Advertisement

Conservation Genetics

, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp 1437–1448 | Cite as

Population genetic analysis reveals a predominantly selfing mating system and strong genetic structuring in a naturally fragmented, threatened plant

  • Christine E. EdwardsEmail author
  • Matthew A. Albrecht
  • Burgund Bassüner
  • George A. Yatskievych
Research Article
  • 119 Downloads

Abstract

Conservation genetics studies not only provide information about genetic diversity and genetic structure to inform conservation strategies, they can also help infer life history characteristics such as mating system, pollinator, and seed dispersal strategy of a plant species. Here, we investigated Geocarpon (Mononeuria minima; Caryophyllaceae), an extremely diminutive, poorly known plant species from the south-central U.S. that is threatened due to high habitat specificity and habitat loss. The goals of this study were to use genetic data to help understand the basic attributes of the biology of Geocarpon, including mating system and the spatial extent of gene flow, how genetic variation is partitioned within and among populations and across the landscape, and how to protect that genetic variation. Most Geocarpon populations are highly homozygous and genetically homogenous, indicating a predominantly selfing mating system. Although the species maintains some allelic diversity, the majority of genetic variation was partitioned among populations, even in groups separated by small geographic distances (≥ 0.5 km), indicating very localized seed dispersal (gravity or water). Because genetic variation is structured at a fine scale, to conserve the full range of genetic diversity it is necessary to protect a large proportion of the populations of the species; we recommend protection of as many currently unprotected sites as possible, particularly in areas of the geographic range where few populations are protected, combined with ex situ conservation seed banking in sites that cannot be protected. This study illustrates how life history characteristics, particularly mating system, strongly influence patterns of genetic structure and can have major effects on the strategy to conserve genetic variation in an endangered species.

Keywords

Caryophyllaceae Conservation genetics Genetic structure Geocarpon Glades Mating systems Microsatellites Saline slicks Self-fertilization 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Jason Phillips for assistance with funding and field work. We thank Paul McKenzie (USFWS), Mike Skinner (MDC-retired), Brent Baker (ANHC), Meg Engelhardt (MOBOT), Jared Huxley (MOBOT), Malissa Briggler (MDC), Lorrie Shanks (MDC), Rhonda Rimer (MDC), Larry Rizzo (MDC), Bree McMurray (MODOT), Bruce Schutte (MO Prairie Foundation), Rodney Hendricks (USACE), Doug Ladd (MO-TNC), Theo Whitsell (ANHC), Cindy Osborne (ANHC), Beth Phillips (Fort Chaffee), Jason Singhurst (TPWD), and Chris Reid (Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries) for assistance with locality data, permitting, and field work. We thank Joel Swift for assistance with assistance with data analysis, Bill Duncan for providing photos of Geocarpon, and Jeremie Fant and two anonymous reviewers for comments on a previous version of the manuscript. This project was funded by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service grant agreement #F15AP00807.

Supplementary material

10592_2019_1226_MOESM1_ESM.docx (78 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 78 kb)

References

  1. Albrecht MA, Broecker LA, Romero-Hernandez C, Miller AJ (2014) Conservation genetics of edaphic endemics in naturally isolated habitats: a case study with Geocarpon minimum (Caryophyllaceae). J Torrey Bot Soc 141:1–13Google Scholar
  2. Bakker EG, Stahl EA, Toomajian C, Nordborg M, Kreitman M, Bergelson J (2006) Distribution of genetic variation within and among local populations of Arabidopsis thaliana over its species range. Mol Ecol 15:1405–1418PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Caballero A, Toro MA (2002) Analysis of genetic diversity for the management of conserved subdivided populations. Conserv Genet 3:289–299Google Scholar
  4. Charlesworth D, Charlesworth B (1987) Inbreeding depression and its evolutionary consequences. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 18:237–268Google Scholar
  5. Charlesworth D, Willis JH (2009) Fundamental concepts in genetics. The genetics of inbreeding depression. Nat Rev Genet 10:783–796PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dillenberger MS, Kadereit JW (2014) Maximum polyphyly: multiple origins and delimitation with plesiomorphic characters require a new circumscription of Minuartia (Caryophyllaceae). Taxon 63:64–88Google Scholar
  7. Doyle JJ, Doyle JL (1987) A rapid isolation procedure for small quantities of fresh tissue. Phytochem Bull 19:11–15Google Scholar
  8. Excoffier L, Lischer HEL (2010) Arlequin suite ver 3.5: a new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under Linux and Windows. Mol Ecol Res 10:564–567Google Scholar
  9. Faircloth BC (2008) MSATCOMMANDER: detection of microsatellite repeat arrays and automated, locus-specific primer design. Mol Ecol Res 8:92–94Google Scholar
  10. Frankham R (2005) Genetics and extinction. Biol Conserv 126:131–140Google Scholar
  11. Fraser DJ, Bernatchez L (2001) Adaptive evolutionary conservation: towards a unified concept for defining conservation units. Mol Ecol 10:2741–2752PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Furches MS, Wallace LE, Helenurm K (2009) High genetic divergence characterizes populations of the endemic plant Lithophragma maximum (Saxifragaceae) on San Clemente Island. Conserv Genet 10:115–126Google Scholar
  13. Gao H, Williamson S, Bustamante CD (2007) An MCMC approach for joint inference of population structure and inbreeding rates from multi-locus genotype data. Genetics 176:1635–1651PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Gilbert KJ, Andrew RL, Bock DG, Franklin MT, Kane NC, Moore JS, Moyers BT, Renaut S, Rennison DJ, Veen T, Vines TH (2012) Recommendations for utilizing and reporting population genetic analyses: the reproducibility of genetic clustering using the program STRUCTURE. Mol Ecol 21:4925–4930PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gong W, Gu L, Zhang D (2010) Low genetic diversity and high genetic divergence caused by inbreeding and geographical isolation in the populations of endangered species Loropetalum subcordatum (Hamamelidaceae) endemic to China. Conserv Genet 11:2281–2288Google Scholar
  16. Goodwillie C, Kalisz S, Eckert CG (2005) The evolutionary enigma of mixed mating systems in plants: occurrence, theoretical explanations, and empirical evidence. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:47–79Google Scholar
  17. Goudet J (2002) FSTAT (version 2.9.3.2): a computer program to calculate F-statisticsGoogle Scholar
  18. Hamrick JL (1982) Plant-population genetics and evolution. Am J Bot 69:1685–1693Google Scholar
  19. Hamrick JL, Godt MJW (1996) Effects of life history traits on genetic diversity in plant species. Philos Trans R Soc B 351:1291–1298Google Scholar
  20. Hedrick PW (2005) A standardized genetic differentiation measure. Evolution 59:1633–1638Google Scholar
  21. Holsinger KE (2000) Reproductive systems and evolution in vascular plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:7037–7042PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hughes PW, Simons AM (2015) Microsatellite evidence for obligate autogamy, but abundant genetic variation in the herbaceous monocarp Lobelia inflata (Campanulaceae). J Evol Biol 28:2068–2077PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hughes AR, Stachowicz JJ (2004) Genetic diversity enhances the resistance of a seagrass ecosystem to disturbance. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:8998–9002PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hughes AR, Inouye BD, Johnson MTJ, Underwood N, Vellend M (2008) Ecological consequences of genetic diversity. Ecol Lett 11:609–623PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Husband BC, Schemske DW (1996) Evolution of the magnitude and timing of inbreeding depression in plants. Evolution 50:54–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Jullien M, Navascués M, Ronfort J, Loridon K, Gay L (2019) Structure of multilocus genetic diversity in predominantly selfing populations. Heredity 123:176–191PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Keith EL, Singhurst JR, Cook S (2004) Geocarpon minimum (Caryophyllaceae), new to Texas. SIDA. Contrib Bot 21:1165–1169Google Scholar
  28. Kopelman NM, Mayzel J, Jakobsson M, Rosenberg NA, Mayrose I (2015) Clumpak: a program for identifying clustering modes and packaging population structure inferences across K. Mol Ecol Res 15:1179–1191Google Scholar
  29. Leimu R, Mutikainen P, Koricheva J, Fischer M (2006) How general are positive relationships between plant population size, fitness and genetic variation? J Ecol 94:942–952Google Scholar
  30. Lindsay DL, Swift JF, Lance RF, Edwards CE (2018) A comparison of patterns of genetic structure in two co-occurring Agave species (Asparagaceae) that differ in the patchiness of their geographical distributions and cultivation histories. Bot J Linn Soc 186:361–373Google Scholar
  31. Loveless MD, Hamrick JL (1984) Ecological determinants of genetic structure in plant populations. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 15:65–95Google Scholar
  32. McNeely JA, Miller KR, Reid WV, Mittermeier RA, Werner TB (1990) Conserving the world’s biological diversity. IUCN, WRI, Conservation International, WWF-US, & World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Meirmans PG (2006) Using the AMOVA framework to estimate a standardized genetic differentiation measure. Evolution 60:2399–2402PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Nienaber MA (2005) Geocarpon. In: Committee FNAE (ed) Flora of North America, North of Mexico. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 148–149Google Scholar
  35. Peakall R, Smouse PE (2012) GenAlEx 6.5: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research-an update. Bioinformatics 28:2537–2539PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Petit RJ, El Mousadik A, Pons O (1998) Identifying populations for conservation on the basis of genetic markers. Conserv Biol 12:844–855Google Scholar
  37. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Reed DH, Frankham R (2003) Correlation between fitness and genetic diversity. Conserv Biol 17:230–237Google Scholar
  39. Reusch TBH, Ehlers A, Hammerli A, Worm B (2005) Ecosystem recovery after climatic extremes enhanced by genotypic diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:2826–2831PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Rousset F (2008) GENEPOP ‘007: a complete re-implementation of the GENEPOP software for Windows and Linux. Mol Ecol Res 8:103–106Google Scholar
  41. Rozen S, Skaletsky H (1999) Primer3 on the WWW for general users and for biologist programmers. Methods Mol Biol 132:365–386Google Scholar
  42. Šarhanová P, Pfanzelt S, Brandt R, Himmelbach A, Blattner FR (2018) SSR-seq: genotyping of microsatellites using next-generation sequencing reveals higher level of polymorphism as compared to traditional fragment size scoring. Ecol Evol 8:10817–10833PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Schemske DW, Lande R (1985) The evolution of self-fertilization and inbreeding depression in plants 2. Empirical observations. Evolution 39:41–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Sgro CM, Lowe AJ, Hoffmann AA (2011) Building evolutionary resilience for conserving biodiversity under climate change. Evol Appl 4:326–337PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Siol M, Prosperi J, Bonnin I, Ronfort J (2008) How multilocus genotypic pattern helps to understand the history of selfing populations: a case study in Medicago truncatula. Heredity 100:517PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Spielman D, Brook BW, Frankham R (2004) Most species are not driven to extinction before genetic factors impact them. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:15261–15264PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Sun M (1999) Cleistogamy in Scutellaria indica (Labiatae): effective mating system and population genetic structure. Mol Ecol 8:1285–1295PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Swindell WR, Bouzat JL (2006) Reduced inbreeding depression due to historical inbreeding in Drosophila melanogaster: evidence for purging. J Evol Biol 19:1257–1264PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. USFWS (1993) Recovery plan for Geocarpon minimum. Atlanta, McKenzie, p 34Google Scholar
  50. USFWS (2016) 5-year status review of Geocarpon minimum. Conway, USFWS Southeast Region, p 42Google Scholar
  51. Yatskievych G (2006) Steyermark’s flora of Missouri. Missouri Botanical Garden Press, St. LouisGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Missouri Botanical GardenSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.Billie L. Turner Plant Resources CenterUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations