Advertisement

Plant Systematics and Evolution

, Volume 298, Issue 8, pp 1533–1545 | Cite as

Leaf morphological and genetic differentiation between Quercus rubra L. and Q. ellipsoidalis E.J. Hill populations in contrasting environments

  • Oliver GailingEmail author
  • Jennifer Lind
  • Erik Lilleskov
Original Article

Abstract

Hybridization is considered to play an important role in speciation and evolution. Given the predicted northward tree migration in the eastern USA due to the impact of climate change, hybridization between related species is expected to become more frequent due to overlapping distribution ranges in the future. Oak species are “hot spots” of contemporary hybridization, serving as model organisms in the development of ecological species concepts. Q. rubra L. and Q. ellipsoidalis E.J. Hill were selected as study species, since they show different ecological requirements but hybridize with each other where both species co-occur. To identify morphological species and differentiation patterns in this species pair in ten populations on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan we investigated both leaf morphological variation, and genetic variation at highly variable microsatellite markers. Cluster analyses using leaf morphological characters revealed two distinct clusters for directly measured leaf characters and three clusters when additionally leaf shape characters were considered. Two populations growing on dry and sandy sites and identified as Q. ellipsoidalis in the field and by genetic assignment analyses were differentiated from the other eight populations at leaf morphological characters. Strong and significant correlations of leaf morphological differences with genetic distances at microsatellite markers but not with geographic distances are consistent with a pattern of isolation by adaptation. Differentiation at genetic and leaf morphological characters between neighboring populations in contrasting environments suggested reproductive isolation between populations of different species, possibly as the result of divergent selection. More extensive sampling along the distribution range of both species and reciprocal transplant experiments between parental environments are necessary to better understand the role of interspecific gene flow and selection in the maintenance of species identity in red oak species (Quercus section Lobatae).

Keywords

Quercus rubra Q. ellipsoidalis Hybridization Leaf morphology EST–SSRs 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank James Schmierer for his help in identifying stands in the Baraga Plains and in sample collection, and Dr. Kerry Woods for his help in the identification of Q. rubra populations in the Huron Mountain Wildlife Reserve. For their help in preparing and measuring the leaves we would like to thank Erin Hickey and Joanna Rogers. Funding for the study came from start-up funds of Michigan Technological University to Oliver Gailing, the Michigan Technological University Research Excellence fund, the USDA McIntire Stennis fund, the Huron Mountain Wildlife Foundation, the Hanes Trust, and the NSF Plant Genome Research program (NSF 1025974). We like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Supplementary material

606_2012_656_MOESM1_ESM.ppt (227 kb)
Supplementary Fig. 1: Scatter plot of factor 1 and factor 2 of PCA1. Samples from Q. ellipsoidalis populations FC-C and FC-E cluster together (see lower left side) (PPT 227 kb)

References

  1. Abrams MD (1988) Comparative water relationships of 3 successional hard wood species in central Wisconsin. Tree Physiol 4:263–273PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrams MD (1990) Adaptations and responses to drought in Quercus species of North America. Tree Physiol 7:227–238PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Albert DA, Comer PJ (2008) Atlas of early Michigan’s forests, grasslands, and wetlands. Michigan State University Press, East LansingGoogle Scholar
  4. Aldrich P, Cavender-Bares J (2011) Quercus. In: Kole C (ed) Wild crop relatives: genomic and breeding resources, forest trees. Springer, Berlin, pp 89–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aldrich PR, Michler CH, Sun WL, Romero-Severson J (2002) Microsatellite markers for northern red oak (Fagaceae: Quercus rubra). Mol Ecol Notes 2:472–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bacilieri R, Ducousso A, Petit RJ, Kremer A (1996) Mating system and asymmetric hybridization in a mixed stand of European oaks. Evolution 50:900–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnes BV, Wagner WH Jr (2004) Michigan Trees, A Guide to the Trees of the Great Lakes Region. The University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  8. Craft KJ, Ashley MV, Koenig WD (2002) Limited hybridization between Quercus lobata and Quercus douglasii (Fagaceae) in a mixed stand in central coastal California. Amer J Bot 89:1792–1798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Curtu AL, Gailing O, Leinemann L, Finkeldey R (2007) Genetic variation and differentiation within a natural community of five oak species (Quercus spp.). Plant Biol 9:116–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Curtu AL, Gailing O, Finkeldey R (2009) Patterns of contemporary hybridization inferred from paternity analysis in a four-oak-species forest. BMC Evol Biol 9:284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dodd RS, Afzal-Rafii Z (2004) Selection and dispersal in a multispecies oak hybrid zone. Evolution 58:261–269PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Durand J, Bodenes C, Chancerel E, Frigero J-M, Vendramin GG, Sebastiani F, Buonamici A, Gailing O, Koelewijn H-P, Villani F, Mattioni C, Cherubini M, Goicoechea PG, Herran A, Ikaran Z, Cabane C, Ueno S, de Daruvar A, Kremer A, Plomion C (2010) SSR mining in oak ESTs and bin mapping of 256 loci in a Quercus robur L. full-sib pedigree. BMC Genomics 11:570PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Felsenstein J (1989) PHYLIP-phylogeny inference package (version 3.2). Cladistics 5:164–166Google Scholar
  14. Finkeldey R (2000) Genetic variation of oaks (Quercus spp.) in Switzerland. 2. Genetic structures in “pure” and “mixed” forests of pedunculate oak (Q. robur L.) and sessile oak (Q. petraea (Matt.) Liebl.). Silvae Genetica 50:22–30Google Scholar
  15. Fitch R (2006) WinSTAT for ExcelGoogle Scholar
  16. Hipp AL, Weber JA (2008) Taxonomy of Hill’s oak (Quercus ellipsoidalis: Fagaceae): evidence from AFLP data. Syst Bot 33:148–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hokanson SC, Isebrands JG, Jensen RJ, Hancock JF (1993) Isozyme variation in oaks of the apostle islands in Wisconsin–genetic structure and levels of inbreeding in Quercus rubra and Q. ellipsoidalis (Fagaceae). Am J Bot 80:1349–1357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jensen RJ, Hokanson SC, Isebrands JG, Hancock JF (1993) Morphometric variation in oaks of the apostle islands in Wisconsin - evidence of hybridization between Quercus rubra and Q. ellipsoidalis (Fagaceae). Am J Bot 80:1358–1366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jump AS, Hunt JM, Martinez-Izquierdo JA, Penuelas J (2006) Natural selection and climate change: temperature-linked spatial and temporal trends in gene frequency in Fagus sylvatica. Mol Ecol 15:3469–3480PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mariette S, Cottrell J, Csaikl UM, Goikoechea P, König AO, Lowe AJ, Van Dam BC, Barreneche T, Bodenes C, Streiff R, Burg K, Groppe K, Munro RC, Tabbener H, Kremer A (2002) Comparison of levels of genetic diversity detected with AFLP and microsatellite markers within and among mixed Q. petraea (Matt.) Liebl. and Q. robur L. stands. Silvae Genetica 51:72–79Google Scholar
  21. McShea WJ, Healy WM, Devers P, Fearer T, Koch FH, Stauffer D, Waldon J (2007) Forestry matters: Decline of oaks will impact wildlife in hardwood forests. J Wildl Manage 71:1717–1728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Müller-Starck G (1985) Genetic differences between “tolerant” and “sensitive” beeches (Fagus sylvatica L.) in an environmentally stressed adult forest stand. Silvae Genetica 34:241–247Google Scholar
  23. Nixon KC (1997). Quercus. In: Flora of North America Editorial Committee (eds) Flora of North America North of Mexico, vol 3. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 445–447Google Scholar
  24. Nosil P, Funk DJ, Ortiz-Barrientos D (2009) Divergent selection and heterogeneous genomic divergence. Mol Ecol 18:375–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peakall R, Smouse PE (2006) GENEALEX 6: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol Ecol Notes 6:288–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Scotti-Saintagne C, Mariette S, Porth I, Goicoechea PG, Barreneche T, Bodenes K, Burg K, Kremer A (2004) Genome scanning of interspecific differentiation between two closely related oak species (Quercus robur L. and Q. petraea (Matt.) Liebl.). Genetics 168:1615–1626PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Steinkellner H, Fluch S, Turetschek E, Lexer C, Streiff R, Kremer A, Burg K, Glössl J (1997) Identification and characterization of (GA/CT)n-microsatellite loci from Quercus petraea. Plant Mol Biol 33:1093–1096PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Van Valen L (1976) Ecological species, multispecies and oaks. Taxon 25:233–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Voss EG (1985) Michigan Flora, Part II. University of Michigan Herbarium, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  31. Woodall CW, Oswalt CM, Westfall JA, Perry CH, Nelson MD, Finley AO (2009) An indicator of tree migration in forests of the eastern United States. For Ecol Manage 257:1434–1444CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Michigan Technological UniversityHoughtonUSA

Personalised recommendations