4.5 Article

Comparative biogeography of the cytotypes of annual Microthlaspi perfoliatum (Brassicaceae) in europe using isozymes and cpDNA data: Refugia, diversity centers, and postglacial colonization

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
卷 91, 期 1, 页码 115-124

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.3732/ajb.91.1.115

关键词

biogeography; Brassicaceae; chloroplast DNA; Europe; isozymes; Microthlaspi perfoliatum; Pleistocene; refugia; Thlaspi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the last few years, the biogeography of many European plant species has been analyzed using molecular markers, and some consistent patterns of Pleistocenic differentiation and range fluctuations have been established. These studies mostly focused on perennial herbs or woody species, rarely considering annual taxa. This study focused on the annual Microthlaspi perfoliatum, which is distributed all over Europe and comprises three cytotypes. Morphologically, these cytotypes are hard to distinguish, although, based on molecular markers, they should be treated as two different species. Diploid and polyploid cytotypes had a different biogeographical history, with distinct glacial refugia. For the polyploids, a well-known distribution pattern of relict areas was confirmed, with Iberia, Italy, and the Balkans serving as primary Pleistocene refugia. Secondary refuge areas have been detected in southeastern France and neighboring Switzerland, with closer affinity to the Iberian refugium than to any other region based on allozyme and cpDNA haplotype data. For the diploids, two refugia have been characterized, one of which is congruent to the secondary refugium of the polyploids in France and Switzerland. The second refuge. of diploid populations is located in unglaciated lowland areas of East Austria and Croatia. Isozyme and cpDNA haplotype data favor a postglacial colonization of diploid populations into Germany from Austrian lowland areas along the Danube River as well as from Switzerland. This scenario is also true for polyploids in Germany, Belgium, and Sweden.

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

4.5
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