Different diversity measures and genetic traits reveal different speciesgenetic diversity relationships: A case study in forest tree communities

Abstract

Relationships between species diversity and genetic diversity, the two most important elements of biodiversity, have recently attracted considerable interest in the field of community genetics. The present study contributes to this issue by addressing three questions that seem to have been ignored so far, namely whether the use of (a) different diversity measures, of (b) different components of diversity, and of (c) different genetic traits may lead to different assessements of speciesgenetic diversity relationships. For this purpose, data on species composition and genetic traits were collected from the natural regeneration of nine forest communities, which consist of three pure and six mixed tree stands located in the Thuringian forest area. The genetic traits comprised one DNA (AFLP) and five isozyme traits all of which were determined in all species. In contrast to other studies, the species diversity was determined for two components, SD (species diversity) and NeS (effective number of genetically distinct species), and the genetic diversity was determined for three components, TSGD (the transspecific genetic diversity taken over all species of a community), ISGD and NGS (each describing a special average of intraspecific genetic diversity). Each component was quantified by measures of diversity representing four orders of the Renyi/Hillfamily. The orders correspond to the degree to which prevalence of types is considered in the diversity measure (at the lowest order, known as richness, prevalence is disregarded, with increasing order, the diversity measure reports prevalent types only). In our data, the diversity measured for each genetic trait separately showed a great range of variation across traits and components of diversity even in the same stand. The choice of the diversity component thus turned out to have a substantial effect on the assessment of the level of genetic diversity within stands. This prompted more detailed studies of the relationships between species and genetic diversity. Relationships were quantified with the help of the coefficient of co-variation, and the statistical significance of the co-variations was verified through permutation tests. The co-variations between SD and TSGD were found to be generally positive and in most cases significant, but the co-variation declined with increasing orders of diversity for most of the genetic traits. In contrast, the co-variation between SD and ISGD was not consistent for the four orders of diversity. In particular, the co-variations for the highest order were found to be negative for all traits. The results of our explorative study thus demonstrate that the assessment of levels of genetic diversity within stands as well as species-genetic interrelations critically depend on the choice of the diversity component, of the order of diversity, and of the genetic trait. These observations lend support to different and even opposing hypotheses on the processes potentially generating species-genetic relationships. Therefore, strategies in the conservation of biodiversity, for example, are suggested to be related more specifically to the components and orders of diversity to be safegarded and to consider the functions of genetic traits in relation to adaptationally relevant environmental factors.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • AARSSEN, L.W. (1983): Ecological combining ability and competitive combining ability in plants: toward a general evolutionary theory of coexistence in systems of competition. The American Naturalist, 122 (6), 707-731.

  • ANTONOVICS, J. (1992): Toward community genetics. In: FRITZ, R. S., SIMMS, E. L. (eds.). Plant Resistance to Herbivores and Pathogens: Ecology, Evolution and Genetics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 429-449.

  • ANTONOVICS, J. (2003): Toward community genomics? Ecology, 84, 598-601.

  • BOOTH, R. E. and J. P. GRIME (2003): Effects of genetic impoverishment on plant community diversity. Journal of Ecology 91, 721-733.

  • FRIDLEY, J. D. and J. P. GRIME (2010): Community and ecosystem effects of intraspecific genetic diversity in grassland microcosms of varying species diversity. Ecology 91, 2272-2283.

  • GIBSON, D. J., A. J. ALLSTADT, S. G. BAER and M. GEISLER (2012): Effects of foundation species genotypic diversity on subordinate species richness in an assembling community. Oikos 121, 496-507.

  • GREGORIUS, H.-R. (2010): Linking diversity and differentiation. Diversity 2, 370.

  • GREGORIUS, H.-R. and F. BERGMANN (1995): Analysis of isoenzyme genetic profiles observed in tree populations. In: BARADAT, P., ADAMS, W. T., MÜLLER-STARCK (eds.). Population Genetics and Genetic Conservation of Forest Trees. SPB Academic Publishers, Amsterdam. pp. 79-96.

  • GREGORIUS, H.-R., F. BERGMANN and CHR. WEHENKEL (2003): Analysis of biodiversity across levels of biological organization: a problem of defining traits. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 5, 209-218.

  • GREGORIUS, H.-R., B. DEGEN and A. KÖNIG (2007): Problems in the analysis of genetic differentiation among populations - a case study in Quercus robur. Silvae Genetica 56, 190-199.

  • HE, T., B. B. LAMONT, S. L. KRAUSS, N. J. ENRIGHT and B. P. MILLER (2008): Covariation between intraspecific genetic diversity and species diversity within a plant functional group. Journal of Ecology 96, 956-961.

  • HILL, M. O. (1973): Diversity and evenness: A unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology 54, 427-432.

  • HU, X.-S., F. HE and S. P. HUBBEL (2006): Neutral theory in macroecology and population genetics. Oikos 113, 548-556.

  • JOST, L. (2007): Partitioning diversity into independent alpha and beta components. Ecology 88, 2427-2439.

  • KARLIN, A. A., W. S. GUTTMAN and S. L. RATHBUN (1984): Spatial autocorrelation analysis of heterozygosity and geographic distribution in population of Desmognathus fuscus (Amphibia: Plethodontidae). Copeia 1984, 343-356.

  • KONNERT, M. and W. MAURER (1995): Isozymic investigations on Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) and European silver fir (Abies alba Mill.): A practical guide to separation methods and zymogram evaluation. Laboratory Manual (edited by the German Federal State Work Group “Conservation of Forest Genetic Resources”), pp 79.

  • MARKUSSEN, T., A. TUSCH, B. R. STEPHAN and M. FLADUNG (2005): Identification of molecular markers for selected wood properties of Norway spruce (Picea abies L. (Karst.). II. Extractives content. Silvae Genetica 54, 145-152.

  • PATIL, G. P. and C. TAILLIE (1982): Diversity as a concept and its measurement. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 77, 548-561.

  • POTT, R. (1992) Die Pflanzengesellschaften Deutschlands. Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart.

  • RENYI, A. (1961) On measures of entropy and information. In: NEYMANN, J. (ed.). Proceedings of the 4th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematics, Statistics and Probability. Vol. 1. .University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 547-561.

  • SILVERTOWN, J., P. M. BISS and J. FREELAND (2009): Community genetics: resource addition has opposing effects on genetic and species diversity in a 150-year experiment. Ecology Letters 12, 165-170.

  • VELLEND, M. (2003): Island biogeography of genes and species. The American Naturalist 162, 358-365.

  • VELLEND, M. (2004): Parallel effects of land-use history on species diversity and genetic diversity of forest herbs. Ecology 85, 3043-3055.

  • VELLEND, M. (2005): Species diversity and genetic diversity: parallel processes and correlated patterns. The American Naturalist 166, 199-215.

  • VELLEND, M. and M. A. GEBER (2005): Connections between species diversity and genetic diversity. Ecology Letters 8, 767-781.

  • VELLEND, M. and J. L. ORROCK (2009): Genetic and ecological models of diversity: lessons across disciplines. In: LOSOS, J. B., RICKLEFS, R. E. (eds.). The Theory of Island Biogeography Revisited. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 439-461.

  • VOS, P., R. HOGERS, M. BLEEKER, M. REIJANS, T. VAN DE LEE, M. HORNES, J. FRIJTERS, J. PELEMAN, M. KUIPER and M. ZABEAU (1995): AFLP: a new technique for DNA fingerprinting. Nucleic Acids Research 23, 4407-4414.

  • WEHENKEL, Chr., F. BERGMANN and H.-R. GREGORIUS (2006): Is there a trade-off between species diversity and genetic diversity in forest tree communities? Plant Ecology 185, 151-161.

  • WEHENKEL, CHR., F. BERGMANN and H.-R. GREGORIUS (2007): Genotype-species interactions in neighbourhoods of forest tree communities. Silvae Genetica 56, 1101-110.

  • WEI, X. and M. JIANG (2012): Contrasting relationships between species diversity and genetic diversity in natural and disturbed forest tree communities. New Phytologist 193, 779-786.

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Search