4.7 Review

Microclimatic differentiation of gene pools in the Lobaria pulmonaria symbiosis in a primeval forest landscape

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 23, 期 21, 页码 5164-5178

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/mec.12928

关键词

altitude; approximate Bayesian computation; Dictyochloropsis reticulata; epiphytic lichen; mycobiont; population genetics

资金

  1. Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI)
  2. Genetic Diversity Centre (GDC) at ETHZ (Zurich, Switzerland)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Population genetics of the tree-colonizing lichen Lobaria pulmonaria were studied in the largest primeval beech forest of Europe, covering 10000ha. During an intensive survey of the area, we collected 1522 thallus fragments originating from 483 trees, which were genotyped with eight mycobiont- and 14 photobiont-specific microsatellite markers. The mycobiont and photobiont of L.pulmonaria were found to consist of two distinct gene pools, which are co-existing within small areas of 3-180ha in a homogeneous beech forest. The small-scale distribution pattern of the symbiotic gene pools show habitat partitioning of lineages associated with either floodplains or mountain forests. Using approximate Bayesian computation (ABC), we dated the divergence of the two fungal gene pools of L.pulmonaria as the Early Pleistocene. Both fungal gene pools survived the Pleistocene glacial cycles in the Carpathians, although possibly in climatically different refugia. Fungal diversification prior to these cycles and the selection of photobionts with different altitudinal distributions explain the current sympatric, but ecologically differentiated habitat partitioning of L.pulmonaria. In addition, the habitat preferences of the mycobiont are determined by other factors and are rather independent of those of the photobiont at the landscape level. The distinct gene pools should be considered evolutionarily significant units and deserve specific conservation priorities in the future, for example gene pool A, which is a Pliocene relict.

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