Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Is Betula carpatica genetically distinctive? A morphometric, cytometric and molecular study of birches in the Bohemian Massif with a focus on Carpathian birch

I. Kuneš, R. Linda, T. Fér, P. Karlík, M. Baláš, J. Ešnerová, J. Vítámvás, J. Bílý, T. Urfus,

. 2019 ; 14 (10) : e0224387. [pub] 20191031

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc20005743

Until recently, Czech taxonomists often treated Betula carpatica as a distinct species. Several morphological traits for distinguishing B. carpatica from B. pubescens or other birches are described in literature; however, it has been proven impossible to reliably identify B. carpatica in the field. With the use of morphological and molecular approaches, we intended to assess the position of B. carpatica in the context of other birch taxa reported from the Bohemian Massif and to find more reliable morphological traits for their identification. In our dataset, we distinguished the following birch taxa referred to in the recent Czech literature: B. pendula, B. pubescens, B. carpatica, B. oycoviensis, B. nana, B. petraea and B. ×seideliana. We complemented them with triploids and several diploid and tetraploid "working units" into which we included intermediate individuals that in terms of morphology did not unambiguously match any of the abovementioned birch taxa. Holoploid genome size was measured to determine the ploidy level. To identify genetic relationships between selected taxa and "working units", microsatellite analyses were performed. Model-based STRUCTURE analysis together with principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) based on genetic distances was performed to identify the similarities in multilocus genotype data between groups distinguished in the dataset. The applied analyses were not able clearly to distinguish any group among tetraploid individuals. In this light, it was of no use to search for any more reliable morphological traits of B. carpatica and also B. petraea. Among diploids, B. nana was always distinguished, in contrast to B. oycoviensis, which was not genetically recognized despite being usually morphologically distinct. Based on our results and a literature review, we suggest that B. carpatica and also the closely similar B. petraea should not be considered separate species. A similar conclusion seems relevant also for B. oycoviensis; however, further verification is desirable in this case.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc20005743
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20200727150853.0
007      
ta
008      
200511s2019 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1371/journal.pone.0224387 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)31671142
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Kuneš, Ivan $u Department of Silviculture, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Czech Republic.
245    10
$a Is Betula carpatica genetically distinctive? A morphometric, cytometric and molecular study of birches in the Bohemian Massif with a focus on Carpathian birch / $c I. Kuneš, R. Linda, T. Fér, P. Karlík, M. Baláš, J. Ešnerová, J. Vítámvás, J. Bílý, T. Urfus,
520    9_
$a Until recently, Czech taxonomists often treated Betula carpatica as a distinct species. Several morphological traits for distinguishing B. carpatica from B. pubescens or other birches are described in literature; however, it has been proven impossible to reliably identify B. carpatica in the field. With the use of morphological and molecular approaches, we intended to assess the position of B. carpatica in the context of other birch taxa reported from the Bohemian Massif and to find more reliable morphological traits for their identification. In our dataset, we distinguished the following birch taxa referred to in the recent Czech literature: B. pendula, B. pubescens, B. carpatica, B. oycoviensis, B. nana, B. petraea and B. ×seideliana. We complemented them with triploids and several diploid and tetraploid "working units" into which we included intermediate individuals that in terms of morphology did not unambiguously match any of the abovementioned birch taxa. Holoploid genome size was measured to determine the ploidy level. To identify genetic relationships between selected taxa and "working units", microsatellite analyses were performed. Model-based STRUCTURE analysis together with principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) based on genetic distances was performed to identify the similarities in multilocus genotype data between groups distinguished in the dataset. The applied analyses were not able clearly to distinguish any group among tetraploid individuals. In this light, it was of no use to search for any more reliable morphological traits of B. carpatica and also B. petraea. Among diploids, B. nana was always distinguished, in contrast to B. oycoviensis, which was not genetically recognized despite being usually morphologically distinct. Based on our results and a literature review, we suggest that B. carpatica and also the closely similar B. petraea should not be considered separate species. A similar conclusion seems relevant also for B. oycoviensis; however, further verification is desirable in this case.
650    _2
$a bříza $x genetika $7 D029662
650    _2
$a břízovité $x klasifikace $x genetika $7 D029401
650    _2
$a diploidie $7 D004171
650    _2
$a genotyp $7 D005838
650    _2
$a ploidie $7 D011003
650    _2
$a tetraploidie $7 D057891
651    _2
$a Česká republika $7 D018153
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Linda, Rostislav $u Department of Silviculture, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Fér, Tomáš $u Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Karlík, Petr $u Department of Forest Ecology, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Baláš, Martin $u Department of Silviculture, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Ešnerová, Jana $u Department of Silviculture, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Vítámvás, Jan, $d 1978- $u Department of Forest Ecology, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Czech Republic. $7 stk2007383483
700    1_
$a Bílý, Jan $u EXTEMIT-K, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Urfus, Tomáš $u Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
773    0_
$w MED00180950 $t PloS one $x 1932-6203 $g Roč. 14, č. 10 (2019), s. e0224387
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31671142 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20200511 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20200727150852 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1524601 $s 1095799
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2019 $b 14 $c 10 $d e0224387 $e 20191031 $i 1932-6203 $m PLoS One $n PLoS One $x MED00180950
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20200511

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...