4.4 Article

Potential refugium on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau revealed by the chloroplast DNA phylogeography of the alpine species Metagentiana striata (Gentianaceae)

期刊

BOTANICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
卷 157, 期 1, 页码 125-140

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2008.00785.x

关键词

trnS-trnG; Hengduan Mountain; Qilianshan Mountains

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metagentiana striata is an alpine annual herbaceous plant endemic to the east of the Qinghai-Tibet (Q-T) Plateau and adjacent areas. The phylogeography of M. striata was studied by sequencing the chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) trnS-trnG intergenic spacer. Ten haplotypes were identified from an investigation of 232 individuals of M. striata from 14 populations covering the entire geographical range of this species. The level of differentiation amongst populations was very high (G(ST) = 0.746; N-ST = 0.774) and a significant phylogeographical structure was observed (P < 0.05). An analysis of molecular variance found a high variation amongst populations (76%), with F-ST = 0.762 (highly significant, P < 0.001), indicating that little gene flow occurred amongst the different regions; this was explained by the isolation of populations by high mountains along the Q-T Plateau and adjacent areas (N-m = 0.156). Only one ancestral haplotype (A) was common and widespread throughout the distributional range of M. striata. The populations of the Hengduan Mountains region of the south-eastern Q-T Plateau showed high diversity and uniqueness of haplotypes. It is suggested that this region was the potential refugium of M. striata during the Quaternary glaciation, and that interglacial and postglacial range expansion occurred from this refugium. This scenario was in good agreement with the results of nested clade analysis, which inferred that the current spatial distribution of cpDNA haplotypes and populations resulted from range expansion, together with past allopatric fragmentation events. (c) 2008 The Linnean Society of London.

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

4.4
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