4.6 Article

Plastid DNA Diversity Is Higher in the Island Endemic Guadalupe Cypress than in the Continental Tecate Cypress

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016133

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales-Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia, Mexico [2004-C01-122]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Callitropsis guadalupensis (Guadalupe cypress) is endemic to Guadalupe Island, Mexico, where it is the dominant species of the only forest. The species has suffered declining numbers following the introduction of goats to the island over 150 years ago. Callitropsis guadalupensis is closely related to Callitropsis forbesii (Tecate cypress), distributed in small isolated populations in mainland Baja California and southern California. The objective of the present study was to compare the genetic diversity of the island endemic to the continental species. Methodology/Principal Findings: We measured genetic diversity in Callitropsis guadalupensis (n = 54) from Guadalupe Island and in Callitropsis forbesii (n = 100) from five populations in mainland Baja California. The plastid DNA trnS-trnG spacer and the trnL-trnF region were chosen for characterization. Thirty-four haplotypes were observed, of which six were shared between both species. One of these haplotypes was also shared with three other species, Callitropsis lusitanica, Callitropsis montana, and Callitropsis stephensonii. Haplotype diversity (h) and nucleotide diversity (pi) were significantly higher for Callitropsis guadalupensis (h = 0.698, pi = 0.00071) than for Callitropsis forbesii (h = 0.337, pi = 0.00024). Conclusions/Significance: Callitropsis guadalupensis shows no evidence of a founder effect or of a genetic bottleneck, and can be added to a growing list of insular species with higher genetic diversity than their mainland relatives.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available