Plant Systematics and Evolution

, Volume 194, Issue 1–2, pp 39–54 | Cite as

Intra- and interspecific genetic differentiation in closely related pines fromPinus subsectionSylvestres (Pinaceae) in the former Soviet Union

  • Grigori G. Goncharenko
  • Arkadi E. Silin
  • Vladimir E. Padutov


Thirty-seven natural populations of four closely related species ofPinus subsect.Sylvestres, P. mugo, P. funebris, P. pallasiana, andP. sylvestris, occurring in the former Soviet Union were investigated by starch-gel electrophoresis. In the populations assayed 127 allelic variants at 25 loci were revealed.Nei's distance coefficient (Dn) was used to estimate the level of genetic differentiation amongP. sylvestris races and among closely related species. A dendrogram constructed using Dn values shows that of the fiveP. sylvestris races analyzed only the geographically isolated var.hamata exhibited sufficient differences at theDia-2 locus (a mean Dn value relative to the other four races is 0.025) to recognize it as a distinct taxon. The remaining races, “sylvestris”, “cretacea”, “lapponica”, and “sibirica”, have a similar gene pool (Dn values are not greater than 0.010), and they should be regarded as a single taxon,P. sylvestris var.sylvestris. Interspecific comparisons revealed thatP. sylvestris andP. mugo have the closest genetic affinities to each other withNei's genetic distance of 0.108. The dendrogram demonstrates thatP. funebris is closer toP. sylvestris andP. mugo thanP. pallasiana. The available paleontologic data allowed us to conclude thatNei's (1975) time scale estimate for the time of divergence of the taxa was more accurate thanNei's (1971) time scale estimate.

Key words

Gymnosperms Pinaceae Pinus subsect.Sylvestres Isozymes genetic distance time of divergence 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Artamonov, V. I., 1989: Rare and disappearing plants. — Moscow: Agropromizdat. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
  2. Ayala, F. J., 1982: Population and evolutionary genetics: A primer. — Menlo Park, California: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  3. —,Powell, J. R., 1972: Allozymes as diagnostic characters of sibling species ofDrosophila. — Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA69: 1094–1096.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bobrov, E. G., 1975a:Pinus sylvestris in the Caucasus—the history and systematics. — Bot. Ž.60: 1421–1433. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
  5. —, 1975b: What isPinus funebris Kom. — Bot. Ž.60: 699–701. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
  6. Cheliak, W. M., Pitel, J. A., 1984: Techniques for starch gel electrophoresis of enzymes from forest tree species. — Petawawa: National Forestry Institute.Google Scholar
  7. Critchfield, W. B., Little, E. L., 1966: Geographic distribution of thePinus of the world. — Miscellaneous Publication U.S. Dept. Agricult.991.Google Scholar
  8. Conkle, M. T., Schiller, G., Grunwald, C., 1988: Electrophoretic analysis of diversity and phylogeny ofPinus brutia Ten. and closely related taxa. — Syst. Bot.13: 411–424.Google Scholar
  9. -Hodgskiss, P. D., Nunnally, L. B., Hunter, S. C., 1982: Starch gel electrophoresis of conifer seeds: a laboratory manual. — USDA For. Serv. Tech. Rep. PSW-64.Google Scholar
  10. Dancik, B. P., Yeh, F. C., 1983: Allozyme variability and evolution of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var.latifolia) and jack pine (P. banksiana) in Alberta. — Canad. J. Genet. Cytol.25: 57–64.Google Scholar
  11. Filppula, S., Szmidt, A. E., Savolainen, O., 1992: Genetic comparison betweenPinus sylvestris andP. mugo using isozymes and chloroplast DNA. — Nordic J. Bot.12: 381–386.Google Scholar
  12. Gerasimov, I. P., Velichko, A. A., 1982: Paleogeography of Europe for the last one hundred thousand years. — Moscow: Nauka. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
  13. Goncharenko, G. G., Kuchmin, V. M., Savitsky, B. P., 1988: Training Programme in the language of FORTRAN for processing of evolutionary and genetic data and their gene taxonomic interpretation. — Gomel: Gomel State University. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
  14. —,Padutov, V. E., Potenko, V. V., 1989: Guide to conifer species research by isozymes methods. — Gomel: State Committee for Forestry of the USSR, Byelorussian Forestry Research Institute. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
  15. —, —,Silin, A. E., 1992: Population structure, gene diversity, and differentiation in natural populations of Cedar pines (Pinus subsect.Cembrae, Pinaceae) in the USSR. — Pl. Syst. Evol.182: 121–134.Google Scholar
  16. -Silin, A. E., Padutov, V. E., 1994: Allozyme variation in natural populations of Eurasian pines. III. Population structure, diversity, differentiation, and gene flow inPinus sylvestris L. in central and isolated populations of eastern Europe and Siberia. — Silvae Genet.43. (In press.)Google Scholar
  17. —,Padutov, V. E., Silin, A. E., Chernodubov, A. N., Isakov, Yu. N., Kamalova, I. I., 1991: Genetic structure ofPinus sylvestris L. andPinus cretacea Kalen. and their taxonomic relationship. — Proc. Acad. Sci. USSR319: 1230–1234. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
  18. Gorbunov, M. G., 1958: Tertiary pines (Pinus spp.) of Western Siberia. — Bot. Ž.43: 337–352. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
  19. Gullberg, U., Yazdani, R., Rudin, D., Ryman, N., 1985: Allozyme variation in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) in Sweden. — Silvae Genet.34: 193–201.Google Scholar
  20. Jacobs, B. F., Werth, C. R., Gutman, S. I., 1984: Genetics relationships inAbies (fir) of eastern United States: an electrophoretic study. — Canad. J. Bot.62: 609–616.Google Scholar
  21. Kapper, O. G., 1954: Coniferous species. — Moscow, Leningrad: Goslesbumizdat. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
  22. Komarov, V. L., (Ed.), 1934: Flora of the USSR. — Leningrad: USSR's Academy of Sciences. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
  23. Kozubov, G. M., Muratova, E. N., 1986: Modern gymnosperms. — Leningrad: Nauka. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
  24. Lewontin, R. C., 1974: The genetic basis of evolutionary change. — New York, London: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lypa, A. L., 1955: Identifier of trees and bushes. 1. — Kiev: Kiev State University. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
  26. Mashkin, C. I., 1971: Dendrology of Central Chernozemye. 1. — Voronezh: Voronezh State University. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
  27. Mejnartowicz, L., Bergmann, F., 1985: Genetic differentiation among Scots pine populations from the lowland and the mountains in Poland. — InGregorius, H.-R., (Ed.): Population genetics in forestry. Lecture notes in biomathematics60, pp. 253–266. — Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Millar, C. I., Strauss, S. H., Conkle, M. T., Westfall, R. P., 1988: Allozyme differentiation and biosystematics of the Californian closed cone pines (Pinus subsect.Oocarpae). — Syst. Bot.13: 351–370.Google Scholar
  29. Nei, M., 1971: Interspecific gene differences and evolutionary time estimated from electrophoretic data on protein identity. — Amer. Naturalist105: 385–398.Google Scholar
  30. —, 1972: Genetic distance between populations. — Amer. Naturalist106: 283–292.Google Scholar
  31. —, 1975: Molecular population genetics and evolution. — Amsterdam: Holland Press.Google Scholar
  32. Niebling, C. R., Conkle, M. T., 1990: Diversity of Washoe pine and comparisons with allozymes of ponderosa pine races. — Canad. J. For. Res.20: 298–308.Google Scholar
  33. Novikov, A. L., 1967: Identifier of conifers trees and bushes. — Minsk: Vysshaya shkola. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
  34. Prakash, S., Lewontin, R. C., Hubby, J. L., 1969: A molecular approach to the study of genic heterozygosity in natural populations. IV. Patterns of genic variation in central, marginal, and isolated populations ofDrosophila pseudoobscura. — Genetics61: 841–858.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Pravdin, L. F., 1964: Scotch pine. Variability, intraspecies taxonomy, and breeding. — Moscow: Nauka. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
  36. Schiller, G., Conkle, M. T., Grunwald, C., 1986: Local differentiation among Mediterranean populations of Aleppo pine in their isoenzymes. — Silvae Genet.35: 11–19.Google Scholar
  37. Sukhachyov, V. N., 1938: Dendrology with foundations of forest geobotany. — Leningrad: Goslestekhizdat. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
  38. Wang, X.-R., Szmidt, A. E., Lewandowski, A., Wang, Z.-R., 1990: Evolutionary analysis ofPinus densata Masters, a putative Tertiary hybrid. 1. Allozyme variation. — Theor. Appl. Genet.80: 635–640.Google Scholar
  39. Wheeler, N. C., Guries, R. P., 1987: A quantitative measure of introgression between lodgepole and jack pines. — Canad. J. Bot.65: 1876–1885.Google Scholar
  40. —, —,O'Malley, D. M., 1983: Biosystematics of the genusPinus, subsectionContortae. — Biochem. Syst. Ecol.11: 333–340.Google Scholar
  41. Wulff, E. V., 1936: A historical geography of plants. — Moscow, Leningrad: USSR Academy of Sciences. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
  42. Yeh, F. C., Arnott, J. T., 1986: Electrophoretic and morphological differentiation ofPicea sitchensis, Picea glauca, and their hybrids. — Canad. J. For. Res.16: 791–798.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Grigori G. Goncharenko
    • 1
  • Arkadi E. Silin
    • 1
  • Vladimir E. Padutov
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Molecular Genetics and Forest Tree BreedingInstitute of Forestry of the Academy of Sciences of BelarusGomelBelarus

Personalised recommendations