4 Colombia, Ecuador, Peru 5.93 Tigre, Peru (8.33) 0.76 Putumayo, Peru (0.86) 0.003 Couvreur et al. (2006) SSR 8 3 58 Ecuador, Peru, Central America 9.23 Cultivated trees from Peru and Central America (10.70) 0.77 Wild population in NW Ecuador and cultivated trees from Peru and Central America (0.80) 0.11 Adin et al. (2004) AFLP 203 24 10 Brazil, Peru – – 0.23 San Gabriel de Varadero, Peru (0.27) 0.20 Santos et al. (2011) RAPD 99 6 29.33 Brazil, Peru – – 0.29 Manaus, Peru (0.31) – Silva (2004) RAPD 124 10 20 Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Panama, Peru, – – 0.25 Pará, Brasil (0.31) 0.34

Rodrigues et al. (2004) RAPD 113 9 27.78 Brazil, Costa Rica, Panama, Peru – – 0.24 Solimoes, Brasil (0.30) 0.16 Diversity studies confirm the close relationship between wild and cultivated peach palm populations that VS-4718 ic50 were identified by Couvreur et al. (2007) in their phylogenetic study. Several studies observed even greater similarity between cultivated populations and nearby natural populations than between geographically more distant cultivated populations (Rodrigues et al. 2004; Couvreur et al. 2006; Hernández-Ugalde et al. 2008; Araújo et al. 2010). In some cases clear differences were observed between cultivated populations and wild populations that were used as outliers for reference (Silva 2004). One explanation of

this close relationship is the hypothesis of peach palm’s domestication in multiple locations, where

cultivated populations are still closely related to nearby natural populations (Mora-Urpí 1999; Hernández-Ugalde et al. 2011). This similarity might CP673451 molecular weight also be the result of introgression between natural Loperamide and cultivated populations after the domesticated material was introduced into a particular area (Couvreur et al. 2006). Another explanation could be that some of these natural populations are in reality feral populations, i.e., material from cultivated populations that have gone wild. This has been reported for several fruit tree species such as olives (Gepts 2004). However, considering the level of domestication of peach palm, this last option seems unlikely. The fact that wild and cultivated populations are so closely related suggests that many cultivated peach palm populations are at a semi-domesticated stage. At this stage introgression with natural populations is still common, and while genetic diversity is reduced, phenotypic diversity may be enhanced (Clement et al. 2010). Indeed, much phenotypic variation can be observed between and within different cultivated populations (Mora-Urpí et al. 1997; Fig. 2). Particularly in the upper Amazon many landraces have been distinguished on the basis of morphological variation validated by molecular markers (Sousa et al. 2001; Rodrigues et al. 2004; Silva 2004; Clement et al. 2010).