Using heterochrony to detect modularity in the evolution of stem diversity in the plant family moringaceae

Evolution

Volumn 60, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 724-734

  Olson, Mark E ^a   Rosell, Julieta A ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO   (Mexico)

Author keywords

Bark anatomy; Moringa; Morphology; Ontogeny; Phylogenetic comparative method; Phylogeny; Wood anatomy

Indexed keywords

EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; HETEROCHRONY (ONTOGENY); PHLOEM; PHYLOGENETICS; SPECIES DIVERSITY; STEM;

MORINGA; MORINGACEAE;

ARTICLE; BARK; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; GENE; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENETICS; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; MORINGA; PHYLOGENY; PLANT; PLANT PHYSIOLOGY; PLANT ROOT; PLANT STEM;

EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; GENES, PLANT; MODELS, GENETIC; MORINGA; PHYLOGENY; PLANT BARK; PLANT PHYSIOLOGY; PLANT ROOTS; PLANT STEMS; PLANTS; VARIATION (GENETICS);

EID: 33745242958     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1554/05-678.1     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Alberch, P., S. J. Gould, G. F. Oster, and D. B. Wake. 1979. Size and shape in ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology 5:296-317.
2. Berg, R. L. 1960. The ecological significance of correlation pleiades. Evolution 14:171-180.
3. Blomberg, S. P., T. Garland, Jr., and A. R. Ives. 2003. Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data; behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution 57:717-745.
4. Bolker, J. A. 2000. Modularity in development and why it matters to evo-devo. Am. Zool. 40:770-776.
5. _. 2003. From genotype to phenotype: looking into the black box. Pp. 82-91 in S. Kumar and P. Bentley, eds. On growth, form and computers. Elsevier, Oxford, U.K.
6. Brigandt, I. 2003. Homology in comparative, molecular, and evolutionary developmental biology: the radiation of a concept. J. Exp. Biol. 299B:9-17.
7. Carlquist, S. 1962. A theory of paedomorphosis in dicotyledonous woods. Phytomorphology 12:30-45.
8. _. 1975. Ecological strategies of xylem evolution. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley.
9. _. 1998. Wood and bank anatomy of Caricaceae: correlations with systematics and habit. IAWA J. 19:191-206.
10. _. 2001. Comparative wood anatomy. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
11. Cheverud, J. 1982. Relationships among ontogenetic, static, and evolutionary allometry. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 59:139-149.
12. Chrysler, M. A. 1937. Persistent juveniles among the cycads. Bot. Gaz. 98:696-710.
13. Cubo, J., V. Fouces, M. González-Martín, V. Pedrocchi, and X. Ruiz. 2000. Nonheterochronic developmental changes underlie morphological heterochrony in the evolution of the Ardeidae. J. Evol. Biol. 13:269-276.
14. Cumbie, B. G. 1963. The vascular cambium and xylem development in Hibiscus lasiocarpus. Am. J. Bot. 50:944-951.
15. Eble, G. J. 2003. Morphological modularity and macroevolution: conceptual and empirical aspects. Pp. 221-238 in W. Callebut and D. Rasskin-Gutman, eds. Modularity: understanding the development and evolution of natural complex systems. MIT Press, Boston, MA.
16. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am. Nat. 125:1-15.
17. Fraser, H. B. 2005. Modularity and evolutionary constraint on proteins. Nat. Genet. 37:351-352.
18. Garland, T., Jr., and A. R. Ives. 2000. Using the past to predict the present: confidence intervals for regression equations in phylogenetic comparative methods. Am. Nat. 155:346-364.
19. Garland, T., Jr., A. W. Dickerman, C. M. Janis, and J. A. Jones. 1993. Phylogenetic analysis of covariance by computer simulation. Syst. Biol. 42:265-292.
20. Garland, T., Jr, P. E. Midford, and A. R. Ives. 1999. An introduction to phylogenetically based statistical methods, with a new method for confidence intervals on ancestral states. Am. Zool. 39:374-388.
21. Garland, T., P. E. Midford, J. A. Jones, A. W. Dickerman, and R. Diaz-Uriarte. 2002. PDAP: phenotypic diversity analysis programs. Version 6.0. Available via http://www.biology.ucr.edu/people/faculty/Garland/PDAP.html.
22. Godfrey, L. R., and M. R. Sutherland. 1995. Flawed inference: why size-based tests of heterochronic processes do not work. J. Theor. Biol. 172:43-61.
23. Gould, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and phylogeny. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA.
24. Jaecks, G. S., and S. J. Carlson. 2001. How phylogenetic inference can shape our view of heterochrony: examples from thecideide brachiopods. Paleobiology 27:205-225.
25. Jones, C. S. 1992. Comparative ontogeny of a wild cucurbit and its derived cultivar. Evolution 46:1827-1847.
26. _. 1993. Heterochrony and heteroblastic leaf development in two subspecies of Curcurbita argyrosperma (Cucurbitaceae). Am. J. Bot. 80:778-795.
27. _. 1999. An essay on juvenility, phase change, and heteroblasty in seed plants. Int. J. Plant Sci. 160:S105-S111.
28. Klingenberg, C. P., and J. R. Spence. 1993. Heterochrony and allometry: lessons from the water strider genus Limnoporus. Evolution 14:1834-1835.
29. Klingenberg, C. P., A. V. Badyaev, S. M. Sowry, and N. J. Beckwith. 2001. Inferring developmental modularity from morphological integration: analysis of individual variation and asymmetry in bumblebee wings. Am. Nat. 157:11-23.
30. Kutner, M. H., C. J. Nachtsheim, J. Neter, and W. Li. 2005. Applied linear statistical models. McGraw Hill, New York.
31. Lewis, P. O. 2001. A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data. Syst. Biol. 50:913-925.
32. Liberman, U., and M. W. Feldman. 2005. On the evolution of epistasis. I. Diploids under selection. Theor. Popul. Biol. 67:141-160.
33. Mabee, P. M. 1993. Phylogenetic interpretation of ontogenetic change: sorting out the actual and artefactual in an empirical case study of centrarchid fishes. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 107:175-291.
34. Maddison, W. P., and D. R. Maddison. 2004a. Mesquite: a modular system for evolutionary analysis. Ver. 1.05. Available via http://mesquiteproject.org.
35. _. 2004b. StochChar: a package of Mesquite modules for stochastic models of character evolution. Ver. 1.02. Available via http://www.mesquiteproject.org/ mesquite/mesquite.html.
36. Martins, E. P. 2004. COMPARE. Ver. 4.6. Computer programs for the statistical analysis of comparative data. Distributed by the author at http://compare.bio.indiana.edu/.
37. Martins, E. P., and T. F. Hansen. 1997. Phylogenies and the comparative method: a general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into the anlaysis of interspecific data. Am. Nat. 149:646-667.
38. McKinney, M. L., and K. J. McNamara. 1991. Heterochrony: the evolution of ontogeny. Plenum Press, New York.
39. Medina, E. 1995. Diversity of life forms of higher plants in neotropical dry forests. Pp. 221-242 in S. H. Bullock, H. A. Mooney, and E. Medina, eds. Seasonally dry tropical forests. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
40. Müller, G. B., and G. P. Wagner. 1991. Novelty in evolution: restructuring the concept. Annu. Rev. Evol. Syst. 22:229-256.
41. Nagy, L. M., and T. A. Williams. 2001. Comparative limb development as a tool for understanding the evolutionary diversification of limbs in arthropods: challenging the modularity paradigm. Pp. 455-488 in G. P. Wagner, ed. The character concept in evolutionary biology. Academic Press. San Diego, CA.
42. Niklas, K. J. 1999. The mechanical role of bark. Am. J. Bot. 86:465-469.
43. Olson, M. E. 2001. Stem and root anatomy of Moringa (Moringaceae). Haseltonia 8:56-96.
44. _. 2002a. Combining data from DNA sequences and morphology for a phylogeny of Moringaceae. Syst. Bot. 27:55-73.
45. _. 2002b. Intergeneric relationships within the Caricaceae-Moringacecae clade (Brassicales), and potential morphological synapomorphies of the clade and its families. Int. J. Plant Sci. 163:51-65.
46. _. 2005. Wood, bark, and pith anatomy in Pittocaulon (Senecio, Asteraceae): water storage and systematics. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 132:173-186.
47. Olson, M. E., and S. Carlquist. 2001. Stem and root anatomical correlations with life form diversity, ecology, and systematics in Moringa (Moringaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 135:315-348.
48. Panshin, A. J., and C. De Zeeuw. 1980. Textbook of wood technology. McGraw-Hill, New York.
49. Patterson, C. 1982. Morphological characters and homology. Pp. 21-74 in K. A. Joysey and A. E. Friday, eds. Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction. Academic Press, London.
50. Pigliucci, M. 2003. Species as family resemblance concepts: The (dis-)solution of the species problem? Bioessays 25:596-602.
51. Pigliucci, M., C. Paoletti, S. Fineschi, and M. E. Malvolti. 1991. Phenotypic integration in chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.): leaves versus fruits. Bot. Gaz. 152:514-521.
52. Preston, K. A., and D. D. Ackerly. 2003. The evolution of allometry in modular organisms. Pp. 80-106 in M. Pigliucci and K. A. Preston, eds. Phenotypic integration: studying the ecology and evolution of complex phenotypes. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K.
53. Raff, E. C., and R. A. Raff. 2000. Dissociability, modularity, evolvability. Evol. Dev. 2:235-237.
54. Raff, R. A. 1996. The shape of life. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.
55. Raff, R. A., and G. A. Wray. 1989. Heterochrony: developmental mechanisms and evolutionary results. J. Evol. Biol. 2:409-434.
56. Rieppel, O. 2005. Modules, kinds, and homology. J. Exp. Zool. 304B:18-27.
57. Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. W. H. Freeman, New York.
58. Strauss, R. E. 1987. On allometry and relative growth in evolutionary studies. Syst. Zool. 36:72-75.
59. Takhtajan, A. L. 1954. Essays on the evolutionary morphology of plants. American Institute of Biological Sciences, Arlington, VA.
60. Wagner, G. P. 1989. The origin of morphological characters and the biological basis of homology. Evolution 43:1157-1171.
61. _. 1996. Homologues, natural kinds and the evolution of modularity. Am. Zool. 36:36-43.
62. West-Eberhard, M. J. 2003. Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K.
63. Zelditch, M. 2001. Beyond heterochrony: the evolution of development. Wiley-Liss, New York.