4.5 Article

Population genetic structure of Picea engelmannii, P-glauca and their previously unrecognized hybrids in the central Rocky Mountains

期刊

TREE GENETICS & GENOMES
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 669-681

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11295-012-0583-7

关键词

Admixture; Geographic overlap; Hybridization; Spruce; Picea

资金

  1. Wyoming Native Plant Society
  2. John W. Marr Memorial Fund
  3. Shoshone National Forest
  4. H. T. Northen Summer Fellowship in Botany
  5. UW-NPS Research Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Areas of geographic overlap between potentially hybridizing species provide the opportunity to study interspecific gene flow and reproductive barriers. Here we identified hybrids between Picea engelmannii and P. glauca by their genetic composition at 17 microsatellite markers, and determined the broad-scale geographic distribution of hybrids in the central Rocky Mountains of North America, a geographic region where hybrids and isolation between species had not previously been studied. Parameter estimates from admixture models revealed considerable variation in ancestry within and among collection sites, suggesting that within this area of geographic overlap, the interaction of the two species varies extensively. The results document a previously unrecognized patchy distribution of hybrids between P. engelmannii and P. glauca, including locations where hybrids were not known or expected to exist. Further, the ancestry of many hybrids was consistent with multiple generations of hybridization, with probable directional backcrossing to P. engelmannii, suggesting a relatively porous species boundary. The identification and characterization of hybridization between these spruce in this region raises the question of what factors maintain barriers to gene flow in these long-lived forest trees. The current research lays the groundwork for future study of the ecological and evolutionary contexts of their hybridization, as well as of differential introgression and permeability of species boundaries.

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