Genetic variability of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst.) natural regeneration compared with their maternal stands

Open access


The genetic variability and biodiversity of tree populations ensure the stability and sustainability of forest ecosystems. New research tools based on molecular DNA markers enable precise characterisation of forest genetic resources, i.e. detection of different allele frequencies in mature trees and progeny populations. The paper describes the genetic structure of mature stands of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) in Oława Forest District and Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst.) in Jawor Forest District and stands of their respective progeny. In the Scots pine stand, there was a slight increase (0.6%) in heterozygosity level and a larger increase (4.9%) in the inbreeding coefficient of progeny trees. In the Norway spruce stand, despite a small reduction (0.9%) in heterozygosity, a similar increase (4.6%) in the inbreeding coefficient of progeny was revealed. In both stands, allele richness and the partition probability of basic clustering were high. Both pine and spruce adults and progeny trees were characterised by high levels of genetic similarity (96% and 79%, respectively). Gene flow between the mature and progeny populations was high (Nm > 1) for both Scots pine and Norway spruce. Conservation of the gene pool within forest tree stands requires an increase in the proportion of natural regeneration. To estimate the extent to which genes are transmitted between adult trees and their progeny, more studies are needed, especially taking into account the influence of silviculture measures, like selective tree cutting, on the genetic variability of the younger generation. These results confirm that the gene pool was conserved when transmitted between the stands studied, as well as highlight the usefulness of such a study for silvicultural purposes

Avise J. C. 2004. Molecular markers, natural History, and Evolution. Second Ed., Sinauer Associates, USA: p. 664. ISBN 0-87893-041-8.

State of Europe’s Forests 2011. Status and trends in sustainable forest management in Europe. UNECE/FAO: p. 340.

Bernadzki E., Ilmurzyński E., Szymański S. 1999. Trzebieże. Warszawa, PWRiL, 258 p. ISBN 83-09-00192-4.

Chagné D., Chaumeil P., Ramboer A., Collada C., Guevara A., Cervera M. T. et al. 2004. Cross-species transferability and mapping of genomic and cDNA SSRs in pines. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 109: 1204-1214.

Chomicz E. 2013. Zmienność genetyczna odnowień naturalnych świerka (Picea abies L. Kart.) w zamierających drzewostanach Beskidu Śląskiego i Żywieckiego. Rozprawa doktorska, Sękocin Stary, Instytut Badawczy Leśnictwa, p. 111.

Corander J., Waldmann P., Sillanpää M. J. 2003. Bayesian analysis of genetic differentiation between populations. Genetics, 163: 367-374.

Csaikl U. M., Glaz I., Baliuckas V., Petit R. J., Jensen J. S. 2002. Chloroplast DNA variation of white oak in the Baltic countries and Poland. Forest Ecology Management,156: 211-222.

Dering M., Lewandowski A. 2009. Finding the meeting zone: Where have the northern and southern ranges of Norway spruce overlapped? Forest Ecology Management, 259: 229-235.

Devey M. E., Delfinomix A., Kinloch B. B., Neale D. B. 1995. Random amplified polymorphic DNA markers tightly linked to a gene for resistance to white-pine blister rust in sugar pine. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 92: 2066-2070.

Dobrowolska D. 2010. Warunki powstawania odnowień naturalnych sosny zwyczajnej (Pinus sylvestris L.) na terenie Nadleśnictwa Tuszyma [Establishment condition of Scots pine natural regeneration in Tuszyma Forest District]. Leśne Prace Badawcze,71 (3): 217-224.

Gudet J. 2002. J. Fstat version 1.2: a computer program to calculate Fstatistics. Journal of Heredity, 86 (6): 485-486.

Gömöry D. 1992. Effect of stand origin on the genetic diversity of Norway spruce (Picea abies Karst.) populations. Forest Ecology Management, 54: 215-223.

González-Martinez S. C., Ersoz E., Brown G. R., Wheeler N. C., Neale D. B. 2006. DNA sequence variation and selection of tag single-nucleotide polymorphisms at candidate genes for drought-stress response in Pinus taeda L. Genetics, 172: 1915-1926.

Gutiérrez J. P., Royo L. J., Álvarez I., Goyache F. 2005. MolKin v2.0: a computer program for genetic analysis of populations using molecular coancestry information. Journal of Heredity, 96: 718-721.

Hamrick J. L. Nason J. D. 2000. Gene flow in forest trees. In: Forest conservation genetics: principles and practice. Ed. A. Young, D. Boshier, T. Boyle, Wallingford, UK, CABI, p. 81-90. ISBN 0-85199-504-7.

Konnert M., Hosius B., Hüssendorfer E. 2007. Genetische Auswirkungen waldbaulicher Maßnahmen - Ergebnisse, Stand und Forschungsbedarf. Forstund Holz, 62, 1: 8-14. ISSN 0932-9315.

Kosińska J., Lewandowski A., Chałupka W. 2007. Genetic variability of Scots pine maternal populations and their progenies. Silva Fennica, 41 (1): 5-12.

Kremer A., Reviron M. P. 2004. Dynamics and conservation of genetic diversity in forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology Management, 197: 1-2.

Lindner M., Maroschek M., Netherer S., Kremer A., Barbati A., Garcia-Gonzalo J. et al. 2010, Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology Management, 259: 698-709.

Longauer R., Gömöry D., Pacalaj M., Krajmerova D. 2010. Genetic aspects of stress tolerance and adaptability of Norway spruce. In: Spruce forest decline in the Beskids. lásny T., Sitková Z. (eds.). Zvolen, National Forest Centre - Forest Research Institute Zvolen, p. 131-143.

Mejnartowicz L. 2010. Zmienność jodły (Abies alba Mill.) w polskich Karpatach i Sudetach. in: Postęp badań w zakresie genetyki populacyjnej i biochemicznej drzew leśnych [Variation of silver fir (Abies alba Mill.) in Polish Carpathian and Sudeten populations]. Prace Komisji Nauk Rolniczych, Leśnych i Weterynaryjnych PAU, 13: Kraków, Polska Akademia Umiejętności: 27-36.

Namkoong G. 1991. Maintaining Genetic Diversity in Breeding for Resistance in Forest Trees. Annual Review of Phytopathology 29: 325-342. DOI: I0.1146/

Neale D. B., Ingvarsson P. K. 2008. Population, quantitative and comparative genomics of adaptation in forest trees. Plant Biology,11 (2): 149-155.

Nei M. 1978. Estimation of average heterozygosity and genetic distance from a small number of individuals. Genetics, 23: 341-369.

Nei M. 1987. Molecular evolutionary genetics. New York, Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-06320-2.

Nowakowska J. A. 2009. Mitochondrial and nuclear DNA differentiation of Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.) populations in Poland. Dendrobiology, 61: 119-129.

Nowakowska J. A. 2010. Zmienność genetyczna sosny zwyczajnej i świerka pospolitego na podstawie markerów DNA jądrowego i mitochondrialnego [Genetic variability of Scots pine and Norway spruce populations on the basis of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA markers]. Prace Komisji Nauk Rolniczych, Leśnych i Weterynaryjnych PAU, 13, Kraków, Polska Akademia Umiejętności, p. 37-53.

Nowakowska J. A., Oszako T. 2008. Stan zdrowotny i zróżnicowanie genetyczne buka zwyczajnego w Nadleśnictwie Siewierz na podstawie analiz chloroplastowego DNA [Health condition and genetic differentiation level of beech in the Siewierz Forest Districtassessed with cpDNA markers]. Sylwan, 9: 11-20.

Oddou-Muratorio S., Houot M. L., Demesure-Musch B., Austerlitz F. 2003. Pollen flow in the wildservice tree, Sorbustorminalis (L.) Crantz. I. Evaluating the paternity analysis procedure in continuous populations. Molecular Ecology, 12 (12): 3427-3439.

Peakall, R., Smouse P. E. 2012. GenAlEx 6.5: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research- an update. Bioinformatics,28: 2537-2539.

Pfeiffer A., Olivieri A. M., Morgante M. 1997. Identification and characterization of microsatellites in Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.). Genome, 40: 411-419.

Prus-Głowacki W., Głodzik S. 1995.Genetic structure of Picea abies trees tolerant and sensitive to industrial pollution. Silvea Genetica, 44: 62-65.

Report on the State of Forests in 2012. CILP, Warszawa 2011: 84 p.

Reed D. H., Frankham R. 2003. Correlation between fitness and genetic diversity. Conservation Biology, 17 (1): 230-237.

Rivers N. M., Butlin R. K., Altringham J. D. 2005. Genetic population structure of Natterer’s bats explained by mating at swarming sites and philopatry. Molecular Ecology, 14: 4299-4312.

Rousset F. 2008. Genepop’007: a complete reimplementation of the Gene pop software for Windows and Linux. Molecular Ecology Resources, 8: 103-106.

Rutkowski R., Rejt Ł., Tereba A., Gryczyńska-Siemiątkowska A., Janic B. 2010. Population genetic structure of the European kestrel Falco tinnunculus in Central Poland. European Journal of Wild Research, 56: 297-305.

Sabor J. 2003. Wpływ stosowanych zabiegów pielęgnacyjnych i rębni na zmianę struktury genetycznej drzewostanów [The effect of tending treatments and cutting systems on the genetic structure of stands]. Sylwan, 2: 39-48.

Slatkin M., Barton N. H. 1989. A comparison of three indirect methods for estimating average levels of gene flow. Evolution, 43: 1349-1368.

Soranzo N., Provan J., Powell W. 1998. Characterization of microsatellite loci in Pinus sylvestris L. Molecular Ecology, 7: 1260-1261.

Sperisen C., Büchler U., Gugerli F., Mátyás G., Gebourek T., Vendramin G. G. 2001. Tandem repeats in plant mitochondrial genomes: application to the analysis of population differentiation in the conifer Norway spruce. Molecular Ecology,10: 257-263.

Tigerstedt P. M. A., Rudin D., Niemelä T., Tammisola J. 1982.Competition and neighbouring effect in a naturally regenerating population of Scots pine. Silva Fennica, 16: 122-129.

Weir B. S., Cockerham C. C. 1984. Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution, 38: 1358-1370.

Whitlock M. C. 2002. Selection, load, and inbreeding depression in a large metapopulation. Genetics, 160: 1191-1202.

Forest Research Papers

Lesne Prace Badawcze; The Journal of Forest Research Institute, Sekocin Stary

Journal Information

Cited By


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 216 206 17
PDF Downloads 76 72 6