Genetic diversity and phylogeographic analysis of Pinus leiophylla: a post‐glacial range expansion

Abstract

Aim Mexico is a centre of diversity for species of the genus Pinus, most of which have restricted geographical distributions. An exception is Pinus leiophylla Schiede and Deppe, which is widely distributed throughout most of Mexico's mountainous regions. We attempt to reconstruct the phylogeographic history of this species, in order to determine if its current broad distribution is associated with major events of environmental change that occurred during the Quaternary.Location Coniferous forests in Sierra Madre Occidental, Eje Volcánico Transversal and Sierra Montañosa del Norte de Oaxaca, Mexico.Methods A total of 323 individuals of both P. leiophylla var. leiophylla and P. leiophylla var. chihuahuana sampled from 22 populations were screened for variation at six paternally inherited chloroplast DNA microsatellite markers (cpSSR). In addition to haplotypic diversity estimates and neutrality tests, the following clustering methods were employed: principal components analysis (PCA), analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA), spatial analysis of molecular variance (SAMOVA), haplotype network and a technique similar to Croizat's panbiogeographical method of individual and generalized tracks. ResultsThe combination of mutations at the six microsatellites yielded a total of 92 different haplotypes. The percentage of shared haplotypes between varieties (P. leiophylla var. leiophylla and P. leiophylla var. chihuahuana) was only 2.2%. The average haplotypic diversity for the species was H = 0.760. PCA and SAMOVA indicate the presence of four main genetic clusters. The estimated divergence time between the two most frequent haplotypes was between 75,000 and 110,000 years. Significantly large negative F s values suggest that most of the sampled populations are currently expanding. Individual and generalized tracks identified three potential zones that may have harboured ancestral populations of P. leiophylla and from which the expansion of this species started, as well as two secondary contact zones between the two varieties. Main conclusionsThe results indicate that one of the three potential areas hypothesized to have harboured ancestral populations of P. leiophylla may be related to the origin of P. leiophylla var. chihuahuana, while the other two may be related to the origin of P. leiophylla var. leiophylla. The current broad distribution of P. leiophylla is probably associated with its strong colonization ability.

Evolutionary drivers of phylogeographical diversity in the highlands of Mexico: a case study of the Crotalus triseriatus species group of montane rattlesnakes

“…This inference was broadly congruent with diversification patterns seen in several Middle American highland pitvipers (Castoe et al. , 2009) and other montane taxa (pines: Moreno‐Letelier & Piñero, 2009; Rodríguez‐Banderas et al. , 2009; insects: Masta, 2000; Smith & Farrell, 2005; Anducho‐Reyes et al.…”

Pinus leiophylla suitable habitat for 1961-1990 and future climate

“…The prediction of 1961-1990 distribution in general is in agreement of maps developed by Perry (1991), Farjon and Styles (1997), Rodríguez-Banderas et al (2009) and Rehfeldt et al (2009). The area where the climate is predicted to be suitable for Pinus leiophylla is greater than the actual distribution.…”

A review of the prevalence, utility, and caveats of using chloroplast simple sequence repeats for studies of plant biology

“…(Vendramin et al, 1996), the most commonly reported primers used in Pinaceae. Common foci of studies within Pinaceae include understanding the effects of Quaternary glaciation on species range distributions (e.g., Gugerli et al, 2001; Gómez et al, 2005; Bucci et al, 2007; Rodríguez‐Banderas et al, 2009; Godbout et al, 2010), characterizing genetic structure (e.g., Vendramin et al, 1999; Dyer and Sork, 2001; Viard et al, 2001; Nasri et al, 2008; Scalfi et al, 2009; Wang et al, 2013), testing for hybridization (e.g., Fady et al, 2003; Epperson et al, 2009), paternity analysis (e.g., Lambeth et al, 2001), and testing taxonomic hypotheses (e.g., Clark et al, 2000; Ledig et al, 2004; Liu et al, 2012).…”