Incongruence between chloroplast and morphological data in the varietal complex Astragalus lentiginosus

Transcription

1 Incongruence between chloroplast and morphological data in the varietal complex Astragalus lentiginosus B.J. Knaus 1, R.C. Cronn 2, and A. Liston 1 1 Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon tate University 2 Pacific Northwest Research tation, UDA Forest ervice

2 Why tudy Varieties? Borderline cases are interesting to evolutionists: the relative rarity of borderline cases indicates that, although the process of divergence is a gradual one, the speciation in the strict sense, i.e., the development of reproductive isolation, is a crisis which passes relatively rapidly. Dobzhansky 1951, p267

3 Astragalus lentiginosus Douglas ex Hook. (Fabaceae) A. l. var. albifolius A. l. var. ambiguus A. l. var. antonius CNP 1B A. l. var. araneosus A. l. var. australis A. l. var. borreganus CNP 4 A. l. var. chartaceus A. l. var. coachellae UFW E A. l. var. diphysus A. l. var. floribundus A. l. var. fremontii A. l. var. idriensis A. l. var. ineptus A. l. var. kennedyi A. l. var. kernensis CNP 1B A. l. var. latus NNP watch A. l. var. lentiginosus A. l. var. macrolobus A. l. var. maricopae A. l. var. micans CNP 1B A. l. var. nigricalycis A. l. var. oropedii A. l. var. palans A. l. var. piscinensis UFW T A. l. var. platyphillidius A. l. var. pohlii A. l. var. salinus A. l. var. scorpionis A. l. var. semotus A. l. var. sesquimetralis CA/NV A. l. var. sierrae CNP 1B A. l. var. stramineous A. l. var. toyabensis A. l. var. ursinus A. l. var. variabilis A. l. var. vitreus A. l. var. wahweapensis A. l. var. wilsonii A. l. var. yuccanus

4

5 Are varieties groups? Molecular distinctiveness? Morphological distinctiveness? Is there evidence of reproductive isolation?

6 lentiginosus salinus fremontii variabilis coachellae borreganus

7 A. l. var. lentiginosus

8 A. l. var. salinus

9 A. l. var. fremontii

10 A. l. var. variabilis

11 Neighbor-Joining tree 2 CpRs 2 Cp Indels Manhattan distance tepwise mutation model Midpoint rooted 181 individuals 52 populations 24 varieties 29 haplotypes idriensis n=4 mokiacensis n=3 mokiacensis n=4 trumbellensis n=4 araneosus n=4 araneosus n=3 araneosus n=3 A. iodanthus n=3 A. pseudoiodanthus n=4 fremontii n=3 variabilis n=13 variabilis n=3 variabilis n=4 variabilis n=1 coachellae 1 n=1 coachellae 3 n=2 variabilis n=4 stramineus n=4 kennedyi n=3 sesquimetralis n=1 salinus n=1 salinus n=3 A. platytropis n=1 platyphyllidius n=1 salinus n=1 scorpionis n=3 maricopae n=1 yuccanus n=3 yuccanus n=3 ineptus n=1 yuccanus n=1 fremontii n=3 fremontii n=3 fremontii n=4 fremontii n=4 kennedyi n=3 salinus n=3 salinus n=4 salinus n=3 salinus n=4 salinus n=3 yuccanus n=1 scorpionis n=3 floribundus n=1 platyphyllidius n=2 scorpionis n=1 nigricalycis n=2 coachellae 1 n=2 coachellae 2 n=1 coachellae 3 n=1 salinus borreganus n=3 coachellae 1 n=1 coachellae 2 n=2 coachellae 3 n=1 variabilis n=4 lentiginosus n=4 lentiginosus n=1 fremontii n=2 salinus n=1 salinus n=3 ursinus n=4 lentiginosus n=2 lentiginosus n=4 lentiginosus n=1 vitreus maricopae n=3 wilsonii n=1 wilsonii n=3 vitreus n=2 palans n=4 vitreus A. amphioxys n=3

12 Neighbor-Joining tree 2 CpRs 2 Cp Indels Manhattan distance tepwise mutation model Midpoint rooted 181 individuals 52 populations 24 varieties 29 haplotypes idriensis n=4 mokiacensis n=3 mokiacensis n=4 trumbellensis n=4 araneosus n=4 araneosus n=3 araneosus n=3 A. iodanthus n=3 A. pseudoiodanthus n=4 fremontii n=3 variabilis n=13 variabilis n=3 variabilis n=4 variabilis n=1 coachellae 1 n=1 coachellae 3 n=2 variabilis n=4 stramineus n=4 kennedyi n=3 sesquimetralis n=1 salinus n=1 salinus n=3 A. platytropis n=1 platyphyllidius n=1 salinus n=1 scorpionis n=3 maricopae n=1 yuccanus n=3 yuccanus n=3 ineptus n=1 yuccanus n=1 fremontii n=3 fremontii n=3 fremontii n=4 fremontii n=4 kennedyi n=3 salinus n=3 salinus n=4 salinus n=3 salinus n=4 salinus n=3 yuccanus n=1 scorpionis n=3 floribundus n=1 platyphyllidius n=2 scorpionis n=1 nigricalycis n=2 coachellae 1 n=2 coachellae 2 n=1 coachellae 3 n=1 salinus borreganus n=3 coachellae 1 n=1 coachellae 2 n=2 coachellae 3 n=1 variabilis n=4 lentiginosus n=4 lentiginosus n=1 fremontii n=2 salinus n=1 salinus n=3 ursinus n=4 lentiginosus n=2 lentiginosus n=4 lentiginosus n=1 vitreus maricopae n=3 wilsonii n=1 wilsonii n=3 vitreus n=2 palans n=4 vitreus A. amphioxys n=3

13 Principle Coordinates Analysis of CpRs 14.7% of variance explained haplotypes from 77 individuals Euclidean distance (jittered) 78.5% of variance explained lentiginosus n=11 salinus n=22 fremontii n=14 variabilis n=16 coachellae n=11 borreganus n=

14 1 Principle Components Analysis of Morphology 15 continuous morphological characters Correlational matrix 14.6% of variance explained % of variance explained lentiginosus salinus fremontii variabilis coachellae borreganus

15 CpR PCO 1 tepwise mutation model Morphology PCA 1 n = 11 lentiginosus n = 10 n = 22 salinus n = 9 n = 14 fremontii n = 10 n = 16 n = 11 variabilis coachellae n = 10 n = 10 n = 3 borreganus n =

16 Regression of Keel Length on Latitude 13 Keel Length (mm) R 2 = 62% F = p = Degrees Latitude

17 Conclusions: 1.Varieties lack distinctiveness hare haplotypes hare morphology 2.Morphological variance does not predict molecular variance 3.Reproductive traits are continuous

18 Thankyou! Angie Rodriguez Gretel Enck,, Tule & Tucki the Mountain Dogs Kathy Davis & Dell Heter Jenna traface & Ophelia Jason Alexander U.. Forest ervice Pacific Northwest Research tation Hardman Foundation, Inc. Native Plant ociety of Oregon Nevada Native Plant ociety Anita ummers Travel Grant

19 IT Phylogeny Monophyletic Neo- Astragalus No resolution within Neo- Astragalus Wojciechowski, Martin F., Michael J. anderson, and Jer-Ming Hu "Evidence on the Monophyly of Astragalus (Fabaceae) and its Major ubgroups Based on Nuclear Ribosomal DNA IT and Chloroplast DNA TrnL Intron Data." ystematic Botany 24, no. 3: