suc.), and Toxicodendron sylvestre (syl.). (C) The western (orange) and eastern (blue) groups were identified by spatial analysis of molecular variance (SAMOVA) when K = 2. White circles represent sampling sites only including cultivated trees in mainland China. (D) Results of principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) based on the matrix of population pairwise FST. Orange and blue circles represent the western and eastern groups, respectively.
Locations and genetic statistics of 79 sampling sites of Toxicodendron vernicifluum.
| Sampling sites | Location | Lon (E) | Lat (N) | E (m) | Wild trees | Cultivated trees | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Haplotypes |
|
|
| Haplotypes | |||||
|
| ||||||||||
| NUJ | Nujiang, Yunnan, China | 99.10 | 25.78 | 2,204 | 10 | H1(10) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| YAN | Yanjin, Yunnan, China | 104.32 | 28.16 | 997 | 0 | – | – | – | 7 | H1(4), H3(3) |
| JUL | Junlian, Sichuan, China | 104.48 | 28.19 | 393 | 0 | – | – | – | 10 | H1(10) |
| QIC | Qingchuan, Sichuan, China | 105.19 | 32.58 | 1,099 | 10 | H1(10) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| CHI | Chishui, Guizhou, China | 105.86 | 28.29 | 1,271 | 3 | H1(3) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| KKS | Suiyang, Guizhou, China | 107.20 | 28.18 | 1,242 | 10 | H1(10) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| DSH | Daozhen, Guizhou, China | 107.73 | 29.14 | 1,304 | 10 | H1(10) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| LGS | Leishan, Guizhou, China | 108.16 | 26.37 | 1,204 | 10 | H1(10) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| FJS | Jiangkou, Guizhou, China | 108.61 | 27.87 | 1,005 | 10 | H1(10) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| BYS | Baojing, Hunan, China | 109.33 | 28.71 | 436 | 3 | H1(3) | 0 | 0 | 8 | H3(8) |
| BDG | Sangzhi, Hunan, China | 110.09 | 29.78 | 1,336 | 10 | H1(10) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| YUN | Wugang, Hunan, China | 110.61 | 26.65 | 1,166 | 3 | H1(3) | 0 | 0 | 8 | H3(8) |
| LIC | Lichuan, Hubei, China | 109.06 | 30.03 | 829 | 1 | H1(1) | – | – | 2 | H1(2) |
| XDS | Lichuan, Hubei, China | 109.10 | 30.03 | 1,019 | 10 | H1(9), H4(1) | 0.200 | 0.00084 | 0 | – |
| BDO | Badong, Hubei, China | 110.18 | 30.70 | 1,378 | 2 | H1(2) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| MPX | Zigui, Hubei, China | 110.43 | 30.82 | 1,100 | 10 | H1(10) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| WUF | Wufeng, Hubei, China | 111.05 | 30.17 | 296 | 3 | H1(3) | 0 | 0 | 1 | H1(1) |
| CHE | Chengkou, Chongqing, China | 108.80 | 31.67 | 2,294 | 6 | H1(6) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| BPX | Chengkou, Chongqing, China | 108.80 | 31.99 | 1,140 | 10 | H1(10) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| XLS | Maiji, Gansu, China | 106.00 | 34.36 | 1,397 | 10 | H1(10) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| MEI | Meixian, Shaanxi, China | 107.95 | 34.12 | 692 | 8 | H1(7), H2(1) | 0.250 | 0.00035 | 0 | – |
| FOP | Foping, Shaanxi, China | 107.98 | 33.51 | 895 | 3 | H1(3) | 0 | 0 | 9 | H1(2), H3(7) |
| SHT | Langao, Shaanxi, China | 108.80 | 32.05 | 2,409 | 10 | H1(10) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| SJZ | Langao, Shaanxi, China | 108.88 | 32.27 | 741 | 10 | H1(10) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| ZHA | Zhashui, Shaanxi, China | 109.05 | 33.86 | 1,178 | 10 | H1(8), H2(2) | 0.356 | 0.00050 | 0 | – |
| BXZ | Pingli, Shaanxi, China | 109.31 | 32.03 | 1,637 | 10 | H1(10) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| LUS | Lushi, Henan, China | 110.90 | 34.21 | 1,194 | 10 | H1(10) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| LUC | Luanchuan, Henan, China | 111.71 | 33.80 | 1,542 | 4 | H1(4) | 0 | 0 | 6 | H1(6) |
| YUT | Xiuwu, Henan, China | 113.37 | 35.45 | 1,016 | 5 | H1(5) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| JIK | Jiaokou, Shanxi, China | 111.23 | 36.78 | 1,348 | 10 | H1(10) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| XIA | Xiaxian, Shanxi, China | 111.39 | 35.09 | 936 | 10 | H1(10) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| LIS | Qinshui, Shanxi, China | 112.05 | 35.43 | 1,510 | 10 | H1(10) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| LKS | Qinyuan, Shanxi, China | 112.07 | 36.59 | 1,582 | 10 | H1(10) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| WUA | Wu’an, Hebei, China | 113.87 | 36.81 | 694 | 1 | H1(1) | – | – | 4 | H1(4) |
| QBG | Wu’an, Hebei, China | 113.88 | 36.94 | 752 | 10 | H1(10) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| ZSY | Zanhuang, Hebei, China | 114.04 | 37.46 | 977 | 10 | H1(10) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| ZAN | Zanhuang, Hebei, China | 114.23 | 37.72 | 1,045 | 2 | H1(2) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
|
| ||||||||||
| AHH | Huangshan, Anhui, China | 118.02 | 30.14 | 293 | 5 | H3(1), H5(4) | 0.400 | 0.00056 | 0 | – |
| ZAO | Zaozhuang, Shandong, China | 117.52 | 35.11 | 229 | 12 | H3(12) | 0.264 | 0.00037 | 2 | H5(2) |
| SZB | Boshan, Shandong, China | 118.04 | 36.31 | 484 | 11 | H3(9), H5(2) | 0.327 | 0.00046 | 0 | – |
| YTS | Qingzhou, Shandong, China | 118.28 | 36.46 | 599 | 11 | H3(11) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| KYS | Yantai, Shandong, China | 121.73 | 37.27 | 209 | 7 | H3(7) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| BEN | Benxi, Liaoning, China | 123.87 | 41.32 | 269 | 14 | H3(14) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| HUA | Huanren, Liaoning, China | 125.49 | 41.02 | 230 | 3 | H3(3) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| TSS | Xuyi, Jiangsu, China | 118.45 | 32.73 | 97 | 6 | H3(6) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| JIA | Jiande, Zhejiang, China | 119.52 | 29.44 | 47 | 0 | – | – | – | 4 | H5(4) |
| ZHZ | Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China | 120.03 | 30.22 | 48 | 0 | – | – | – | 3 | H1(3) |
| OKC | Okcheon, North Chungcheong, South Korea | 127.64 | 36.33 | 194 | 0 | – | – | – | 4 | H3(4) |
| WNJ | Wonju, Gangwon, South Korea | 127.91 | 37.35 | 156 | 0 | – | – | – | 2 | H3(2) |
| SED | Soeda, Fukuoka, Japan | 130.87 | 33.49 | 249 | 0 | – | – | – | 1 | H3(1) |
| HIT | Hita, Oita, Japan | 130.94 | 33.41 | 261 | 0 | – | – | – | 2 | H3(2) |
| TKD | Taketa, Oita, Japan | 131.41 | 32.97 | 321 | 0 | – | – | – | 3 | H3(3) |
| BGO | Bungo-ono, Oita, Japan | 131.49 | 32.99 | 175 | 0 | – | – | – | 1 | H3(1) |
| TNO | Tsuno, Kochi, Japan | 133.02 | 33.45 | 494 | 0 | – | – | – | 2 | H3(2) |
| TSY | Kochi, Kochi, Japan | 133.51 | 33.64 | 197 | 0 | – | – | – | 1 | H3(1) |
| OTY | Otoyo, Kochi, Japan | 133.68 | 33.84 | 427 | 0 | – | – | – | 1 | H3(1) |
| BCU | Takahashi, Okayama, Japan | 133.39 | 34.83 | 317 | 0 | – | – | – | 1 | H3(1) |
| NIM | Niimi, Okayama, Japan | 133.52 | 34.89 | 281 | 0 | – | – | – | 2 | H3(2) |
| YSR | Miyoshi, Tokushima, Japan | 133.75 | 33.96 | 216 | 0 | – | – | – | 1 | H3(1) |
| YKN | Fukuchiyama, Kyoto, Japan | 134.94 | 35.32 | 154 | 0 | – | – | – | 1 | H3(1) |
| NYN | Gojo, Nara, Japan | 135.73 | 34.29 | 193 | 0 | – | – | – | 2 | H3(2) |
| SNI | Soni, Nara, Japan | 136.14 | 34.50 | 592 | 0 | – | – | – | 2 | H3(2) |
| MSG | Tsu, Mie, Japan | 136.27 | 34.55 | 227 | 0 | – | – | – | 2 | H3(2) |
| SKW | Shirakawa, Gifu, Japan | 136.91 | 36.26 | 570 | 0 | – | – | – | 1 | H3(1) |
| HID | Hida, Gifu, Japan | 137.22 | 36.34 | 949 | 0 | – | – | – | 2 | H3(2) |
| WJM | Wajima, Ishikawa, Japan | 136.89 | 37.33 | 123 | 0 | – | – | – | 3 | H3(3) |
| SZU | Suzu, Ishikawa, Japan | 137.14 | 37.40 | 213 | 0 | – | – | – | 1 | H3(1) |
| MNM | Minakami, Gunma, Japan | 138.99 | 36.70 | 516 | 0 | – | – | – | 1 | H3(1) |
| KKR | Kamakura, Kanagawa, Japan | 139.51 | 35.31 | 14 | 0 | – | – | – | 1 | H3(1) |
| OGN | Oguni, Yamagata, Japan | 139.81 | 38.09 | 209 | 0 | – | – | – | 2 | H3(2) |
| AZW | Aizuwakamatsu, Fukushima, Japan | 139.97 | 37.51 | 405 | 0 | – | – | – | 1 | H3(1) |
| DIG | Daigo, Ibaraki, Japan | 140.40 | 36.70 | 145 | 0 | – | – | – | 1 | H3(1) |
| OWN | Owani, Aomori, Japan | 140.53 | 40.49 | 121 | 0 | – | – | – | 1 | H3(1) |
| AMS | Aomori, Aomori, Japan | 140.67 | 40.78 | 76 | 0 | – | – | – | 2 | H3(2) |
| SNG | Shingo, Aomori, Japan | 141.18 | 40.43 | 158 | 0 | – | – | – | 1 | H3(1) |
| SDI | Sendai, Miyagi, Japan | 140.85 | 38.26 | 59 | 0 | – | – | – | 1 | H3(1) |
| JBJ | Ninohe, Iwate, Japan | 141.18 | 40.16 | 435 | 0 | – | – | – | 1 | H3(1) |
| INH | Ichinohe, Iwate, Japan | 141.31 | 40.20 | 197 | 0 | – | – | – | 3 | H3(3) |
| ABS | Abashiri, Hokkaido, Japan | 144.25 | 44.01 | 145 | 0 | – | – | – | 2 | H3(2) |
Lon, longitude; Lat, latitude; E, elevation; nW, number of wild trees; Hd, haplotype diversity; π, nucleotide diversity; nC, number of cultivated trees.
Sequences were obtained by Suzuki et al. (2014);
Sequences were obtained by both Suzuki et al. (2014) and this study.
Genetic statistics of Toxicodendron vernicifluum based on the sequence variation at two chloroplast (cp) DNA markers.
| Sampling sites | Sample size | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sites in mainland China | 327 | 0.361 (0.081) | 0.039 (0.017) | 0.891 (0.044) | 0.972 (0.013) | 0.027 |
| Sites across the species’ range | 353 | 0.484 (0.049) | 0.033 (0.014) | 0.933 (0.028) | 0.983 (0.008) | 0.029 |
The samples used in these analyses are described in Supplementary Table S2. hS, average gene diversity within sampling sites; hT, total gene diversity; GST, genetic differentiation at the two cpDNA markers; NST, genetic differentiation at the two cpDNA markers taking similarities between haplotypes into account; SE, standard error.
p < 0.05, indicating that NST is significantly larger than GST.
Hierarchical analyses of molecular variance (AMOVAs) based on chloroplast (cp) DNA haplotype frequencies of Toxicodendron vernicifluum.
| Source of variation | df | SS | VC | Variation (%) | Fixation index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Among groups | 1 | 413.19 | 2.49 | 98.78 | |
| Among populations within groups | 73 | 4.05 | 0.01 | 0.24 | |
| Within populations | 310 | 7.61 | 0.02 | 0.97 |
The samples used in this analysis are described in Supplementary Table S2. df, degree of freedom; SS, sum of squares; VC, variance components. p-value was obtained through 10,000 permutations in ARLEQUIN.
p < 0.01;
p < 0.05.
Figure 2Climatically suitable areas and dispersal corridors of Toxicodendron vernicifluum during the Last Interglacial (LIG; A,B), Last Glacial Maximum (LGM; C,D), and the present (E,F) based on the outputs of ecological niche modeling (ENM) using Maxent 3.4.1 (Phillips et al., 2018). Black dots and plus signs represent the sampling sites of the western and eastern groups, respectively.
Figure 3Niche divergence between the western and eastern groups of Toxicodendron vernicifluum during the Last Interglacial (LIG; A), Last Glacial Maximum (LGM; B), and present (C). The niche identity test was conducted to quantify niche overlap using two indices, Warren’s I (red) and Schoener’s D (blue). Vertical lines and histograms represent the observed values and null distributions (based on 100 pseudoreplicates) of niche overlap statistics, respectively.
Figure 4Principal component analysis (PCA) performed with 19 bioclimatic variables (Supplementary Table S3) for the specimen records (open dots) and sampling sites (solid dots) of Toxicodendron vernicifluum. Presence points of the western and eastern groups are marked in orange and blue colors, respectively.
Figure 5Migration vector analysis of local changes in climatically suitable areas of Toxicodendron vernicifluum between the Last Interglacial (LIG) and Last Glacial Maximum (LGM; A), and between the LGM and present (B). Black arrows represent the potential migration direction from one period to the next.