Abstract

In many aquatic plant taxa, classification based on morphology has always been difficult. Molecular markers revealed that the complexity in several of these aquatic taxa could be addressed to recurrent hybridization events and cryptic species diversity. The submerged macrophyte genus Ruppia is one of these aquatic genera with a complex taxonomy due to the absence of clear distinguishable traits and several hybridization events. Two species co-exist throughout Europe, R. maritima and R. spiralis (previously known as R. cirrhosa), but recent molecular studies also found several indications of hybridization, introgression and chloroplast capture between these species. However, the full extent and frequency of hybridization and introgression in this genus has not been studied so far, nor is it clear how these hybrid lineages can co-exist locally with their parental species. In this paper, we wanted to detect whether a single coastal wetland where both species co-exist can act as a Ruppia hybrid zone. As a case study, we chose the Camargue, a Mediterranean coastal wetland that harbors a wide diversity in aquatic habitats, especially in terms of salinity and hydro-regime. We sampled several Ruppia populations within this wetland. To identify each sample and reconstruct the local genetic structure of the two parental species and their hybrids, we used both chloroplast and nuclear microsatellite markers. Afterward, we tested whether different species had different habitat preferences. Our results confirmed that R. maritima and R. spiralis are two strongly divergent species with different reproductive ecologies and different habitat preferences. This prevents frequent hybridization and consequently we could not detect any trace of a recent hybridization event. However, we found several populations of later-generation hybrids, including a population of R. maritima x hybrid backcrosses. The hybrid populations occupy a different habitat and are genetically distinct from their parental species, although they tend to be morphological similar to parental R. maritima. Although local hybridization and introgression in Ruppia is less frequent than we expected, the taxonomy of Ruppia is complicated due to ancient hybridizations and several back-crossings.

Highlights

  • Natural hybridization is an important mechanism in plant evolution

  • When these results were compared with the chloroplast haplotypes, we found that three assumed R. maritima populations (T1, T2, and T3) had a chloroplast that could be placed in a R. spiralis species complex haplogroup

  • Marker RMV56 completely failed to amplify in population T1. These deviating patterns are reflected in the Principal Component Analyses (PCA) and Discriminant Analysis of Principal Components (DAPC) based on the R. maritima microsatellite results (Figures 2D,F): populations T1, T2, and T3 are clearly separated from the pure R. maritima populations

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Natural hybridization is an important mechanism in plant evolution. Newly formed hybrids can have traits that allow them to colonize new niches that are not occupied by their parental species (Arnold, 1997). In the absence of strong reproductive isolation, hybridization can be followed by one or several backcrosses with one of the parental species This process is called introgression and allows gene flow between different species. If there is no selection for these introgressed genes and hybridization is rare, the traces of hybridization in the nuclear genome decrease after several generations of back-crossings This can result in chloroplast capture where the chloroplast which is maternally inherited- is an introgressed organelle that has a different origin than the nuclear DNA (Rieseberg and Soltis, 1991; Tsitrone et al, 2003; Chan and Levin, 2005). Introgression and chloroplast capture can be important indications for ancient hybridization beyond F1 and further generation hybrids (Masembe et al, 2006; Martin and Jiggins, 2017) These different levels of hybridization make it difficult to detect hybrids based on morphology. Detection of hybrids remains difficult and they can still complicate species delimitation and taxonomy (Duminil and Di Michele, 2009; Twyford and Ennos, 2012; Mallet et al, 2016)

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.