The utility and limitations of chloroplast DNA analysis for identifying native British oak stands and for guiding replanting strategy
The utility and limitations of chloroplast DNA analysis for identifying native British oak stands and for guiding replanting strategy
复制标题
叶绿体 DNA 分析在识别本土英国橡树林和指导重新种植策略方面的效用和局限性
DOI：
10.1093/forestry/77.4.335
复制
发表时间：
2004
期刊：
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
J. Cottrell
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Lowe;R. Munro;S. Samuel;J. Cottrell
我们报告了一种利用叶绿体基因组(CpDNA)变异来测试来源不明的橡树林是否原生和/或本地起源的方法。作为一个例子，一个测试橡树的样本被调查了cpDNA类型，这些橡树的状态与原生性和地方性有关，大多未知。样本包括来自16个英国种子林的126棵树和75棵树，这些树因其优越的表型而被选中(总共201棵树样本)。为了确定这两个试验组是否是本地的和本地的，他们的cpDNA类型与已知原产地的材料进行了比较(之前的一项研究检查了分布在英国各地的224个种群的1076棵树的变异)。在以前对原生物质的调查中，有四种cpDNA类型被鉴定为原生的；因此，如果测试样本具有新的单倍型，则可以将其归类为非原生的。201个测试样本中的每一个都具有在原地样本中发现的四种cpDNA类型中的一种。因此，没有一种被证明是引进的，在此基础上，被认为很可能是本土的。先前对原生物质的研究还发现，cpDNA变异在地理上是高度结构化的，因此，如果测试样本的cpDNA类型与邻近原生树木的cpDNA类型不匹配，则可以认为它是非本地的。很高比例的种子组(44.2%)和表型优树(58.7%)的cpDNA单倍型与邻近原生树木的cpDNA单倍型相匹配，因此可以被认为是本地的，或者至少不能被证明是引入的。测试样本的其余部分可分为不生长在总优势区的树(18.7%的种子林树和28%的表型优势树)和与邻近的原生单倍型不匹配的树(分别为371%和13.3%)。大多数不匹配的测试样本位于以匹配的原地单倍型为主的区域50公里内(分别为96.0%和93.5%)，可能仅表明局部转移。虽然这种遗传指纹测试已被证明对评估来源不明的林分的起源很有用，但使用叶绿体基因组的标记(大多是适应性中性的)将种子材料分类为具有适应性含义的类别存在潜在的限制。讨论了这些限制，特别是在选择适应性更好的材料来补充原生森林的背景下。
We report a method using variation in the chloroplast genome (cpDNA) to test whether oak stands of unknown provenance are of native and/or local origin. As an example, a sample of test oaks, of mostly unknown status in relation to nativeness and localness, were surveyed for cpDNA type. The sample comprised 126 selected trees, derived from 16 British seed stands, and 75 trees, selected for their superior phenotype (201 tree samples in total). To establish whether these two test groups are native and local, their cpDNA type was compared with that of material from known autochthonous origin (results of a previous study which examined variation in 1076 trees from 224 populations distributed across Great Britain). In the previous survey of autochthonous material, four cpDNA types were identified as native; thus if a test sample possessed a new haplotype then it could be classed as non-native. Every one of the 201 test samples possessed one of the four cpDNA types found within the autochthonous sample. Therefore none could be proven to be introduced and, on this basis, was considered likely to be native. The previous study of autochthonous material also found that cpDNA variation was highly structured geographically and, therefore, if the cpDNA type of the test sample did not match that of neighbouring autochthonous trees then it could be considered to be non-local. A high proportion of the seed stand group (44.2 per cent) and the phenotypically superior trees (58.7 per cent) possessed a cpDNA haplotype which matched that of the neighbouring autochthonous trees and, therefore, can be considered as local, or at least cannot be proven to be introduced. The remainder of the test sample could be divided into those which did not grow in an area of overall dominance (18.7 per cent of seed stand trees and 28 per cent of phenotypically superior) and those which failed to match the neighbouring autochthonous haplotype (37.1 per cent and 13.3 per cent, respectively). Most of the non-matching test samples were located within 50 km of an area dominated by a matching autochthonous haplotype (96.0 per cent and 93.5 per cent, respectively), and potentially indicates only local transfer. Whilst such genetic fingerprinting tests have proven useful for assessing the origin of stands of unknown provenance, there are potential limitations to using a marker from the chloroplast genome (mostly adaptively neutral) for classifying seed material into categories which have adaptive implications. These limitations are discussed, particularly within the context of selecting adaptively superior material for restocking native forests.
DOI：
10.1073/pnas.84.24.9054
发表时间：
1987-12-01
影响因子：
11.1
作者：
WOLFE, KH;LI, WH;SHARP, PM
通讯作者：
SHARP, PM