Advertisement

Plant Systematics and Evolution

, Volume 301, Issue 6, pp 1601–1612 | Cite as

Fine-scale spatial genetic structure of two red oak species, Quercus rubra and Quercus ellipsoidalis

  • Jennifer Lind-Riehl
  • Oliver GailingEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Peripheral populations located at their range edge, may be at risk due to geographical isolation, environmental changes, human disturbances or catastrophic events such as wildfires. Fine-scale spatial genetic structure (SGS) investigations provide a way to examine the spatial arrangement of genetic variation within populations. SGS can result from restricted seed and pollen dispersal and might be affected by geographic isolation and environmental changes and disturbances even in outcrossing wind-pollinated species like oaks. Studying the SGS of peripheral populations provides information that can be used to develop improved conservation and management plans at the species’ range edge. We assessed the level of genetic variation and SGS in twelve range edge populations in northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (USA): eight Quercus rubra and four Quercus ellipsoidalis populations that were subject to different management regimes and natural disturbances. In contrast to Q. rubra populations, the drought tolerant Q. ellipsoidalis populations are isolated from the species’ main distribution range. These populations are not actively managed but are especially prone to recurring fire events. The four managed and four old growth (“unmanaged”) Q. rubra populations displayed similar levels of genetic variation. Likewise the Sp statistic showed similar SGS levels in managed and unmanaged Q. rubra populations (Sp = 0.005) comparable to other Quercus species (European Q. robur: Sp = 0.003). Q. ellipsoidalis populations showed similar or more pronounced SGS than neighboring Q. rubra populations extending up to 83 m in one population. A significant excess of homozygotes across markers in two of the Q. ellipsoidalis populations suggests potential inbreeding. In summary, diverse management activities combined with various natural disturbances are likely both influencing SGS patterns. Outcrossing forest trees like oaks hold large amounts of genetic diversity allowing adaptation to environmental changes over their long life spans. Reductions of these genetic stores, through inbreeding for example, can inhibit a species’ ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions.

Keywords

Spatial genetic structure Quercus Management Silviculture Sp statistic Autocorrelation analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Huron Mountain Wildlife Foundation, both the Ecosystem Science Center and Biotechnology Research Center in the School of Forest Resources and Environmental Sciences at Michigan Technological University, Michigan Technological University’s Finishing Fellowship program, the NSF Plant Genome research program (NSF1025974), the USDA McIntire Stennis fund, the Hanes Trust and the Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science for providing the funding for this work. We would also like to thank Alexis Sullivan for sharing some population data and site information, James Schmierer and Deborah Veen for their willingness to share their knowledge of the management history of the CNF, NNF, and FRF-BP sites, and Jonathan Riehl for his invaluable assistance with the construction of the maps.

Supplementary material

606_2014_1173_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (134 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 135 kb)
606_2014_1173_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (180 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 180 kb)
606_2014_1173_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (151 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 152 kb)
606_2014_1173_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (177 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (PDF 178 kb)
606_2014_1173_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (86 kb)
Supplementary material 5(PDF 86 kb)
606_2014_1173_MOESM6_ESM.pdf (201 kb)
Supplementary material 6 (PDF 201 kb)
606_2014_1173_MOESM7_ESM.pdf (200 kb)
Supplementary material 7 (PDF 200 kb)
606_2014_1173_MOESM8_ESM.pdf (202 kb)
Supplementary material 8 (PDF 202 kb)
606_2014_1173_MOESM9_ESM.pdf (202 kb)
Supplementary material 9 (PDF 202 kb)

References

  1. Abrams MD (1990) Adaptations and responses to drought in Quercus species of North America. Tree Physiol 7:227–238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrams MD (1992) Fire and the development of oak forests. Bioscience 42:346–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aitken SN, Yeaman S, Holliday JA, Wang T, Curtis-MacLane S (2008) Adaptation, migration or extirpation: climate change outcomes for tree populations. Evol Appl 1:95–111CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Aldrich PR, Cavender-Bares J (2011) Wild crop relatives: genomic and breeding resources. In: Kole C (ed) Quercus. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, pp 89–129Google Scholar
  5. Aldrich PR, Glaubitz JC, Parker GR, Rhodes OE, Michler CH (2005) Genetic structure inside a declining red oak community in old-growth forest. J Heredity 96:627–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berg EE, Hamrick JL (1994) Spatial and genetic structure of two sandhills oaks: Quercus laevis and Quercus margaretta (Fagaceae). Amer J Bot 81:7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berg EE, Hamrick JL (1995) Fine-scale genetic structure of a turkey oak forest. Evolution 49:110–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buiteveld J, Vendramin GG, Leonardi S, Kamer K, Geburek T (2007) Genetic diversity and differentiation in European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) stands varying in management history. Forest Ecol Managem 247:98–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cavers S, Degen B, Caron H, Lemes MR, Margis R, Salgueiro F, Lowe AJ (2005) Optimal sampling strategy for estimation of spatial genetic structure in tree populations. Heredity 95:218–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chybicki IJ, Oleksa A, Burczyk J (2011) Increased inbreeding and strong kinship structure in Taxus baccata estimated from both AFLP and SSR data. Heredity 107:589–600CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cottrell JE, Munro RC, Tabbener HE, Milner AD, Forrest GI, Lowe AJ (2003) Comparison of fine-scale genetic structure using nuclear microsatellites within two British oakwoods differing in population history. Forest Ecol Managem 176:287–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Craft KJ, Ashley MV (2007) Landscape genetic structure of bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa) savannas in Illinois. Forest Ecol Managem 239:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis MB (1996) Eastern old-growth forests: prospects for rediscovery and recovery. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  14. Dickmann DI, Leefers LA (2003) The forests of Michigan. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  15. Ennos RA (1994) Estimating the relative rates of pollen and seed migration among plant populations. Heredity 72:250–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Epperson BK (1992) Spatial structure of genetic variation within populations of forest trees. In: Adams WT, Strauss S, Copes D, Griffin AR (eds) Population Genetics of Forest Trees. Forestry Sciences, vol 42. Springer, Netherlands, pp 257–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Epperson BK (2000) Spatial genetic structure and non-equilibrium demographics within plant populations. Pl Spec Biol 15:269–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ESRI (2011) ArcGIS Desktop, 10th edn. Environmental Systems Research Institute, RedlandsGoogle Scholar
  19. Finkeldey R, Ziehe M (2004) Genetic implications of silvicultural regimes. Forest Ecol Managem 197:231–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flaspohler DJ, Meine C (2006) Planning for wildness: Aldo Leopold’s report on Huron Mountain Club. J Forest 104:32–42Google Scholar
  21. Gibson SY, Van Der Marel RC, Starzomski BM (2009) Climate change and conservation of leading-edge peripheral populations. Conservation Biol 23:1369–1373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goudet J (1995) FSTAT (Version 1.2): a computer program to calculate F-statistics. Heredity 86:485–486Google Scholar
  23. Hamrick JL, Linhart YB, Mitton JB (1979) Relationships between life history characteristics and electrophoretically detectable genetic variation in plants. Annual Rev Ecol Syst 10:173–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hardy OJ, Vekemans X (2002) SPAGeDI: a versatile computer program to analyse spatial genetic structure at the individual or population levels. Molec Ecol Notes 2:618–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huebner CD (2003) Vulnerability of oak-dominated forests in West Virginia to invasive exotic plants: temporal and spatial patterns of nine exotic species using herbarium records and land classification data. Castanea 68:1–14Google Scholar
  26. Jimenez P, Agundez D, Alia R, Gil L (1999) Genetic variation in central and marginal populations of Quercus suber L. Silvae Genet 48:278–284Google Scholar
  27. Johnson WC, Webb T (1989) The role of blue jays (Cyanocitta cristata L.) in the postglacial dispersal of fagaceous trees in eastern North America. J Biogeogr 16:561–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones FA, Hamrick JL, Peterson CJ, Squiers ER (2006) Inferring colonization history from analyses of spatial genetic structure within populations of Pinus strobus and Quercus rubra. Molec Ecol 15:851–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jump AS, Peñuelas J (2006) Genetic effects of chronic habitat fragmentation in a wind-pollinated tree. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:8096–8100CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lind JF, Gailing O (2013) Genetic structure of Quercus rubra L and Quercus ellipsoidalis E. J. Hill populations at gene-based EST-SSR and nuclear SSR markers. Tree Genet Genomes 9:707–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lind-Riehl JF, Sullivan AR, Gailing O (2014) Evidence for selection on a CONSTANS-like gene between two red oak species. Ann Bot (Oxford) 113:967–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Loiselle BA, Sork VL, Nason J, Graham C (1995) Spatial genetic structure of a tropical understory shrub, Psychotria officinalis (Rubiaceae). Amer J Bot 82:1420–1425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lorenzo Z, Burgarella C, Lopez de Heredia U, Lumaret R, Petit RJ, Soto A, Gil L (2009) Relevance of genetics for conservation policies: the case of Minorcan cork oaks. Ann Bot (Oxford) 104:1069–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lorimer CG (1993) Causes of oak regeneration problem. United States Department of Agriculture, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  35. McCauley DE (1997) The relative contributions of seed and pollen movement to the local genetic structure of Silene alba. Heredity 88:257–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McPherson EG, Rowntree RA (1989) Using structure measures to compare twenty-two U.S. street tree populations. Landscape 8:13–23Google Scholar
  37. McShea WJ, Healy WM, Devers P, Fearer T, Koch FH, Stauffer D, Waldon J (2007) Forestry matters: decline of oaks will impact wildlife in hardwood forests. J Wildlife Managem 71:1717–1728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moran EV, Clark JS (2012) Between-site differences in the scale of dispersal and gene flow in red oak. PLoS One 7:e36492CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Muir G, Lowe AJ, Fleming CC, Vogl C (2004) High nuclear genetic diversity, high levels of outcrossing and low differentiation among remnant populations of Quercus petraea at the margin of its range in Ireland. Ann Bot (Oxford) 93:691–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Paffetti D, Travaglini D, Buonamici A, Nocentini S, Vendramin GG, Giannini R, Vettori C (2012) The influence of forest management on beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) stand structure and genetic diversity. Forest Ecol Managem 284:34–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pandey M, Rajora OP (2012) Higher fine-scale genetic structure in peripheral than in core populations of a long-lived and mixed-mating conifer- eastern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis L.). BMC Evol Biol 12:48CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Peakall ROD, Smouse PE (2006) GenAlEx 6: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Molec Ecol Notes 6:288–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Petit RJ, Hampe A (2006) Some evolutionary consequences of being a tree. Annual Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:187–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Petit RJ, el Mousadik A, Pons O (1998) Identifying populations for conservation on the basis of genetic markers. Conservation Biol 12:844–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rajendra KC, Seifert S, Prinz K, Gailing O, Finkeldey R (2014) Subtle human impacts on patterns of neutral genetic variation in European beech (Fagus sylvatica). Forest Ecol Managem 319:138–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GenePop (Version-1.2)—population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. Heredity 86:248–249Google Scholar
  47. Saetre S (1983) Chequamegon: The making of a forest. Manuscript on file at the Supervisor Office. Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, RhinelanderGoogle Scholar
  48. Sagnard F, Oddou-Muratorio S, Pichot C, Vendramin GG, Fady B (2011) Effects of seed dispersal, adult tree and seedling density on the spatial genetic structure of regeneration at fine temporal and spatial scales. Tree Genet Genomes 7:37–48Google Scholar
  49. Sokal RR, Oden NL (1978) Spatial autocorrelation in biology: 1. Methodology. Biol J Linn Soc 10:199–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stefenon VM, Gailing O, Finkeldey R (2008) The role of gene flow in shaping genetic structures of the subtropical conifer species Araucaria angustifolia. Pl Biol 10:356–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Streiff R, Labbe T, Bacilieri R, Steinkellner H, Glössl J, Kremer A (1998) Within-population genetic structure in Quercus robur L. and Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl. assessed with isozymes and microsatellites. Molec Ecol 7:317–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sullivan AR, Lind JF, McCleary TS, Romero-Severson J, Gailing O (2013) Development and characterization of genomic and gene-based microsatellite markers in North American red oak species. Plant Mol Biol Rep 31:231–239Google Scholar
  53. Trapnell DW, Hamrick JL (2004) Partitioning nuclear and chloroplast variation at multiple spatial scales in the neotropical epiphytic orchid, Laelia rubescens. Molec Ecol 13:2655–2666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Troupin D, Nathan R, Vendramin GG (2006) Analysis of spatial genetic structure in an expanding Pinus halepensis population reveals development of fine-scale genetic clustering over time. Molec Ecol 15:3617–3630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van Oosterhout C, Hutchinson WF, Wills DPM, Shipley P (2004) MICRO-CHECKER: software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Molec Ecol Notes 4:535–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vekemans X, Hardy OJ (2004) New insights from fine-scale spatial genetic structure analyses in plant populations. Molec Ecol 13:921–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Michigan Technological UniversityHoughtonUSA

Personalised recommendations