4.6 Article

High nuclear genetic diversity, high levels of outcrossing and low differentiation among remnant populations of Quercus petraea at the margin of its range in Ireland

期刊

ANNALS OF BOTANY
卷 93, 期 6, 页码 691-697

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/aob/mch096

关键词

Quercus petraea; microsatellites; plastid DNA; population differentiation; outbreeding

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aims Quercus petraea colonized Ireland after the last glaciation from refugia on mainland Europe. Deforestation. however. beginning in Neolithic times, has resulted in small, scattered forest fragments, now covering less than 12 000 ha. Methods Plastid (three fragments) and microsatellite variation (13 loci) were characterized in seven Irish populations sampled along a north-south gradient. Using Bayesian approaches and Wright's F-statistics, the effects of colonization and fragmentation on the genetic structure and mating patterns of extant oak populations were investigated. Key-Results All Populations possessed cytotypes common to the Iberian Peninsula. Despite the distance from the refugial core and the extensive deforestation in Ireland, nuclear genetic variation was high and comparable to mainland Europe. Low population differentiation was observed within Ireland and populations showed no evidence for isolation by distance. As expected of a marker with an effective Population size of one-quarter relative to the nuclear genome, plastid variation indicated higher differentiation. Individual inbreeding coefficients indicated high levels of outcrossing. Conclusions Consistent with a large effective Population size in the historical migrant gene pool and/or with high gene flow among populations, high within-population diversity and low population differentiation was observred within Ireland. It is proposed that native Q. petraea populations in Ireland share a common phylogeographic history and that the present genetic structure does not reflect founder effects. (C) 2004 Annals of Botany Company.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据