4.7 Article

Half-sib family structure of Fagus crenata saplings in an old-growth beech-dwarf bamboo forest

Journal

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
Volume 14, Issue 8, Pages 2565-2575

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02585.x

Keywords

beech; genetic structure; microsatellite; parentage; pollen flow; reproductive success

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Half-sib family structure of Fagus crenata saplings was examined in an old-growth beech-dwarf bamboo (Sasa spp.) forest using microsatellite genotypes in parentage analysis to identify the half-sib families in two 50 x 50 m plots: one with 36 adults, 641 saplings and no Sasa cover, the other with 21 adults, 61 saplings and Sasa cover. For large proportions of the saplings (44.6% and 75.4%, respectively) both of their parents were found within the same plot, indicating that pollination events frequently involved short-range pollen dispersal, probably because of the high density of adults in the study population. Although almost all of the adults had half-sib families, the number of offspring in the families was highly variable. In the plot with no Sasa cover, the variation in the number of offspring was significantly explained by the size of parents, i.e. the reproductive success is higher for large adults than for small adults. The half-sibs were aggregately distributed around their parents and the distribution overlapped among different half-sib families, which may be due to the limited seed dispersal and overlapping seed shadows of this species. As expected, there was weak genetic structure in the plot. By contrast, in the plot with Sasa cover, the half-sibs were distributed sparsely with a low density, and the degree of genetic structure was very weak. The difference in the half-sib family structure and genetic structure among saplings presumably reflects the difference in density that should be affected by regeneration dynamics associated with environmental conditions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available