Conservation Genetics

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 99–109 | Cite as

Molecular, quantitative and abiotic variables for the delineation of evolutionary significant units: case of sandalwood (Santalum austrocaledonicum Vieillard) in New Caledonia

  • Lorraine Bottin
  • Jacques Tassin
  • Robert Nasi
  • Jean-Marc BouvetEmail author
Original Paper


Various approaches have been developed to define conservation units for plant and animal species. In this study we combined nuclear microsatellites (from a previous published study) and chloroplast microsatellites (assessed in the present study), leaf and seed morphology traits and abiotic variables (climate and soil) to define evolutionary significant units (ESU) of Santalum austrocaledonicum, a tree species growing in New Caledonia. Results for chloroplast microsatellites showed that the total population heterozygosity was␣high, (H cp = 0.84) but varied between islands. Differentiation was strong in the total population (F stcp = 0.66) but also within the main island Grande Terre (F stcp = 0.73) and within Iles Loyauté (F stcp = 0.52), highlighting a limited gene flow between populations. These results confirmed those obtained with nuclear microsatellites. The cluster analysis on molecular markers discriminated two main groups constituted by the populations of Grande Terre and the populations of Iles Loyauté. A principal component analysis of leaf and seed morphology traits singled out the populations of Iles Loyauté and the western populations of Grande Terre. Quantitative genetic analyses showed that the variation between populations was under genetic control (broad sense heritability close to 80%). A high correlation between rainfall and morphological traits suggested an impact of climate on this variation. The integration of these results allows to define two ESUs, one corresponding to Grande Terre and Ile des Pins and the other the Iles Loyauté archipelago. This study stresses the need to restore some populations of Grande Terre that are currently threatened by their small size.


Santalum austrocaledonicum Nuclear microsatellites Chloroplastic microsatellites Morphological traits Evolutionary significant units 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



These results are part of Lorraine Bottin 9s PhD thesis on the analysis of genetic diversity of Santalum austrocaledonicum. This study was supported by the sandalwood project funded by the MEDD, the French Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development. The laboratory work and analyses were done in the Forest Department of Cirad in Montpellier, France, where J.M. Bouvet is the head of the “Forest Genetics” research unit. We would like to thank Alexandre Vaillant for laboratory work, and Alexandre Lagrange and Géraldine Derroire for field work in New Caledonia. Many thanks go to IAC (Institut Agronomique néo-Calédonien) and to the Development Services of the Provinces of Islands, North and South which facilitated the field operation.


  1. Addinsoft (2005) XLSTAT software version 7.5.2 http://www.xlstat.comGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrianoelina O, Rakotondraoelina H, Ramamonjisoa L et al. (2006) Genetic diversity of Dalbergia monticola (Fabaceae), an endangered tree species in the fragmented oriental forest of Madagascar. Biodivers Conserv DOI 10.1007/s10531-004-2178-6Google Scholar
  3. Barrett SCH (1998) The reproductive biology and genetics of island plants. In: Grant PR (ed) Evolution on islands. Oxford University Press, Oxford UK, pp 18–34Google Scholar
  4. Bekessy SA, Ennos RA, Burgmana MA, Newton AC, Ades PK (2003) Neutral DNA markers fail to detect genetic divergence in an ecologically important trait. Biol Conserv 110:267–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bottin L, Verhaegen D, Tassin J, Olivieri I, Vaillant A, Bouvet JM (2005) Genetic diversity and population structure of an insular tree, Santalum austrocaledonicum in New Caledonian archipelago. Mol Ecol 14(7):1979–1989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butaud J-F, Rives F, Verhaegen D, JM Bouvet (2005) Distribution of chloroplastic microsatellite diversity in Santalum insulare across the South east Pacific archipelagos. J Biog 32:1763–1774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlquist S (1980) Hawaï: a natural history. geology, climate, native flora and fauna above the shoreline, 2nd edn. Pacific Tropical Botanical Garden, Lawa 9i Hawa 9iGoogle Scholar
  8. Cavers S, Navarro C, Lowe AJ (2004) Targeting genetic resource conservation in widespread species: a case study of Cedrela odorata L. For Ecol Mgmt 197:285–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cox PA, Elmquist T, Pierson ED, Rainey WE (1991) Flying foxes as strong interactors in South Pacific islands ecosystems: a conservation hypothesis. Conserv Biol 5:448–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crandall KA, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Mace GM, Wayne RK (2000) Considering evolutionary processes in conservation biology. Trends Ecol Evol 15:290–295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ennos RA (1994) Estimating the relative rates of pollen and seed migration among plant populations. Heredity 72:250–259Google Scholar
  12. Excoffier L, Smouse PE, Quattro JM (1992) Analysis of molecular variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes: application to human mitochondrial DNA restriction data. Genetics 131:479–491PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Falconer DS, Mckay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman Sci and Tech, Harlow United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  14. Fontaine C, Lovett PN, Sanou H, Maley J, Bouvet JM (2004) Genetic diversity of the shea tree (Vitellaria paradoxa C.F. Gaertn), detected by RAPD and chloroplast microsatellite markers. Heredity 93:639–648PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frankham R (1997) Do island populations have less genetic variation than mainland populations? Heredity 78:311–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frankham R (1998) Inbreeding and extinction: island populations. Conserv Biol 78:665–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gapare WJ, Aitken SN, Ritland CE (2005) Genetic diversity of core and peripheral Sitka pruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr) populations: implications for conservation of widespread species. Biol Conserv 123:113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibbs D, Barnes E, Cox J (2001) Pigeons and doves. A guide to the pigeons and doves of the world. Pica press, SussexGoogle Scholar
  19. Gillespie TW, Jaffré T (2003) Tropical dry forests in New Caledonia. Biodiv Conserv 12:1687–1697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goodall-Copestake WP, Hollingsworth ML, Hollingsworth PM, Jenkins GI, Collin E (2005) Molecular markers and ex situ conservation of the European elms (Ulmus spp.). Biol Conserv 122:537–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. King RA, Ferris C (1998) Chloroplast DNA phylogeography of Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn. Mol Ecol 7:1151–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kleinschmit JRG, Kownatzki D, Gregorius HR (2004) Adaptational characteristics of autochthonous populations—consequences for provenance delineation. For Ecol Mgmt 197:213–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mc Donald PG, Fonseca CR, Overton J McC, Westoby M (2003) Leaf size divergence along rainfall and soil-nutrient gradients: is the method of size reduction common among clades?. Funct Ecol 17:50–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McKay JK, Latta RG (2002) Adaptive population divergence: markers, QTL and traits. Trends Ecol Evol 17:285–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moritz C (1994) Defining 8 evolutionary significant unit 9 for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 9:373–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moritz C (2002) Strategies to protect biological diversity and the evolutionary processes that sustain it. Syst Biol 51:238–254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Myers N, Mittermeler RA, Mittermeler CG, da Fonceca GAB, Kent G (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nei M (1978) Estimation of average heterozygosity and genetic distance from a small number of individuals. Genetics 89:583–590Google Scholar
  29. Newton AC, Allnut TR, Gillies ACM, Lowe AJ, Ennos RA (1999) Molecular phylogeography, intraspecific variation and the conservation of tree species. Trends Ecol Evol 14:140–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. ORSTOM (1981), Atlas de Nouvelle Calédonie et DépendancesGoogle Scholar
  31. Perrier X, Flori A, Bonnot F (2003). Data analysis methods. In: Hamon P, Seguin M, Perrier X, Glaszmann JC (eds) Genetic diversity of cultivated tropical plants. Enfield Science Publishers, Montpellier, pp 43–76Google Scholar
  32. Pizo MA, Von Allmen C, Morellato LPC (2006) Seed size variation in the palm Euterpe edulis and of seed predators on germination and seedling survival. Acta Oecologia (in press) doi:10.1016/j.actao.2005.11.011Google Scholar
  33. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP (Version 3.2a): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenism. J Heredity 86:248–249Google Scholar
  34. Reed DH, Frankham R (2003) Correlation between fitness and genetic diversity. Conserv Biol 17:230–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ryder OA (1986) Species conservation and systematics: the dilemma of subspecies. Trends Ecol Evol 1:9–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sackville Hamilton NR (2001) Is local provenance important in habitat creation? A reply. J Appl Ecol 38:1374–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sanou H, Picard N, Lovett PN, Dembélé M, Korbo A, Diarisso D, Bouvet JM (2006) Phenotypic variation of agromorphological traits of the shea tree, Vitellaria paradoxa C.F Gaertn, in Mali. Genet. Resour Crop Evol 53:145–161 DOI 10.1007/s10722-004-1809-9Google Scholar
  39. Saitou N, Nei M (1987) The neighbour-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol 4:406–425PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. SAS Institute Inc (1990) SAS/STAT user 9s guide, release 6.03 edn. SAS Institute Inc., Gary N.CGoogle Scholar
  41. Schneider S, Roessli D, Excoffier L (2000) Arlequin: a software for population genetics data analysis. User manual ver 2.0. Genetics and Biometry Lab, Dept. Anthropology, University of Geneva. 11 pages. Free program distributed by the authors over internet from Scholar
  42. Shineberg D (1967) They came for sandalwood. Melbourne University PressGoogle Scholar
  43. Silvertown J (1989). The paradox of seed size and adaptation. Trends Ecol Evol 4:24–26Google Scholar
  44. Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38:1358–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wilkinson DM (2001) Is local provenance important in habitat creation? J Appl Ecol 38:1371–1373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wright S (1951) The genetical studies of population. Ann Eugen 15:328–354Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lorraine Bottin
    • 1
  • Jacques Tassin
    • 1
    • 3
  • Robert Nasi
    • 2
    • 4
  • Jean-Marc Bouvet
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Forestry departmentCIRADMontpellier Cedex 5France
  2. 2.Forestry departmentCIRADMontpellier Cedex 5France
  3. 3.Institut Agronomique Néo-CalédonienIACNouvelle-CalédonieFrance
  4. 4.Programme on Environmental Services and Sustainable Use of ForestsCIFORJakartaIndonesia

Personalised recommendations