Advertisement

Tree Genetics & Genomes

, 11:28 | Cite as

Genetic diversity and inbreeding in natural and managed populations of Scots pine

  • M. Rosario García GilEmail author
  • Valentina Floran
  • Lars Östlund
  • T. J. “Tim” Mullin
  • Bengt Andersson Gull
Original Paper

Abstract

We carried out a study on Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) in Sweden, where our objective was to quantify the genetic diversity and inbreeding associated with two widely used managed-regeneration practices, planting with improved material from seed orchards and seed-tree regeneration, and compare these with that found in unmanaged natural forests. A total of 196 evenly spaced trees were sampled from a naturally regenerated and two managed-regeneration stands (plantation and seed-tree), in each of three different regions in Sweden (Arjeplog, Vihelmina, and Hammerdal). Population parameters were estimated for microsatellite loci from the nuclear and chloroplast genomes (5 and 11 loci, respectively) and a single mitochondrial locus (nad7). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) shows no significant effects of stand management on the level of nuclear and mitochondrial genetic diversity or inbreeding (p < 0.05). Duncan post-hoc analysis suggested significantly lower values for the chloroplast number of effective alleles (N ea_CP) and total gene diversity (H t_CP) for natural and plantation practices, as compared with seed-tree regeneration. The ANOVA supported a rather weak effect of the management factor (M) on N ea_CP and H t_CP, with p values of 0.08 and 0.07, respectively. Inbreeding coefficient (F 5) indicated a deviation from random mating in all stands caused by an excess of homozygotes. All the stands are composed of a mixture of half- and full-sibs, but no pattern of spatial relatedness was detected in any of them. Our data suggest that genetic diversity is similar in both natural stands and those with managed regeneration, probably because regeneration practices did not decrease the population size to a point where random drift effects might be important. The estimates for the nuclear and mitochondrial (mt) genomes should be regarded with caution, as only five nuclear microsatellite (nSSR) loci less affected by null alleles (<25 %) were analyzed. Our investigation indicates that the reduction to five nSSR loci does not change the main finding of an absence of differences in genetic diversity among stands, except for the number of rare alleles (RA), which is lower when estimated from data for eight nSSR loci.

Keywords

Nuclear SSR Chloroplast SSR nad7 Natural regeneration Managed regeneration Genetic diversity Inbreeding Pinus sylvestris 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge Sonali Ranade, Stefana Ganea, Anna-Maria Rautio, Axel Bergsten, Sara Svanlund, Lydia McCarthy, Anna Hallmén, and especially Mikael Westerlund for conducting the fieldwork. We also would like to thank Per Linder, Fastighetsverket, and Lars Andersson for help with finding and permission to use suitable forest stands. This work was supported by grants from Föreningen Skogsträdförädling and Crops for Future-SLU (TC4F). We also acknowledge the Swedish research Council (VR) and the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems (VINNOVA).

Data archiving statement

Nuclear SSR, chloroplast SSR and nad7 genotypic data sets were submitted to TreeGenes (https://dendrome.ucdavis.edu/tgdr/) (accession numbers TGDR039, TGDR040, and TGDR041, respectively).

Compliance with ethical standards

The authors declare that they do not have competing interests and they have conducted the study following the rules of ethical and good science practice.

Supplementary material

11295_2015_850_MOESM1_ESM.docx (64 kb)
Table S1 (DOCX 63 kb)
11295_2015_850_MOESM2_ESM.docx (59 kb)
Table S2 (DOCX 59 kb)
11295_2015_850_MOESM3_ESM.docx (56 kb)
Table S3 (DOCX 55 kb)
11295_2015_850_MOESM4_ESM.docx (60 kb)
Table S4 (DOCX 60 kb)

References

  1. Abrahamsson S, Ahlinder J, Waldmann P, Garca-Gil MR (2013) Maternal heterozygosity and progeny fitness association in an inbred Scots pine population. Genetica 141(1–3):41–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams WT, Zuo J, Shimizu JY, Tappeiner JC (1998) Impact of alternative regeneration methods on genetic diversity in coastal Douglas-fir. For Sci 44:390–396Google Scholar
  3. Allendorf FW (1986) Genetic drift and the loss of alleles versus heterozygosity. Zoo Biol 5:181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amos W (2005) IR macroN3. IR Manual. http://www.zoo.cam.ac.uk/zoostaff/amos/#ComputerPrograms. Accessed 10 Apr 2009
  5. Androsiuk P, Shimono A, Westin J, Lindgren D, Fries A, Wang XR (2013) Genetic status of Norway spruce (Picea abies) breeding populations for northern Sweden. Silvae Genet 62(3):127–136Google Scholar
  6. Bergmann F, Ruetz W (1991) Isozyme genetic variation and heterozygosity in random tree samples and selected orchard clones from the same Norway spruce populations. For Ecol Manag 46:39–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchert GP, Rajora OP, Hood JV, Dancik BP (1997) Effects of harvesting on genetic diversity in old-growth eastern white pine (Pinus strobus L.) in Ontario, Canada. Conserv Biol 11:747–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chaisurisri K, El-Kassaby YA (1994) Genetic diversity in a seed production population vs. natural populations of Sitka spruce. Biodivers Conserv 3:512–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charlesworth B (1998) Measures of divergence between populations and the effect of forces that reduce variability. Mol Biol Evol 15(5):538–543CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheliak WM, Murray G, Pitel JA (1988) Genetic effects of phenotypic selection of white spruce. For Ecol Manag 24:139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chybicki IA, Dzialuk M, Trojankiewicz M, Slawski M, Burczyk J (2007) Spatial genetic structure within two contrasting stands of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). Silvae Genet 57:4–5Google Scholar
  12. Coulon A (2010) GENHET: an easy-to-use R function to estimate individual heterozygosity. Mol Ecol Resour 10:167–169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dempster AP, Laird NM, Rubin DB (1977) Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm (with discussion). J R Stat Soc 39:1–38Google Scholar
  14. Don RH, Cox PT, Wainwright BJ, Baker K, Mattick JS (1991) Touchdown PCR to circumvent spurious priming during gene amplification. Nucleic Acids Res 19(14):4008CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Doyle JJ, Doyle JL (1987) A rapid DNA isolation procedure for small quantities of fresh leaf tissue. Phytochem Bull 19:11–15Google Scholar
  16. Dvornyk V, Sirvio A, Mikkonen M, Savolainen O (2002) Low nucleotide diversity at the pal1 locus in the widely distributed Pinus sylvestris. Mol Biol Evol 19:179–188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. El-Kassaby YA, Ritland K (1996) Impact of selection and breeding on the genetic diversity in Douglas-fir. Biodivers Conserv 6:795–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. El-Kassaby YA, Dunsworth BG, Krakowski J (2003) Genetic evaluation of alternative silvicultural systems in coastal montane forests: western hemlock and amabilis fir. Theor Appl Genet 107:598–610CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Fageria MS, Rajora OP (2013) Effects of harvesting of increasing intensities on genetic diversity and population structure of white spruce. Evol Appl 6:778–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fageria MS, Rajora OP (2014) Effects of silvicultural practices on genetic diversity and population structure of white spruce in Saskatchewan. Tree Genet Genomes 10:287–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Faris MA, Milton JB (1984) Population density, outcrossing rate, and heterozygote superiority in ponderosa pine. Evolution 38:1151–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ganea LS, Ranade SS, Hall D, Abrahamsson S, García-Gil MR (2015) Development and transferability of two multiplex nSSR in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). J For Res. doi: 10.1007/s11676-015-0042-z Google Scholar
  23. García-Gil MR, Francois O, Kamruzzahan S, Waldmann P (2009) Joint analysis of spatial genetic structure and inbreeding in a managed population of Scots pine. Heredity 103:90–96CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Gauli A, Gailing O, Stefenon VM, Finkeldey R (2009) Genetic similarity of natural populations and plantations of Pinus roxburghii Sarg. in Nepal. Ann For Sci 66:703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goudet J (2001) FSTAT, a Program to Estimate and Test Gene Diversities and Fixation Indices Version 2.9.3: www.unil.ch/izea/softwares/fstat.html
  26. Griffin AR, Lindgren D (1985) Effect of inbreeding on production of filled seed in Pinus radiata—experimental results and a model of gene action. Theor Appl Genet 71:334–343PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Gullberg U, Yazdani R, Rudin D, Ryman N (1985) Allozyme variation in Scots pine (Pinus sylvetris L.) in Sweden. Silvae Genet 34:193–201Google Scholar
  28. Hurlbert SH (1971) The non concept of species diversity: a critique and alternative parameters. Ecology 52:577–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Icgen Y, Kaya Z, Cengel B, Velioglu E, Ozturk H, Onde S (2006) Potential impact of forest management and tree improvement on genetic diversity of Turkish red pine (Pinus brutia Ten.) plantations in Turkey. For Ecol Manag 225:328–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jaramillo-Correa JP, Beaulieu J, Bousquet J (2004) Variation in mitochondrial DNA reveals multiple distant glacial refugia in black spruce (Picea mariana), a transcontinental North American conifer. Mol Ecol 13:2735–2747CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Josefsson T, Olsson J, Östlund L (2010) Linking forest history and conservation efforts: Long-term impact of low-intensity timber harvest on forest structure and wood inhabiting fungi in northern Sweden. Biol Conserv 143:1803–1811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Karhu A, Hurme P, Karjalainen M, Karvonen P, Karkkainen K, Neale D, Savolainen O (1996) Do molecular markers reflect patterns of differentiation in adaptive traits of conifers? Theor Appl Genet 93:215–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Kärkkäinen K, Savolainen O (1993) The degree of early inbreeding depression determines the selfing rate at the seed stage: model and results from Pinus sylvestris (Scots pine). Heredity 71:160–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kärkkäinen K, Kuittinen H, van Treuren R, Vogl C, Oikarinen S, Savolainen O (1999) Genetic basis of inbreeding depression in Arabis petraea. Evolution 53:1354–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Koski V (1971) Embryonic lethals of Picea abies and Pinus sylvestris. Commun Inst For Fenn 75:1–30Google Scholar
  36. Krouchi F, Derridj A, Lefevre F (2003) Year and tree effect on reproductive organization of Cedrus atlantica in a natural forest. For Ecol Manag 197:181–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kuchma O, Vornam B, Finkeldey R (2011) Mutation rates in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) from the Chernobyl exclusion zone evaluated with amplified fragment-length polymorphisms (AFLPs) and microsatellite markers. Mutat Res 725:29–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Lande R (1998) Risk of population extinction from fixation of deleterious and reverse mutations. Genetica 102–103(1–6):21–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Lande R, Schemske DW, Schultz ST (1994) High inbreeding depression, selective interference among loci and the threshold selfing rate for purging recessive lethal mutation. Evolution 48:965–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lewandowski A, Boratynski A, Mejnartowicz L (2000) Allozyme investigations on the differentiation between closely related pines—Pinus sylvestris, P. mugo, P. uncinata and P. uliginosa (Pinaceae). Plant Syst Evol 221:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Loehle C, Namkoong G (1987) Constraints on tree breeding: growth tradeoffs, growth strategies, and defensive investments. For Sci 33:1089–1097Google Scholar
  42. Lynch M, Ritland K (1999) Estimation of pairwise relatedness with molecular markers. Genetics 152:1753–1766PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Lynch M, Conery J, Burger R (1995) Mutation accumulation and the extinction of small populations. Am Nat 146(4):489–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Macdonald SE, Thomas BR, Cherniawsky DM, Purdy BG (2001) Managing genetic resources of lodgepole pine in west-central Alberta: patterns of isozyme variation in natural populations and effects of forest management. For Ecol Manag 152:45–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Maghuly F, Pinsker W, Praznik W, Fluch S (2006) Genetic diversity in managed subpopulations of Norway spruce [Picea abies (L) Karst]. For Ecol Manag 222:266–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Marquardt PE, Echt CS, Epperson BK, Pubanz DM (2007) Genetic structure, diversity, and inbreeding of eastern white pine under different management contitions. Can J For Res 37:2652–2662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Muona O, Harju A (1989) Effective population sizes, genetic variability and mating system in natural stands and seed orchards of Pinus sylvestris. Silvae Genet 38(5–6):221–228Google Scholar
  48. Namroud MC, Bousquet J, Doerksen T, Beaulieu J (2012) Scanning SNPs from a large set of expressed genes to assess the impact of artificial selection on the undomesticated genetic diversity of white spruce. Evol Appl 5(6):641–656CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Naydenov K, Senneville S, Beaulieu J, Tremblay F, Bousquet J (2007) Glacial vicariance in Eurasia: mitochondrial DNA evidence from Scots pine for a complex heritage involving genetically distinct refugia at mid-northern latitudes and in Asia Minor. BMC Evol Biol 7:233CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Neale DB, Adams WT (1985) The mating system in natural and shelterwod stands of Douglas-fir. Theor Appl Genet 71:201–207PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Nei M (1987) Molecular evolutionary genetics. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Nei M, Maruyama T, Chakraborty R (1975) The bottleneck effect and genetic variability in populations. Evolution 29:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nowakowska JA, Zachara T, Konecka A (2014) Genetic variability of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst.) natural regeneration compared with their maternal stands. Leśne Prace Badawcze 75:47–54Google Scholar
  54. Östlund L, Zackrisson O, Axelsson AL (1997) The history and transformation of a Scandinavian boreal forest landscape since the 19th century. Can J For Res 27:1198–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Peakall R, Smouse P (2012) GenAlEx 6.5: genetic analysis in excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research—an update. Bioinformatics 28:2537–2539Google Scholar
  56. Provan J, Soranzo N, Wilson N et al (1998) Gene-pool variation in Caledonian and European Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) revealed by chloroplast simple-sequence repeats. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 265:1697–1705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pyhäjärvi T, Salmela MJ, Savolainen O (2008) Colonization routes of Pinus sylvestris inferred from distribution of mitochondrial DNA variation. Tree Genet Genomes 4:247–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. R Development Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org
  59. Raja RG, Tauer CG, Wittwer RF, Huang Y (1998) Regeneration methods affect genetic variation and structure in shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.). For Genet 5:171–178Google Scholar
  60. Rajora OP (1999) Genetic biodiversity impacts of silvicultural practices and phenotypic selection in white spruce. Theor Appl Genet 99:954–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rajora OP, Pluhar SA (2003) Genetic diversity impacts of forest fires, forest harvesting and alternative reforestation practices in black spruce (Picea mariana). Theor Appl Genet 106:1203–1212PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Rajora OP, Rahman MH, Buchert GP, Dancik BP (2000) Microsatellite DNA analysis of genetic efforts of harvesting in old-growth eastern white pine (Pinus strobus) in Ontario, Canada. Mol Ecol Resour 9:339–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ratman W, Rajora OP, Finkeldy R, Aravanopoulos F, Bouvet JM, Vaillancourt RE, Kanashiro M, Fady B, Tomita M, Vinson C (2014) Genetic effects of forest management practices: global synthesis and perspectives. For Ecol Manag 333:52–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Robledo-Arnuncio JJ (2011) Wind pollination over mesoscale distances: an investigation with Scots pine. New Phytol 190:222–233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Rousset F (2008) Genepop'007: a complete reimplementation of the Genepop software for Windows and Linux. Mol Ecol Resour 8:103–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Rudin D, Eriksson G, Ekberg I, Rasmuson M (1974) Studies of allele frequencies and inbreeding in Scots pine populations by the aidof the isozyme technique. Silvae Genet 23:10–13Google Scholar
  68. Scalfi M, Piotti A, Rossi M, Piovani P (2009) Genetic variability in Italian southern Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) populations: the rear edge of the range. Eur J For Res 128:377–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Shea KL (1987) Effects of population structure and cone production on outcrossing rates in Engelman spruce and subalphine fir. Evolution 41:124–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Skogsstyrelsen (2012) Skogsstatistisk årsbok. Swedish statistical yearbook of forestry. Jönköping, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  71. Soranzo N, Provan J, Powell W (1998) Characterization of microsatellite loci in Pinus sylvestris L. Mol Ecol 7:1260–1261PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Stoehr MU, El-Kassaby YA (1997) Levels of genetic diversity at different stages of the domestication cycle in interior spruce in British Columbia. Theor Appl Genet 94:83–90CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Szmidt AE, Muona O (1985) Genetic effects of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) domestication. Lect Notes Biomath 60:241–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Thomas BR, Macdonald SE, Hicks M, Adams DL, Hodgetts RB (1999) Effects of reforestation methods on genetic diversity of lodgepole pine: an assessment using microsatellite and randomly amplied polymorphic DNA markers. Theor Appl Genet 98:793–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Vendramin G, Lelli L, Rossi P, Morgante M (1996) A set of primers for the amplification of 20 chloroplast microsatellites in Pinaceae. Mol Ecol 5:595–598CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Wachowiak W, Salmela MJ (2011) High genetic diversity at the extreme range edge: nucleotide variation at nuclear loci in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) in Scotland. Heredity 106(5):775–787CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Wahlund S (1928) The combination of populations and the appearance of correlation examined from the standpoint of the study of heredity. Hereditas 11:65–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wang J (2004) Sibship reconstruction from genetic data with typing errors. Genetics 166:1963–1979CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Wang JL (2011) COANCESTRY: a program for simulating, estimating and analysing relatedness and inbreeding coefficients. Mol Ecol Resour 11(1):141–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Wang J, Santure AW (2009) Parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data under polygamy. Genetics 181(4):1579–1594CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Yazdani R, Muona O, Rudin D, Szmidt AE (1985) Genetic structure of a Pinus sylvestris L. seed-tree stand and naturally regenerated understorey. For Sci 31:430–436Google Scholar
  82. Yazdani R, Lindgren D, Stewart S (1989) Gene dispersion within a population of Pinus sylvestris. Scand J For Res 4(3):295–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest Genetics and Plant PhysiologySLUUmeåSweden
  2. 2.Department of Forest Ecology and ManagementSLUUmeåSweden
  3. 3.Skogforsk (The Forestry Research Institute of Sweden)SävarSweden

Personalised recommendations