Advertisement

New Forests

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 33–43 | Cite as

Genetic variation and gene flow among Prunus cerasoides D. Don populations in northern Thailand: analysis of a rehabilitated site and adjacent intact forest

  • Greuk PakkadEmail author
  • Suad Al Mazrooei
  • David Blakesley
  • Celia James
  • Stephen Elliott
  • Tapio Luoma-Aho
  • Jarkko Koskela
Article

Abstract

This study describes the level of genetic variation and gene flow within and among populations of Prunus cerasoides in rehabilitated sites and adjacent intact forest. The seven microsatellite loci employed detected a total of 75 alleles (n = 401). Polymorphic information content (PIC) varied from 0.34 to 0.83. Between the adult populations there was moderate genetic differentiation with an F ST value of 0.0575, which suggests that the restoration plots had a similar genetic composition to that of the natural population. The gene flow assessment provides some interesting insights into the genetic diversity of P. cerasoides. In the 16 naturally occurring trees over 83% of the genotyped seed were fathered by unidentified trees whereas in restoration plot A only about 32% of the pollen came from an unidentified father. This proportion was even less in Plot C where 25% of the pollen parents were unidentified. The naturally occurring trees within Doi Suthep were surrounded by planted trees, which were contributing to the paternity of the seed crop. This result demonstrates that ‘‘fill in’’ planting should consist of locally sourced material if it is considered important to conserve the genetic integrity of the local populations.

Keywords

Forest restoration Tropical trees Genetic diversity Microsatellites Paternity analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Rungtiwa Punyayod for helping with seed collection and the germination of seedlings in the nursery. We are deeply grateful to Jake Clarke of East Malling Research (EMR) for technical advice and support, Joan Cottrell and Tom Connolly for helping with data analysis. We are also grateful for institutional support of this work provided by Chiang Mai University and the Herbarium especially Dr. Vilaiwan Anusarnsunthorn and the Forest Restoration Research Unit (FORRU) attached to the Biology Department, Faculty of Science. Financial support came from International Plant Genetic resources (IPGRI-APO) and East Malling Research (EMR, UK).

References

  1. Blakesley D, Pakkad, G (2004) Conserving Thailand’s forest genetic resources. fgr research highlights, pp 10–11Google Scholar
  2. Blakesley D, Anusarnsunthorn V, Kerby J, Navakitbumrung P, Kuarak K, Zangkum S, Hardwick K, Elliott S (2000) Nursery technology and tree species selection for restoring forest biodiversity in northern Thailand. In: Elliott S, Kerby J, Blakesley D, Hardwick K, Woods K, Anusarnsunthorn V (eds) Forest restoration for wildlife conservation. ITTO and Chiang Mai University, pp 207–222Google Scholar
  3. Brondani RPV, Brondani C, Tarchini R, Grattapaglia D (1998) Development, characterisation and mapping of microsatellite markers in Eucalyptus grandis and E. urophylla. Theor Appl Genet 97:816–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnes RD, Burley J (1990) Tropical forest genetics at the Oxford Forestry Institute: exploration, evaluation, utilization and conservation of genetic resources. Forest Ecol Manag 35:159–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bussell JD, Hood P, Alacs EA, Dixon KW, Hobbs RJ, Krauss SL (2006) Rapid genetic delineation of local provenance seed-collection zones for effective rehabilitation of an urban bushland remnant. Austral Ecol 31:164–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chase M, Kesseli R, Bawa KS (1996) Microsatellite markers for population and conservation genetics of tropical trees. Am J Bot 83:51–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cipriani G, Lot G, Huang WG, Marrazzo MT, Peterlunger E, Testolin R (1999) AC/GT and AG/CT microsatellite repeats in peach [Prunus persica (L) Batsch]: isolation, characterisation and cross-species amplification in Prunus. Theor Appl Genet 99:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke JB, Tobutt KR (2003) Development and characterization of polymorphic microsatellites from Prunus avium ‘Napoleon’. Mol Ecol Notes 3:578–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dakin EE, Avise JC (2004) Microsatellite null alleles in parentage analysis. Heredity 93:504–509PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dayanandan S, Bawa K, Kesseli R (1997) Conservation of microsatellites among tropical trees (Legumninosae). Am J Bot 84:1658–1663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dow BD, Ashley MV, Howe HF (1995) Characterization of highly variably (GA/CT)n microsatellites in the bur oak, Quercus macrocarpa. Theor Appl Genet 91:137–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Downey SL, Iezzoni AF (2000) Polymorphic DNA markers in black cherry (Prunus serotina) are identified using sequences from sweet cherry, peach, and sour cherry. J Am Soc Hort Sci 125:76–80Google Scholar
  13. Elliott S, Anusarnsunthorn V, Garwood N, Blakeyley D (1995) Research needs for restoring the forest of Thailand. Nat Hist Bull Siam Soc 43:179–184Google Scholar
  14. Elliott S, Kuarak C, Navakitbumrung P, Zangkum S, Anusarnsunthorn V, Blakesley D (2002) Propagating framework trees to restore seasonally dry tropical forest in northern Thailand. New Forests 23:63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Food and Agriculture Organization (1997) State of the world’s forestsGoogle Scholar
  16. Food and Agriculture Organization (2001) State of the world’s forestsGoogle Scholar
  17. Forest Restoration Research Unit (1998) Forests for the future: growing and planting native trees for restoring forest ecosystems. In: Elliott S, Anusarnsunthorn V, Blakesley D (eds) Biology Department, Science Faculty, Chiang Mai University, ThailandGoogle Scholar
  18. Forest Restoration Research Unit (2000) Tree seeds and seedlings for restoring forests in Northern Thailand. In: Elliott S, Blakesley D, Anusarnsunthorn V (eds) Biology Department, Science Faculty, Chiang Mai University, ThailandGoogle Scholar
  19. Goosem SP, Tucker NIJ (1995) Repairing the rainforest – theory and practice of rainforest re-establishment in North Queensland’s wet tropics. Wet Tropics Management Authority, CairnsGoogle Scholar
  20. Khadari B, Hochu T, Santoni IS, Kjellberg F (2001) Identification and characterization of microsatellite loci in the common fig (Ficus cariaca L.) and reprenstative species of the genus Ficus. Mol Ecol Notes 1(3):191–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kitzmiller JH (1990) Managing genetic diversity in a tree improvement program. Forest Ecol Manag 35:131–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Konnert M, Ruetz W (2003) Influence of nursery practices on the genetic structure of beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) seedling populations. Forest Ecol Manag 184:193–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lamb D, Parrotta J, Keenan R, Tucker N (1997) Rejoining habitat fragments: restoring degraded rainforest lands. In: Laurance WF, Bierregaard RO (eds) Tropical forest remnants: ecology, management and conservation of fragmented communities. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA, pp 366–385Google Scholar
  24. Leungaramsri P, Rajesh N (1992) The future of people and forests in Thailand after the logging ban. Project for Ecological Recovery, Bangkok, ThailandGoogle Scholar
  25. Marshall TC, State J, Kruuk LEB, Pemberton JM (1998) Statistical confidence for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Mol Ecol 7:639–655PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Muluvi GM, Sprent JI, Soranzo N., Provan J, Odee D, Folkard G, Mcnicol JW, Powell W (1999) Amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) analysis of genetic variation in Moringa oleifera Lam. Mol Ecol 8:463–470PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Murray MG, Thompson WF (1980) Rapid isolation of high molecular weight plant DNA. Nucleic Acid Res 8:4321–4325PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pakkad G, James C, Torre F, Elliott S, Blakesley D (2004) Genetic variation of Prunus cerasoides D. Don, a framework tree species in northern Thailand. New Forests 27:189–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP (Version 1.2): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Heredity 86:248–249Google Scholar
  30. Roa AC, Chavarriaga-Aguirre P, Duque MC, Maya MM, Bonierbale MW, Iglesias C, Thome J (2000) Cross-species amplification of cassava (Manihot esculenta) (Euphorbiaceae) microsatellites: allelic polymorphism and degree of relationship. Am J Bot 87:1647–1655PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schmidt L (2000) Guide to handling of tropical and subtropical forest seed. Danida Forest Tree Centre, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  32. Sosinki B, Gannavarapu M, Hager LD, Beck LE, King GJ, Ryder D, Rajapakse S, Baird WV, Ballard RE, Abbott AG (2000) Characterization of microsatellite markers in peach [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch]. Theor Appl Genet 101:421–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Streiff R, Labbe T, Bacilieri R (1998) Within-population genetic structure in Quercus robur L. and Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl. assessed with isozymes and microsatellites. Mol Ecol 7:317–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tucker NIJ, Murphy TM (1997) The effects of ecological rehabilitation on vegetation recruitment: some observations from the Wet Tropics of North Queensland. Forest Ecol Manag 99:133–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ueno S, Yoshimaru H, Kawahara T, Yamamoto S (2000) Isolation of microsatellite markers in Castanopsis cuspidata var. sieboldii Nakai from an enriched library. Mol Ecol 9:1171–1193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. White G, Powell W (1997) Isolation and characterization of microsatellite loci in Swietenia humilis (Meliaceae); an endangered tropical hardwood species. Mol Ecol 6:851–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wright S (1965) The interpretation of a population structure by F-statistics with special regard to systems of mating. Evolution 19:395–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Greuk Pakkad
    • 1
    Email author
  • Suad Al Mazrooei
    • 2
  • David Blakesley
    • 3
  • Celia James
    • 4
  • Stephen Elliott
    • 1
  • Tapio Luoma-Aho
    • 5
  • Jarkko Koskela
    • 5
  1. 1.Forest Restoration Research Unit, Department of Biology, Faculty of ScienceChiang Mai UniversityChiang MaiThailand
  2. 2.Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of ScienceKuwait UniversitySafatKuwait
  3. 3.Wildlife LandscapeBearsted, KentUK
  4. 4.East Malling ResearchKentUK
  5. 5.Bioversity International – HeadquartersMaccarese, RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations