Advertisement

Conservation implications of widespread polyploidy and apomixis: a case study in the genus Pomaderris (Rhamnaceae)

  • Stephanie H. Chen
  • Lydia K. Guja
  • Alexander N. Schmidt-LebuhnEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

Polyploidy resulting from whole genome duplication is common in plants and is increasingly being recognised as a critical factor in conservation actions, particularly when within-species variation in ploidy exists. Pomaderris (Rhamnaceae), a genus of 70 species endemic to Australia and New Zealand, has many species listed as threatened and that are subject to conservation management but of unknown ploidy. To provide a better understanding of polyploidy in the genus we sampled 36 of 70 species of Pomaderris and used flow cytometry to establish genome sizes and infer ploidy. Additionally, to examine within-species variation, we screened 104 individuals of eight rare species subject to conservation management. We did not find evidence for infraspecific variation in ploidy, suggesting that from a cytological perspective, conspecific individuals from the screened populations do not need to be kept geographically separated in conservation management. There is, however, considerable variation among species, with genome sizes suggesting the occurrence of diploidy, triploidy, tetraploidy and hexaploidy. Finding several species to be triploid but capable of seed production, we then explored reproductive biology using the flow cytometric seed screen. Results suggested that triploid species produce seeds asexually, as previously reported for two New Zealand congeners. While asexual reproduction through apomixis is generally a means of odd-ploid taxa overcoming sterility, we found that more than half of examined diploids and tetraploids also produced seeds asexually. Asexual reproduction means genetic diversity is potentially low, and these results should therefore be considered in future conservation actions and seed sampling designs.

Keywords

Apomixis Conservation management Polyploidy Pomaderris Seed production 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the many colleagues who collected Pomaderris vouchers, cuttings and seeds across south-eastern Australia, maintained living collections, and made collections available for this research: the Australian National Botanic Gardens nursery and National Seed Bank; the Wollongong Botanic Garden; PlantBank and The Royal Botanic Gardens & Domain Trust; Francis Nge and Mark Ooi. We thank David Marshall and Mark Wallace for assistance and advice in developing flow cytometry protocols for Pomaderris. Dave Albrecht, Jo Palmer and Neville Walsh kindly confirmed identifications of voucher specimens. Constructive comments by three anonymous reviewers helped us to improve a previous version of the manuscript. The work has been assisted by the New South Wales Government through its Environmental Trust and is part of a project (2015 RD 004) lead by David Taylor in collaboration with the Australian National Botanic Gardens, The Australian Botanic Garden Mount Annan, Wollongong Botanic Garden, Eurobodalla Regional Botanic Garden, Booderee National Park, the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, the ACT Government and the University of New South Wales. The research was also supported by a CSIRO Undergraduate Research Scholarship awarded to S.H.C.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10592_2019_1184_MOESM1_ESM.docx (11 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 11 kb)
10592_2019_1184_MOESM2_ESM.csv (11 kb)
Supplementary material 2 Genome size measurements from screening across populations of rare Australian species of Pomaderris, with voucher information (CSV 10 kb)

References

  1. Australian Government (1999) Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999Google Scholar
  2. Berthaud J (2001) Apomixis and the management of genetic diversity. In: Savidan Y, Carman JG, Dresselhaus T (eds) The flowering of apomixis: from mechanisms to genetic engineering. CIMMYT, IRD, and EU RTD FAIR, Houston, pp 8–23Google Scholar
  3. Brochmann C, Brysting AK, Alsos IG et al (2004) Polyploidy in arctic plants. Biol J Linn Soc 82:521–536.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2004.00337.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carman JG (1997) Asynchronous expression of duplicate genes in angiosperms may cause apomixis, bispory, tetraspory, and polyembryony. Biol J Linn Soc 61:51–94.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1997.tb01778.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Castro M, Rosselló JA (2007) Karyological observations on plant taxa endemic to the Balearic Islands. Bot J Linn Soc 153:463–476.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8339.2007.00617.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen G, Sun W-B, Sun H (2007) Ploidy variation in Buddleja L. (Buddlejaceae) in the Sino-Himalayan region and its biogeographical implications. Bot J Linn Soc 154:305–312.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8339.2007.00650.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Comai L (2005) The advantages and disadvantages of being polyploid. Nat Rev Genet 6:836–846.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1711 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dobeš C, Lückl A, Hülber K, Paule J (2013) Prospects and limits of the flow cytometric seed screen—insights from Potentilla sensu lato (Potentilleae, Rosaceae). New Phytol 198:605–616.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12149 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doležel J, Doleželová M, Novák FJ (1994) Flow cytometric estimation of nuclear DNA amount in diploid bananas (Musa acuminata and M. balbisiana). Biol Plant 36:351.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02920930 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doležel J, Greilhuber J, Suda J (2007) Estimation of nuclear DNA content in plants using flow cytometry. Nat Protoc 2:2233–2244.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2007.310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frankham R, Ballou JD, Briscoe DA (2010) Introduction to conservation genetics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Godfree RC, Marshall DJ, Young AG et al (2017) Empirical evidence of fixed and homeostatic patterns of polyploid advantage in a keystone grass exposed to drought and heat stress. Open Sci 4:170934.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170934 Google Scholar
  13. Haines L, Ennis IL, Blanchon DJ, Triggs CM (2007) Propagating the pale-flowered kumarahou (Pomaderris hamiltonii) and kumarahou (Pomaderris kumeraho) from seeds. N Z J Bot 45:91–100.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00288250709509706 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hair JB (1963) Contributions to a chromosome atlas of the New Zealand Flora—6. N Z J Bot 1:243–257.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0028825X.1963.10428997 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harvey CF, Braggins JE (1985) Reproduction in the New Zealand taxa of Pomaderris Labill. (Rhamnaceae). N Z J Bot 23:151–156.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0028825X.1985.10425316 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harvey CF, Rattenbury JA (1985) Microsporogenesis and pollen viability in New Zealand taxa of Pomaderris Labill. (Rhamnaceae). N Z J Bot 23:321–330.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0028825X.1985.10425334 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoban S, Strand A (2015) Ex situ seed collections will benefit from considering spatial sampling design and species’ reproductive biology. Biol Conserv 187:182–191.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.04.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Husband BC, Baldwin SJ, Suda J (2013) The incidence of polyploidy in natural plant populations: major patterns and evolutionary processes. Plant genome diversity, vol. 2. Springer, Vienna, pp 255–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jain M, Flynn DFB, Prager CM et al (2013) The importance of rare species: a trait-based assessment of rare species contributions to functional diversity and possible ecosystem function in tall-grass prairies. Ecol Evol 4:104–112.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.915 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jenkins G, Rees H (1991) Strategies of bivalent formation in allopolyploid plants. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 243:209–214.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1991.0033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kellermann J, Udovicic F (2008) Large indels obscure phylogeny in analysis of chloroplast DNA (trnL-F) sequence data: Pomaderreae (Rhamnaceae) revisited. Telopea 12:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kellermann J, Udovicic F, Ladiges PY (2005) Phylogenetic analysis and generic limits of the tribe Pomaderreae (Rhamnaceae) using internal transcribed spacer DNA sequences. Taxon 54:619–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Köhler C, Mittelsten Scheid O, Erilova A (2010) The impact of the triploid block on the origin and evolution of polyploid plants. Trends Genet 26:142–148.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2009.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kramer AT, Havens K (2009) Plant conservation genetics in a changing world. Trends Plant Sci 14:599–607.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2009.08.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leitch IJ, Bennett MD (1997) Polyploidy in angiosperms. Trends Plant Sci 2:470–476.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1360-1385(97)01154-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Levin DA (1975) Minority cytotype exclusion in local plant populations. Taxon 24:35–43.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1218997 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lo EYY, Stefanović S, Dickinson TA (2009) Population genetic structure of diploid sexual and polyploid apomictic hawthorns (Crataegus; Rosaceae) in the Pacific Northwest. Mol Ecol 18:1145–1160.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04091.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Madlung A (2013) Polyploidy and its effect on evolutionary success: old questions revisited with new tools. Heredity 110:99–104.  https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2012.79 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Masterson J (1994) Stomatal size in fossil plants: evidence for polyploidy in majority of angiosperms. Science 264:421–424.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.264.5157.421 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Matzk F, Meister A, Schubert I (2001) An efficient screen for reproductive pathways using mature seeds of monocots and dicots. Plant J 21:97–108.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313x.2000.00647.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McAuliffe J, Taylor D, McDougall K (2016) A non-seed based method for enhancement planting of the critically endangered “Pomaderris delicata”. Australas Plant Conserv 25:14Google Scholar
  32. Miller JS, Venable DL (2000) Polyploidy and the evolution of gender dimorphism in plants. Science 289:2335–2338.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.289.5488.2335 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Morris WF, Doak DF (2002) Quantitative conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  34. Muller HJ (1925) Why polyploidy is rarer in animals than in plants. Am Nat 59:346–353.  https://doi.org/10.1086/280047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nevill PG, Tomlinson S, Elliott CP et al (2016) Seed production areas for the global restoration challenge. Ecol Evol 6:7490–7497.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2455 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. New South Wales Government (2016) Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 No 63Google Scholar
  37. Noirot M, Couvet D, Hamon S (1997) Main role of self-pollination rate on reproductive allocations in pseudogamous apomicts. Theor Appl Genet 95:479–483.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s001220050586 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pandit MK, Pocock MJO, Kunin WE (2011) Ploidy influences rarity and invasiveness in plants. J Ecol 99:1108–1115.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01838.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Patykowski J, Dell M, Gibson M (2016) Germination ecology and seed dispersal of a critically endangered plant: a case study of Pomaderris vacciniifolia (round-leaf Pomaderris). PLoS ONE 11:e0161665.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161665 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pickup M, Young AG (2007) Population size, self-incompatibility and genetic rescue in diploid and tetraploid races of Rutidosis leptorrhynchoides (Asteraceae). Heredity 100:268–274.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.hdy.6801070 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Plue J, Kimberley A, Slotte T (2018) Interspecific variation in ploidy as a key plant trait outlining local extinction risks and community patterns in fragmented landscapes. Funct Ecol 32:2095–2106.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ramsey J, Schemske DW (1998) Pathways, mechanisms, and rates of polyploid formation in flowering plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:467–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ramsey J, Schemske DW (2002) Neopolyploidy in flowering plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:589–639.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150437 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reed DH, Frankham R (2003) Correlation between fitness and genetic diversity. Conserv Biol 17:230–237.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01236.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rieseberg LH (2001) Polyploid evolution: keeping the peace at genomic reunions. Curr Biol 11:R925–R928.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(01)00556-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roberts KS, Trueman SJ (2016) Plant propagation for environmental offset planting: a case study of endangered Pomaderris clivicola and near-threatened Bertya pedicellata—SciAlert responsive version. J Environ Sci Technol 9:452–461.  https://doi.org/10.3923/jest.2016.452.461 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schmidt-Lebuhn AN, Fuchs J, Hertel D et al (2010) An Andean radiation: polyploidy in the tree genus Polylepis (Rosaceae, Sanguisorbeae). Plant Biol 12:917–926.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1438-8677.2009.00297.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schmidt-Lebuhn AN, Marshall DJ, Dreis B, Young AG (2018) Genetic rescue in a plant polyploid complex: case study on the importance of genetic and trait data for conservation management. Ecol Evol 8:5153–5163.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Severns PM, Liston A (2008) Intraspecific chromosome number variation: a neglected threat to the conservation of rare plants. Conserv Biol 22:1641–1647.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01058.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Soltis DE, Soltis PS (1999) Polyploidy: recurrent formation and genome evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 14:348–352.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(99)01638-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Soltis DE, Soltis PS, Schemske DW et al (2007) Autopolyploidy in angiosperms: have we grossly underestimated the number of species? Taxon 56:13–30.  https://doi.org/10.2307/25065732 Google Scholar
  52. Soltis DE, Albert VA, Leebens-Mack J et al (2009) Polyploidy and angiosperm diversification. Am J Bot 96:336–348.  https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0800079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. te Beest M, Le Roux L, Richardson DM et al (2012) The more the better? The role of polyploidy in facilitating plant invasions. Ann Bot 109:19–45.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcr277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thompson JD, Lumaret R (1992) The evolutionary dynamics of polyploid plants: origins, establishment and persistence. Trends Ecol Evol 7:302–307.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(92)90228-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Turner SR, Merritt DJ, Baskin CC et al (2005) Physical dormancy in seeds of six genera of Australian Rhamnaceae. Seed Sci Res 15:51–58.  https://doi.org/10.1079/SSR2004197 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van Dijk PJ (2003) Ecological and evolutionary opportunities of apomixis: insights from Taraxacum and Chondrilla. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 358:1113–1121.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2003.1302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vrána J, Cápal P, Bednářová M, Doležel J (2014) Flow cytometry in plant research: a success story. Applied plant cell biology. Springer, Berlin, pp 395–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wallace MJ, Guja LK, Jouault MA et al (2017) DNA ploidy variation and distribution in the Lepidosperma costale complex (Cyperaceae): implications for conservation and restoration in a biodiversity hotspot. Aust J Bot 65:120–127.  https://doi.org/10.1071/BT16197 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Waller DM (2015) Genetic rescue: a safe or risky bet? Mol Ecol 24:2595–2597.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Walsh NG, Coates F (1997) New taxa, new combinations and an infrageneric classification in Pomaderris (Rhamnaceae). Muelleria 10:27–56Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CSIRO, Centre for Australian National Biodiversity ResearchCanberraAustralia
  2. 2.Australian National Botanic Gardens, Biodiversity Science SectionNational Seed BankCanberraAustralia
  3. 3.University of SydneyNew South WalesAustralia

Personalised recommendations