4.7 Article

Genetic rescue versus outbreeding depression in Vallisneria americana: Implications for mixing seed sources for restoration

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
卷 167, 期 -, 页码 203-214

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.08.012

关键词

Chesapeake Bay; Inbreeding; Local adaptation; Plant population restoration; Relatedness; Submersed aquatic vegetation

资金

  1. Washington Biologists' Field Club
  2. Maryland SeaGrant
  3. UMD College Park
  4. UMCES Appalachian Laboratory
  5. US Environmental Protection Agency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The selection of seed stock for restoration remains a complex issue. Using local stock reduces the chances of outbreeding depression or genetic dilution, whereas mixing sources may increase diversity and counteract inbreeding depression. Evaluation of these opposing approaches remains difficult when planning a restoration project but is needed to increase chances of long-term population persistence. We evaluated seed production and germination success of seeds from controlled reproductive crosses of the submersed aquatic plant Vallisneria americana (wild celery) collected from populations throughout the Chesapeake Bay. We assessed differences in seeds, capsules, and germination success in three types of crosses: (1) individuals within-populations, (2) among-populations but within-genetically differentiated regions, and (3) among-regions. We observed population level differences in within-population and among-region crosses. Levels of genetic relatedness among individuals, genetic diversity within populations, or differentiation across populations did not predict reproductive success. Our data show that mixing sources from different populations and regions has both benefits and drawbacks. Thus, minimizing the risks of outbreeding and inbreeding depression, presented as a mostly dichotomous issue in the restoration literature, is not an either-or issue in V. americana. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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