4.7 Article

Population Structure and Genetic Relationships of Melia Taxa in China Assayed with Sequence-Related Amplified Polymorphism (SRAP) Markers

Journal

FORESTS
Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f7040081

Keywords

Melia azedarach; M. toosendan; Meliaceae; SRAP; genetic diversity; genetic relationship

Categories

Funding

  1. Forestry Science and Technology Innovation Project in Guangdong Province [2011KJCX002]
  2. People's Republic of China

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The uncertainty about whether, in China, the genus Melia (Meliaceae) consists of one species (M. azedarach Linnaeus) or two species (M. azedarach and M. toosendan Siebold & Zuccarini) remains to be clarified. Although the two putative species are morphologically distinguishable, genetic evidence supporting their taxonomic separation is lacking. Here, we investigated the genetic diversity and population structure of 31 Melia populations across the natural distribution range of the genus in China. We used sequence-related amplified polymorphism (SRAP) markers and obtained 257 clearly defined bands amplified by 20 primers from 461 individuals. The polymorphic loci (P) varied from 35.17% to 76.55%, with an overall mean of 58.24%. Nei's gene diversity (H) ranged from 0.13 to 0.31, with an overall mean of 0.20. Shannon's information index (I) ranged from 0.18 to 0.45, with an average of 0.30. The genetic diversity of the total population (H-t) and within populations (H-s) was 0.37 +/- 0.01 and 0.20 +/- 0.01, respectively. Population differentiation was substantial (Gst = 0.45), and gene flow was low. Of the total variation, 31.41% was explained by differences among putative species, 19.17% among populations within putative species, and 49.42% within populations. Our results support the division of genus Melia into two species, which is consistent with the classification based on the morphological differentiation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available