Population structure and evolutionary dynamics of wild--weedy--domesticated complexes of common bean in a Mesoamerican region.
Genetic compatibility between wild and domesticated populations leads to wild-weedy-domesticated hybrid complexes in sites with sympatric distribution by introgression of genes from wild populations to domesticated ones or vice versa. Weedy populations are defined here as wild populations growing in crop fields that were not planted by farmers. Because they may be the result of this introgression, they usually show morphological traits reminiscent of one or the other parent, such as larger seeds than the wild parent or seed color or color patterns similar to those observed in wild beans. These hybrid complexes constitute a valuable source of genes to the farmer or to the plant breeder (Debouck and Smartt, 1995; Beebe et el., 1997); however, at the same time they also represent a risk for the massive introduction of genes from the domesticated to wild populations (Gepts et el., 1999; Papa and Gepts, 2003).
Comparisons of wild and domesticated populations in their whole area of distribution indicate two main gene pools in which domestication took place (Becerra-Velasquez and Gepts, 1994; Debouck and Smartt, 1995; Gepts and Debouck, 1991; Koenig and Gepts, 1989; Tohme et el., 1996). One center of domestication is located in Mesoamerica and the other in the Andes. Studies on gene dynamics of wild--weedy--domesticated complexes within the Mesoamerican area of domestication are important, since four of the five domesticated species and 45 of the 50 species of the genus Phaseolus grow in this area, and their natural reproductive relationships are mostly unknown at present. Genetic bridges may exist between these species, as in the case reported by Escalante et al. (1994) regarding gene flow between wild populations of P. vulgaris and P. coccineus L.
Recent studies on wild populations of Mesoamerica, in areas where traditional agriculture continues, indicate that opportunities for wild--domesticated hybridization are common in spite of a predominantly autogamous reproductive system. They suggest that gene flow is asymmetric, at least three times greater from the domesticated to the wild, compared with the opposite direction (Papa and Gepts, 2003; Payro de la Cruz et al., 2005). Thus, a displacement of genetic diversity in wild populations because of gene flow from the domesticated populations can take place (Papa and Gepts, 2003). Farmers in traditional farming systems can have an influence on the magnitude and characteristics of gene flow by distancing the crop from the wild populations and by the management of diversity in domesticated landraces (Payro de la Cruz et al., 2005).
There is evidence that the domestication of P. vulgaris in Mesoamerica originated in the central western sector of Mexico, where the modern states of Jalisco, Michoacan, and Guanajuato meet (Gepts and Debouck, 1991). Primitive cultivars could have spread from this area to other regions where they crossed with local wild populations, giving rise to present day landraces (Gentry, 1969; Beebe et al., 2000). This area of possible domestication of common bean corresponds to the early frontier of Mesoamerica with Aridoamerica, in the southern portion of an old lakes system formed by the river Lerma. Some of the lakes were drained by the Europeans during the first hydraulic works of drainage and irrigation performed in the Americas around 1548, allowing the establishment of one of the most important regions of intensive agriculture in Mexico, known as El Bajio. Alongside this intensive agricultural area, on the slopes of the surrounding mountains, traditional agricultural systems are still practiced today in extremely stony soils of volcanic origin, without the possibility of irrigation or mechanization.
In this area, we find a climatic transition from sub-humid to semiarid and vegetation varying from tropical deciduous forest to a forest of mesquite, Prosopis laevigata (Humb. et Bonpl.) Johnst. The average annual rainfall is around 700 mm, with a high coefficient of variation between years, close to 25%, with a high variation in the initiation and establishment of the rainy season, and with an intraseasonal dry period that is variable in intensity, amplitude, and date of appearance. Traditional agriculture, therefore, is performed with a high risk factor. As a consequence, the production rationale of the farmer focuses on securing the harvest using plant genetic resources with a high diversity of response (Zizumbo-Villarreal et al., 1988). Within this area, evidence has been found of agricultural villages dating back to the Preclassic period (800-100 BCE) (Branniff, 1975; Oliveros, 1975). At present in this area, there is a high incidence of seasonal migration of farmers to the USA, where some of them work in the cultivation of bean. Occasionally, these farmers incorporate varieties from the USA in their crops (Zizumbo-Villarreal, 1985).
According to Zizumbo-Villarreal (1985), three main types of agriculture are practiced in this area, each one in a different agro-ecological condition.
1. Mechanized and irrigated intensive farming, performed in flat terrains with few stones in the soil. Beans are sown in monocropping in which genetically improved commercial varieties have been introduced and tested by INIFAP and private breeding companies.
2. Dry land farming with animal traction, performed on stony ridges. Local landraces of bean are cultivated in association with maize and squash. In some cases, weedy populations of bean grow on this land.
3. Dry land farming with human energy, performed in extremely stony terrain. Local landraces of beans are also cultivated, associated with maize and squash. Weedy populations of bean generally also grow on this land. Adjacent to the dry land farming areas, wild populations are found in sites with disturbed natural vegetation and high light incidence, close to seasonal streams in small ravines with extremely rocky soil, on bushes and trees of the mesquite forest and tropical deciduous forest. It is common to find goats grazing in these areas, subjecting the wild bean populations to constant pressure from these animals.
The aims of this work were (i) to analyze the morphological variation, diversity, structure, genetic flow and evolutionary relationships within and among three wild--weedy--domesticated complexes of P. vulgaris growing under traditional agricultural systems in the El Bajio region, Mexico, in addition to one wild population isolated from crops in the same region; (ii) to compare their levels of diversity with the diversity of a local commercial variety and a breeding line, both cultivated with modern technology; and (iii) to analyze the role played by farmers in the present evolutionary dynamics through selection and agronomic management.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Selection of Sites and Complexes and Seed Collection
Sites studied were a subset of those included in a previous study (Payro de la Cruz et al., 2005) with regard to the spatial distribution of genetic diversity in wild populations of P. vulgaris in the old Mesoamerican frontier in the states of Michoac fin and Guanajuato in the southern part of El Bajio region (Fig. 1, Table 1). Three wild-weedy--domesticated complexes were selected, each one growing on the slopes of the mountains of a different valley, under traditional dry land farming with human energy conditions. Field plots were managed by farmers over 60 yr old with long agricultural experience. We collected seeds from an average of 29 plants from each population with the participation of the farmers. Care was taken to sample the whole area occupied by populations and to collect samples from plants that were more or less equidistant. Domesticated populations were constituted by those plants recognized as planted and cultivated by them in their crop fields, weedy populations by those plants growing in the crop field but out of the furrows, in an irregular pattern because they were not planted by the farmers, and wild populations by those plants growing outside the crop fields. Wild populations were growing in abrupt and rocky areas. The populations growing closest to the field crops were chosen. One wild population that was growing in a different valley and was isolated from the crops was also included in the study. Furthermore, a local variety named Flor de Junio and a variety released by the governmental breeding institution INIFAP (Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales Agricolas y Pecuarias) named Anita were added as well. These two varieties are cultivated in the same region but under modern agricultural management, in plots located in valleys with irrigation. Their seeds were bought in the local market for the analyses. The study was performed during the summer-autumn agricultural cycle of 1998.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Morphological Variation in Seed
Seed mass (expressed in grams per 100 seeds) was used as an indicator of morphological variation because of the marked difference in this character between wild and domesticated beans. Seed mass has a high heritability (Motto et al., 1978), four QTLs explain 57% of its variation between wild and domesticated beans (Koinange et al., 1996), and it is also easy to measure in the field and the laboratory. In each wild population, an average of 29 plants were evaluated; in the weedy and domesticated populations, an average of 16 and 28, respectively, were evaluated. The mean value (M) and the coefficients of variation (CV) per population were estimated by the Statistical Analysis System software release 6.03 (SAS 1992). The same software was used to performed a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a Bonferroni means separation test for multiple comparisons, to estimate the differences in seed mass among wild, weedy, and domesticated populations across the three complexes and the isolated wild population.
Diversity, Genetic Structure, Gene Flow, and Evolutive Relationships
Diversity and genetic structure were evaluated by polymorphism for ISSR markers, which is a dominant molecular marker. An average of 20 individuals was used per population, chosen at random among the individuals that were evaluated morphologically. Domesticated individuals were analyzed without identification of the landrace to which they belonged. The genomic DNA was obtained from young leaves by the CTAB method (Gonzalez et al., 2005) and three ISSR primers [[(GACA).sup.3] RG, [(GACAC).sup.2], and [(GA).sup.8] RG] were used that had been reported to be highly polymorphic (Gonzalez et al., 1988). Each 20-[micro]L amplification reaction consisted of 10 mM Tris-HC1 (pH 9.0), 50 mM KCI, 0.1% (v/v) Triton X-100, 2 mM Mg[Cl.sub.2], 200 [micro]M each dNTPs, 1 [micro]M of primer, 1 unit of Taq polymerase (Promega, Madison, WI) and 50 ng of template DNA. Amplification was performed in a GeneAmp PCR System 9700 (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) following the conditions established by Gonzalez et al. (2005). The fragments of DNA generated were separated by electrophoresis (Hoefer SQ3 sequencer, Amersham Pharmacia Biotech, San Francisco, CA) in 320- x 380- x 0.4-mm gels containing 5% (w/v) of nondenaturing 29:1 acrylamide-bisacrylamide (Gonzalez et al., 2005). Visualization of the fragments was performed by means of silver nitrate staining with the modifications reported by Bassam et al. (1991) and Creste et al. (2001).
Data were scored as presence and absence of bands and analyzed as diploid data for dominant markers by standard POPGENE 1.31 (Yeh et al., 1999) procedures for summary multilocus genetic statistics: percentage polymorphic loci (%) in the populations within complexes, in the populations of the same type across the complexes, and in the whole sample, Nei's (1973) genetic diversity (h) and Shannon's information index (I) (Lewontin, 1972) for populations within complexes, genetic structure for populations within complexes and for populations of the same type across complexes [total diversity (Ht), intrapopulation diversity (Hs), population differentiation (Gst) (Nei, 1987)], and homogeneity tests of gene frequencies across populations within each complex (Sokal and Rohlf, 1995). Since some studies have demonstrated high levels of autogamy in the common bean and others have demonstrated allogamy when pollinators are abundant (Brunner and Beaver, 1989; Triana et al., 1993; Ibarra-Perez et al., 1997), the statistics just mentioned were calculated twice: assuming Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (H-W) (Fis = 0) and assuming autogamy (Fis = 0.95) to decide which assumption should be made under our study conditions. As most estimators were different under both assumptions, the values presented here were those obtained under the assumption of autogamy (H-W disequilibrium). Gene flow (Nm) was estimated indirectly by calculating the number of migrants from Gst (McDermott and McDonald, 1993), since this estimator considers the combined effects of flow of genes (by means of pollen or seeds) and its selection in a large number of populations over a wide temporal scale (Slaktin and Barton, 1989). It was estimated among populations within each complex and among populations of the same type from different complexes, considering that even though complexes were in different valleys, seed movement by humans may have occurred. Results were the same when analyzed as haploid data, assuming total autogamy, as Papa and Gepts (2003) assumed in a study of this same species.
A dendrogram based on Nei's genetic distance (1972) using UPGMA (Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Means). Swofford and Olsen (1990) was computed by the TFPGA program (Tools for Population Genetic Analyses; Miller, 1997) using the bootstrapping option for 1000 permutations (Felsestein, 1985), which reports the proportion of permuted data sets that result in the formation of the node seen in the original data set.
Selection and Traditional Management of the Wild--Weedy--Domesticated Complexes
On the basis of a previous study of the traditional agricultural systems in the area (Zizumbo-Villarreal, 1985) and on the participatory observations performed throughout the study year, we were able to describe the richness of local domesticated landraces, their agricultural management, harvesting methods, and the criteria for selection and consumption of seeds by farmers and their families. The three farmers studied, Pedro Melo (Yuriria, Guanajuato), Nicolas Rico (Jeruco, Michoacan), and Ignacio Fernandez (Tupataro, Michoacan), were capable of distinguishing the weedy plants during hand weeding. They protected these plants, rather than eliminating them. As all three of them had consumed their seeds in the past and because of their sweet taste in the immature stage, they decided it was convenient to tolerate these populations, arguing that they are more resistant than the domesticated populations to droughts, excessively wet periods, and the attack of fungi. These were qualities, which, in the case of adverse conditions, would allow them to harvest these populations, whereas the domesticated ones might succumb. Two of the producers decided to harvest and consume them at a later date. Harvesting was performed before the harvesting of domesticated beans and maize (Zea mays L.), before natural pod dehiscence. The harvest is not particularly exhaustive; therefore, some weedy plants escape and are able to produce seed and disperse naturally. The fresh pods were taken to barns and placed in a corner; care was taken not to mix them with the domesticated beans (Fig. 2a). When the pods were dry, they opened naturally and the farmers then selected the seeds for consumption on the basis of their color. Light colors (such as white and cream) were favored, while the dark or black seeds were eliminated (Fig. 2b). Black seeds, both in weedy and domesticated populations, are selected against because they are considered of bad quality, in contrast with the more lightly colored seeds.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
The three farmers cultivated simultaneously several local landraces in their plots planting their seeds in mixture. Farmer Pedro Melo planted eight landraces (Apetito, Cacahuate, Cafe, Canelo, Flor de Mayo, Higuerillo, Morado, and Vaca). Farmer Ignacio Fernandez planted eleven (Apetito, Bayo, Cacahuate, Canelo, Flor de Mayo, Guindo, Higuerillo, Morado, Ojo de Cabra, Palacio, and Vaca), whereas farmer Nicolas Rico only five (Cacahuate, Flor de Mayo, Higuerillo, Morado, and Vaca). The pods were harvested when they were almost dry and were transported to the barns to complete the drying. Cultivated plants pods were kept separate from the weedy ones that had been harvested previously to avoid mixing. When the cultivated seeds were extracted from the pods, they were stored in sacks with all the landraces mixed together. When the seeds were required for subsistence or sale in the local market, they were then selected and separated according to landrace because seed mixtures are penalized in the local market. For local commercialization, the selection was very strict, especially in the case of the Cacahuate and Morado landraces, which are the most preferred and reach a higher commercial value. The farmers' wives also separate the seeds because they prefer to eat first the landraces, such as Apetito, Cacahuate, Flor de Mayo, Higuerillo, and Morado, which cook more quickly and homogenously and have good flavor in their opinion.
In years when the production of domesticated populations is low, the seeds from weedy plants are harvested and consumed, which was the case in the year this study was performed. The farmers' wives mentioned that weedy seeds cook very slowly and heterogeneously; however, they are appreciated because they help to complement the food requirements for the family. The wives also mentioned that the consumption of these seeds is considered socially demeaning. The farmers store part of the harvest for planting the following year. The infected or damaged seeds are eliminated before planting, and the landraces mixed together are once again cultivated.
Morphological Variation of the Seed
Significant differences were found in seed mass among wild bean populations (6 g/100 seeds), weedy bean populations (20 g/100 seeds), and domesticated bean populations (39 g/100 seeds) (Table 2). Similar results were presented by Delgado-Salinas et al. (1988) and Tohme et al. (1996).
Diversity, Genetic Structure, Gene Flow, and Evolutive Relationships
For the genetic analysis, we studied 37 bands (putative loci), obtained with three ISSR primers, seven with primer [(GACA).sub.3] RG, 21 with primer [(GACAC).sub.2], and nine with primer [(GA).sub.8] RG (Fig. 3, Table 3). The frequency of polymorphic loci ranged from 35 to 84% among the populations within each complex (Table 4) and was 87, 84, and 95% in the wild, weedy, and domesticated populations across the complexes, respectively (Table 5). Over the three complexes and the wild isolated population, the total polymorphism was 100%.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
The values of total genetic diversity within the wild, weedy and domesticated populations across the complexes were very similar (0.24, 0.22, and 0.26, respectively) (Table 5). However, within the complexes, the wild population showed, in general, lower values than the domesticated population of its complex (Table 4). This is in agreement with the high geographic differentiation (Gst = 0.4) among wild populations across complexes and the low geographic differentiation among cultivated populations across complexes (Gst = 0.26) (Table 5). Within the J6ruco complex, all three populations showed similar values of diversity (Table 4).
The homogeneity test indicated a high percentage of alleles with different frequencies among the populations of each complex (P < 0.05): Tupataro 62%, Yuriria 57%, and Jeruco 54%, which suggests high autogamy in these populations. The values of Hs and Ht were positive and different from zero within the complexes, also indicating effects of autogamy (Table 6). These results are reflected in the high values obtained for the average genetic structure of the three complexes (Gst = 0.31), for which the Tupataro and Jeruco complexes showed the greatest genetic structure (Table 6). Thus, between 26 and 34% of the diversity observed is explained by the genetic differences among the populations within each complex.
Gene flow among wild and weedy populations from different complexes was low (Nm = 0.77 and 0.79, respectively), whereas among the domesticated populations it was higher than one (Nm = 1.4; Table 5). Among the populations within each complex, gene flow was close to one in all cases (Table 6), which may be sufficient to counteract the effects of genetic drift and autogamy under natural conditions (Hedrick, 2000).
UPGMA analysis indicated a small genetic distance between the weedy and domesticated populations from each complex, grouping them together with a support between 0.73 and 0.99 for 1000 permutations (Fig. 4). Wild populations of Tupfitaro and Yuriria grouped together with the wild population of San Agustfn, which was isolated from bean crops, with a support of 0.54, whereas the wild population from the Jeruco complex, the one closest to the crop field, clustered with the domesticated and weedy population from the complex, although with a weak support of 0.32 (Fig. 4).
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
Comparison of Genetic Diversity of Local Landraces, a Local Commercial Variety, and a Breeding Line
In the local variety Flor de Junio, sold in the market of Yuriria, low genetic diversity (h = 0.06, I = 0.10) was found. The breeding line Anita, cultivated in monoculture, showed an even lower diversity (h = 0.03, I = 0.07), in comparison with that found in the domesticated populations of the three complexes (h = 0.13, I = 0.19 to h = 0.26, I = 0.40) (Table 4).
Diversity, Structure, Gene Flow, and Evolutive Relationships
Results from this work indicate that in the area studied, under present day traditional agricultural practices, the diversity of the domesticated populations within the complexes is the same as or higher than that of the wild populations of the same complex; thus, no reduction in the genetic diversity of the domesticated pool is observed in relation to the wild gene pool of the same complex. This result suggests that the farmers, by interchanging seeds among complexes and by cultivating a large number of local landraces in the same plot, can maintain a high diversity and increase it through spontaneous crossing among landraces.
Diversity of domesticated populations within the complexes is positively related to the number of landraces in the mixture sown. Zizumbo-Villarreal (1985), in a study of the traditional agriculture in one of the locations included in the present study (Yuriria), found that this number is the result of a balance struck by the farmer between his need to confront the variability and adversity of the agroecological conditions under which he cultivates and his need to obtain cash through the sale of bean seeds in the local markets. Planting a high number of landraces with different ecological requirements permits him to have some harvest regardless of the annual growing conditions. At the same time, he needs to reduce this number and plant only those landraces that fetch high market prices. This is what we found in the three locations studied: Tupataro (farmer Ignacio Fernandez with 11 landraces) is the town with less dependence on the markets and Jeruco (farmer Nicolas Rico with 5 landraces) with the greatest.
Although the presence of Cacahuate landraces, which may be of Andean origin, could inflate the genetic diversity of domesticated types, this is unlikely to have a major effect since Cacahuate was but one of several components grown by the three farmers: Melo: 1/8; Fernandez (1/11); and Rico (1/5). Furthermore, one of the goals of this research was to investigate the possible role of farmers in the maintenance of genetic diversity, regardless of the evolutionary origin of the landraces, which is actually unknown to the farmers.
The lower geographic differentiation among the domesticated populations across the complexes (Gst = 0.26) compared with the value for the wild ones (Gst = 0.40), and the higher value of gene flow among domesticated populations across the complexes (Nm = 1.4) compared with the value for the wild populations (Nm = 0.77) support our hypothesis that landraces are actively exchanged by farmers. Papa and Gepts (2003) also observed lower levels of spatial autocorrelation in domesticated populations compared to wild populations in Mexico, consistent with a lower level of geographic differentiation in the former compared with the latter. Furthermore, by protecting the weedy populations within the cultivated plots, the farmers further encourage the formation of hybrids and backcrosses. In contrast, the genetic diversity of the local commercial variety cultivated under modern agricultural technology was between two and four times lower than that of the domesticated populations cultivated under traditional agriculture. This is even more noticeable in the breeding line cultivated in monoculture, whose diversity was between four and nine times lower. This has considerable importance for the design of germplasm collecting strategies for ex situ conservation programs, which must focus on collecting in the traditional agroecosystems instead of in local markets, to achieve representativeness of the diversity of domesticated populations.
The high level of autogamy suggested by the high percentage of alleles with different frequency among populations within the complexes, in spite of gene flow values close to one, could be a result of a strong negative farmer selection of cultivated plants with morphological characters suggesting introgression. Similar gene flow values were observed between wild and domesticated populations in Chiapas, and evidence that the selection of alleles of the domestication syndrome is the evolutionary mechanism that maintains the identity of wild and domesticated populations in sympatric situations (R. Papa and P. Gepts, unpublished data).
The UPGMA dendrogram indicates that, in the Jeruco complex, where the geographic distance between the wild and the domesticated population is the smallest (10 m), the wild population grouped with the domesticated and the weedy populations, also differentiating it from the other wild populations of the region. This observation suggests that gene flow from domesticated to wild populations has decreased the genetic distance between wild and domesticated types at Jeruco, presumably by displacement of the wild genetic diversity in wild populations, as indicated by Papa and Gepts (2003). These authors found that the gene flow is asymmetric, three to four times greater from domesticated to wild, which could be explained by the greater size of the domesticated populations and a greater adaptation of the hybrids to the natural environment promoted by the dominance of the wild phenotype. Payro de la Cruz et al. (2005) reported a negative correlation between the wild-domesticated distance and the genetic diversity in wild populations, with the exception of the wild population in the Jeruco complex. They argued that the genetic diversity of the nearest domesticated population was probably low. The results presented in this study further support this assumption. The genetic diversity of the nearest domesticated population was low and similar to that of the wild population (h = 0.13).
The high genetic differentiation of populations within the complexes is explained mainly by the genetic distance from the wild to the domesticated population, the farmer selection of seeds generation after generation, and the effects of natural selection in two contrasting environments. The smaller weedy-domesticated genetic distance can be explained by the selection performed by the farmer for domesticated traits in both types of populations, by similar selection pressures in the domesticated plot, and predominant gene flow from domesticated to wild-types.
The wild populations of Yuriria and Tupataro, separated from the domesticated population by 25 to 60 m, showed high genetic similarity with the wild population of San Agustin, isolated from bean crops, indicating that the gene flow from the domesticated population to the wild has not been sufficiently high to result in a grouping with their respective domesticated populations. The data mentioned above indicate, therefore, that the geographic distance between domesticated and wild has a strong influence on the level of genetic infiltration and is a factor of great importance for in situ conservation.
Origin of Weedy Populations
The analysis of variance of seed mass (Table 2) suggests that the weedy populations are a product of genetic infiltration between wild and domesticated populations, since they present an intermediate seed mass between wild and domesticated and a high coefficient of variation in this character. These results concur with those suggested by Delgado-Salinas et al. (1988) on the basis of the purple coloring of the flowers and pod dehiscence in weedy types, characters which are found in wild populations. The short genetic distance obtained between domesticated and weedy populations suggests, in effect, that they were indeed derived from hybridization between wild and domesticated populations, as indicated by Papa and Gepts (2003). The hybrid character of the weedy types was demonstrated by Beebe et al. (1997) on the basis of the segregation of wild and domesticated characters in weedy types. The cases in which this segregation did not occur were explained by Beebe et al. (1997) as resulting from character fixation due to a historic selective process by humans.
The Role of the Farmer in the Evolutionary Dynamics
The protection of wild populations in the plots by traditional farmers can lead to hybridization of wild and domesticated populations, thereby generating weedy plants. In the same way, this protection favors backcrossing of weedy with domesticated plants and subsequently the establishment of segregants with high morphological similarity to the domesticated. These segregants are harvested and eventually returned to the plots in the next agricultural cycle. As the harvesting of weedy types is not particularly exhaustive, some of these escape and disperse naturally, appearing in the same way in the following agricultural cycle. The harvesting and storage of weedy plants in close proximity to seeds from domesticated plants in the barns, may also allow the weedy seeds to return eventually to the plot and to be cultivated inadvertently. In this way, the farmer himself has facilitated the existence of genetic complexes. The management of geographic distance between wild and domesticated populations, the selection and management of domesticated diversity, and farmer tolerance and harvesting of weedy populations, are traditional agricultural practices that influence the magnitude and characteristics of gene flow in wild-weedy-domesticated complexes, and which have made recurrent evolutionary processes possible after the initial domestication in the Mesoamerican area.
Under these conditions, how could the Mesoamerican farmer isolate the desired characters involved in the domestication syndrome, with the presence of both wild and domesticated populations within outcrossing distance? Probably, the mechanisms involved in the asymmetry of wild-domesticated gene flow permitted this. Harvesting before pod dehiscence to avoid the loss of seed and selection of large, white or light-colored seeds, could have had an influence on the process of reproductive isolation. Selection of precocious plants with early and short periods of pollen receptivity and seed production as well as attractiveness to insects (white flowers) may have limited gene flow from wild to domesticated types.
Conservation In Situ
Bean breeding and germplasm conservation programs require new approaches to achieve an increase in productivity and adaptation of the domesticated gene pool through the use of genes from wild and weedy populations (Singh et al., 1995; Beebe et al., 1997; Mauro Herrera, 2003). The in situ conservation of the wild-weedy-domesticated complexes within the traditional agricultural systems, where the farmers are producing advanced generations of wild-domesticated hybrids, could be an important approach to achieve this goal. The importance of weedy seeds for the survival of traditional farmers is a factor that has permitted and facilitated their presence in the agricultural system and the continuity of genetic relationships between the populations that form the wild-weedy-domesticated complexes. Our results also encourage further emphasis on both ex situ and in situ collections of common bean and other crops. For ex situ collections, the current Phaseolus world collection at CIAT (Colombia) contains some 25 000 domesticated accessions of P. vulgaris but only some 1200 accession of wild P. vulgaris. Wild populations that have been the object of gene flow studies conducted recently on common bean, including this one, are not well represented in ex situ collections. Thus, more intensive exploration and collection of wild populations are warranted. For in situ conservation, our results suggest that increased efforts should be placed on the conservation of wild populations in more remote areas. Diversity in wild populations is very localized so its conservation is difficult and should include farmers' participation under a strategy that evaluates economically their agricultural products from an economic standpoint, to decrease economic pressures to extend the cultivated areas, eliminating wild populations or planting domesticated beans too close to them.
One important survival strategy of the traditional farmers in the study area has been the incorporation of exogenous varieties to their crops as a test; the idea being to test both their adaptive capacity to the traditional agricultural systems and consumer preferences. These varieties have come from places as far away as the Central Valley of California, brought back by temporary migratory workers (Zizumbo-Villarreal, 1985). Both the introduction of new varieties and the maintenance of hybrid forms and their segregants could be favored by the farmers, thereby complicating the conservation of the genetic resources of wild populations in situ.
Under the technological and socioeconomic conditions in which traditional agriculture is performed, should new genes be introduced, the deployment of new cultivars, whether transgenic or not, could signify the introduction of these new genes into local landraces and wild populations, given the intense interchange of seeds among peasant farmers and the practice of cultivating various types of seeds, even in spite of limited genetic flow. Phaseolus vulgaris has been already transformed (Russell et al. 1993; Aragao et al., 1996, 1998, 1999, 2002) and the first field trials of transgenic beans have been approved in Brazil. Thus, it is just a matter of time before such beans might be introduced to other countries. Availability of the data presented here suggests that although common bean is a selfing species, genes from domesticated beans (including transgenes) will be introduced in other populations, whether wild or domesticated. Whereas wild populations that are more distantly located from domesticated ones are less affected by gene flow, they tend to be less frequent. Thus, wild populations closer to cultivated fields, which are more abundant, will suffer the brunt of the impact of gene flow. On the other hand, gene flow estimated by Nm considers the combined effects of flow of genes (by means of pollen or seeds) and its selection in a large number of populations over a wide temporal scale. This study shows low influence of domesticated populations on wild ones but this result could be influenced by a low adaptive value of the domesticated alleles. Other genes that could be introduced (including transgenes) may have a higher adaptive value and eventually persist in the wild populations.
Abbreviations: ISSR, inter simple sequence repeat; QTLs, quantitative trait loci.
Table 1. Geographic characteristics of the three wild-weedy-domesticated complexes and the isolated wild population of Phaseolus vulgaris L. Complex or population name Municipality State Latitude Jeruco Cuitzeo Michoacan 19[degrees]57' Tupataro Tupataro Michoacan 20[degrees]01' Yuriria Yuriria Guanajuato 20[degrees]11' San Agustin Cuitzeo Michoacan 19[degrees]58' Complex or Distance (m) population name Longitude Altitude (m) ([dagger]) Jeruco 101[degrees]10' 1850 10 Tupataro 101[degrees]51' 2100 25 Yuriria 101[degrees]08' 2000 60 San Agustin 101[degrees]04' 1900 110 ([dagger]) Between wild population and nearest cultivated bean field. Table 2. Complex or population name, number of plants (n), mean seed mass (g/100 seeds) (M), coefficient of variation of seed mass (CV), and level of significance of differences among mean seed mass in three wild-weedy-domesticated complexes and a wild population of Phaseolus vulgaris L. Wild Complex or population name n M CV Jeruco 24 7 50 Tupataro 33 5 24 Yuriria 24 6 27 San Agustin 33 4 12 Mean 29 6 28 Significance * A Weedy Complex or population name n M CV Jeruco 26 21 32 Tupataro 7 20 28 Yuriria 14 19 21 San Agustin -- -- -- Mean 16 20 27 Significance * B Domesticated Complex or population name n M CV Jeruco 27 42 11 Tupataro 9 38 18 Yuriria 49 37 11 San Agustin -- -- -- Mean 28 39 13 Significance * C * Different letter means significant difference P < 0.05. Table 3. Primers used in intersimple sequence repeat (ISSR) analyses of four wild-weedy-domesticated complexes of Phaseolus vulgaris L. and size of the bands they produced. R = A,G. Primer Primer sequence ISSR band sizes in base pairs 15 [(GACA).sub.3] RG 146, 183, 232, 257, 369, 480, 502 17 [(GACAC).sub.2] 202, 219, 241, 263, 363, 369, 379, 384, 462, 482, 492, 570, 648, 722, 738, 767, 795, 861, 1066, 1130, 1438 21 [(GA).sub.8] RG 289, 409, 466, 492, 547, 608, 615, 738, 779 Table 4. Complex, population or variety name, number of plants (n), percentage of polymorphic loci, Nei's gene diversity (h) (Nei, 5). 1973), Shannon's information index (I) (Lewontin, 1972) of populations studied, assuming predominant selfing (Fis = 0.95). Complex, Percentage of population, or polymorphic variety name n Population type loci h I Jeruco 20 wild 59 0.13 0.22 22 weedy 43 0.13 0.20 21 domesticated 35 0.13 0.19 Tupataro 22 wild 65 0.18 0.28 20 weedy 54 0.13 0.22 20 domesticated 84 0.26 0.40 Yuriria 22 wild 57 0.14 0.22 22 weedy 57 0.16 0.25 21 domesticated 68 0.20 0.31 San Agustin 21 wild 35 0.14 0.20 Flor de Junio 20 local commercial variety 22 0.06 0.10 Anita 20 breeding line 14 0.03 0.07 Table 5. Population type, number of plants (n), percentage of polymorphic loci, total diversity (Ht), interpopulation diversity (Gst) and gene flow (Nm), assuming predominant selting (Fis = 0.95). Percentage of Population n polymorphic loci Ht Gst Nm Wild 85 87 0.24 0.40 0.77 Weedy 62 84 0.22 0.39 0.79 Domesticated 64 95 0.26 0.26 1.40 Table 6. Genetic structure in three wild-weedy-domesticated complexes of Phaseolus vulgaris L. Total diversity (Ht), intrapopulational diversity (Hs), interpopulational diversity (Gst) and gene flow (Nm), assuming predominant selfing (Fis = 0.95). Complex name n Ht Hs Gst Nm Jeruco 63 0.19 0.13 0.33 1.04 Tupataro 62 0.29 0.19 0.34 0.98 Yuriria 63 0.23 0.17 0.26 1.39
We thank UC-MEXUS Program (University of California-CONACYT-Mexico) for a posdoctoral scholarship at the University of California-Davis for the first author, and the Bean Network of the SINAREFI (SAGARPA-Mexico) for financial support; to Julian Coello for his technical help in the laboratory; to Francisco Campos and Pedro Melo (Yuriria, Guanajuato), Nicolas Rico and Roberto Zizumbo (Jeruco, Michoacan), and Ignacio Fernandez (Tupataro, Michoacan) for their support in the field and for the information contributed; to Consuelo Zizumbo for her hospitality in Jeruco. Thanks to the three anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions.
Aragao, F.J.L., L.M.G. Barros, A.C.M. Brasileiro, S.G. Ribeiro, F.D. Smith, J.C. Sanford, J.C. Faria, and E.L. Rech. 1996. Inheritance of foreign genes in transgenic bean (Phaseolus vulgaris. L.) co-transformed via particle bombardment. Theor. Appl. Genet. 93: 142-150.
Aragao, F.J.L., S.G. Ribeiro, L.M.G. Barros, A.C.M. Brasileiro, D.P. Maxwell, E.L. Rech, and J.C. Faria. 1998. Transgenic beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) engineered to express viral antisense RNAs show delayed and attenuated symptoms to bean golden mosaic geminivirus. Moi. Breed. 4:491-499.
Aragao, F.J.L., L.M.G. Barros, M.V. Sousa, M.F. Grossi-de-Sa, E.R.P. Almeida, E.S. Gander, and E.L. Rech. 1999. Expression of a methionine-rich storage albumin from Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa H.B.K., Lecythidaceae) in transgenic bean plants (Phaseolus vulgaris L., Fabaceae). Gen. Mol. Biol. 22:445-449.
Aragao, F.J.L., R. Giovanni, V. Margareth, M.C. Albino, and E.L. Rech. 2002. Transgenic dry bean tolerant to the herbicide glufosinate ammonium. Crop Sci. 42:1298-1302.
Acosta-Gallegos, J.A., C. Quintero, J. Vargas, O. Toro, J. Thome, and C. Cardona. 1998. A new variant of arcelin in wild common bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L., from southern Mexico. Genet. Res. Crop Evol. 45:235-242.
Bassam, B., G. Caetano-Anolles, and P. Gresshoff. 1991. Fast and sensitive silver staining of DNA in polyacrylamide gels. Anal. Biochem. 196:80-83.
Becerra-Velasquez, L., and P. Gepts. 1994. RFLP diversity of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in its centres of origin. Genome 37: 256-263.
Beebe, S., O. Toro, A. Gonzalez, M. Chacon, and D. Debouck. 1997. Wild-weed-crop complexes of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L. Fabaceae) in the Andes of Peru and Colombia, and their implications for conservation and breeding. Genet. Res. Crop Evol. 44: 73-91.
Beebe, S., P.W. Skroch, J. Tohme, M.C. Duque, F. Pedraza, and J. Nienhuis. 2000. Structure of genetic diversity among common bean landraces of Middle American origin based on correspondence analysis of RAPD. Crop Sci. 40:264-273.
Branniff, B. 1975. Arqueologia del norte de Mexico. p. 217-278. In Pueblos y senorios teocraticos: El periodo de las ciudades urbanas. SEP-INAH, Mexico.
Brunner, B.R., and J.S. Beaver. 1989. Estimation of outcrossing of common bean in Puerto Rico. HortScience 24:669-671.
Creste, S., N.A. Tulmann, and A. Figueira. 2001. Detection of single sequence repeat polymorphism in denaturing polyacrylamide sequencing gel by silver staining. Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 19:299-306.
Debouck, D.G., and J. Tohme. 1989. Implications for bean breeders of studies on the origins of common beans, Phaseolus vulgaris L. p. 3-42. In S. Beebe (ed.) Current topics in breeding of common bean. Vol. 47. Bean program, Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, Cali, Colombia.
Debouck, D.G., and J. Smartt. 1995. Beans. p. 287-294. In J. Smartt and N.W. Simmonds (ed.) Evolution of crop plants, 2nd ed. Longman, Harlow, England.
Delgado-Salinas, A., A. Bonet, and P. Gepts. 1988. The wild relative of Phaseolus vulgaris in Middle America. p. 163-184. In P. Gepts (ed.) Genetic resources of Phaseolus beans. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Escalante, A.M., G. Coello, L.E. Eguiarte, and D. Pinero. 1994. Genetic structure and mating systems in wild Phaseolus coccineus and P. vulgaris (Fabaceae). Am. J. Bot. 81:1096-1103.
Felsestein, J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783-791.
Gentry, H. 1969. Origin of the common bean, Phaseolus vulgaris. Econ. Bot. 23:55-69.
Gepts, P. 1993. The use of molecular and biochemical markers in crop evolution studies. Evol. Biol. 27:51-94.
Gepts, P., and D.G. Debouck. 1991. Origin, domestication and evolution of the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L). p. 7-53. In Van Schoonhoven A. and Voysest O. (ed.) Common Beans: Research for Crop Improvement. CAB, Wallingford, Oxon, UK.
Gepts, P., R. Papa, A. Gonzalez, J. Acosta, and A. Delgado-Salinas. 1999. Human effects on Phaseolus vulgaris adaptation during and after domestication, p. 161-181. In L.W.D. Van Raamsdonk and J.C.M. den Nijs (ed.) Plant evolution in man-made habitats. Hugo de Vries Laboratory, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Gonzalez, A., A. Wong, A. Delgado-Salinas, and P. Gepts. 1998. Determination of genetic diversity among wild and domesticated beans using inter simple sequence repeat (ISSRs). Annu. Rep. Bean Improv. Coop. 41:99-100.
Gonzalez, A., A. Wong, A. Delgado-Salinas, R. Papa, and P. Gepts P. 2005. Assessment of inter simple sequence repeat markers to differentiate sympatric wild and domesticated populations of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Crop Sci. 45:606-615.
Hedrick, P.W. 2000. Genetics of populations. 2nd ed., Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Sudbury, MA.
Ibarra-Perez, F., B. Ehdaie, and G. Waines. 1997. Estimation of outcrossing rate in common bean. Crop Sci. 37:60-65.
Koenig, R., and P. Gepts. 1989. Allozyme diversity in wild Phaseolus vulgaris: Further evidence for two major centers of genetic diversity. Theor. Appl. Genet. 78:809-817.
Koenig, R.L., S.P. Singh, and P. Gepts. 1990. Novel phaseolin types in wild and cultivated common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris Fabaceae). Econ. Bot. 44:50-60.
Koinange, E.M.K., S.P. Singh, and P. Gepts. 1996. Genetic control of the domestication syndrome in common bean. Crop Sci. 36: 1037-1045.
Lewontin, R.C. 1972. The apportionment of human diversity. Evol. Biol. 6:381-398.
Mauro-Herrera, M. 2003. Wild bean populations as source of genes to improve the yield of cultivated Phaseolus vulgaris L. PhD. Dissertation, University of California, Davis.
McDermott, J.M., and B.A. McDonald. 1993. Gene flow in plant pathosystems. Annu. Rev. Phytopathology 31:353-373.
Miller, M.P. 1997. Tools for population genetic analysis (TFPGA) 1.3: A Windows program for the analysis of allozyme and molecular population genetic data. available at http://bioweb.usu.edu/mpmbio/tfpga.asp; verified 30 November 2004.
Motto, M., G.P. Soressi, and F. Salamini. 1978. Seed size inheritance in a cross between wild and cultivated common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Genetica (The Hague) 49:31-36.
Nei, M. 1973. Analysis of gene diversity in subdivided populations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 70:3321-3323.
Nei, M. 1972. Genetic distance between populations. Am. Nat. 106: 283-292.
Nei, M. 1978. Estimation of average heterozygosity and genetic distance from a small number of individuals. Genetics 89:583-590.
Nei, M. 1987. Molecular evolutionary genetics. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.: 187-192.
Oliveros, J.A. 1975. Arqueologia del estado de Michoacan. p. 207-216. In Pueblos y senorios teocraticos: El periodo de las ciudades urbanas. SEP-INAH, Mexico.
Papa, R., and P. Gepts. 2003. Asymmetry of gene flow and differential geographical structure of molecular diversity in wild and domesticated common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) from Mesoamerica. Theor. Appl. Genet. 106:239-250.
Payro de la Cruz, E., P. Gepts, P. Colunga-GarciaMarin, and D. Zizumbo-Villarreal. 2005. Spatial distribution of genetic diversity in wild populations of Phaseolus vulgaris L. from Guanajuato and Michoacan, Mexico. Genet. Res. Crop Evol. In press.
Romero, A.J., and F.A. Bliss. 1985. Heritable variation in the phaseolin protein of nondomesticated common bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. Theor. Appl. Genet. 71:478-480.
Romero, A.J., B.S. Yandel, and F.A. Bliss. 1986. Bean arcelin. 1. Inheritance of a novel seed protein of Phaseolus vulgaris L and its effect on seed composition. Theor. Appl. Genet. 72:123-128.
Russell, D.R., K.M. Wallace, J.H. Bathe, and B.J. Martinell. 1993. Stable transformation of Phaseolus vulgaris via electric discharge mediated particle acceleration. Plant Cell Rep. 12:165-169.
SAS. 1992. SAS/STAT user's guide, release 6.03 ed. SAS Institute. Cary, NC.
Singh, S.P., A. Molina, and P. Gepts. 1995. Potential of wild common bean for seed yield improvement of cultivars in the tropics. Can. J. Plant Sci. 75:807-813.
Slaktin, M., and N.H. Barton. 1989. A comparison of three indirect methods for estimating average levels of gene flow. Evolution 43: 1349-1368.
Sokal, R., and F.J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry. 3rd ed. W.H. Freeman and Co., New York.
Swofford, D.L., and G.J. Olsen. 1990. Phylogeny reconstruction. In Hillis, D.M. and C. Moritz (ed.). Molecular systematics. Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland.
Tohme, J., O.D. Gonzalez, S. Beebe, and C. Duque. 1996. AFLP analysis of gene pools of a wild bean core collection. Crop Sci. 36:1375-1384.
Triana, B., M. Iwanaga, H. Rubiano, and M. Andrade. 1993. A study of allogamy in wild Phaseolus vulgaris. Annu. Rep. Bean Improv. Coop. 36:21-21.
Yeh, F.C., R.C Yang, and T.J.B. Boyle. 1999. Popgene version 1.31. Microsoft window-based freeware for population genetic analysis. University of Alberta and Centre for International Forestry Research. Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Zizumbo-Villarreal, D. 1985. Estrategias agricolas tradicionales para el aprovechamiento del agua de lluvia durante el temporal: El caso de Yuriria Guanajuato, Mexico. MS. Thesis. Colegio de Postgraduados. Chapingo, Mexico.
Zizumbo-Villarreal, D., E. Hernandez-Xolocotzi, and H. Cuanalo de la Cerda. 1988. Estrategias agricolas tradicionales para el aprovechamiento del agua de lluvia durante el temporal. Agrociencia 71: 315-340.
Daniel Zizumbo-Villarreal, * Patricia Colunga-GarciaMarin, Emeterio Payro de la Cruz, Patricia Delgado-Valerio, and Paul Gepts
D. Zizumbo-Villarreal, P. Colunga-GarciaMarin, and P. Delgado-Valerio, Unidad de Recursos Naturales, Centro de Investigacion Cientifica de Yucatan, Merida, Mexico; E. Payro de la Cruz, Facultad de Ciencias Biologicas y Agropecuarias, Universidad de Colima; P. Gepts, Dep. of Agronomy and Range Science, Univ. of California, Davis, CA. Received 2 June 2004. Genomics, Molecular Genetics & Biotechnology. * Corresponding author (email@example.com).
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Zizumbo-Villarreal, Daniel; Colunga-GarciaMarin, Patricia; de la Cruz, Emeterio Payro; Delgado-Valer|
|Date:||May 1, 2005|
|Previous Article:||Embryogenic callus induction and regeneration in a pentaploid hybrid bermudagrass cv. Tifton 85.|
|Next Article:||Geographic patterns of RAPD variation in cultivated flax.|