Tasmanian Plants

A rather recent trend in molecular science has been to use the technique to extort genes to reveal the history of how a plant has extended it’s geographical distribution throughout time.

I have written about how researcher James Worth used molecular techniques to pinpoint the locations (refugia) where Myrtle Beeches (Nothofagus cunninghamii) survived during the last glacial period. Just earlier this year, researchers Paul Nevill, Gerd Bossinger and Peter Ades published a paper in the Journal of Biogeography doing the same for the Mountain Ash (Eucalyptus regnans).

As in James Worth’s Myrtle Beech study, the researchers looked for variations at specific locations in the chloroplast DNA in Mountain Ash individuals distributed throughout the species natural geographical range. Different individuals may exhibit specific sequences which may differ from region to region and these are known as haplotypes.

A large amount of haplotypes found in a population an any given area would suggest that the area is a glacial refugium as we would expect a species to have persisted for longer periods of time in a refugium, thereby accumulating genetic changes. Conversely, places with low diversity of haplotypes could be construed to have been colonized after the glacial period ended, as there wouldn’t have been time enough for a high diversity of haplotypes to develop.

The results of the study showed that Mountain Ashes of the Northeast and Southeast of Tasmania has a high diversity of haplotypes, many of which were unique to the region. This suggests that the Northeast and Southeast of Tasmania harbored refugia that sheltered Mountain Ashes during the glacial period. By contrast, the central parts of Tasmania had a lower diversity of haplotypes. Another way of interpreting this was that there was fixing of haplotypes in that region, suggestive of a more recent colonization of the area following the end of the glacial period.

One consideration that remains to be addressed is the ease with which Eucalypts hybridize. E. regnans for example may hybridize with E. oliqua (Stringybark) and E. delegatensis (Gum-topped Stringybark). Hybridization may result in chloroplast sharing between species and a more comprehensive study will probably be needed to ensure that all these factors are taken into consideration.

For now it seems we are getting closer toward reading the the silent tale of survival that the ancestors of the Mountain Ashes in the Northeast and Southeast have etched in the genes of their descendants.

The Myrtle Beech (Nothofagus cunninghamii) is one of Tasmania’s icon trees, and is the dominant component of  Tasmania’s cool temperate rainforest. Where these dendrons attain their finest stature in some parts of Tasmania’s verdant Northwest and Northeast, they assemble grand cathedral or callidendrous (meaning ‘beautiful tree’) rainforests, which has for generations captured the imagination and awe of Tasmanians.

Back 18,000 years ago, when glaciations in Tasmania were at their maximum (called the Last Glacial Maximum and henceforth abbreviated LGM), practically the whole of the island would have been unsuitable for the development of cool temperate rainforest, except in pockets of areas in the west. Such areas where plants survived during glacial periods are called refugia.

In the present day, the Northeastern part of Tasmania has sizeable patches of Myrtle Beech rainforest. Yet, geomorphological and pollen-based data suggests that the entire Northeastern area was too arid during the LGM to support rainforest. The question thus arises whether Myrtle Beech trees had survived there in refugia during the LGM or whether they were dispersed from refugia from the west after the LGM?

The immediate problem with the latter suggestion is that Myrtle Beech seeds disperse poorly over long distances, making it unlikely for seed to cross over 150 km from western refugia.

Tackling this conundrum was the topic of Dr James Worth’s honours research and part of his doctorate studies. The efforts of James and his fellow investigators have culminated in a recent publication in the scientific journal New Phytologist.

From his extensive fieldwork, James collected Myrtle Beech leaves from over 340 trees across the distributional range of the species, which includes both Tasmania and Victoria. Using molecular techniques, James then extracted the chloroplast DNA from these individuals and compared their DNA sequences.

James discovered that a common signature in the DNA (a chloroplast DNA sequence that is called a haplotype) that exists for Myrtle Beech trees in Victoria and in numerous areas of Tasmania. The western part of Tasmania however, had an additional and significantly large suite of other endemic haplotypes, suggesting a complex evolutionary history of Myrtle Beeches in that area, and perhaps survival in numerous refugia, which is within expectations.

Myrtle Beech haplotype distribution. White circles and black circles represent the widespread and endemic western haplotypes in the left and right map respectively. Red circles represent the unique Northeastern haplotypes. MA = Mt Arthur; MB = Mt Barrow; BL = Ben Lomond; MM = Mt Maurice; MV = Mt Victoria; BT = Blue Tiers

In the Northeast, trees from two regions bore the common haplotypes, some in the western extreme (Mt Barrow), and some in the eastern extreme (Blue Tiers). In between was a central region (areas in the vicinity of Mt Victoria, Mt Arthur and Mt Maurice) in which a unique haplotype was discovered.

At least for this central region, the presence of the unique haplotype is strong evidence that there must have been refugia for the Myrtle Beech in that area.

James concluded that the Myrtle Beech withstood the aridity of the last glacial period within multiple regions in apparently inhospitable climates.

Whether cathedral rainforest actually existed in refugia in the Northeast during those times is questionable but if the conditions then were simply untenable for rainforest, Myrtle Beech trees could still have survived, being, as we are currently able to observe, able to occur as a compact shrub in harsh highland environments.

This is where the true virtues of the Myrtle Beech comes to light. If Myrtle Beech did not survive through the last glacial, there would be no rainforest to speak of. Yet, Myrtle Beech did more than just survive through the LGM. Fossils suggests that it has been around for at least 780000 years. Myrtle Beeches have therefore survived through numerous cycles of glaciation.

The resilience of this iconic temperate tree throughout the ages has unquestionably shaped Tasmania’s modern biota.

An unassuming daisy, the Yam Daisy (Microseris lanceolata) or ‘Murnong’  as it is known by tuber hunting aborigines on the mainland, has a convoluted history. This makes it a subject of ecological and evolutionary interest to biologists.

It’s closest relatives are found in western North America. Based on morphological and chromosome studies, the Yam Daisy probably came about by the hybridization of two American species followed by long distance dispersal – quite a distance I might add. So it goes that aborigines were eating foods of American origin way back.

This marvelous feat of intercontinental dispersal has been confirmed more recently by studies using DNA extracted from the chloroplasts (cpDNA) of American and the Australian/New Zealand species of Microseris (Vijverberg et al. 1999).

Since establishing in New Zealand or Australia, the Yam Daisy has diversified morphologically into 4 ecological types (ecotypes) – a coastal and fine pappus form in New Zealand and Tasmania, a lowland tuberous form on the mainland and south Australia, and an alpine form in southeast Australia.

One would expect there to be great genetic differences between these morphologically distinct ecotypes. However, another study (Vijverberg et al. 2000) using a sophisticated molecular technique called Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphisms (AFLP) shows that on a molecular level, these four ecotypes of the Yam daisy show surprisingly little differentiation.

Simply put, the lesson that the Yam Daisy imparts is that looking different on the outside (morphological variation) as a result of environmental molding may have little to do what goes on inside (genetic differentiation). Could this be a metaphor for the human race as well?