How much of the invader's genetic variability can slip between our fingers? A case study of secondary dispersal of Poa annua on King George Island (Antarctica)

Abstract We studied an invasion of Poa annua on King George Island (Maritime Antarctic). The remoteness of this location, its geographic isolation, and its limited human traffic provided an opportunity to trace the history of an invasion of the species. Poa annua was recorded for the first time at H...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Ecology and Evolution
Main Authors: Maciej Wódkiewicz, Katarzyna J. Chwedorzewska, Piotr T. Bednarek, Anna Znój, Piotr Androsiuk, Halina Galera
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2018
Subjects:
alien species
amplified fragment length polymorphism
biological invasion
demographic processes
Ecology
QH540-549.5
Antarctic
Arctowski
Austral
Ecology Glacier
King George Island
Antarc*
Antarctica
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3675
https://doaj.org/article/999b34d645814881bf45538d40426c55
Description
Summary:Abstract We studied an invasion of Poa annua on King George Island (Maritime Antarctic). The remoteness of this location, its geographic isolation, and its limited human traffic provided an opportunity to trace the history of an invasion of the species. Poa annua was recorded for the first time at H. Arctowski Polish Antarctic Station in the austral summer of 1985/6. In 2008/9, the species was observed in a new locality at the Ecology Glacier Forefield (1.5 km from “Arctowski”). We used AFLP to analyze the genetic differences among three populations of P. annua: the two mentioned above (Station and Forefield) and the putative origin of the introduction, Warsaw (Poland). There was 38% genetic variance among the populations. Pairwise ФPT was 0.498 between the Forefield and Warsaw populations and 0.283 between Warsaw and Station. There were 15 unique bands in the Warsaw population (frequency from 6% to 100%) and one in the Station/Forefield populations (which appears in all analyzed individuals from both populations). The Δ(K) parameter indicated two groups of samples: Warsaw/Station and Forefield. As indicated by Fu's Fs statistics and an analysis of mismatch distribution, the Forefield population underwent a bottleneck and/or founder effect. The Forefield population was likely introduced by secondary dispersal from the Station population.

Similar Items