Skip to main content
NCBI home page
AoB Plants logoLink to AoB Plants
. 2016 Jul 11;8:plw034. doi: 10.1093/aobpla/plw034

Genetic admixture and lineage separation in a southern Andean plant

Santiago Morello 1,*, Silvana M Sede 1
PMCID: PMC4940511  PMID: 27179539

Mountain orogeny has been a major factor in plant evolution in all continents by changing the landscape and climate, creating new habitats and ecological opportunities. In this study we found that diversity in two southern Andean Escallonia species is geographically structured and there is a deep divergence between infraspecific groups that could be associated with ancient evolutionary events like orogeny. We also found evidence of admixture, likely the result of hybridization at the margins of the parental species' distribution range.

Keywords: AFLP, Escallonia, evolution, genetic diversity, leaf shape, Patagonia, plastid DNA sequences, Southern Andes

Abstract

Mountain uplifts have generated new ecologic opportunities for plants, and triggered evolutionary processes, favouring an increase on the speciation rate in all continents. Moreover, mountain ranges may act as corridors or barriers for plant lineages and populations. In South America a high rate of diversification has been linked to Andean orogeny during Pliocene/Miocene. More recently, Pleistocene glacial cycles have also shaped species distribution and demography. The endemic genus Escallonia is known to have diversified in the Andes. Species with similar morphology obscure species delimitation and plants with intermediate characters occur naturally. The aim of this study is to characterize genetic variation and structure of two widespread species of Escallonia: E. alpina and E. rubra. We analyzed the genetic variation of populations of the entire distribution range of the species and we also included those with intermediate morphological characters; a total of 94 accessions from 14 populations were used for the Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (AFLP) analysis. Plastid DNA sequences (trnS-trnG, 3′trnV-ndhC intergenic spacers and the ndhF gene) from sixteen accessions of Escallonia species were used to construct a Statistical Parsimony network. Additionally, we performed a geometric morphometrics analysis on 88 leaves from 35 individuals of the two E. alpina varieties to further study their differences. Wright’s Fst and analysis of molecular variance tests performed on AFLP data showed a significant level of genetic structure at the species and population levels. Intermediate morphology populations showed a mixed genetic contribution from E. alpina var. alpina and E. rubra both in the Principal Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) and STRUCTURE. On the other hand, E. rubra and the two varieties of E. alpina are well differentiated and assigned to different genetic clusters. Moreover, the Statistical Parsimony network showed a high degree of divergence between the varieties of E. alpina: var. alpina is more closely related to E. rubra and other species than to its own counterpart E. alpina var. carmelitana. Geometric morphometrics analysis (Elliptic Fourier descriptors) revealed significant differences in leaf shape between varieties. We found that diversity in Escallonia species analyzed here is geographically structured and deep divergence between varieties of E. alpina could be associated to ancient evolutionary events like orogeny. Admixture in southern populations could be the result of hybridization at the margins of the parental species’ distribution range.

Introduction

Mountain orogeny has been a major factor in plant evolution in all continents, and has been linked to recent diversification and speciation events (Hughes and Atchison 2015). The uplift of mountain ranges may change the landscape and climate, creating different environments and microclimates that provides new habitats (Linder 2008) and island-like ecological opportunities (Hughes and Eastwood 2006).

In South America, the Andes mountains have played these roles since their uplift during Pliocene/Miocene (16–5.3 Mya). Moreover, the Andes themselves could have played as a North-South corridor allowing the exchange of plant lineages; or as a barrier promoting vicariance. Consequently, these evolutionary processes triggered by the Andean uplift promoted a high speciation rate conducting to great biological diversity in South America (Antonelli et al. 2009; Hartley 2003; Kier et al. 2009; Luebert et al. 2011; Ortiz-Jaureguizar and Cladera 2006; Scherson et al. 2008).

The southern Andes have been identified as the origin of diversification of many groups (e.g. Chuquiraga: Ezcurra 2002, Valeriana: Bell et al. 2012, Oxalis: Heibl and Renner 2012, Heliotropium: Luebert et al. 2011); they are located in Argentina and Chile from 29° S, below Atacama desert to the austral tip of the continent at the Magellan and Fuegian Archipelagos.

During Pleistocene, climate oscillations have greatly influenced biodiversity in all continents (Hewitt 2000, 2004). In Patagonia, glacial cycles generated not only warmth-cold fluctuations in climate but also ice sheet expansions and retreats modelling landscape (Rabassa et al. 2011). As a consequence, plant species have accompanied those changes reacting with population contractions and expansions, long-distance range dispersal, new habitat colonization and in situ survival in refugia; examples of these processes have been studied for many Andean plants (e.g. Austrocedrus chilensis: Pastorino et al. 2004; Souto et al. 2012, 2015; Nothofagus species: Marchelli and Gallo 2006; Premoli et al. 2010; Soliani et al. 2012; Hordeum species: Jakob et al. 2009; Hypochaeris incana: Tremetsberger et al. 2009; Calceolaria polyrhiza: Cosacov et al. 2010, Eucryphia cordifolia; Segovia et al. 2012). Common processes for different lineages are suggested by two shared patterns a) high diversity zones corresponding to putative glacial refugia; and b) latitudinal phylogeographical breaks along the Andes and Patagonian steppe (Sérsic et al. 2011).

Among the plant lineages from South American mountain regions, the endemic genus Escallonia (Sede 2008; Sleumer 1968) is distributed along the whole Andean mountain range where it is highly diverse (Sleumer 1968; Sleumer and Correa 1984), and in different ecosystems in southern Brazil and central Argentina. Escallonia is the most numerous genus of the family Escalloniaceae comprising ca. 40 species; plant morphology displays high variation among species, and many diagnostic characters also show intraspecific variability (e.g. size and shape of leaves and floral organs, petal pigmentation, and presence of hairs and glands in different organs). Moreover, plants with intermediate morphology (IM) between species have been described (Sleumer 1968). Current taxonomy matches this pattern, with some species descriptions containing overlapping characters and ca. 20 species varieties described (Kausel 1953; Sleumer 1968; Sleumer and Correa 1984).

Molecular phylogenetic studies in Escallonia corroborated the monophyly of the genus. Five lineages were strongly supported and geographically structured, suggesting that their evolutionary history might be linked to orogenic processes in South America (Sede et al. 2013; Zapata 2013). Particularly in the southern Andes, two independent lineages were evident (Sede et al. 2013): clade B with only two species (Escallonia virgata, restricted to southern Andes and Escallonia callcottiae, endemic of Juan Fernandez archipelago in Chile) and clade D with the remaining nine species sampled (E. alpina, E. florida, E. illinita, E. leucantha, E. myrtoidea, E. pulverulenta, E. revoluta, E. rosea and E. rubra). Within this major lineage, two species, E. alpina and E. rubra, are highly polymorphic and share the same distribution range along the Andes in Patagonia, although they only differ in maximum elevation: E. alpina reaches higher altitudes (up to ca. 2200 m) than E. rubra, which occurs up to ca. 1700 m. These species are differentiated mainly by the distribution of glands in leaves and flowers and by the type of inflorescence. For both species some varieties have been described on the basis of morphological characters and geographical distribution. There are two varieties described for E. alpina based on vegetative characters: E. alpina var. carmelitana only differs from the type variety in the colour of the stem and leaf size. A preliminary study on the genetic variability, including five populations, supported species boundaries and one population showing intermediate morphological characters was detected and corroborated by AFLP patterns (Morello et al. 2013).

The occurrence of individuals with IM between E. alpina and E. rubra [described as hybrids by Kausel (1953); Sleumer (1968) and Sleumer and Correa (1984)] along with the description of a population with genetic admixture (Morello et al. 2013) and the lack of species exclusivity in phylogenetic reconstructions (Zapata 2013), indicate the presence of Escallonia hybrids in Patagonia.

Hybridization is a common phenomenon in plants and there are different views on its role in evolution: from not significant (Mayr 1992) to very relevant in speciation (Rieseberg 1997; Mallet 2007) or in adaptation to new environments (Rieseberg and Wendel 1993). Intermediate morphology is a strong indication of mixed ancestry (Stebbins 1959; Stace 1991); although hybrids are not always morphological intermediates (Rieseberg and Ellstrand 1993) and morphological intermediate individuals are not always hybrids (Morrell and Rieseberg 1998; Park et al. 2003). Hybridization has been frequently documented in the southern Andes (e.g. Fuchsia: Berry 1982; Discaria: Tortosa 1983) but there are few works that explore its evolutionary relevance in this region (Calceolaria: Sérsic et al. 2001; Caiophora: Ackermann et al. 2008; Nothofagus: Acosta and Premoli 2010; Soliani et al. 2012). A better understanding of natural hybrids between Escallonia species will elucidate taxonomic problems in the genus and will provide new hypotheses on its evolution.

Our aims are to characterize the genetic variation between E. rubra and E. alpina, by means of plastid DNA sequences and Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (AFLP). Additionally two southernmost populations with intermediate morphological characters between both species are included to investigate the genetic bases of their variation. We further analyze morphological variation in E. alpina (including the broadly distributed var. alpina and var. carmelitana, restricted to north Patagonia) using a geometric morphometrics analysis of leaf shape. We predict that E. rubra, E. alpina var. alpina and E. alpina var. carmelitana will have a high degree of genetic differentiation, while populations with intermediate morphology will show genetic admixture. Finally, leaf shape will be useful to differentiate the two varieties of E. alpina.

Methods

Plant material

Collection trips were undertaken on the eastern side of the Andes, in the Argentinean patagonian region (Table 1; Figs. 1 and 2). Six populations of E. rubra were collected from 39° to 47° south latitude (S) in Neuquén, Chubut and Santa Cruz provinces, four of E. alpina var. alpina from 42° to 49° S, in Chubut and Santa Cruz provinces, and two of E. alpina var. carmelitana in northern Neuquén province, from 36° to 37° S. Two additional populations with intermediate morphological characters were collected at ca. 50° S in southwestern Santa Cruz province (Table 1; Figs. 1 and 2). Herbarium material was deposited at SI (Thiers 2015).

Table 1.

Escallonia populations included in this study: voucher, geographical location, coordinates, and altitude. Abbreviations: n, number of individuals analyzed; PNLG, Parque Nacional Los Glaciares; PNLA, Parque Nacional Los Alerces; PNL, Parque Nacional Lanín; PNLP, Parque Nacional Lago Puelo.

Species Voucher number n Geographical location Geographical coordinates Altitude
E. alpina var. alpina
SS 234 5 Santa Cruz. PNLG, Secc. Guanaco, Estancia Cristina 49° 56′ 37′′ S 73° 06′ 46′′W 299 m
SS 248 7 Santa Cruz. PNLG, Secc. El Chaltén, Cerro Polo 49° 17′ 57′′ S 72° 54′ 11′′ W 700 m
SS 259 6 Chubut. Lago Fontana, Cascada de La Virgen 44° 49′ 18′′ S 71° 39′ 33′′ W 1020 m
SS 266 8 Chubut. PNLA, Cerro Dedal 42° 54′ 01′′ S 71° 38′ 19′′ W 1126 m
E. alpina var. carmelitana
SS 321 4 Neuquén. Cordillera del Viento, Arroyo Manzanito 37° 14′ 38′′ S 70° 37′ 09′′ W 1455 m
SS 340 5 Neuquén. Naciente del Río Neuquén 36° 25′ 18′′ S 70° 38′ 40′′ W 1834 m
E. rubra
SS 224 5 Neuquén. PNL, Cascada Carilaufquen 39° 48′ 29′′ S 71° 36′ 09′′ W 888 m
SS 263 8 Chubut. 25 km al sur de Corcovado 44° 50′ 20′′ S 71° 38′ 54′′ W 688 m
SS 265 8 Chubut. PNLA, Lago Menéndez, Puerto Chucao 42° 53′ 40′′ S 71° 35′ 13′′ W 541 m
SS 269 7 Chubut. 31 km al S de El Bolsón 42° 09′ 43′′ S 71° 24′ 07′′ W 273 m
SS 274 8 Chubut. PNLP. Arroyo Los Hitos 42° 06′ 19′′ S 71° 43′ 23′′ W 201 m
SS 257 8 Santa Cruz. Camino a puesto de Gendarmería, Río Oro 47° 25′ 07′′ S 71° 56′ 36′′ W 273 m
IM
SS 229 8 Santa Cruz. PNLG, Secc. Lago Roca, Cerro de los Cristales 50° 32′ 32′′ S 72° 47′ 55′′ W 396 m
SS 233 7 Santa Cruz. PNLG, Secc. Glaciar P. Moreno, Lago Argentino 50° 27′ 40′′ S 73° 01′ 36′′ W 178 m
Open in a new tab

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Geographical location of the 14 populations of Escallonia sampled, as listed in Table 1. Colours indicate groups according to taxonomy and morphological identifications: red: E. alpina var. carmelitana; green: E. rubra; blue: E. alpina var. alpina; fuchsia: IM.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Inflorescences. (A) E. rubra (265). (B) E. alpina var. alpina (266). (C) E. alpina var. carmelitana (340). (D). IM population (229). Typical habitat. (E) E. rubra (224), Lago Carilaufquen. (F) E. alpina (234), Chorrillo Los Perros, Estancia Cristina.

For population genetic analyses we collected eight individuals from each location. Individuals were collected at least 15 m apart in order to avoid collecting close relatives. When eight individuals were not available, at least four were collected for each population. Fresh leaves were separated and dried with silica gel.

For morphological analyses we used pressed leaves of E. alpina including individuals from both varieties used in the population genetic analyses and additional herbarium material identified either as var. alpina or var. carmelitana [See Supporting Information 1a].

Total DNA isolation

Genomic DNA was extracted from silica dried leaves following a cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) protocol (Doyle and Doyle 1987) with some modifications. Twenty µg of dried leaves were cooled by immersing in liquid nitrogen and then ground into fine powder. The samples were transferred to 1.5mL tubes with 700 µL warm CTAB buffer [2 % CTAB, 100 mM Tris–HCl pH 8.0, 1.4 M NaCl, 20 mM EDTA, 2 % polyvinylpyrrolidone] and kept in a water bath at 65 °C for an hour with continuous shaking and mixing by inversion. Tubes were then removed from the water bath and left to cool at room temperature for 10 min, then 700 µL of chloroform: isoamyl alcohol (24:1) was added and the contents were mixed by vortexing. Centrifugation was carried out at 12 000 rpm for 1 min and the aqueous (top) layer transferred into a new 1.5 mL tube. A solution of NaCl (5M; 300 µL) and ice-cold isopropanol (600 µL) were added and mixed gently by inversion; tubes were incubated for 30 min at −20 °C. Centrifugation was carried out at 12 000 rpm for 1 min, then the supernatant was discarded and the pellet was washed twice with ice-cold ethanol (70 %; 700 μL). After drying at room temperature, the pellet was suspended in 50 μL of 10:1 TE (10 mM Tris: 1 mM EDTA) buffer.

Plastid DNA

Amplification and sequencing

The plastid intergenic spacers trnS-trnG, 3′trnV-ndhC and the ndhF gene [see Supporting Information 2] were amplified with a profile consisting of 94 °C for 3 min, followed by 30 cycles of 94 °C for 1 min, 52 °C for 1 min and 72 °C for 1 min. Polymerase chain reactions (PCRs) were performed in a final volume of 25 μL with 50 ng of DNA template, 0.2 μM of each primer, 25 μM deoxynucleotide triphosphates, 5 mM MgCl2, 1× Taq buffer and 1.5 units of Taq polymerase provided by Invitrogen-Life Technologies (Brazil). Automated sequencing was performed by Macrogen Inc. (South Korea). We edited and assembled electropherograms in BioEdit 7.0.9 (Hall 1999). All new sequences were deposited in GenBank with accession numbers KU759574- KU759579. For sequence alignment, we used MAFFT v.7 (Katoh and Standley 2013) available online (http://mafft.cbrc.jp/alignment/server/ Last accessed 31 May 2016), with default settings.

Haplotype network

To understand the relation between the species of Escallonia distributed in the southern Andes, an haplotype network was constructed using statistical parsimony (0.95 probability connection limit) and the genealogical reconstruction algorithms of Templeton et al. (1992) as implemented in the R package pegas 0.8–1 (Paradis 2010). For this study we used new DNA sequences and sequences included in Sede et al. (2013) for a total of 16 individuals comprising southern Andean species: E. alpina, E. callcottiae, E. florida, E. illinita, E. leucantha, E. myrtoidea, E. pulverulenta, E. revoluta, E. rosea, E. rubra and E. virgata. We included one individual for species except in the case of E. alpina (5 accessions from two varieties: E. alpina var. alpina and E. alpina var. carmelitana) and E. leucantha (2 accessions). All three plastid regions were concatenated; in a few cases, when it was not possible to obtain sequences from the same individual, data from different individuals was combined to represent species.

AFLP

AFLP was used to analyze the genetic variability, both at the species and population level. A total of 14 populations (94 individuals) were kept based on the presence of good-quality DNA samples: four of E. alpina var. alpina, two of E. alpina var. carmelitana, six of E. rubra, and two populations with intermediate morphological diagnostic characters between both species (IM) (Table 1, Fig. 1). AFLP protocol was performed essentially as described by Vos et al. (1995), with fluorescent labelled primers that allowed automatic detection of the amplified fragments. Genomic DNA samples (50–100 ng) were digested to completion with EcoRI and MseI and the fragment ends were ligated to EcoRI- and MseI-specific adaptors [Supporting Information 2] in a single reaction for three hours at 37 °C. The digestion-ligation products were diluted 20-fold into 10 mM Tris-HCl, 0.1 mM EDTA (pH 8.0) and amplified using EcoRI-A and MseI-C as pre-selective primers. The resulting template was diluted 20-fold prior to amplification with selective primers: EcoRI (FAM)-ACT and MseI-CAC [Supporting Information 2]. The fluorescence-labelled selected amplification products were separated on a sequencer with an internal size standard at Macrogen Inc. (South Korea). Nine random samples (9.6 % of individuals) were duplicated in order to assess reproducibility.

Fragment-size fluorescent data was visualized using Peak Scanner (Applied Biosystems, available at http://products.invitrogen.com/ivgn/product/4381867, last accessed 31 May 2016) and automatically scored using the R package RawGeno v2.0-1 (Arrigo et al. 2012 available at http://sourceforge.net/projects/rawgeno, last accessed 31 May 2016). Peaks between 70 and 500 bp with fluorescence higher than 120 relative fluorescent units (RFU) were retained and non reproducible fragments were removed. Presence or absence of each fragment was recorded for each individual obtaining a binary matrix [Supporting Information 3]. Pearson correlation coefficients between each fragment size and its frequency were calculated in order to assess the possibility of homoplasy (Vekemans et al. 2002).

Genetic structure

The AFLP matrix was used to infer genetic structure from Escallonia populations in order to assess the identity of IM populations and also to investigate the relation between E. alpina varieties. Differentiation due to genetic structure was tested using Wright’s fixation index (Fst) for all populations and for separate species. Additionally a matrix of pairwise Fst genetic distances between all populations was constructed.

Principal Coordinate Analysis (PCoA, Gower 1966) was performed using Jaccard genetic distances between individuals calculated from the binary matrix using software FAMD v1.108 (Schlüter and Harris 2006); this multivariate analysis projects pairwise genetic distances upon a set of derived orthogonal axes, this reduced dimensional space allows the recognition of genetically similar individuals. Additionally, a bayesian analysis of population structure was performed using software STRUCTURE v2.3 (Falush et al. 2003, 2007; Pritchard et al. 2000) to infer the distribution and number of genetic clusters (K). The default model was used which assumes correlated frequencies between clusters and allows individuals to have a mixed ancestry. The log-likelihood probability of the data was calculated for each possible K value from 1 to 15 using 20 runs of 1 000 000 MCMC iterations following a burn in period of 100 000 iterations. Convergence of parameters between different runs was analyzed using Tracer v1.4 (Rambaut et al. 2013). The best fit number of clusters was calculated according to Evanno et al. (2005) using STRUCTURE HARVESTER (Earl and vonHoldt 2011).

We performed an analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) using Arlequin v.3.5.1.3 (Excoffier and Lischer 2010). This analysis allowed us to assess the distribution of variance among taxonomic units (E. rubra, E. alpina var. alpina and E. alpina var. carmelitana); and among and within populations, and to test for significant differences.

Leaf shape analysis of E. alpina varieties

In order to characterize both varieties of E. alpina, leaf shape of var. alpina and var. carmelitana was described by traditional methods, using specimens from our collections (Table 1) and herbarium material [Supporting Information 1b].

Additionally, leaf shape was studied by performing an Elliptic Fourier Analysis (Kuhl and Giardina 1982). A total of 88 leaves from 35 collections of E. alpina including var. alpina and var. carmelitana (see Table 1 and Supporting Information 1b) were cut, hydrated, pressed and photographed using a Cannon PowerShot G11 digital camera over a clear background. The digital files were manipulated to obtain a binary image using Fiji (Schindelin et al. 2012). Final digitized images are available as Supporting Information 4. The R package Momocs V0.9 (Bonhomme et al. 2014) was used to extract the outlines as coordinates and to perform succeeding analysis. Each leaf shape was reconstructed using the first 15 harmonics, this number was selected by comparing the original outline and several reconstructed shapes using an increasing harmonics number.

A principal component analysis (PCA, Hotelling 1933) was performed on the Fourier coefficients of the leaves shape, and ordination of samples was then plotted on the first two principal components (PCs) axes.

The PCs explaining >99 % of variance were used as shape variables in subsequent analyses. A Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA, equivalent to Canonical Variate Analysis) was carried to show maximum separation among E. alpina varieties. The LDA matrix was tested using a leave-one-out cross validation procedure to compute the percentage of correctly assigned individuals for each variety (Martens and Dardenne 1998). Additionally, PCs were subjected to multi-variate analyses of variance (MANOVA) to evaluate the significance of the separation between the two groups.

Results

Sequence variation and haplotype network

The PCR amplification of intergenic spacers resulted in fragments of 740 bp (trnS-trnG) and 602 bp (trnV-ndhC), and the amplification of ndhF gene (incomplete sequence) resulted in a 1803 bp-fragment. All accessions, including multiple accessions for one species, showed exclusive haplotypes (Fig. 3).

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Statistical Parsimony network connecting haplotypes from southern Andean Escallonia species. For each haplotype we concatenated the sequences of trnS-trnG (740 bp), 3′trnV-ndhC (602 bp) intergenic spacers and the ndhF gene (1803 bp). Each circle correspond to a unique haplotype. Dots on lines represent mutational steps.

In the network (Fig. 3), one major group is composed of E. leucantha, E. illinita, E. rosea, E. revoluta, E. myrtoidea, E. alpina (including var. carmelitana), E. rubra, and E. florida, which are separated by few mutational steps. The remaining species are separated by a long chain of mutational steps from the main group.

In particular, new sequences of E. alpina var. alpina and var. carmelitana were included in the major group together with those downloaded from the GenBank database. Varieties were grouped together, although neither of them shares a unique haplotype. Moreover, all accessions of E. alpina var. alpina are more closely related to other species like E. rubra and E. florida than they are to E. alpina var. carmelitana accessions; both varieties were separated by at least 7 mutational steps.

AFLP

Non replicated peaks (4.8 %) were eliminated and a matrix with 174 fragments for the 94 individuals sampled was obtained. Linear regression of fragment size and fragment frequency was not significant (R2 = −0.153; P = 0.07). Escallonia rubra and E. alpina (including both varieties) had, respectively, 7 and 19 exclusive fragments. At the same time E. alpina var. alpina and E. alpina var. carmelitana had seven exclusive fragments each.

Genetic structure

When comparing all populations, Wright’s fixation index showed a significant degree of genetic structure (Fst = 0.17, P < 0.001). As this Fst value encompassed differences among taxonomic units we performed separate analyses for E. rubra (Fst = 0.13, P < 0.001) and E. alpina var. alpina (Fst = 0.03, P = 0.002). Escallonia rubra showed a much higher level of genetic structure, although both were significantly different from zero.

Pairwise differences among populations are shown in Table 2. Fst distances were generally low when comparing populations from the same taxonomic unit (Fst = 0.01–0.11) and higher when comparing populations from different taxonomic units (Fst = 0.10–0.39). The notable exception was population 224 that showed high Fst values (0.2–0.39) when compared with any other population. The two populations with IM showed low levels of genetic differentiation when compared to populations of E. alpina var. alpina and E. rubra (Fst = 0.01–0.13) but higher values when compared to E. alpina var. carmelitana (0.17–0.22).

Table 2.

Pairwise genetic differentiation (Fst) between populations of Escallonia

E. alpina var. alpina E. rubra Intermediate morphology E. alpina var. carmelitana
248 259 266 257 263 265 224 269 274 229 233 340 321
234 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.16 0.10 0.13 0.30 0.12 0.15 0.01 0.05 0.16 0.21
248 0.05 0.02 0.21 0.14 0.20 0.35 0.18 0.20 0.03 0.06 0.21 0.23
259 0.03 0.25 0.18 0.23 0.39 0.22 0.25 0.11 0.13 0.20 0.24
266 0.23 0.17 0.20 0.39 0.19 0.23 0.06 0.10 0.20 0.22
257 0.08 0.07 0.28 0.07 0.07 0.12 0.09 0.23 0.27
263 0.11 0.23 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.20 0.23
265 0.25 0.02 0.08 0.10 0.01 0.17 0.23
224 0.20 0.24 0.25 0.27 0.36 0.34
269 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.16 0.21
274 0.09 0.06 0.24 0.27
229 0.03 0.18 0.20
233 0.17 0.22
340 0.06
Open in a new tab

The distribution of individuals among the first and second principal coordinates of the PCoA analysis is shown in Figure 4A; the first 2 eigenvalues are 0.19 and 0.10, and both account for 28.65 % of total variation. Escallonia. rubra and E. alpina individuals are separated along the first axis, while individuals that share morphological diagnostic characters of both species are spread in an intermediate position (Fig. 4). Along the second axis, E. alpina var. carmelitana populations are discretely grouped and well separated from the rest of E. alpina and E. rubra populations.

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

(A) PCoA of AFLP among 94 Escallonia individuals. The first 2 axes represented in the figure explain 18.65 and 10 % of total variability. Colours indicate groups according to taxonomy: red: E. alpina var. carmelitana; green: E. rubra; blue: E. alpina var. alpina; fuchsia: IM. (B) Genetic structure inferred from bayesian analysis using STRUCTURE software; bars represent the proportion of individuals assigned to each of three genetic clusters (K = 3).

STRUCTURE results are shown in Figure 4B. Individuals were assigned to three genetic groups, as suggested by Evanno’s method, mostly corresponding with taxonomy: E. rubra, E. alpina var. alpina and E. alpina var. carmelitana. Some individuals from E. alpina var. alpina and E. rubra populations had a small degree of admixture (e.g. in populations 263 and 269). Populations of IM (229 and 233) showed a mixed genetic contribution from E. alpina var. alpina and E. rubra. On the contrary, individuals from E. alpina var. carmelitana (populations 321 and 340) showed almost no signal of genetic admixture.

AMOVA analysis (Table 3) revealed a significant level of differentiation between E. rubra, E. alpina var. alpina and E. alpina var. carmelitana (25.67 % P < 0.001). The highest percentage of variation was found within populations (63.65 %, P < 0.001).

Table 3.

Results of the AMOVA for 12 populations of alpina var. E. alpina, E. alpina var. carmelitana and E. rubra, based on AFLP data. The analysis was performed to test differences among three groups. Degrees of freedom (d.f.), sum of squares deviations (SSD), variance components (VC), percentage of total variance (% total) and significance value (P) are given for each hierarchical level.

Source of variation d.f. SSD VC % total P-value
Amongst groups 2 375.919 6.860 25.67 <0.001
Amongst populations within groups 9 324.886 2.851 10.67 <0.001
Within populations 67 1139.600 17.009 63.65 <0.001
Total 78 1840.405 26.721
Open in a new tab

Leaf shape

Morphological examination allowed us to characterize leaves of E. alpina var. carmelitana as narrowly obovate to spatulate, lanceolate, tapering gradually to the base, with the apex acute to obtuse, rarely truncate (see Fig. 2C), while those of the type variety are mostly obovate, sometimes suborbicular-cuneate or spatulate-lanceolate, with the apex typically obtuse, sometimes subacute, rarely truncate or invaginated (see Fig. 2B).

Geometric morphometry further reinforces these observations (Fig. 5A and B); the PCA of the Elliptic Fourier descriptors shows two groups of leaves that correspond to E. alpina var. alpina and E. alpina var. carmelitana, although they are partially overlapped (Fig. 5A). The first two PCs retained 89.7 % of total variation. As seen from the reconstruction of the shapes along the first axis, the major source of leaf outline variation is anisotropy (length to width ratio). The mean leaf shape for each group is shown in Figure 5B. Cross-validation performed over LDA values (using the first nine PCs) was highly successful for both varieties, as 93 % of all leaves was well classified (E. alpina var. alpina 94.4 % and E. alpina var. carmelitana 91.7 %). A MANOVA test also showed significant differences between the two varieties (P < 0.001).

Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Open in a new tab

(A) Scatter plot of PCs one and two from geometric morphometrics analysis using Elliptic Fourier descriptors for leaves of E. alpina var. alpina (green) and E. alpina var. carmelitana (red). Figures in the background show reconstructions of leaf shape according to each position in the PCs space. (B) Mean shape of leaves assigned to E. alpina var. E. alpina (green) and alpina var. carmelitana (red) according to Elliptic Fourier analysis.

Discussion

Southern populations show genetic admixture and could be the result of hybridization between E. alpina var. alpina and E. rubra

The results of our analyses at the population level support preliminary evidence of genetic admixture (Morello et al. 2013) and the morphological hypothesis of Sleumer (1968) of natural hybridization between E. alpina and E. rubra. Two populations (229 and 233, Table 1, Figs. 1 and 2D) from the southern limit of the distribution range of both species (southwestern Santa Cruz province, Argentina, ca. 50° S), exhibited intermediate genetic characters and low genetic distance from E. rubra and E. alpina var. alpina; accordingly, both collections showed IM between E. alpina (solitary flowers, Fig. 2B) and E. rubra (stipitate glands on hypanthium, pedicels and young stems, and resinous spots on the adaxial leaf surface, Fig. 2A). We were able to identify herbarium collections with IM from the same geographic location [Supporting Information 1a]; moreover, most of the collections identified by Sleumer (1968) as natural hybrids are located in southwestern Santa Cruz in the proximity of Lago Argentino. Accidental interspecific cross pollination is likely to occur where more than one species are in sympatry and share pollinators. Floral biology could help elucidate the origin of the hybrid populations. To date, there are few studies on the floral biology of Escallonia species; Valdivia and Niemeyer (2006) found that E. myrtoidea is commonly visited by generalist pollinators such as bees and this is in accordance with our observations in the field. Although the parental species have also been recorded in the same region (Sleumer 1968), we only observed and collected populations with IM.

New questions arise if we assume these southern populations are indeed of hybrid origin. Why are hybrids more common in the southernmost locations? And why are these populations mostly composed by hybrids? One plausible answer is that hybrid fitness could be dependent on habitat: in most of the parental distribution range, hybrid fitness may be significantly lower than their parental fitness, promoting isolation. On the other hand, in marginal habitats selective pressures are different, and hybrids could be just as fit or even favoured by natural selection. In our study, IM populations were found in the southern limit of both parental species distribution range. The role for hybridization in evolution in marginal or altered habitats has been discussed in previous works Burke and Arnold (2001), and Rieseberg et al. (2003). A similar process could have occurred if parental species had shared glacial refugia. Reproductive isolation mechanisms that may have arisen during and after speciation could have been lost later as a consequence of reduced or fragmented habitats and climatic changes. This scenario has been proposed for plant species in Europe (e.g. Heuertz et al. 2006; Palmé et al. 2004) and as an explanation for hybrid Nothofagus trees in southern South America (Acosta and Premoli 2010; Soliani et al. 2012). Several studies, either in plants or animals, support high biological diversity in southern Patagonia. Phylogeographic studies showed populations with high diversity at high latitudes (ca. 50° S), likely being the result of in situ survival during Pleistocene glaciations (e.g. Hordeum: Jakob et al. 2009; H. incana: Tremetsberger et al. 2009; C. polyrhiza: Cosacov et al. 2010; Nothofagus pumilio: Mathiasen and Premoli 2010; Podocarpus nubigena: Quiroga and Premoli 2010; Mulinum spinosum: Sede et al. 2012; many of them compiled and analyzed in Sérsic et al. 2011). Furthermore, Domínguez et al. (2006) described an area of high endemism in southwestern Santa Cruz province.

The fact that current hybrid populations are composed mostly by admixtured individuals suggests that gene flow was not an isolated event in the region and it may have played a significant role during the evolution of Escallonia species; this could be relevant for reconstructing processes as demographic contractions and expansions, colonization routes and possible survival in refugia. A more comprehensive phylogeographycal analysis is necessary to answer questions on the history and origin of these putative hybrid populations, and an experimental design would be useful to test hypotheses concerning hybridization mechanisms.

E. alpina var. alpina and E. alpina var. E. carmelitana are separate lineages

E. alpina var. alpina and E. alpina var. carmelitana were not grouped together: the type variety was more closely related to E. rubra than it was to var. carmelitana. This finding was supported by DNA sequence variation and AFLP markers.

According to the protologue (Kausel 1953), E. alpina var. carmelitana was differentiated from the type variety by the leaf size (which is highly variable even within individuals) and stem colour (which is affected by age and state of preservation). During the morphological study of collections of E. alpina var. carmelitana we observed differences in leaf shape rather than size. Leaf shape differences were strongly corroborated by geometric morphometrics analysis and this new character will be useful for species identification purposes.

E. alpina var. carmelitana is a clearly distinct group, with genetic and morphological differences and with a restricted geographic distribution, which deserves to be considered an independent entity. Populations of E. alpina var. carmelitana are located between 35° and 38° S, 70° W: this region is characterized by two high mountain ranges (the Andes and Cordillera del Viento), volcanoes, e.g. Copahue, and valleys; the zone is well irrigated, with several tributaries of the Neuquén river, although there are only small lakes, e.g. Varvarco Campos and Caviahue (Bran et al. 2002). A high level of endemism has historically been reported for this zone of northern Patagonia (Cabrera and Willink 1973; Simpson and Neff 1985). Moreover, it has been proposed that high genetic diversity of populations in northern Patagonia may be a consequence of in situ survival in refugia during glacial cycles (Austrocedrus. chilensis: Arana et al. 2010; Podocarpus. nubigena: Quiroga and Premoli 2010; Anarthrophyllum desideratum: Cosacov et al. 2013, and more examples in Sérsic et al. 2011).

Nevertheless, the strong pattern of genetic, morphological and geographical differentiation found in E. alpina var. alpina vs E. alpina var. carmelitana do not seem to be a consequence of recent periods of isolation and expansion due to climatic events during the Quaternary. High mountains may have acted as dispersal barriers (Struwe et al. 2009) promoting isolation and vicariance, even generating deep divergence among species and high levels of biological diversity (Hughes and Eastwood 2006; Pennington et al. 2010). Sérsic et al. (2011 and literature herein) found shared patterns of genetic distribution along the Andes, both for plants and animals: particularly, a high diversity zone around 35°–39° S. It has been hypothesized that many Patagonian plants have diversified in this region as a consequence of Miocene-Pliocene orogeny and associated tectonic processes; e.g. Calceolaria. polyrhiza (Cosacov et al. 2010), Hordeum (Jakob et al. 2009) and Hypochaeris. incana (Tremetsberger et al. 2009). Our results, combining morphology, plastid sequences and AFLP, together with the geographically structured phylogenies of Escallonia support the hypothesis that Andean orogeny has played an important role in the diversification of the genus.

Conclusions

New evidence of genetic admixture in Escallonia populations might be a result of interspecific hybridization. Further studies on ecology, pollination and floral biology could help to understand the role of interspecific gene flow in the evolution of the genus. Moreover, a comprehensive phylogeographic work, using co-dominant markers, will give hindsight in the recent evolution of Escallonia species and their interaction over time.

Additionally, we conclude that E. alpina var. alpina and E. alpina var. carmelitana are distinct lineages, and taxonomy should be revised to reflect their separation. Escallonia species, as currently circumscribed, could be concealing a richer diversity. We expect that new studies, combining morphology and genetics, will improve our understanding of biological diversity in the genus and general trends of plant evolution in Patagonia.

Accesion Numbers

All new sequences were deposited in GenBank with accession numbers KU759574- KU759579.

Sources of Funding

DNA sequencing and fieldwork was aided by PIP 1122012010036CO National Scientific and Technical Research Council of Argentina (CONICET) granted to M. Morando.

Contributions by the Authors

S.S. and S.M. conceived the idea; S.S. collected the samples; S.S. and S.M. performed the molecular analysis; S.M. performed the geometric morphometric analysis; S.S. and S.M. analysed the data and led the writing.

Conflict of Interest Statement

None declared.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Data
supp_8_plw034_index.html (824B, html)

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to J. Calcagno for assistance during collection trips; to the Administración de Parques Nacionales for allowing us to conduct field work in the reserves and, in particular to Estancia Cristina for allowing us to visit the Estancia in the North channel of Lago Argentino. We thank A. Sassone, S. Sclovich, L. Giussani, D. del Castillo and S. Denham for providing valuable comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. S. M. Sede and S. Morello acknowledge the National Scientific and Technical Research Council of Argentina (CONICET) as researcher and doctoral fellow and for funding this project. Bayesian assignment analyses were performed in Lifeportal of the University of Oslo, Norway, available at (http://www.lifeportal.uio.no/, last accessed 31 May 2016).

Supporting Information

The following additional information is available in the online version of this article —

Supporting information: 1. (a) Representative specimens of intermediate morphology between E. rubra and E. alpina from herbarium material, and (b) additional herbarium collections of E. alpina analyzed in geometric morphometrics analyses. 2. Primers used in AFLP protocol and plastid DNA amplification and sequencing. 3. AFLP data matrix. 4. Digitized outlines of E. alpina leaves used for geometric morphometrics analyses.

Literature Cited

  1. Ackermann M, Achatz M, Weigend M. 2008. Hybridization and crossability in Caiophora (Loasaceae subfam. Loasoideae): Are interfertile species and inbred populations results of recent radiation? American Journal of Botany 95:1109–1121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Acosta MC, Premoli AC. 2010. Evidence of chloroplast capture in South American Nothofagus (subgenus Nothofagus, Nothofagaceae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 54:235–242. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Antonelli A, Nylander JAA, Persson C, Sanmartín I. 2009. Tracing the impact of the Andean uplift on Neotropical plant evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106:9749–9754. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Arana MV, Gallo LA, Vendramin GG, Pastorino MJ, Sebastiani F, Marchelli P. 2010. High genetic variation in marginal fragmented populations at extreme climatic conditions of the Patagonian cypress Austrocedrus chilensis. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 54:941–949. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Arrigo N, Holderegger R, Alvarez N. 2012. Automated Scoring of AFLPs Using RawGeno v 2.0, a Free R CRAN Library. Methods in Molecular Biology 888:155–175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bell CD, Kutschker A, Arroyo MTK. 2012. Phylogeny and diversification of Valerianaceae (Dipsacales) in the southern Andes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 63:724–737. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Berry PE. 1982. The systematics and evolution of Fuchsia sect. Fuchsia (Onagraceae). Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 69:1–198. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bonhomme V, Picq S, Gaucherel C, Claude J. 2014. Momocs: Outline Analysis Using R. Journal of Statistical Software 56:1–24. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bran D, Ayesa J, Lopez C. 2002. Áreas ecológicas de Neuquén. Laboratorio de teledetección-SIG INTA-EEA Bariloche. http://sipan.inta.gov.ar/productos/ssd/vc/neuquen/ig/PDF/AreasEcologicas_Neuquen.pdf, last accessed 31 May 2016.
  10. Burke JM, Arnold ML. 2001. Genetics and the fitness of hybrids. Annual Review of Genetics 35:31–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cabrera AL, Willink A. 1973. Biogeografía de América Latina. Monografía 13. Serie de Biología. Washington DC: Organización de los Estados Americanos. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cosacov A, Sérsic AN, Sosa V, Johnson L, Cocucci A. 2010. Multiple periglacial refugia in the Patagonian steppe and post-glacial colonization of the Andes: The phylogeography of Calceolaria polyrhiza. Journal of Biogeography 37:1463–1477. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cosacov A, Johnson LA, Paiaro V, Cocucci A, Córdoba FE, Sérsic AN. 2013. Precipitation rather than temperature influenced the phylogeography of the endemic shrub Anarthrophyllum desideratum in the Patagonian steppe. Journal of Biogeography 40:168–182. [Google Scholar]
  14. Domínguez CM, Roig-Juñent S, Tassin JJ, Ocampo FC, Flores GE. 2006. Areas of endemism of the Patagonian steppe: an approach based on insect distributional patterns using endemicity analysis. Journal of Biogeography 33:1527–1537. [Google Scholar]
  15. Doyle JJ, Doyle JL. 1987. A rapid DNA isolation procedure for small quantities of fresh leaf tissue. Phytochemical Bulletin 19:11–15. [Google Scholar]
  16. Earl DA, vonHoldt BM. 2011. STRUCTURE HARVESTER: a website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conservation Genetics Resources 4:359–361. [Google Scholar]
  17. Evanno G, Regnaut S, Goudet J. 2005. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: a simulation study. Molecular Ecology 14:2611–2620. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Excoffier L, Lischer HEL. 2010. Arlequin suite ver 3.5: a new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under Linux and Windows. Molecular Ecology Resources 10:564–567. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Ezcurra C. 2002. Phylogeny, Morphology, and Biogeography of Chuquiraga, an Andean-Patagonian Genus of Asteraceae-Barnadesioideae. The Botanical Review 68:153–170. [Google Scholar]
  20. Falush D, Stephens M, Pritchard JK. 2003. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data: Linked loci and correlated allele frequencies. Genetics 164:1567–1587. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Falush D, Stephens M, Pritchard JK. 2007. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data: dominant markers and null alleles. Molecular Ecology Notes 7:574–578. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gower JC. 1966. Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multivariate analysis. Biometrika 53:325–338. [Google Scholar]
  23. Hall T. 1999. BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symposium Series 41:95–98. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hartley AJ. 2003. Andean uplift and climate change. Journal of the Geological Society 160:7–10. [Google Scholar]
  25. Heibl C, Renner SS. 2012. Distribution models and a dated phylogeny for Chilean Oxalis species reveal occupation of new habitats by different lineages, not rapid adaptive radiation. Systematic Biology 61:823–834. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Heuertz M, Carnevale S, Fineschi S, Sebastiani F, Hausman JF, Paule L, Vendramin GG. 2006. Chloroplast DNA phylogeography of European ashes, Fraxinus sp. (Oleaceae): Roles of hybridization and life history traits. Molecular Ecology 15:2131–2140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hewitt GM. 2000. The genetic legacy of the Quaternary ice ages. Nature 405:907–913. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hewitt GM. 2004. Genetic consequences of climatic oscillations in the Quaternary. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 359:183–195. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hotelling H. 1933. Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components. Journal of Educational Psychology 24:498–520. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hughes C, Eastwood R. 2006. Island radiation on a continental scale: exceptional rates of plant diversification after uplift of the Andes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103:10334–10339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Hughes CE, Atchison GW. 2015. The ubiquity of alpine plant radiations: from the Andes to the Hengduan Mountains. The New Phytologist 207:275–282. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Jakob SS, Martinez-Meyer E, Blattner FR. 2009. Phylogeographic analyses and paleodistribution modeling indicate Pleistocene in situ survival of Hordeum species (Poaceae) in southern Patagonia without genetic or spatial restriction. Molecular Biology and Evolution 26:907–923. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Katoh K, Standley DM. 2013. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30:772–780. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kausel E. 1953. Revisión del género Escallonia en Chile. Darwiniana 10:169–255. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kier G, Kreft H, Lee TM, Jetz W, Ibisch PL, Nowicki C, Mutke J, Barthlott W. 2009. A global assessment of endemism and species richness across island and mainland regions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106:9322–9327. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kuhl FP, Giardina CR. 1982. Elliptic Fourier features of a closed contour. Computer Graphics and Image Processing 18:236–258. [Google Scholar]
  37. Linder H. 2008. Plant species radiations: where, when, why? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 1506:3097–3105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Luebert F, Hilger HH, Weigend M. 2011. Diversification in the Andes: Age and origins of South American Heliotropium lineages (Heliotropiaceae, Boraginales). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61:90–102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Mallet J. 2007. Hybrid speciation. Nature 446:279–283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Marchelli P, Gallo L. 2006. Multiple ice-age refugia in a southern beech of South America as evidenced by chloroplast DNA markers. Conservation Genetics 7:591–603. [Google Scholar]
  41. Martens HA, Dardenne P. 1998. Validation and verification of regression in small data sets. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 44:99–121. [Google Scholar]
  42. Mathiasen P, Premoli AC. 2010. Out in the cold: genetic variation of Nothofagus pumilio (Nothofagaceae) provides evidence for latitudinally distinct evolutionary histories in austral South America. Molecular Ecology 19:371–385. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Mayr E. 1992. A local flora and the biological species concept. American Journal of Botany 79:222–238. [Google Scholar]
  44. Morello S, Giussani LM, Sede SM. 2013. Análisis preliminar de la variabilidad genética de Escallonia alpina y E. rubra (Escalloniaceae). Darwiniana, Nueva Serie 1:227–236. [Google Scholar]
  45. Morrell P, Rieseberg LH. 1998. Molecular tests of the proposed diploid hybrid origin of Gilia achilleifolia (Polemoniaceae). American Journal of Botany 85:1439–1453. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Ortiz-Jaureguizar E, Cladera GA. 2006. Paleoenvironmental evolution of southern South America during the Cenozoic. Journal of Arid Environments 66:498–532. [Google Scholar]
  47. Palmé AE, Su Q, Palsson S, Lascoux M. 2004. Extensive sharing of chloroplast haplotypes among European birches indicates hybridization among Betula pendula, B. pubescens and B. nana. Molecular Ecology 13:167–178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Paradis E. 2010. pegas: an R package for population genetics with an integrated-modular approach. Bioinformatics 26:419–420. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Park KR, Pak JH, Seo BB. 2003. Allozyme variation in Paraixeris: a test for the diploid hybrid origin of Paraixeris koidzumiana (Compositae). Botanical Bulletin of Academia Sinica 44:113–122. [Google Scholar]
  50. Pastorino MJ, Gallo L, Hattemer HH. 2004. Genetic variation in natural populations of Austrocedrus chilensis, a cypress of the Andean-Patagonian Forest. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 32:993–1008. [Google Scholar]
  51. Pennington RT, Lavin M, Särkinen T, Lewis GP, Klitgaard BB, Hughes CE. 2010. Contrasting plant diversification histories within the Andean biodiversity hotspot. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107:13783–13787. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Premoli AC, Mathiasen P, Kitzberger T. 2010. Southern-most Nothofagus trees enduring ice ages: Genetic evidence and ecological niche retrodiction reveal high latitude (54°S) glacial refugia. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 298:247–256. [Google Scholar]
  53. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P. 2000. Inference of Population Structure Using Multilocus Genotype Data. Genetics 155:945–959. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Quiroga MP, Premoli AC. 2010. Genetic structure of Podocarpus nubigena (Podocarpaceae) provides evidence of Quaternary and ancient historical events. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 285:186–193. [Google Scholar]
  55. Rabassa J, Coronato A, Martínez O. 2011. Late Cenozoic glaciations in Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego: an updated review. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 103:316–335. [Google Scholar]
  56. Rambaut A, Suchard M, Xie D, Drummond A. 2013. Tracer v1.6. URL. http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/tracer/, last accessed 31 May 2016.
  57. Rieseberg LH. 1997. Hybrid origins of plant species. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28:359–389. [Google Scholar]
  58. Rieseberg LH, Ellstrand NC. 1993. What can molecular and morphological markers tell us about plant hybridization? Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 12:213–241. [Google Scholar]
  59. Rieseberg LH, Wendel JF. 1993. Introgression and its consequences in plants In Harrison RG. ed. Hybrid Zones and the Evolutionary Process. New York: Oxford University Press, 70–109. [Google Scholar]
  60. Rieseberg LH, Raymond O, Rosenthal DM, Lai Z, Livingstone K, Nakazato T, Durphy JL, Schwarzbach AE, Donovan LA, Lexer C. 2003. Major ecological transitions in wild sunflowers facilitated by hybridization. Science 301:1211–1216. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Scherson RA, Vidal R, Sanderson MJ. 2008. Phylogeny, biogeography, and rates of diversification of New World Astragalus (Leguminosae) with an emphasis on South American radiations. American Journal of Botany 95:1030–1039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pietzsch T, Preibisch S, Rueden C, Saalfeld S, Schmid B, Tinevez J-Y, White DJ, Hartenstein V, Eliceiri K, Tomancak P, Cardona A. 2012. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nature Methods 9:676–682. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Schlüter PM, Harris SA. 2006. Analysis of multilocus fingerprinting data sets containing missing data. Molecular Ecology Notes 6:569–572. [Google Scholar]
  64. Sede SM. 2008. Escalloniaceae In: Zuloaga FO, Morrone O, Belgrano MJ, eds. Catálogo de las plantas vasculares del Cono Sur (Argentina, sur de Brasil, Chile, Paraguay y Uruguay) Volume 2 Missouri: Missouri Botanical Garden, 2002–2009. [Google Scholar]
  65. Sede SM, Nicola M V, Pozner R, Johnson LA. 2012. Phylogeography and palaeodistribution modelling in the Patagonian steppe: the case of Mulinum spinosum (Apiaceae). Journal of Biogeography 39:1041–1057. [Google Scholar]
  66. Sede SM, Dürnhöfer SI, Morello S, Zapata F. 2013. Phylogenetics of Escallonia (Escalloniaceae) based on plastid DNA sequence data. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 173:442–451. [Google Scholar]
  67. Segovia RA, Pérez MF, Hinojosa LF. 2012. Genetic evidence for glacial refugia of the temperate tree Eucryphia cordifolia (Cunoniaceae) in southern South America. American Journal of Botany 99:121–129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Sérsic AN, Mascó M, Noy-Meir I. 2001. Natural hybridization between species of Calceolaria with different pollination syndromes in southern Patagonia, Argentina. Plant Systematics and Evolution 230:111–124. [Google Scholar]
  69. Sérsic AN, Cosacov A, Cocucci AA, Johnson LA, Pozner R, Avila LJ, Sites JW, Morando M. 2011. Emerging phylogeographical patterns of plants and terrestrial vertebrates from Patagonia. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 103:475–494. [Google Scholar]
  70. Simpson B, Neff J. 1985. Plants, their pollinating bees, and the Great American Interchange In: Stehli FG, Webb SD, eds. The great American biotic interchange. Boston: Springer Science and Business Media. [Google Scholar]
  71. Sleumer H. 1968. Die Gattung Escallonia (Saxifragaceae). Verhandelingen Der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie Van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Natuurkunde 58:1–146. [Google Scholar]
  72. Sleumer HO, Correa MN. 1984. Escalloniaceae In: Correa MN, ed. Flora Patagónica IVb. Buenos Aires: Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria, 27–37. [Google Scholar]
  73. Soliani C, Gallo L, Marchelli P. 2012. Phylogeography of two hybridizing southern beeches (Nothofagus spp.) with different adaptive abilities. Tree Genetics and Genomes 8:659–673. [Google Scholar]
  74. Souto CP, Heinemann K, Kitzberger T, Newton AC, Premoli AC. 2012. Genetic Diversity and structure in Austrocedrus chilensis populations: implications for dryland forest restoration. Restoration Ecology 20:568–575. [Google Scholar]
  75. Souto CP, Kitzberger T, Arbetman MP, Premoli AC. 2015. How do cold-sensitive species endure ice ages? Phylogeographic and paleodistribution models of postglacial range expansion of the mesothermic drought-tolerant conifer Austrocedrus chilensis. The New Phytologist 208:960–972. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Stace CA. 1991. Plant taxonomy and biosystematics, 2nd edn Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  77. Stebbins GL. 1959. The role of hybridisation in evolution. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 103:231–251. [Google Scholar]
  78. Struwe L, Haag S, Heiberg E, Grant JR. 2009. Andean speciation and vicariance in neotropical Macrocarpaea (Gentianaceae–Helieae). Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 96:450–469. [Google Scholar]
  79. Templeton AR, Crandall KA, Sing CF. 1992. A cladistic analysis of phenotypic association with haplotypes inferred from restriction endonuclease mapping and DNA sequence data. III. Cladogram estimation. Genetics 132:619–635. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Thiers B. 2015. Index Herbariorum: a Global Directory of Public Herbaria and Associated Staff. New York Botanical Garden’s Virtual Herbarium http://sweetgum.nybg.org/ih, last accessed 31 May 2016.
  81. Tortosa RD. 1983. Una especie polimorfa de Discaria: D. chacaye (G. Don) comb. nov. (Rhamnaceae) y sus híbridos presuntivos. Parodiana 2:79–98. [Google Scholar]
  82. Tremetsberger K, Urtubey E, Terrab A, Baeza CM, Ortiz MA, Talavera M, König C, Temsch EM, Kohl G, Talavera S, Stuessy TF. 2009. Pleistocene refugia and polytopic replacement of diploids by tetraploids in the Patagonian and Subantarctic plant Hypochaeris incana (Asteraceae, Cichorieae). Molecular Ecology 18:3668–3682. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Valdivia CE, Niemeyer HM. 2006. Do floral syndromes predict specialisation in plant pollination systems? Assessment of diurnal and nocturnal pollination of Escallonia myrtoidea. New Zealand Journal of Botany 44:135–141. [Google Scholar]
  84. Vekemans X, Beauwens T, Lemaire M, Roldan-Ruiz I. 2002. Data from amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers show indication of size homoplasy and of a relationship between degree of homoplasy and fragment size. Molecular Ecology 11:139–151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Vos P, Hogers R, Bleeker M, Reijans M, Lee T, van de Hornes M, Friters A, Pot J, Paleman J, Kuiper M, Zabeau M. 1995. AFLP: a new technique for DNA fingerprinting. Nucleic Acids Research 23:4407–4414. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Zapata F. 2013. A multilocus phylogenetic analysis of Escallonia (Escalloniaceae): diversification in montane South America. American Journal of Botany 100:526–545. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Data
supp_8_plw034_index.html (824B, html)
supp_plw034_aobplants-15348-s03.docx (16.2KB, docx)
supp_plw034_aobplants-15348-s02.txt (35.1KB, txt)

Articles from AoB Plants are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES