Advertisement

Molecular Biology Reports

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 203–209 | Cite as

Polymorphic nuclear markers for coastal plant species with dynamic geographic distributions, the rock samphire (Crithmum maritimum) and the vulnerable dune pansy (Viola tricolor subsp. curtisii)

  • Mathilde Latron
  • Jean-François Arnaud
  • Héloïse Ferla
  • Cécile Godé
  • Anne Duputié
Short Communication

Abstract

Identifying spatial patterns of genetic differentiation across a species range is critical to set up conservation and restoration decision-making. This is especially timely, since global change triggers shifts in species’ geographic distribution and in the geographical variation of mating system and patterns of genetic differentiation, with varying consequences at the trailing and leading edges of a species’ distribution. Using 454 pyrosequencing, we developed nuclear microsatellite loci for two plant species showing a strictly coastal geographical distribution and contrasting range dynamics: the expanding rock samphire (Crithmum maritimum, 21 loci) and the highly endangered and receding dune pansy (Viola tricolor subsp. curtisii, 12 loci). Population genetic structure was then assessed by genotyping more than 100 individuals from four populations of each of the two target species. Rock samphire displayed high levels of genetic differentiation (FST = 0.38), and a genetic structure typical of a mostly selfing species (FIS ranging from 0.16 to 0.58). Populations of dune pansy showed a less pronounced level of population structuring (FST = 0.25) and a genotypic structure more suggestive of a mixed-mating system when excluding two loci with heterozygote excess. These results demonstrate that the genetic markers developed here are useful to assess the mating system of populations of these two species. They will be tools of choice to investigate phylogeographical patterns and variation in mating system over the geographical distribution ranges for two coastal plant species that are subject to dynamic evolution due to rapid contemporary global change.

Keywords

Gene flow Geographic range shifts Global change Nuclear microsatellites Plant mating system Population genetic structure 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Vincent Comor, Chloé Ponitzki and Eric Schmitt for help in collecting populations. This work was funded by the “Région Nord–Pas-de-Calais” (AREOLAIRE project). This work was also supported by a PhD fellowship from the French Research Ministry and from the “Région Nord–Pas-de-Calais” (AREOLAIRE project) to Mathilde Latron. This work is also a contribution to the CPER research project CLIMIBIO. The authors thank the French Ministry for Higher Education and Research, the Hauts de France Regional Council and the European Regional Development Fund for their financial support to this project.

References

  1. 1.
    Etterson JR, Schneider HE, Soper Gorden NL, Weber JJ (2016) Evolutionary insights from studies of geographic variation: contemporary variation and looking to the future. Am J Bot 103:5–9.  https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1500515 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Broadhurst L, Breed M, Lowe A et al (2017) Genetic diversity and structure of the Australian flora. Divers Distrib 23:41–52.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12505 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Opdam P, Wascher D (2004) Climate change meets habitat fragmentation: linking landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation. Biol Conserv 117:285–297.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2003.12.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen I-C, Hill JK, Ohlemüller R et al (2011) Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science 333:1024–1026.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1206432 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thomann M, Imbert E, Engstrand RC, Cheptou PO (2015) Contemporary evolution of plant reproductive strategies under global change is revealed by stored seeds. J Evol Biol 28:766–778.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12603 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sagarin RD, Gaines SD, Gaylord B (2006) Moving beyond assumptions to understand abundance distributions across the ranges of species. Trends Ecol Evol 21:524–530.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.06.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davis MB, Shaw RG (2001) Range shifts and adaptive responses to Quaternary climate change. Science 292:673–679.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.292.5517.673 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eckert CG, Samis KE, Lougheed SC (2008) Genetic variation across species’ geographical ranges: the central-marginal hypothesis and beyond. Mol Ecol 17:1170–1188.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03659.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Levin DA (2012) Mating system shifts on the trailing edge. Ann Bot 109:613–620.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcr159 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Travis J, Dytham C (2002) Dispersal evolution during invasions. Evol Ecol Res 4:1119–1129Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Darling E, Samis KE, Eckert CG (2008) Increased seed dispersal potential towards geographic range limits in a Pacific coast dune plant. New Phytol 178:424–435.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02349.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liveri E, Bareka P, Kamari G (2012) Mediterranean chromosome number reports–22. Flora Mediterr 22:211–232.  https://doi.org/10.7320/FlMedit22.211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lambinon J, Delvosalle L, Duvigneaud J (2012) Nouvelle flore de la Belgique, du G.-D. de Luxembourg, du nord de la France et des régions voisines, 6th edn. Jardin Botanique National de Belgique, MeiseGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Crawford RMM (1982) Habitat specialisation in plants of cold climates. Trans Bot Soc Edinb 44:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03746608208685407 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Metzing D, Gerlach A (2001) Climate change and coastal flora. In: Walther G-R, Burga CA, Edwards PJ (eds) “Fingerprints” of climate change. Springer, Boston, pp 185–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kadereit JW, Arafeh R, Somogyi G et al (2005) Terrestrial growth and marine dispersal? Comparative phylogeography of five coastal plant species at a European scale. Taxon 54:861–876.  https://doi.org/10.2307/25065473 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pettet A (1964) Studies on British pansies I. Chromosome numbers and pollen assemblages. Watsonia 6:39–50Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oostermeijer JGB (1989) Myrmecochory in Polygala vulgaris L., Luzula campestris (L.) DC. and Viola curtisii Forster in a Dutch dune area. Oecologia 78:302–311.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00379102 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Malausa T, Gilles A, Meglécz E et al (2011) High-throughput microsatellite isolation through 454 GS-FLX Titanium pyrosequencing of enriched DNA libraries. Mol Ecol Resour 11:638–644.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2011.02992.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Faucher L, Godé C, Arnaud J-F (2016) Development of nuclear microsatellite loci and mitochondrial single nucleotide polymorphisms for the natterjack toad, Bufo (Epidalea) calamita (Bufonidae), using next generation sequencing and Competitive Allele Specific PCR (KASPar). J Hered 107:660–665.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esw068 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goudet J (1995) FSTAT (Version 1.2): a computer program to calculate F-statistics. J Hered 86:485–486.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/est020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goudet J, Raymond M, De Meeüs T, Rousset F (1996) Testing differentiation in diploid populations. Genetics 144:1933–1940.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01769.x PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rice WR (1989) Analysing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nybom H (2004) Comparison of different nuclear DNA markers for estimating intraspecific genetic diversity in plants. Mol Ecol 13:1143–1155.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02141.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hamrick J, Godt MJW (1996) Effects of life history traits on genetic diversity in plant species. Philos Trans R Soc B 351:1291–1298.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1996.0112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Słomka A, Wolny E, Kuta E (2014) Viola tricolor (Violaceae) is a karyologically unstable species. Plant Biosyst 148:602–608.  https://doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2013.788576 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université Lille, CNRS, UMR 8198 – Evo-Eco-PaleoLilleFrance

Personalised recommendations