Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 293, Issue 1–2, pp 209–217 | Cite as

Local adaptation to serpentine soils in Pinus ponderosa

  • Jessica W. WrightEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Local adaptation to serpentine soils is studied using both transplant experiments and molecular genetic techniques. In long-lived species, such as pines, it is unclear how soon after germination local adaptation becomes detectable. Here I present results of a 36-year reciprocal transplant experiment using Pinus ponderosa, along with allozyme analyses from the same trees. Using a repeated measures analysis of variance, there is evidence for adaptation to serpentine soils; however, significant differences between source soil types do not become apparent until 20 years after the start of the experiment. Analysis of allozyme data showed no evidence for differentiation between the serpentine and non-serpentine populations. Comparing the performance of families over the course of the experiment found that there was little correlation between performance after 1 or 4 years of growth in the field and performance after 36 years. This suggests that short-term transplant experiments may not provide definitive evidence for adaptation to serpentine soils. A literature survey of all transplant studies using pine species growing on and off of serpentine soils found that studies that lasted fewer than 2 years showed no evidence for adaptation. However, in the two experiments (this one included) that lasted more than 2 years, both showed evidence for adaptation to serpentine soils. More long-term experiments are required to validate these results.

Keywords

Pinus ponderosa Local adaptation Serpentine soils Reciprocal transplant experiment Allozymes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Since 1967, this project has been conducted by a dedicated team of scientists, to whom I am indebted for their years of careful work. First and foremost among these is James L. Jenkinson, whose vision and planning made this experiment possible. Over the years, cones and data were collected by Carrol W. Busche, Edwin Jack Carpender, Johnny P. Cramer, David R. Johnson, and Roger A. Stutts. I thank each of them for their efforts. Paul Hodgskiss was responsible for collecting the allozyme data. I also thank R. Latta, D. R. Johnson, P. Hodgskiss and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft. This research has been supported over the years by the Institute of Forest Genetics, USDA-Forest Service.

References

  1. Antonovics J, Bradshaw AD (1970) Evolution in closely adjacent plant populations VIII. Clinal patterns at a mine boundary. Heredity 25:349–362Google Scholar
  2. Antonovics J, Bradshaw AD, Turner RG (1971) Heavy metal tolerance in plants. Adv Ecol Res 7:1–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brady KU, Kruckeberg AR, Bradshaw AD (2005) Evolutionary ecology of plant adaptation to serpentine soils. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 36:243–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks RR (1987) Serpentine and its vegetation: a multidisciplinary approach. Dioscorides Press, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  5. Conkle MT, Hodgskiss PD, Nunnally LB, Hunter SC (1982) Starch gel electrophoresis of conifer seeds: a laboratory manual. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  6. Furnier GR, Adams WT (1986) Geographic patterns of allozyme variation in Jeffery Pine. Am J Bot 73:1009–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Griffin JR (1965) Digger pine seedling response to serpentinite and non-serpentinite soil. Ecology 46:801–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Holt RD, Gomulkiewicz R (1997) How does immigration influence local adaptation? A reexamination of a familiar paradigm. Am Nat 149:563–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jenkinson JL (1977) Edaphic interactions in first-year growth of California ponderosa pine. USDA Forest Service Research Paper. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment StationGoogle Scholar
  10. Jenkinson JL (1974) Ponderosa pine progenies: differential response to ultramafic and granitic soils. USDA Forest Service Research Paper. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  11. Kruckeberg AR (1967) Ecotypic response to ultramafic soils by some plant species of northwestern United States. Brittonia 19:133–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kruckeberg AR (1951) Intraspecific variability in the response of certain native plant species to serpentine soil. Am J Bot 38:408–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Latta RG, Linhart YB, Fleck D, Elliot M (1998) Direct and indirect estimates of seed versus pollen movement within a population of ponderosa pine. Evolution 52:61–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Latta RG, Mitton JB (1999) Historical separation and present gene flow through a zone of secondary contact in ponderosa pine. Evolution 55:769–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lenormand T (2002) Gene flow and the limits to natural selection. Trends Ecol Evol 17:183–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Macnair M (1987) Heavy metal tolerance in plants: a model evolutionary system. Trends Ecol Evol 2:354–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Macnair M, Gardner M (1998) The evolution of edaphic endemics. In: Howard DJ, Berlocher SH (eds) Endless forms: species and speciation, Oxford University Press, New York, pp 157–171Google Scholar
  18. McKay JK, Latta RG (2002) Adaptive population divergence: markers, QTL and traits. Trends Ecol Evol 17:285–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McMillan C (1956) The edaphic restriction of Cupressus and Pinus in the coast ranges of central California. Ecol Monogr 26:177–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Merilä J, Crnokrak P (2001) Comparison of genetic differentiation at marker loci and quantitative traits. J Evol Biol 14:892–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miller SP, Cumming JR (2000) Effects of serpentine soil factors on Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) seedlings. Tree Physiol 20:1129–1135PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Mitton JB, Linhart YB, Hamrick JL, Beckman JS (1977) Observations on the genetic structure and mating system of ponderosa pine in the Colorado Front Range. Theoretical Appl Genet 51:5–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oline DK, Mitton JB, Grant MC (2000) Population and subspecific genetic differentiation in the foxtail pine (Pinus balfouriana). Evolution 54:1813–1819PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Ronce O, Kirkpatrick M (2001) When sources become sinks: Migrational meltdown in heterogeneous habitats. Evolution 55:1520–1531PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Schneider S, Roessli D, Excoffier L (2000) Arelquin ver. 2.000: a software for population genetic data analysis. Genetics and Biometry Laboratory, University of Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  26. Schuster WSF, Mitton JB (2000) Paternity and gene dispersal in limber pine (Pinus flexilis James). Heredity 84:348–361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sorensen FC (1999) Relationship between self-fertility, allocation of growth, and inbreeding depression in three coniferous species. Evolution 53:417–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wright JW, Stanton ML, Scherson R (2006) Local adaptation to serpentine and non-serpentine soils in Collinsia sparsiflora. Evol Ecol Res 8:1–21Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Forest Genetics, Pacific Southwest Research Station USDA-Forest ServiceDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations