Assessing genetic diversity within populations of rare species and understanding its determinants are crucial for effective species protection. While a lot is known about the relationships between genetic diversity, fitness, and current population size, very few studies explored the effects of past population size. Knowledge of past population size may, however, improve our ability to predict future population fates. We studied Gentianella praecox subsp. bohemica, a biennial species with extensive seed bank. We tested the effect of current, past minimal and maximal population size, and harmonic mean of population sizes within the last 15 years on genetic diversity and fitness. Maximum population size over the last 15 years was the best predictor of expected heterozygosity of the populations and was significantly related to current population size and management. Plant fitness was significantly related to current as well as maximum population size and expected heterozygosity. The results suggested that information on past population size may improve our understanding of contemporary genetic diversity across populations. They demonstrated that despite the strong fluctuations in population size, large reductions in population size do not result in immediate loss of genetic diversity and reduction of fitness within the populations. This is likely due to the seed bank of the species serving as reservoir of the genetic diversity of the populations. From a conservation point of view, this suggests that the restoration of small populations of short-lived species with permanent seed bank is possible as these populations may still be genetically diverse.

Department of Botany Faculty of Science Charles University Prague Benátská 2 128 01 Prague 2 Czech Republic

Institute of Botany Czech Academy of Sciences Zámek 1 252 43 Průhonice Czech Republic

Muzeum Cheb Krále Jiřího z Poděbrad 493 4 350 11 Cheb Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Mol Ecol. 2015 Dec;24(24):6021-40 PubMed

Ann Bot. 2014 Apr;113(5):887-93 PubMed

Ann Bot. 2017 Sep 1;120(3):373-385 PubMed

Ecol Evol. 2012 Mar;2(3):636-48 PubMed

Plant Biol (Stuttg). 2013 Jan;15(1):195-202 PubMed

Appl Plant Sci. 2017 Jan 5;5(1):null PubMed

Evolution. 2005 Apr;59(4):786-99 PubMed

Plant Biol (Stuttg). 2015 May;17(3):720-7 PubMed

Evolution. 1975 Mar;29(1):1-10 PubMed

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 May 23;103(21):8096-100 PubMed

Conserv Biol. 2010 Dec;24(6):1596-605 PubMed

Oecologia. 2008 Mar;155(3):469-77 PubMed

Ann Bot. 2005 May;95(6):999-1007 PubMed

Mol Ecol. 2006 Aug;15(9):2653-63 PubMed

Am Nat. 1998 Jun;151(6):487-96 PubMed

Am J Bot. 1998 Jun;85(6):811 PubMed

BMC Ecol. 2017 Apr 24;17 (1):19 PubMed

PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e45855 PubMed

Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Jul 7;268(1474):1387-94 PubMed

Ecol Evol. 2015 Sep;5(17):3610-21 PubMed

Oecologia. 2016 May;181(1):125-35 PubMed

PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49471 PubMed

Ann Bot. 2004 Oct;94(4):545-51 PubMed

PLoS One. 2014 May 08;9(5):e97110 PubMed

Evolution. 1992 Apr;46(2):477-494 PubMed