The genus Cochlearia L. (Brassicaceae) in the Eastern Carpathians and adjacent area

Abstract

Most European scurvy grasses (including those of the Carpathian Mountains) belong to the nominate section Cochlearia . We analyse the status of two East Carpathian (Romanian) Cochlearia populations by comparing them with the two native species from the Western Carpathians, the diploid Cochlearia pyrenaica (2 n = 2 x = 12; 2C = 0.78 pg) and hexaploid C. tatrae (2 n = 6 x = 42; 2C = 2.09 pg). Using karyological methods and flow cytometry, differences between these taxa were detected. Because of differences in morphology, chromosome number (2 n = 8 x = 48) and DNA content (2C = 2.82 pg), we propose that the East Carpathian (Romanian) populations represent a separate species, Cochlearia borzaeana (Coman et Nyár.) Pobed. The lectotype of C. borzeana is designated. The new subassociation Carici flavae-Cratoneuretum Kovács et Felföldy 1958 cochlearietosum borzeanae is described. An isolated population of C. pyrenaica s.l . from Ukraine (outwith the Carpathian territory) (2 n = 2 x = 12; 2C = 0.91 pg) has been also studied, because of its unclear taxonomic position. The diploid chromosome number, 2 n = 2 x = 12, is given for this single known population of C. pyrenaica s.l . in Ukraine. However, there is considerable difference in genome size and chromosome size between West Carpathian C. pyrenaica s.s . and Ukrainian plants, and taxonomic evaluation of the latter population needs further study. A comparative table with morphological characteristics and a short description of the phytosociological behaviour of C. borzaeana in Romania and taxa from the Western Carpathians are included.

Evolutionary footprints of a cold relic in a rapidly warming world

“…Yet, in the SplitsTree network, the two C. bavarica samples are grouped closely together, both connected to a C. pyrenaica sample from Baden-Württemberg (Hohenlohe). This result supports the idea of a single ancient origin followed by genetic differentiation over geographic distances and later disruption of the continuous distribution into two refuge distribution areas as suggested by Koch (2002) (Bajer 1951;Koch et al 1996;Koch et al 1998;Koch et al 2003;Kochjarová et al 2006). The nuclear genomes indicate a shared evolutionary history and group all them into a monophyletic clade (Appendix 1-figure 12).…”

Cochlearia polonica Fröhl. (Brassicaceae), a narrow endemic species of southern Poland: history of conservation efforts, overview of current population resources and genetic structure of populations

“…In particular, the confusing taxonomic status of a Cochleria population in Ukraine, treated in some previous studies (including the Red Data Book in Ukraine Sobko 1996), as C. polonica and in some as C. pyrenaica, was also verified based on examinations of genetic variation. It was shown that the population represented the diploid C. pyrenaica and not C. polonica, which confirmed the status of C. polonica as a taxon endemic to Southern Poland only (Cielak and Ronikier 2006;Cielak et al 2007b;Kochjarová et al 2006).…”

Genetic structure of the critically endangered endemic Cochlearia polonica (Brassicaceae): efficiency of the last-chance transplantation

“…Its natural distribution range in southern Poland was restricted to the upper part of the Biała river near Olkusz (Wyżyna Śląsko‐Krakowska upland). In addition, there has been a long‐lasting controversy about the taxonomic status of an isolated population of Cochlearia in Ukraine, treated by various authors as either C. polonica or C. pyrenaica (for example, Pobedimova, 1970; Vogt, 1985); however, with the use of genetic markers and chromosome numbers, it has been demonstrated that this population has close affinities to C. pyrenaica (Kochjarová et al ., 2006; Cieślak et al ., 2007). This confirms the unique status of C. polonica as a critically endangered, strictly endemic species of southern Poland, with only one stable population known.…”