| Literature DB >> 35967254 |
Tsam Ju1, Zhi-Tong Han1, Markus Ruhsam2, Jia-Liang Li1, Wen-Jing Tao1, Sonam Tso3, Georg Miehe4, Kang-Shan Mao1,3.
Abstract
Elevation plays a crucial factor in the distribution of plants, as environmental conditions become increasingly harsh at higher elevations. Previous studies have mainly focused on the effects of large-scale elevational gradients on plants, with little attention on the impact of smaller-scale gradients. In this study we used 14 microsatellite loci to survey the genetic structure of 332 Juniperus squamata plants along elevation gradient from two sites in the Hengduan Mountains. We found that the genetic structure (single, clonal, mosaic) of J. squamata shrubs is affected by differences in elevational gradients of only 150 m. Shrubs in the mid-elevation plots rarely have a clonal or mosaic structure compared to shrubs in lower- or higher-elevation plots. Human activity can significantly affect genetic structure, as well as reproductive strategy and genetic diversity. Sub-populations at mid-elevations had the highest yield of seed cones, lower levels of asexual reproduction and higher levels of genetic diversity. This may be due to the trade-off between elevational stress and anthropogenic disturbance at mid-elevation since there is greater elevational stress at higher-elevations and greater intensity of anthropogenic disturbance at lower-elevations. Our findings provide new insights into the finer scale genetic structure of alpine shrubs, which may improve the conservation and management of shrublands, a major vegetation type on the Hengduan Mountains and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau.Entities:
Keywords: Fine-scale structure; High elevation; Human disturbance; Juniperus squamata
Year: 2021 PMID: 35967254 PMCID: PMC9363649 DOI: 10.1016/j.pld.2021.12.002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plant Divers ISSN: 2468-2659
Fig. 1Photos of Juniperus squamata. (a) Patches are clear from the photo: two shrubs with clear borders are treated as two separate patches. The aim of this study was to determine the genetic structure of these patches. (b) Photo of Juniperus squamata branches, left: female branch with seed cones; right: male branch with pollen cones.
Fig. 2Topography and climate of the sampling sites. (a) Sampling localities of the studied populations of Juniperus squamata (Elevation data source: Terrain Tiles on AWS, Larrick et al., 2020). Left: elevation map of Hengduan Mountains and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (Zhang et al., 2014); right: elevation map of the sampling sites and surrounding area. (b) Photos and terrains of sampling sites, with boxes indicating plot localities. LT_A, high-elevation Litang plot; LT_B, mid-elevation Litang plot; LT_C, low-elevation Litang plot; ZG_A, high-elevation Zuogong plot; ZG_B, mid-elevation Zuogong plot; ZG_C, low-elevation Zuogong plot. (c) Climate diagrams of the nearest weather station from sampling localities (Source: China Meteorological Data Service Centre). Blue bars under the horizontal axis represent months with freezing temperatures.
Fig. 3Spatial distribution of Juniperus squamata patches sampled at three different elevations in Litang (LT) and Zuogong (ZG). (a) Each circle represents one patch with clone patches appearing in the same colour and ramets in different shapes. Number of genetic samples per patch are indicated by solid and hollow shapes. (b) Schematic diagram of sampling strategy.
Location and sample size of the two sites.
| Site | Plot | Elevation (m) | Latitude (°N) | Longitude (°E) | Patch | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≥5 m | 2.5 m∼5 m | ≤2.5 m | Total | |||||
| Litang | LT_A | 4560 | 30°11′21.08″ | 99°58′22.10″ | 11 | 33 | 13 | 57 |
| LT_B | 4430 | 30°11′12.95″ | 99°58′21.73″ | 18 | 29 | 12 | 59 | |
| LT_C | 4280 | 30°11′08.12″ | 99°58′15.64″ | 4 | 34 | 16 | 55 | |
| Zuogong | ZG_A | 4550 | 29°42′29.55″ | 97°55′35.56″ | 22 | 24 | 14 | 60 |
| ZG_B | 4420 | 29°42′28.06″ | 97°55′45.92″ | 20 | 21 | 2 | 43 | |
| ZG_C | 4270 | 29°42′27.98″ | 97°56′0.47″ | 14 | 36 | 8 | 58 | |
One patch in LT_C did not have the usual round or elliptical shape; thus, no diameter was recorded.
Patch structure status: sizes of clone, mosaic and single.
| Site | Plot | N | G | Genets (ramets) | Gm | Gs | Nc | Nm | Ns |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Litang | LT_A | 76 | 72 | 2 (6) | 27 | 43 | 0.028 | 0.375 | 0.583 |
| LT_B | 68 | 67 | 1 (2) | 15 | 51 | 0.015 | 0.224 | 0.761 | |
| LT_C | 65 | 65 | 0 | 15 | 50 | 0.000 | 0.231 | 0.754 | |
| Zuogong | ZG_A | 73 | 60 | 10 (23) | 22 | 28 | 0.167 | 0.367 | 0.450 |
| ZG_B | 56 | 53 | 3 (6) | 19 | 31 | 0.057 | 0.358 | 0.566 | |
| ZG_C | 82 | 73 | 8 (17) | 44 | 25 | 0.110 | 0.603 | 0.342 |
N: Number of tested samples; G: Number of genotypes; Gm: Number of genotypes found in mosaic patches; Gs: Number of genotypes found in single patches; Nc: Average clonal size (Nc = Genets/G); Nm: Average mosaic size (Nm = Gm/G); Ns: Average single size (Ns = Gs/G).
Fig. 4Dry weight of cones sampled in Litang (a) and Zuogong (b). Note the difference in y-axis scale in the two figures. Lower and upper whiskers show 95% confidence intervals. ∗p < 0.05; ∗∗p < 0.01 after Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
Analysis of genetic diversity.
| Site | Plot | FIS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Litang | LT_A | 6.280 (5.571, 6.786) | 2.69 | 0.57 | 0.536 | −0.064 |
| LT_B | 5.903 (5.429, 6.357) | 2.75 | 0.63 | 0.556 | −0.127 | |
| LT_C | 6.099 (5.643, 6.500) | 2.72 | 0.58 | 0.548 | −0.080 | |
| Mean | 6.094 | 2.72 | 0.60 | 0.547 | −0.090 | |
| Zuogong | ZG_A | 5.255 (4.929, 5.571) | 2.44 | 0.54 | 0.523 | −0.027 |
| ZG_B | 5.391 (5.071, 5.643) | 2.61 | 0.57 | 0.559 | −0.020 | |
| ZG_C | 5.118 (4.857, 5.357) | 2.50 | 0.53 | 0.538 | 0.080 | |
| Mean | 5.255 | 2.52 | 0.55 | 0.540 | 0.011 |
: Allelic richness (Number of alleles) after sample size standardization, confidence intervals at 95% confidence level are shown in parentheses; : Effective number of alleles; : Observed heterozygosity; : Expected heterozygosity; FIS: Inbreeding coefficient.