Rapid evolution aids spread of exotic plant species

May 23, 2014
The Pyrenean rocket (pictured) is a harmless plant, but some exotics can become a real plague even after a period of unproblematic presence in a non-native environment. Credit: Katrien Vandepitte

A team of Belgian biologists led by researchers at KU Leuven has provided the first genetic evidence that rapid evolution can help non-native plant species spread in new environments. Using samples of centuries-old herbaria and DNA analysis, the researchers reconstructed the genetic adaptations undergone by the Pyrenean rocket prior to its rapid spread in Belgium.

The Pyrenean rocket (Sisymbrium austriacum subsp. chrysanthum) is a plant that grows in the mountains of southern Europe and is particularly prevalent in the Pyrenees. The species was first reported in Belgium – 1,200 kilometres north of its native range – in the first half of the 19th century. Seeds from the plant were most likely introduced alongside the wool industry in and around Verviers. The Pyrenean rocket took root on the banks of the River Vesdre in Verviers and later spread across the Meuse basin towards the Netherlands.

The colonization history of the Pyrenean rocket is well documented, explains postdoctoral researcher and corresponding author Katrien Vandepitte (Plant Conservation and Population Biology Research Group): "We found dried specimens of the Pyrenean rocket in herbaria from the 19th and 20th centuries and were able to isolate DNA from these samples. We then compared this DNA with the genetic profile of contemporary samples from Belgium and the Pyrenees. This gave us a unique opportunity to reconstruct when and how an exotic genetically adapted to a new environment."

20 generations

"When we looked at the genetic evolution of the Pyrenean rocket, we found the greatest divergences in a set of genes that regulate flowering time, an important plant fitness trait. When we compared current individuals taken from our region and the Pyrenees, both grown under Belgian conditions, the Belgian variant bloomed later."

"Our DNA analysis shows that the Belgian variant genetically adapted quite rapidly – in about 20 generations. This very likely helped the plant to survive and spread here."

"Our findings are important because until now evidence supporting the hypothesis that exotic can spread after a period of rapid genetic adaptation has been very scant," says Dr. Vandepitte.

The results also suggest that we should be wary of 'latent' non-native plant species. "These plants can be present in small numbers for years before spreading as a result of genetic adaptation. The Pyrenean rocket is a harmless plant, but some exotics can become a real plague. And this can occur even after a period of unproblematic presence in a non-native environment."

Explore further: Plant biodiversity under threat from general viruses

More information: The researchers' findings were published as the cover story in the May issue of the journal Molecular Ecology. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10… 1/mec.12683/abstract

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Plant biodiversity under threat from general viruses

May 12, 2014

(Phys.org) —Introduced generalist plant viruses from other hosts that encounter native plant species for the first time pose a greater threat to plant biodiversity in south-west Australia than introduced ...

Natural reforestation in southern Pyrenees favors orchid

Dec 01, 2010

A 13-year study has been key to understanding how and why an orchid species (Cypripedium calceolus), which is endangered in some countries in Europe, is surviving and recovering in the Pyrenees. The result ...

Marriage of convenience with a fungus

May 22, 2014

Thanks to a fungus, the medicinal plant ribwort plantain gains a higher concentration of the defensive compound catalpol. Biologists at Bielefeld University report this discovery in a study to be published ...

'Whodunnit' of Irish potato famine solved

May 21, 2013

An international team of scientists reveals that a unique strain of potato blight they call HERB-1 triggered the Irish potato famine of the mid-19th century.

Recommended for you

Contrasting views of kin selection assessed

Dec 17, 2014

In an article to be published in the January issue of BioScience, two philosophers tackle one of the most divisive arguments in modern biology: the value of the theory of "kin selection."

Microbiome may have shaped early human populations

Dec 16, 2014

We humans have an exceptional age structure compared to other animals: Our children remain dependent on their parents for an unusually long period and our elderly live an extremely long time after they have ...

DNA sheds light on why largest lemurs disappeared

Dec 16, 2014

Ancient DNA extracted from the bones and teeth of giant lemurs that lived thousands of years ago in Madagascar may help explain why the giant lemurs went extinct. It also explains what factors make some surviving ...

User comments : 14

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

JVK
1 / 5 (3) May 23, 2014
"... the Belgian variant genetically adapted quite rapidly – in about 20 generations."

That is not an example of rapid evolution. It is an example of how nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions enable genomic stability required in the context of ecological adaptations (in species from microbes to man).

If it was an example of evolution, it would include information about how mutations and natural selection enabled changes that occurred in 20 generations, which is not enough time for any accumulation of mutations to result in the diversity attributed to the relatively short time frame.
anonymous_9001
4.2 / 5 (5) May 23, 2014
That is not an example of rapid evolution. It is an example of how nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions enable genomic stability required in the context of ecological adaptations (in species from microbes to man).


1. What nutrient was the ancestor plant exposed to that cause the new variant?
2. Would the wild type acquire the same SNP if you exposed it to said nutrient?
3. What does an altered flowering time have to do with genomic stability?

20 generations, which is not enough time for any accumulation of mutations to result in the diversity attributed to the relatively short time frame.


SNPs can occur in one generation. You're making an issue here where there is none.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) May 24, 2014
Abstract excerpt: "...rapid genetic adaptation preceded the spread of this species and possibly assisted in overcoming environmental constraints."

1. What MUTATION caused the new variant?
2. Would the wild type acquire the same SNP if it MUTATED in the same way?
3. What does a MUTATED flowering time have to do with genomic stability? [mutations perturb protein folding and contribute to genomic instability]

You're making an issue here where there is none.


You're an anonymous fool who cannot comprehend the issue of biophysical constraints on ecological adaptations and can only think in terms of what MUTATIONS might do -- if they contributed to adaptive evolution, which they do not do. Biophysical constraints on protein folding prevent perturbations from causing evolution. Ecological variation acts via the epigenetic effects of sensory input, which cause ecological adaptations.

anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (3) May 24, 2014
1. What MUTATION caused the new variant?


Either through a missense mutation at that codon (well characterized, do your research) or through one of Shapiro's genetic engineering mechanisms (which are still mutations). The only ones he described that could make single base alterations were the mutagenic polymerases. A mutation made through the SOS response is still a mutation. It doesn't change the nomenclature.

2. Would the wild type acquire the same SNP if it MUTATED in the same way?
3. What does a MUTATED flowering time have to do with genomic stability? [mutations perturb protein folding and contribute to genomic instability]


They identified the SNP responsible for the altered flowering time. Mutations can cause SNPs.

Biophysical constraints on protein folding prevent perturbations from causing evolution.


This is not supported by anything. You cannot and have not backed this up. I would appreciate it if you answered my questions in a civil manner
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (2) May 24, 2014
As for #2, it makes no difference to the organism if its ATG (for example) codon changed to TTG through a missense mutation or through whatever mechanism you're proposing (methylation and spontaneous deamination? I'm still not sure how you think they occur). The end result on the DNA sequence is the same and it would have the same effect on the resulting protein.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) May 24, 2014
in terms of what MUTATIONS might do--if they contributed to adaptive evolution, which they do not do
@jk
unfortunately for YOU, per your own words, this means that YOUR OWN MODEL does NOT contribute to adaptive evolution, as YOUR OWN MODEL causes mutations. this is YOU speaking here... not "my interpretation" of you speaking
ME
DOES your model make any changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element?
This is a yes or no answer
to which YOU answered
YES!
--Thanks for asking
so per YOUR OWN WORDS:
YOUR MODEL causes MUTATIONS
you need to get it straight. You call educated people "fools", "idiot minions" and complain that we cannot comprehend, and yet you cannot even keep your own model straight in your head, while continually LYING about reality, as your model CAUSES mutations and is part of evolution. http://phys.org/n...lts.html
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet May 24, 2014
That is not an example of rapid evolution
@jvk
well, this IS an example of evolution to which YOU could not fathom it's results.
http://phys.org/n...lts.html

and you STILL cannot comprehend that your own model CAUSES mutations, which means it is included in evolution theory, meaning that any and all of your arguments AGAINST mutation are also against your own model, which also means that the ONLY idiot minion, fool, or person here "who cannot comprehend the issue" is YOU jvk the jk!

Sorry for interrupting anonymous_9001. Your argument is cogent and well thought out, but it is tiring constantly arguing (and seeing) the same points over and over with small minded idiots like jk here... he is so faithful to his delusion that he cannot see the reality of the world around him.

KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK anonymous_9001!
JVK
1 / 5 (1) May 24, 2014
Fool:
Mutations can cause SNPs.


JVK:
Biophysical constraints on protein folding prevent perturbations from causing evolution.


Fool:
This is not supported by anything. You cannot and have not backed this up.


JVK: I'm sure I mentioned this discussion before:
http://blogs.plos...aterial/
One sentence from the news release grabbed me: "The result is evolution from simpler to more complex and diverse organisms in both form and function, without the need to invoke genes." Instead, Drs. Annila and Baverstock invoke thermodynamics.

I'm equally sure that you do not understand anything about physics, chemistry, or conserved molecular mechanisms, since you have not addressed any aspect of what I included in a 5.5 minute video about Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled thermodynamics and thermoregulation http://youtu.be/DbH_Rj9U524
JVK
1 / 5 (1) May 24, 2014
"But what we saw in the study was that in certain organisms, the stop sign was not interpreted as stop, rather it signaled to continue adding amino acids and expand the protein." http://www.scienc...1422.htm

In my model, nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions differentiate all the cell types of all individuals in all species. Ecological variation in nutrient availability leads from nutrient uptake to nutrient metabolism and the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction via conserved molecular mechanisms in species from microbes to man.

What anonymous fools and idiot minions of biology teachers who teach their beliefs in pseudoscientific nonsense want others to believe is that mutations somehow result in natural selection that somehow results in biodiversity.

If you believe that, you'll probably believe in anything you were taught to believe in. If you question your beliefs, you may learn how foolish your beliefs are.
JVK
1 / 5 (1) May 24, 2014
well, this IS an example of evolution to which YOU could not fathom it's results.
http://phys.org/n...lts.html

"Such an outcome would involve passive evolution toward a niche with high resource requirements, but with the advantage of high "job security" for the helper owing to the dependence of the community on its continued well-being." (co-author Lenski).
http://mbio.asm.o...abstract

Nutrients are the the most important of the resource requirements. Passive evolution requires nothing more than nutrient-dependent ecological niche construction that is controlled by the physiology of reproduction in all species. The metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones controls reproduction in all species, which means that mutations do not contribute to biodiversity or control it.

Biodiversity arises due to ecological adaptations; species do not somehow evolve via mutations and natural selection.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet May 24, 2014
pseudoscientific nonsense want others to believe is that mutations somehow result in natural selection that somehow results in biodiversity
@jk
make up your mind!!
per the comment above, this means that YOUR OWN MODEL is nothing but
pseudoscientific nonsense
because mutations, per YOUR WORDS
mutations do not contribute to biodiversity or control it
so mutations cannot result in natural selection, and since YOUR OWN MODEL creates mutations, then PER YOUR OWN WORDS -
YOUR MODEL CANNOT RESULT IN NATURAL SELECTION

(your links don't work above... )

this is why most people with ANY common sense and with education think you are a pseudoscience hack, as well as an
idiot minion
&
Fool
&
blatantly stupid narcissist with a failed intellect and deficient in the requirements needed to comprehend the necessary basic tools for this field

JVK
1 / 5 (1) May 24, 2014
I think SSgt Stumpy is confused about who thinks who is a pseudoscientific hack.

In the comments section of the article linked here:
http://journal.fr...127/full

George F R Ellis This is absolutely correct and forms part of the larger concept that top-down causation is a key factor not just in the way the brain works but in broader contexts in biology and even physics. This is explored here: http://rsfs.royal.../2/1.toc

George F R Ellis Great links, thanks. I'm intrigued by your work on pheromones. It is just possible it might relate to the issue of primordial emotional systems, see http://www.ncbi.n...3540967/

SSgt Stumpy and others are welcome to comment on the concepts I detailed in my published works, but instead they denigrate them. Lenski touts both Red Queen and Black Queen hypotheses. It's time to discuss what is biologically plausible.

http://www.ncbi.n...24693353
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet May 24, 2014
but instead they denigrate them
@jk
no. we point out that:
1- your model creates mutations
2- you are arguing against your own model
3- you dont comprehend the lexicon of your own chosen field
4- your model is NOT the only answer, it is AN answer, but not THE answer
5- your model is ALSO a part of evolution
also... anything that you post against evolution and mutations also undermines your own model, clueless!
I think SSgt Stumpy is confused about who thinks who is a pseudoscientific hack
nope. Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status
IF YOU CLAIM that mutation cannot happen
then give scientific evidence that you CLAIM supports your philosophy
while your OWN MODEL creates mutations
then YOU PROMOTE PSEUDOSCIENCE

and it also proves you cannot comprehend science too!
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet May 24, 2014
I think SSgt Stumpy is confused about who thinks who is a pseudoscientific hack.
@jk
IF Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status
AND you make claims that are refuted in science with empirical data (ex. http://phys.org/n...lts.html )
AND you argue against mutations even though your model creates them
AND you systematically DENY all evidence proving you wrong (see arguments against RealScience, Anon and others)
AND ignore/confuse/misinterpret/misrepresent results
THEN it is blatantly obvious that you:
1-DONT know what you are talking about
2-PROMOTE PSEUDOSCIENCE
3-LIE
4-undermine REAL science
5-are trolling/spamming and unreliable
6-are stupid (not ignorant)
7- cant focus
AKA: A PSEUDOSCIENCE HACK

logic + evidence = checkmate

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.