Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bidirectional introgression between loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) and shortleaf pine (P. echinata Mill.) has increased since the 1950s

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Tree Genetics & Genomes Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Hybridization between loblolly pine and shortleaf pine has been shown in sympatric and allopatric portions of the species native ranges. In this study, we used 25 microsatellite markers to determine the hybrid status of 165 and 151 loblolly pine and shortleaf pine trees sampled across their ranges, respectively, and to estimate population differentiation within these species. Estimated differentiation (Φ PT) for these current-day samples was significantly higher in both species—0.115 in loblolly pine and 0.146 in shortleaf pine—than for trees planted from seed collected from the same locations in the 1950s. These increases are likely due to anthropogenic causes such as habitat fragmentation. In addition, the proportion of hybrids rose dramatically in both species: 27.3% hybrids in loblolly pine populations and 46.7% hybrids in shortleaf pine populations compared to rates of 4.5% and 3.3%, respectively, in the 1950s populations. Our results suggest that shortleaf pine and remnant naturally regenerated loblolly pine are at risk.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allendorf FW, Luikart G (2007) Conservation and the genetics of populations. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Hoboken, NJ, p 642

  • Allendorf FW, Leary RF, Spruell P, Wenburg JK (2001) The problems with hybrids: setting conservation guidelines. Trends Ecol Evol 16:613–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker JB, Langdon OG (1990) Pinus taeda L. loblolly pine. In: Burns RM, Honkala BH (eds) Silvics of North America. Volume 1: Conifers. Agricultural Handbook 654. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C., pp 497–512

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohrerova Z, Bohrer G, Cho KD, Bolch MA, Linden KG (2009) Determining the viability response of pine pollen to atmospheric conditions during long-distance dispersal. Ecol Appl 19:656–667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buggs RJA (2007) Empirical study of hybrid zone movement. Heredity 99:301–312

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chagne D, Chaumeil P, Ramboer A, Collada C, Guevara A, Cervera MT, Vendramin GG, Garcia V, Frigerio JM, Echt C, Richardson T, Plomion C (2004) Cross-species transferability and mapping of genomic and cDNA SSRs in pines. Theor Appl Genet 109:1204–1214

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chen JW, Tauer CG, Bai G, Huang Y, Payton ME, Holley AG (2004) Bidirectional introgression between Pinus taeda and Pinus echinata: evidence from morphological and molecular data. Can J For Res 34:2508–2516

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cotton MH, Hicks RR Jr, Flake RH (1975) Morphological variability among loblolly and shortleaf pines of east Texas with reference to natural hybridization. Castanea 40:309–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorman KW, Barber JC (1956) Time of flowering and seed ripening in southern pines. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Station Paper 72

  • Echt CS, Saha S, Deemer DL, Nelson CD (2011) Microsatellite DNA in genomic survey sequences and UniGenes of loblolly pine. Tree Genet Genomes 7:773–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards-Burke MA, Hamrick JL, Price RA (1997) Frequency and direction of hybridization in sympatric populations of Pinus taeda (Mill) and P. echinata (Pinaceae). Am J Bot 84:879–886

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Falush D, Stephens M, Pritchard JK (2003) Inference of population structure: extensions to linked loci and correlated allele frequencies. Genetics 164:1567–1587

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman MM (1967) The identification of hybrid plants in segregating populations. Evolution 21:334–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hare RC, Switzer GL (1969) Introgression with shortleaf pine may explain rust resistance in western loblolly pine. USDA Forest Service, Research Note SO-88. Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, p 2

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks RR Jr (1973) Evaluation of morphological characters for use in identifying loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, and loblolly × shortleaf hybrids. Castanea 38:182–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Holsinger KE (1993) The evolutionary dynamics of fragmented plant populations. In: Kingsolver JG, Kareiva PM, Huey RB (eds) Biotic Interactions and Global Change. Sinauer Associates, Stamford, pp 198–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Huneycutt M, Askew G (1989) Electrophoretic identification of loblolly pine-shortleaf pine hybrids. Silvae Genet 38:3–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Jump AS, Peñuelas J (2006) Genetic effects of chronic habitat fragmentation in a wind-pollinated tree. PNAS 103:8096–8100

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Knapp EE, Goedde MA, Rice KJ (2001) Pollen-limited reproduction in blue oak: implications for wind pollination in fragmented populations. Oecologia 128:48–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson ER (1990) Pinus echinata Mill. shortleaf pine. In: Burns RM, Honkala BH (eds) Silvics of North America. Volume 1: Conifers. Agricultural Handbook 654. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C., pp 316–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Mergen F, Stairs GR, Snyder EB (1965) Natural and controlled loblolly × shortleaf pine hybrids in Mississippi. Forest Sci 11:306–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson CD, Josserand S, Echt CS, Koppelman J (2007) Loblolly pine SSR markers for shortleaf pine genetics. In: Kabrick JM, Dey DC, Gwaze D (eds) Shortleaf pine restoration and ecology in the Ozarks: Proceedings of a symposium; November 7–9, 2006; Springfield, MO. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-15. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, pp. 95–98

  • Peakall R, Smouse PE (2006) GENALEX 6: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol Ecol Notes 6:288–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Raja RG, Tauer CG, Wittwer RF, Huang YH (1997) Isoenzyme variation and genetic structure in natural populations of shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata). Can J For Res 27:740–749

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Raja RG, Tauer CG, Wittwer RF, Huang YH (1998) Regeneration methods affect genetic variation and structure in shortleaf pin (Pinus echinata Mill.). For Genet 5:171–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhymer JM, Simberloff D (1996) Extinction by hybridization and introgression. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 27:83–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreiner EJ (1937) Improvement of forest trees. 1937. Yearbook of Agriculture, USDA pp 1242–1279

  • Schultz RP (1997) Loblolly pine: the ecology and culture of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Agricultural Handbook 713, Washington, D.C., p 514

  • Seager R, Tzanova A, Nakamura J (2009) Drought in the southeastern United States: causes, variability over the last millennium, and the potential for future hydrodynamic change. J Climate 22:5021–5045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sork VL, Davis FW, Smouse PE, Apsit VJ, Dyer RJ, Fernandez JF, Kuhn B (2002) Pollen movement in declining populations of California Valley oak, Quercus lobata: where have all the fathers gone? Mol Ecol 11:1657–1668

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart JF, Liu Y, Tauer CG, Nelson CD (2010) Microsatellite versus AFLP analyses of pre-management introgression levels in loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) and shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.). Tree Genet Genomes 6:853–862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker LC, Wiant HV (1966) Silviculture of shortleaf pine. Bull. No. 0. Nacogdoches, TX. Stephen F. Austin State College, School of Forestry. pp 59

  • Williams CG (2010) Long-distance pine pollen still germinates after meso-scale dispersal. Am J Bot 97:846–855

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf DE, Takebayashi N, Rieseberg LH (2001) Predicting the risk of extinction through hybridization. Conserv Biol 15:1039–1053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright HA, Bailey AW (1982) Fire ecology: United States and southern Canada. Wiley, New York, p 501

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu S, Tauer CG, Nelson CD (2008a) Natural hybridization within seed sources of shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). Tree Genet Genomes 4:849–858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu S, Tauer CG, Nelson CD (2008b) Genetic diversity within and among populations of shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). Tree Genet Genomes 4:859–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zobel BJ (1953) Are there natural loblolly-shortleaf pine hybrids? J For 51:494–495

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all of the foresters who helped us gather the needles for this study: Scott Schlarbaum and David Griffin of the University of Tennessee; Roy Ward of the Ames Plantation; Thomas Hall of Pennsylvania State University; Russ Pohl of the Georgia Forestry Commission; Scott Merkle of the University of Georgia; William E. Dienst of the U.S. Forest Service in North Carolina; Gregory Powell and Dale Rye of the University of Florida; Larry Miller and I.N. Brown of Texas A&M University; Michael Mills of Claybourn Waters Company; Brad Claus of the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry; Randall Rousseau of Mississippi State University; David Gwaze of the Missouri Department of Conservation; and Robert Heinemann of the Kiamichi Forestry Research Station. We would also like to acknowledge Mary Tsien, wife of author John Stewart, for creating the map figure in this study. Funding partly originated from the Southern Research Station (Cooperative Agreement No. SRS 05-CA-11330126-168). This study was supported by the Oklahoma State University Agricultural Experiment Station.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Natural Resources Ecology and Management, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA

    John F. Stewart & Charles G. Tauer

  2. USDA Forest Service, Southern Institute of Forest Genetics, Saucier, MS, USA

    C. D. Nelson

Authors
  1. John F. Stewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charles G. Tauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. D. Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John F. Stewart.

Additional information

Communicated by R. Sederoff

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stewart, J.F., Tauer, C.G. & Nelson, C.D. Bidirectional introgression between loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) and shortleaf pine (P. echinata Mill.) has increased since the 1950s. Tree Genetics & Genomes 8, 725–735 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-011-0459-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-011-0459-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation