What does a mixed population of Pinus sibirica and P. pumila from the southern Baikal region suggest about the structure of their hybrid zone?

  • G. VasilyevaEmail author
  • A. Bondar
  • S. Goroshkevich
Original Paper


Pinus sibirica and P. pumila have a vast hybrid zone, and its structure and maintenance model have not yet been considered. This study was carried out in the southern–western part of the hybrid zone. On the Khamar-Daban Ridge, there is a vigorous belt of mountain taiga forest, where the prevalent species is P. sibirica and where P. pumila produces a subalpine tree belt. The border between these belts is blurred, and a mixed zone of the species is formed, resulting in interspecies hybridization. Field observations, seed efficiency determination, and analysis of mt- and cpDNA markers were used to elucidate the pattern of this hybridization. Pinus sibirica and P. pumila hybridization was determined as bidirectional, and P. pumila was mainly the mother plant. Hybridization transforms to an introgression, and based on the life form, the studied hybrids were divided into two groups: intermediate and pumila-like cup-shaped forms. Both morphological types of hybrids had significantly fewer sound seeds per cone than the parental species. However, pumila-like hybrids had more sound seeds per cone compared to intermediate hybrids. We observed a positive correlation between hybrid seed efficiency and elevation. Summarizing the results of this study and those previously obtained enabled us to show different hybridization patterns in different parts of the hybrid zone, suggesting a mosaic model of hybrid zone maintenance.


Hybridization Introgression Subgenus Strobus mtDNA cpDNA Seed production Life form 



This work was supported by Russian Academy of Sciences (Program of Basic Research in State Academies, Theme 52.2.6) and Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Project No. 18-04-00833).

Supplementary material

10342_2019_1254_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.7 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 1763 kb)


  1. Abbott RJ, Brennan AC (2014) Altitudinal gradients, plant hybrid zones and evolutionary novelty. Philos Trans R Soc B 369:20130346. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbott R, Albach D, Ansell S et al (2013) Hybridization and speciation. J Evol Biol 26:229–246. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Arno SF, Hoff RJ (1989) Silvics of whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). Gen Tech Rep INT-253. UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, OgdenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnold ML, Bulger MR, Burke JM, Hempel AL, Williams JH (1999) Natural hybridization: how low can you go and still be important? Ecology 80:371–381. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barton NH, Hewitt GM (1985) Analysis of hybrid zones. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 16:113–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bobrov EG (1961) Introgressive hybridization in the flora of Baikal Siberia. Botan J 46(3):313–327 (in Russian) Google Scholar
  7. Brown IR (1971) Flowering and seed production in grafted clones of Scots pine. Silvae Genet 20(4):121–132Google Scholar
  8. De La Torre AR (2015) Genomic admixture and species delimitation in forest trees. In: Pontarotti P (ed) Evolutionary Biology: Biodiversification from Genotype to Phenotype. Springer, Cham. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De La Torre AR, Roberts DR, Aitken SN (2014a) Genome-wide admixture and ecological niche modelling reveal the maintenance of species boundaries despite long history of interspecific gene flow. Mol Ecol 23:2046–2059. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De La Torre AR, Wang T, Jaquish B, Aitken SN (2014b) Adaptation and exogenous selection in a Picea glauca × Picea engelmannii hybrid zone: implications for forest management under climate change. New Phytol 201:687–699. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Demesure B, Sodzi M, Petit RJ (1995) A set of universals primers for amplification of polymorphic non-coding regions of mitochondrial and chloroplast DNA in plants. Mol Ecol 4:129–131. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Doyle JJ, Doyle JL (1987) A rapid DNA isolation procedure for small quantities of fresh leaf tissue. Phytochem Bull 19:11–15Google Scholar
  13. Fernando DD, Lazzaro MD, Owens JN (2005) Growth and development of conifer pollen tubes. Sex Plant Reprod 18:149–162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gebauer R, Volařík D, Funda T, Fundová I, Kohutka A, Klapetek V, Martinková M, Anenkhonov OA, Razuvaev A (2010) Pinus pumila growth at different altitudes in the Svyatoi Nos Peninsula (Russia). J For Sci 56(3):101–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goroshkevich SN (1999) On the possibility of natural hybridization between Pinus sibirica and Pinus pumila (Pinaceae) in the Baikal region. Bot J 84(9):48–57 (in Russian) Google Scholar
  16. Goroshkevich SN (2004) Natural hybridization between Russian stone pine (Pinus sibirica) and Japanese stone pine (Pinus pumila). In: Sniezko RA et al. (ed) Breeding and genetic resources of five-needle pines: growth, adaptability, and pest resistance; 2001 July 23–27; Medford, OR, USA. IUFRO working party 2.02.15. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Proceedings RMRS-P-32. Fort Collins, CO, pp 169–171Google Scholar
  17. Goroshkevich SN, Khutornoy OV (1996) The intrapopulation diversity of cones and seeds of Pinus sibirica Du Tour. Note 1. Level and pattern of variability in the traits. Rastit Resur 32(3):1–12 (in Russian) Google Scholar
  18. Goroshkevich SN, Kustova EA (2002) Morphogenesis of prostrate life form in Siberian stone pine at upper limit of distribution in the Western Sayan Mountains. Russ J Ecol 4:243–249 (in Russian) Google Scholar
  19. Goroshkevich SN, Popov AG, Vasilieva GV (2008) Ecological and morphological studies in the hybrid zone between Pinus sibirica and Pinus pumila. Ann For Res 51:43–52Google Scholar
  20. Gugerli F, Senn J, Anzidei M, Madaghiele A, Büchler U, Sperisen C, Vendramin JJ (2001) Chloroplast microsatellites and mitochondrial nad1 intron 2 sequences indicate congruent phylogenetic relationships among Swiss stone pine (Pinus cembra), Siberian stone pine (Pinus sibirica), and Siberian dwarf pine (Pinus pumila). Mol Ecol 10:1489–1497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hagman M, Mikkola L (1963) Observations on cross-, self- and interspecific pollinations in Pinus peuce Griseb. Silvae Genet 12:73–79Google Scholar
  22. Harrison RG, Rand DM (1989) Mosaic hybrid zones and the nature of species boundaries. In: Otte D, Endler JA (eds) Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer, Sunderland, pp 111–133Google Scholar
  23. Kagawa K, Takimoto G (2018) Hybridization can promote adaptive radiation by means of transgressive segregation. Ecol Lett 21(2):264–274. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kriebel HB (1972) Embryo development and hybridity barriers in the white pines (Section Strobus). Silvae Genet 21:39–44Google Scholar
  25. Krylov GV, Talantsev NK, Kozakova NF (1983) Siberian stone pine. Lesnaya promyshlenost, Moscow (in Russian) Google Scholar
  26. Mallet J (2009) Rapid speciation, hybridization and adaptive radiation in the Heliconius melpomene group. In: Butlin R, Bridle J, Schluter D (eds) Speciation and patterns of diversity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 177–194Google Scholar
  27. Mirov NT (1967) The genus Pinus. Ronald Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Mogensen HL (1996) The hows and whys of cytoplasmic inheritance in seed plants. Am J Bot 83:383–404. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moore WS (1977) An evaluation of narrow hybrid zones in vertebrates. Q Rev Biol 52:263–278. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nechaev VA (2013) Bird biocenotic connections with the mountain pine (Pinus pumila). Bull North East Sci Cent 1:49–59 (in Russian) Google Scholar
  31. Nekrasova TP (1972) Biological aspects of the seed production in Siberian stone pine. Nauka, Novosibirsk (in Russian) Google Scholar
  32. Owens JN (2004) The reproductive biology of western white pine. Forest Genetics Council of B.C. Extension Note 04, April 2004, p 40Google Scholar
  33. Owens JN, Thanong K, Mahalovich MF (2008) Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis Engelm) seed production in natural stands. For Ecol Manag 255:803–809. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Petrova EA, Goroshkevich SN, Belokon MM, Belokon YS, Politov DV (2008) Population genetic structure and mating system in the hybrid zone between Pinus sibirica Du Tour and P. pumila (Pall.) Regel at the eastern Baikal Lake shore. Ann For Res 51:19–30Google Scholar
  35. Petrova EA, Zhuk EA, Popov AG, Bondar AA, Belokon MM, Goroshkevich SN, Vasilyeva GV (2018) Asymmetric introgression between Pinus sibirica and Pinus pumila in the Aldan plateau (Eastern Siberia). Silvae Genet 67:66–71. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rauh W (1978) Die Wuchs- und Lebensformen der tropischen Hochgebirgs-Regionen und der Subantarktis, ein Vergleich. In: Troll C, Lauer W (eds) Geoecological relations between the southern temperate zone and the tropical mountains. Steiner, Wiesbaden, pp 62–92Google Scholar
  37. Rieseberg LH, Carney SE (1998) Plant hybridization. New Phytol 140:599–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sarvas R (1962) Investigation on the flowering and seed crop of Pinus sylvestris. Commun Inst For Fenn 53(4):1–198Google Scholar
  39. Shcherbakova MA (1965) Detection of quality conifer seed by X-ray analysis. Forest and Timber Institute SB of USSR Academy of Sciences, Krasnoyarsk (in Russian) Google Scholar
  40. Soltis PS, Soltis DE (2009) The role of hybridization in plant speciation. Ann Rev Plant Biol 60:561–588. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Starikov GF (1961) Siberian dwarf pine in the extreme northeast of its areal. Lesnoye khozaystvo 2:19–20 (in Russian) Google Scholar
  42. Tranquillini W (1979) Physiological ecology of the alpine timberline. Springer, Heidelberg. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tretyakova IN (1990) Embryology of conifers: physiological aspects. Nauka, Novosibirsk (in Russian) Google Scholar
  44. Tretyakova IN, Lukina AV (2017) Embryological peculiarities of interspecific hybridization in Pinus sibirica. Russ J Dev Biol 48:340–346. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tyulina OV (1976) Moist vegetation belt in Baikal region. Nauka, Novosibirsk (in Russian) Google Scholar
  46. Vasilyeva GV (2014) Seed efficiency of hybrids between Siberian stone pine and Siberian dwarf pine from northern slope of Khamar-Daban ridge. Vestn MGUL Lesn Vestn For Bull 1:85–89 (in Russian) Google Scholar
  47. Vasilyeva GV, Goroshkevich SN (2013) Crossability of Pinus sibirica and P. pumila with their hybrids. Silvae Genet 62:61–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vasilyeva GV, Semerikov VL (2014) Application of amplified fragment length polymorphisms markers to study the hybridization between Pinus sibirica and P. pumila. Ann For Res 57:175–180. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Watano Y, Imazu M, Shimizu T (1996) Spatial distribution of cpDNA and mtDNA haplotypes in a hybrid zone between Pinus pumila and P. parviflora var. pentaphylla (Pinaceae). J Plant Res 109:403–408. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilhelm R, Hilbish TJ (1998) Assessment of natural selection in a hybrid population of mussels: evaluation of exogenous versus endogenous selection models. Mar Biol 131:505–514. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Monitoring of Climatic and Ecological SystemsSiberian Branch of the Russian Academy of SciencesTomskRussia
  2. 2.Institute of Chemical Biology and Fundamental MedicineSiberian Branch of the Russian Academy of SciencesNovosibirskRussia

Personalised recommendations