Genetic structure and trait variation within a maple hybrid zone underscore North China as an overlooked diversity hotspot
Genetic structure of the parental populationBased on the lnPD and ΔK values obtained using STRUCTURE, we identified two genetic groups within the DHS Acer population (Supplementary Fig. S1). The q value from STRUCTURE analysis represents the proportion of ancestral origin28 (Fig. 2a). Among the 70 individual trees, 72.9% were assigned a q value smaller than 0.1 or larger than 0.9, thereby signifying a typical bimodal distribution (Fig. 2b). Individuals with q value greater than 0.9 and consistent genetic origin from the NEA region were defined as the NEA lineage (hereafter “NEA-DHS”), whereas those with values less than 0.1 and with consistent genetic origin from the SEA region were defined as the SEA lineage (hereafter “SEA-DHS”). Individuals with intermediate q value between 0.1 and 0.9 were defined as hybrid genetic types (hereafter “Hybrid-DHS”). Accordingly, we identified 27 SEA-DHS (38.6%), 24 NEA-DHS (34.3%), and 19 Hybrid-DHS (27.1%) (Fig. 2b).Figure 2Genetic structure of the parental and offspring population. (a) Bar plots illustrating the genetic composition of the adult (leaf) and offspring (fruit) populations in the Daheishan National Nature Reserve (DHS). Each individual is represented by a line partitioned into color segments corresponding to its ancestral proportion. Red color represents the ancestral proportion of Southern East Asia lineage. Green color represents the ancestral proportion of Northern East Asia lineage. Black lines in bar plots of leaf population separate individuals with ancestral proportion (q value) bigger than 0.9 or smaller than 0.1 from hybrids (0.1 0.5) produced by the SEA-DHS were obtained from a single tree, which was identified as SEA-DHS based on the DHS-only dataset, although it was indicated to be Hybrid-DHS based on the whole-range dataset. The Hybrid-DHS maternal trees produced 17.6% pure SEA-DHS seeds, 57.6% pure NEA-DHS seeds, and 24.7% hybrid seeds.Flowering phenologyThe sexual system of Acer has four phenotypes: duodichogamous, protogynous, protandrous, and male31. Hence, there are three functional sex types: (1) “Male I” flowers open earlier than “Female” flowers, with mature stamens, no style, and ovary; (2) “Female” flowers have mature pistils, short filaments, and indehiscence anthers; (3) “Male II” flowers open later than “Female” flowers, with mature stamens, ovaries, and separated stigmas. Duodichogamy is characterized by “Male I,” “Female,” and “Male II” types; protandry by “Male I” and “Female” types; and protogyny by “Female” and “Male II” types31.During the flowering season, we monitored a total of 10,074 flowers produced by 29 trees (Fig. 2d), among which one tree (SEA-DHS) was protandrous, four trees (three Hybrid-DHS and one NEA-DHS) were protogynous, and the remaining 24 trees were duodichogamous. We observed that the blooming phenology of SEA-DHS and NEA-DHS differed significantly to most assessed phenological indices, with a single exception being a marginally significant difference in the peak blooming time of Male I (Table 1). Compared with NEA-DHS, SEA-DHS were characterized by significantly later flowering phenology, with Male I commencement and cessation of blooming being on average two and three days later, respectively. Similarly, the commencement, peak, and cessation of Female occurred later by averages of 4, 4, and 5 days, respectively, whereas those of Male II occurred later by 5, 4, and 5 days, respectively. Furthermore, the duration of blooming was significantly longer in the SEA-DHS group than in the NEA-DHS group by three days. In the case of Hybrid-DHS, the values obtained for all assessed phenological indices were intermediate between those of the two parental types. Among these, the values of the six indices differed significantly from one or the other parental types, with the majority (5/6) differing from those of the SEA-DHS. Thus, phenologically, Hybrid-DHS appeared to be closer to NEA-DHS.Table 1 Flowering phenology of SEA-DHS, Hybrid-DHS, and NEA-DHS.Full size tableHowever, despite the differing phenology of the SEA-DHS and NEA-DHS, we observed instances of overlap in the blooming periods of male or female flowers in one genetic type with those of flowers of the opposite sex in another genetic type. For example, the peak of Female among NEA-DHS (11.67 ± 0.67) was found to coincide with the peak of Male I (11.44 ± 1.06; p = 0.879) in SEA-DHS. Similarly, Female blooming in the SEA-DHS peaked (16.11 ± 1.09) just 1 d after the peak of Male II (15.50 ± 0.43) in the NEA-DHS (p = 0.667), which at this time still retained an abundance of male flowers in bloom. In contrast, we detected no overlapping phenology with respect to the blooming of Male I of NEA-DHS or Male II of SEA-DHS with the Female in another genetic type.Morphological variation of leaves and fruitLeaves Among the eight leaf indices, all except InfectionRatio were significantly different between lineages. Generally, the leaves of NEA-DHS were found to have seven lobes, whereas those of SEA-DHS were typically five lobed (Lobes#), thereby contributing to significantly larger leaves in NEA-DHS than in SEA-DHS (TotalArea). Furthermore, NEA-DHS leaves had shorter and wider central lobes (CentralLength and CentralWidth), as well as an earlier and narrower inflection of the central lobes (InflectionLength and InflectionWidth), compared with those of SEA-DHS (Table 2). Six indices had correlation coefficients of less than 0.7, which were used for principal component analysis (PCA) analysis (Supplementary Table S2). The first two axes of the PCA were found to explain 63.7% of the variation in leaf morphology (Fig. 3a), with InflectionLength, CentralLength, and CentralRatio contributing the most to the first axis (38.2%), whereas TotalArea contributed the most to the second axis (25.5%) (Supplementary Table S3). The leaves of SEA-DHS and NEA-DHS plants were largely clustered in separate groups (Fig. 3a). However, all indices were continuous variables with large overlaps between the lineages (Table 2). For example, NEA-DHS had a significantly larger leaf area (21.06–88.70 cm2) than SEA-DHS (11.34–70.09 cm2). The shape of the central lobe is another major leaf trait that distinguishes between the two species. NEA-DHS had a shorter and wider central lobe (CentralRatio:0.67–2.49), while SEA-DHS had a longer and narrower central lobe (CentralRatio:0.9–3.46).Table 2 Morphological variation in the leaves and fruits of Acer trees in the Daheishan National Nature Reserve.Full size tableFigure 3Morphological variation in the leaves (a) and fruits (b) of southern and northern East Asia lineages of the Acer species complex in the Daheishan National Nature Reserve based on principal component analysis. SEA-DHS: Southern East Asia lineage of the Acer species complex in the DHS; NEA-DHS: Northern East Asia lineage of the Acer species complex in the DHS; Hybrid-DHS: hybrids between SEA-DHS and NEA-DHS lineages.Full size imageWith regard to Hybrid-DHS, the leaves were morphologically intermediate between those of the two parental types (Fig. 3a), as were the values of the assessed morphological trait indices (Table 2).Fruits 11 indices of fruits were significantly different between lineages. NEA-DHS tend to be characterized by smaller fruits (FruitLength and FruitWidth), seeds (SeedLength, SeedWidth and JunctionWidth), and fruit wings (WingLength and WingWidth). Moreover, the seed wings of NEA-DHS fruits are typically oriented at an obtuse angle, whereas those of SEA-DHS fruits tend to be aligned at a right angle (FruitAngle). The length ratio of the wing and seed (Wing:Seed) was larger in NEA-DHS than in SEA-DHS (1.24 vs 1.06, respectively, Table 2). Eight indices had correlation coefficients of less than 0.7, which were retained for PCA analysis (Supplementary Table S4). The first two axes of the PCA explained 58.4% of the variation in fruit morphology (Fig. 3b), with JunctionWidth and SeedLength contributing the most to the first axis (35.1%), whereas SeedRatio and WingRatio contributed the most to the second axis (23.3%) (Supplementary Table S3). The fruits of SEA-DHS and NEA-DHS plants were largely clustered in separate groups, with most fruits of SEA-DHS having negative values in Axis 1, while most fruits of NEA-DHS having positive values (Fig. 3b). Both JunctionWidth and SeedLength in Axis 1 reflect the size of the seed. NEA-DHS had smaller seed (SeedLength: 0.63–1.21 cm, SeedWidth:0.43–0.75 cm), while larger seed in SEA-DHS (SeedLength:0.79–1.49 cm, SeedWidth:0.49–0.93 cm). All indices were continuous variables with large overlaps between the lineages (Table 2).The morphology of Hybrid-DHS fruits was generally intermediate between that of the two parental types (Fig. 3b), as reflected in the values of the different morphological traits. The exceptions in this regard were FruitLength, WingLength, as well as two ratio indices (SeedRatio and WingRatio), with hybrid trees typically producing longer fruit with longer fruit wings (Table 2).Ecological niche divergence between NEA and SEAWe found a positive correlation between q value from Structure analysis and altitude (Pearson’s r = 0.83, p 670 m), whereas SEA-DHS was clustered at the foothill ( More