Advertisement

Conservation Genetics

, Volume 4, Issue 5, pp 571–580 | Cite as

A combination of molecular markers identifies evolutionarily significant units in Cedrela odorata L. (Meliaceae) in Costa Rica

  • S. CaversEmail author
  • C. Navarro
  • A.J. Lowe
Article

Abstract

The necessity for conservation of the geneticcomponent of biodiversity is now widelyrecognised. A broad genetic base is required tomaintain evolutionary potential and thepopulation erosion occurring in much of theworld's forests threatens the genetic integrityof many tree species. Spanish Cedar (Cedrela odorata L.) has been under severepressure for generations and is now the focusof a study aimed at assessing the levels anddistribution of genetic diversity in remainingpopulations. Ten Costa Rican populations wereanalysed using chloroplast and AFLP markers.The overall level of diversity was as expectedfor an outcrossing, long-lived, woody species(HT = 0.27). However, this concealeda deep divergence within the species, forchloroplast and AFLP (ΦCT = 0.83)markers. Populations were differentiated in twogroups that exhibited contrasting habitatpreferences and two ecotypes, wet and dry, wereidentified. Within the ecotypes, all but onepopulation were fixed for a single chloroplasthaplotype and within populations, total genomicdiversity levels were low (HS= 0.03–0.13). Populations possessing the dryecotype maintained significantly more diversitythan those from wet regions. Within the wetecotype group, pairwise genetic distancebetween populations fitted an isolation bydistance model. The group was stronglysubdivided and showed isolation by distancearound the southern edge of the centralmountain ranges. The genetic divergence of thetwo ecotypes, observed at both organellar andnuclear loci, identifies evolutionarilysignificant units that, taken together withprevious studies of the species, provide arational basis on which to build a conservationpolicy for the species.

AFLP chloroplast DNA genetic diversity differentiation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Austerlitz F, Mariette S, Machon N, Gouyon P-H, Godelle B (2000) Effects of colonisation processes on genetic diversity: Differences between annual plants and tree species. Genetics, 154, 1309–1321.Google Scholar
  2. Avise JC (2000) Phylogeography. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  3. Bawa K, Dayanandan S (1998) Global climate change and tropical forest genetic resources. Clim. Change, 39, 473–485.Google Scholar
  4. Bonnet E (1996) smt. http://www.geocities.com/eb_ce/mantel.htmlGoogle Scholar
  5. Boshier DH (1992) A Study of the Reproductive Biology of Cordia alliodora (R. and P.) Oken. PhD thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  6. Calvo JC (1990) The Costa Rican National Conservation Strategy for Sustainable Development: Exploring the possibilities. Envir. Conserv., 17, 355–358.Google Scholar
  7. Cavers S (2002) Population Structure and Phylogeography of Two Commercially Important Neotropical Tree Species: Vochysia ferruginea Mart. and Cedrela odorata L. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  8. Chaplin GE (1980) Progress with provenance exploration and seed collection of Cedrela spp. In: Proceedings of the 11th Commonwealth Forestry Conference, pp. 1–17. Commonwealth Forestry Institute, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  9. Chase MR, Boshier DH, Bawa KS (1995) Population genetics of Cordia alliodora (Boraginaceae), a neotropical tree, 1. Genetic variation in natural populations. Am. J. Bot., 82, 468–475.Google Scholar
  10. Crandall KA, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Mace GM, Wayne RK (2000) Considering evolutionary processes in conservation biology. Trends Ecol. Evolut., 15, 290–295.Google Scholar
  11. Demesure B, Sodzi N, Petit RJ (1995) A set of universal primers for amplification of polymorphic non-coding regions of mitochondrial and chloroplast DNA in plants. Mol. Ecol., 4, 129–131.Google Scholar
  12. Doligez A, Joly HI (1997) Genetic diversity and spatial structure within a natural stand of a tropical forest tree species, Carapa procera (Meliaceae), in French Guiana. Heredity, 79, 72–82.Google Scholar
  13. Dumolin-Lapegue S, Pemonge M-H, Petit RJ (1997) An enlarged set of consensus primers for the study of organelle DNA in plants. Mol. Ecol., 6, 393–397.Google Scholar
  14. Dutech C, Maggia L, Joly HI (2000) Chloroplast diversity in Vouacapoua americana (Caesalpinaceae), a neotropical forest tree. Mol. Ecol., 9, 1427–1432.Google Scholar
  15. Excoffier L, Smouse PE, Quattro JM (1992) Analysis of Molecular Variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes: Application to human mitochondrial DNA restriction data. Genetics, 131, 479–491.Google Scholar
  16. FAO (2001) The State of the Worlds Forests. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome.Google Scholar
  17. Gentry AH (1982) Phytogeographic patterns as evidence for a Choco refuge. In: Biological Diversification in the Tropics (ed. Prance GT), pp. 112–136. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Gillies ACM, Cornelius JP, Newton AC et al. (1997) Genetic variation in Costa Rican populations of the tropical timber species Cedrela odorata L., assessed using RAPDs. Mol. Ecol., 6, 1133–1145.Google Scholar
  19. Gillies ACM, Navarro C, Lowe AJ et al. (1999) Genetic diversity in mesoamerican populations of mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla), assessed using RAPDs. Heredity, 83, 722–732.Google Scholar
  20. Hall P, Orrell LC, Bawa KS (1994) Genetic diversity and mating system in a tropical tree, Carapa guianensis (Meliaceae). Am. J. Bot., 81, 1104–1111.Google Scholar
  21. Hall P, Walker S, Bawa K (1996) Effect of forest fragmentation on genetic diversity and mating system in a tropical tree, Pithecellobium elegans. Conserv. Biol., 10, 757–768.Google Scholar
  22. Hamilton MB (1999) Four primer pairs for the amplification of chloroplast intergenic regions with intraspecific variation. Mol. Ecol., 8, 521–522.Google Scholar
  23. Hamrick JL, Godt MJW(1989) Allozyme diversity in plant species. In: Plant Population Genetics,Bbreeding and Genetic Resources (eds. Brown AHD, Clegg MT, Kahler AL, Weir BS), pp. 43–63.Google Scholar
  24. Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, MA. Hamrick JL, Godt MJW (1996) Effects of life history traits on genetic diversity in plant species. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci., 351, 1291–1298.Google Scholar
  25. Hewitt G (2000) The genetic legacy of the Ice Ages. Nature, 405, 907–913.Google Scholar
  26. Holsinger KE, Gottlieb LD (1991) Conservation of rare and endangered plants: Principles and prospects. In: Genetics and Conservation of Rare Plants (eds. Falk DA, Holsinger KE). Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  27. Huff DR, Peakall R, Smouse PE (1993) RAPD variation within and among natural populations of outcrossing buffalograss [Buchloe dactyloides (Nutt.) Engelm.]. Theor. Appl. Genet., 86, 927–934.Google Scholar
  28. James T, Vege S, Aldrich P, Hamrick JL (1998) Mating systems of three tropical dry forest species. Biotropica, 30, 587–594.Google Scholar
  29. King RA, Ferris C (1998) Chloroplast DNA phylogeography of Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn. Mol. Ecol., 7, 1151–1161.Google Scholar
  30. Lamb AFA (1968) Fast growing Timbers of the Lowland Tropics, No. 2 Cedrela odorata L. Commonwealth Forestry Institute, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  31. Lowe A, Jourde B, Colpaert N, Navarro C, Cavers S (2003) Genetic diversity in Costa Rican populations of mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) II: Impact of logging on level, structure and dynamics. Heredity, 90, 268–275.Google Scholar
  32. Lynch M, Milligan BG (1994) Analysis of population genetic structure with RAPD markers. Molecular Ecology, 3, 1–9.Google Scholar
  33. Millar CI, Libby WJ (1991) Strategies for conserving clinal, ecotypic and disjunct population diversity in widespread species. In: Genetics and Conservation of Rare Plants (eds. Falk DA, Holsinger KE) Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Miller MP (1997) Tools for Population Genetic Analysis, TFPGA. http://bioweb.usu.edu/mpmbio/index.htmGoogle Scholar
  35. Moritz C (1994) Defining ‘Evolutionarily Significant Units’ for conservation. Trends Ecol. Evolut., 9, 373–375.Google Scholar
  36. Moritz C (2002) Strategies to protect biological diversity and the evolutionary processes that sustain it. Syst. Biol., 51, 238–254.Google Scholar
  37. Nason JD, Hamrick JL (1997) Reproductive and genetic consequences of forest fragmentation: Two case studies of neotropical canopy trees. Heredity, 88, 264–276.Google Scholar
  38. Navarro C, Ward S, Hernandez M (2002) The tree Cedrela odorata (Meliaceae): A morphologically subdivided species in Costa Rica. Rev. Biol. Trop., 50, 21–29.Google Scholar
  39. Nei M (1978) Estimation of average heterozygosity and genetic distance from a small number of individuals. Genetics, 89, 583–590.Google Scholar
  40. Newton AC, Baker P, Ramnarine S, Mesen JF, Leakey RB (1993) The mahogany shoot borer: Prospects for control. For. Ecol. Mgmt., 57, 301–328.Google Scholar
  41. Newton AC, Leakey RRB, Mesen JF (1993) Genetic variation in mahoganies: Its importance, capture and utilisation. Biodivers. Conserv., 2, 114–126.Google Scholar
  42. Newton AC, Cornelius JP, Mesen JF, Leakey RRB (1995) Genetic variation in apical dominance of Cedrela odorata seedlings in response to decapitation. Silvae Genet., 44, 146–150.Google Scholar
  43. Newton AC, Allnutt TR, Gillies ACM, Lowe AJ, Ennos RA (1999) Molecular phylogeography, intraspecific variation and the conservation of tree species. Trends Ecol. Evolut., 14, 140–145.Google Scholar
  44. Newton AC, Watt AD, Lopez F et al. (1999) Genetic variation in host susceptibility to attack by the mahogany shoot borer, Hypsipylla grandella (Zeller). Agric. For. Ent., 1, 11–18.Google Scholar
  45. Nybom H, Bartish IV (2000) Effects of life history traits and sampling strategies on genetic diversity estimates obtained with RAPD markers. Perspect. Plant Ecol., 3, 93–114.Google Scholar
  46. O'Neill GA, Dawson IK, Sotelo-Montes C et al. (2001) Strategies for genetic conservation of trees in the Peruvian Amazon. Biodivers. Conserv., 10, 837–850.Google Scholar
  47. Pennington TD, Styles BT, Taylor DAH (1981) A Monograph of the Neotropical Meliaceae. New York Botanical Gardens, New York.Google Scholar
  48. Pons O, Petit RJ (1995) Estimation, variance and optimal sampling of gene diversity I. Haploid locus. Theor. Appl. Genet., 90, 462–470.Google Scholar
  49. Rivera-Ocasio E, Aide TM, McMillan WO (2002) Patterns of genetic diversity and biogeographical history of the tropical wetland tree, Pterocarpus officinalis (Jacq.), in the Caribbean basin. Mol. Ecol., 11, 675–683.Google Scholar
  50. Rocha OJ, Lobo JA (1996) Genetic variation and differentiation among five populations of the guanacaste tree (Enterolobium cyclocarpum Jacq.) in Costa Rica. Int. J. Plant Sci., 157, 234–239.Google Scholar
  51. Rodan BD, Newton AC, Verissimo A (1992) Mahogany conservation: Status and policy initiatives. Envir. Conserv., 19, 331–342.Google Scholar
  52. Russell JR, Weber JC, Booth A et al. (1999) Genetic variation of Calycophyllum spruceanum in the Peruvian Amazon Basin, revealed by amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) analysis. Mol. Ecol., 8, 199–204.Google Scholar
  53. Ryder OA (1986) Species conservation and systematics: The dilemma of subspecies. Trends Ecol. Evolut., 1, 9–10.Google Scholar
  54. Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
  55. Styles B, Khosla PK (1976) Cytology and reproductive biology of Meliaceae. In: Tropical Trees: Variation, Breeding and Conservation (eds. Burley J, Styles B), pp. 61–67. Linnaean Society, London.Google Scholar
  56. Taberlet P, Gielly L, Pautou G, Bouvet J (1991) Universal primers for amplification of three non-coding regions of chloroplast DNA. Plant Mol. Biol., 17, 1105–1109.Google Scholar
  57. Vekemans X, Beauwens T, Lemaire M, Roldan-Ruiz I (2002) Data from amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers show indication of size homoplasy and of a relationship between degree of homoplasy and fragment size. Mol. Ecol., 11, 139–151.Google Scholar
  58. Vos P, Hogers R, Bleeker M et al. (1995) AFLP:A new technique for DNA fingerprinting. Nucleic Acids Res., 23, 4407–4414.Google Scholar
  59. White GM, Boshier DH, Powell W (1999) Genetic variation within a fragmented population of Swietenia humilis Zucc. Mol. Ecol., 8, 1899–1909.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Ecology and Hydrology-Edinburgh, Bush Estate, PenicuikMidlothianUK
  2. 2.Centro Agró;nomico Tropical de Investigació;n y Enseñ;anzaCartagoCosta Rica

Personalised recommendations