Reticulation, data combination, and inferring evolutionary history: An example from danthonioideae (Poaceae)

Systematic Biology

Volumn 58, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 612-628

  Pirie, Michael D ^a,b   Humphreys, Aelys M ^a   Barker, Nigel P ^c   Linder, H Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY   (South Africa)

^c RHODES UNIVERSITY   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Biogeography; Cortaderia; Danthonioideae; Gynodioecy; Hybridization; Incongruence; Molecular dating; Phylogeny

Indexed keywords

CHLOROPLAST DNA;

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; DEMOGRAPHY; DNA SEQUENCE; GENETICS; GEOGRAPHY; HYBRIDIZATION; METHODOLOGY; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; MOLECULAR GENETICS; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE; PHYLOGENY; PLANT GENE; POACEAE;

BASE SEQUENCE; BAYES THEOREM; DEMOGRAPHY; DNA, CHLOROPLAST; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; GENES, PLANT; GEOGRAPHY; HYBRIDIZATION, GENETIC; MODELS, GENETIC; MOLECULAR SEQUENCE DATA; PHYLOGENY; POACEAE; RESEARCH DESIGN; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA;

CORTADERIA; DANTHONIOIDEAE; POACEAE;

EID: 72849145668     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: 1076836X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syp068     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Alvarez I., Wendel J.F. 2003. Ribosomal ITS sequences and plant phy-logenetic inference. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 29:417.
2. Barber J.C., Finch C.C., Fransisco-Ortega J., Santos-Guerra A., Jansen R.K. 2007. Hybridisation in Macaronesian Sideritis (Lamiaceae): evidence from incongruence of multiple independent nuclear and chloroplast sequence datasets. Taxon. 56:74-88.
3. Barker N.P., Galley C., Verboom G.A., Mafa P., Gilbert M., Linder H.P. 2007. The phylogeny of the austral grass subfamily Dan-thonioideae: evidence from multiple data sets. Plant Syst. Evol. 264:135-156.
4. Barker N.P., Linder H.P., Harley E.H. 1995. Polyphyly of Arundi-noideae (Poaceae): evidence from rbcL sequence data. Syst. Bot. 20:423-435.
5. Barker N.P., Linder H.P., Harley E.H. 1999. Sequences of the grass-specifc insert in the chloroplast rpoC2 gene elucidate generic relationships of the Arundinoideae (Poaceae). Syst. Bot. 23: 327-350.
6. Barker N.P., Linder H.P., Morton C.M., Lyle M. 2003. The paraphyly of Cortaderia (Danthonioideae; Poaceae): evidence from morphology and chloroplast and nuclear DNA sequence data. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 90:1-24.
7. Barker N.P., Morton C.M., Linder H.P. 2000. The Danthonieae: generic composition and relationships. In: Jacobs S.W.L., Everett J., editors. Grasses: systematics and evolution. Melbourne (Australia): CSIRO. p. 221-230.
8. Bouchenak-Khelladi Y., Salamin N., Savolainen V., Forest F., van der Bank M., Chase M.W., Hodkinson T.R. 2008. Large multi-gene phy-logenetic trees of the grasses (Poaceae): progress towards complete tribal and generic level sampling. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 47:488-505.
9. Bremer B., Jansen R.K., Oxelman B., Backlund M., Lantz H., Kim K.-J. 1999. More characters or more taxa for a robust phylogeny-case study from the coffee family. Syst. Biol. 48:413-435.
10. Bull J.J., Huelsenbeck J.P., Cunningham C.W., Swofford D.L., Waddell P.J. 1993. Partitioning and combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 42:384-397.
11. 4 photosynthesis in grasses. Curr. Biol. 18:37-43.
12. Comes H.P., Abbott R.J. 2001. Molecular phylogeography, reticulation, and lineage sorting in Mediterranean Senecio Sect. Senecio (Aster-aceae). Evolution. 55:1943-1962.
13. Connor H.E. 1973. Breeding systems in Cortaderia (Gramineae). Evolution. 27:663-678.
14. Connor H.E. 1981. Evolution of reproductive systems in the Gramineae. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 68:48.
15. Connor H.E. 1990. Breeding systems in New Zealand grasses XI. Gynodioecism in Chionochloa bromoides. N.Z. J. Bot. 28:59-65.
16. Connor H.E. 2004. Flora of New Zealand-Gramineae supplement I: Danthonioideae. N.Z. J. Bot. 42:771-795.
17. Cook L.G., Crisp M.D. 2005. Directional asymmetry of long-distance dispersal and colonization could mislead reconstructions of bio-geography. J. Biogeogr. 32:741-754.
18. de Queiroz A., Donoghue M.J., Kim J. 1995. Separate versus combined analysis of phylogenetic evidence. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26:657-681.
19. Dickerman A.W. 1998. Generalizing phylogenetic parsimony from the tree to the forest. Syst. Biol. 47:414-426.
20. Ellstrand N.C., Whitkus R., Rieseberg L.H. 1996. Distribution of spontaneous plant hybrids. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 93:5090-5093.
21. Fehrer J., Gemeinholzer B., Chrtek J.J., Brautigam S. 2007. In-congruent plastid and nuclear DNA phylogenies reveal ancient intergeneric hybridization in Pilosella hawkweeds (Hieracium, Cichorieae, Asteraceae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42:347.
22. Felsenstein J. 1978. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27:401-410.
23. Fitch W.M. 1971. Toward defning the course of evolution: minimum change for a specifed tree topology. Syst. Zool. 20:406-416.
24. Flynn J., Finarelli J., Zehr S., Hsu J., Nedbal M. 2005. Molecular phy-logeny of the Carnivora (Mammalia): assessing the impact of increased sampling on resolving enigmatic relationships. Syst. Biol. 54:317.
25. Funk V.A. 1985. Phylogenetic patterns and hybridization. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 72:681-715.
26. Galley C., Linder H.P. 2007. The phylogeny of the Pentaschis-tis clade (Danthonioideae, Poaceae) based on chloroplast DNA, and the evolution and loss of complex characters. Evolution. 61: 864-884.
27. Grant P.R., Grant B.R. 1992. Hybridization of bird species. Science. 256:193-197.
28. Huber K.T., Oxelman B., Lott M., Moulton V. 2006. Reconstructing the evolutionary history of polyploids from multilabeled trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 23:1784-1791.
29. Huelsenbeck J.P., Ronquist F. 2001. MrBayes: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics. 17:754-755.
30. Huson D.H., Bryant D. 2006. Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 23:254-267.
31. Huson D.H., Dezulian T., Klopper T., Steel M.A. 2004. Phylogenetic super-networks from partial trees. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. 1:151.
32. Kellogg E.A., Appels R., Mason-Gamer R.J. 1996. When genes tell different stories: the diploid genera of Triticeae (Gramineae). Syst. Bot. 21:321-347.
33. Kluge A.G. 1989. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Syst. Zool. 38:7-25.
34. Lecointre G., Deleporte P. 2005. Total evidence requires exclusion of phylogenetically misleading data. Zool. Scr. 34:101-117.
35. Linder H.P., Barker N.P. 2005. From Nees to now-changing questions in the systematics of the grass subfamily Danthonioideae. Nova Acta Leopold. 92:29-44.
36. Linder H.P., Verboom G.A. 1996. Generic limits in the Rytidosperma (Danthonieae, Poaceae) complex. Telopea. 6:597-627.
37. Maddison W.P., Maddison D.R. 2006. Mesquite: a modular system for evolutionary analysis. Version 2.5. Available from: http://mesquiteproject.org.
38. Maureira-Butler I.J., Pfeil B.E., Muangprom A., Osborn T.C., Doyle J.J. 2008. The reticulate history of Medicago (Fabaceae). Syst. Biol. 57:466-482.
39. McBreen K., Lockhart P.J. 2006. Reconstructing reticulate evolutionary histories of plants. Trends Plant Sci. 11:398.
40. McDade L.A. 1992. Hybrids and phylogenetic systematics II. The impact of hybrids on cladistic analysis. Evolution. 46:1329.
41. Mickevich M.F., Farris J.S. 1981. The implications of congruence in Menidia. Syst. Zool. 30:351-370.
42. Morrison D.A. 2005. Networks in phylogenetic analysis: new tools for population biology. Int. J. Parasitol. 35:567-582
43. Mü ller K. 2006. SeqState. Version 1.32. Available from: http://www.botanik.uni-bonn.de/system/downloads/SeqStatus.
44. Nelson G., Platnick N.I. 1980. Multiple branching in cladograms: two interpretations. Syst. Zool. 29:86.
45. Pagel M., Meade A. 2006. BayesTraits. Available from: http://www.evolution.rdg.ac.uk.
46. Penny D., Hendy M.D. 1985. The use of tree comparison metrics. Syst. Zool. 34:75-82.
47. Pirie M.D., Humphreys A.M., Galley C., Barker N.P., Verboom G.A., Orlovich D., Draffn S.J., Lloyd K., Baeza C.M., Negritto M., Ruiz E., Cota Sanchez J.H., Reimer E., Linder H.P. 2008. A novel superma-trix approach improves resolution of phylogenetic relationships in a comprehensive sample of danthonioid grasses. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 48:1106-1119.
48. Pirie M.D., Vargas M.P.B., Botermans M., Bakker F.T., Chatrou L.W. 2007. Ancient paralogy in the cpDNA trnL-F region in Annonaceae: implications for plant molecular systematics. Am. J. Bot. 94:1003-1016.
49. Pisani D., Wilkinson M. 2002. Matrix representation with parsimony, taxonomic congruence, and total evidence. Syst. Biol. 51: 151-155.
50. Posada D., Crandall K.A. 1998. Modeltest: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics. 14:817-818.
51. Rambaut A., Drummond A.J. 2003. Tracer. Version 1.3. Available from: http://beast.bio.ed.ac.uk/Tracer.
52. Rieseberg L.H., Brunsfeld S.J. 1992. Molecular evidence and plant introgression. In: Soltis P.S., Soltis D.E., Doyle J.J., editors. Molecular systematics of plants. London, UK: Chapman & Hall. p. 151-176.
53. Rieseberg L.H., Morefeld J.D. 1995. Character expression, phyloge-netic reconstruction, and the detection of reticulate evolution. In: Hoch P.C., Stephenson A.G., editors. Experimental and molecular approaches to plant systematics. p. 333-353 (Monographs in Systematic Botany from the Missouri Botanical Garden).
54. Rieseberg L.H., Soltis D.E. 1991. Phylogenetic consequences of cyto-plasmic gene fow in plants. Evol. Trend Plant. 5:65-84.
55. Rodrigo A.G., Kelly-Borges M., Bergquist P.R., Bergquist P.L. 1993. A randomisation test of the null hypothesis that two cladograms are sample estimates of a parametric phylogenetic tree. N.Z. J. Bot. 31:257-268.
56. Sanderson M.J. 2002a. Estimating absolute rates of molecular evolution and divergence times: a penalized likelihood approach. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:101-109.
57. Sanderson M.J. 2002b. r8s. Version 1.50. Distributed by the author. Davis (CA): Section of Evolution and Ecology, University of California.
58. Sanmartin I., Wanntorp L., Winkworth R.C. 2007. West wind drift revisited: testing for directional dispersal in the Southern hemisphere using event-based tree ftting. J. Biogeogr. 34:398-416.
59. Seehausen O. 2004. Hybridization and adaptive radiation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:198-207.
60. Shaw K.L. 2002. Confict between nuclear and mitochondrial DNA phylogenies of a recent species radiation: what mtDNA reveals and conceals about modes of speciation in Hawaiian crickets. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 99:16122-16127.
61. Simmons M.P., Ochoterena. H. 2000. Gaps as characters in sequence-based phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 49:369-381.
62. Sullivan J. 1996. Combining data with different distributions of among-site rate variation. Syst. Biol. 45:375-380. (Pubitemid 126346361)
63. Swofford D.L. 2000. PAUP*. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods). Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates.
64. Verboom G.A., Ntsohi R., Barker N.P. 2006. Molecular phylogeny of African Rytidosperma-affliated danthonioid grasses reveals generic polyphyly and convergent evolution in spikelet morphology. Taxon. 55:337-348.
65. Vriesendorp B., Bakker F.T. 2005. Reconstructing patterns of reticulate evolution in angiosperms: what can we do? Taxon. 54:593-604.
66. Wiens J.J. 2003. Missing data, incomplete taxa, and phylogenetic accuracy. Syst. Biol. 52:528-538.
67. Wiens J.J. 2006. Missing data and the design of phylogenetic analysis. J. Biomed. Inform. 39:34-42.
68. Wiens J.J., Parkinson C.L., Reeder T.W. 2005. Hylid frog phylogeny and sampling strategies for speciose clades. Syst. Biol. 54:719-748.
69. Wikström N., Savolainen V., Chase M.W. 2001. Evolution of the angiosperms: calibrating the family tree. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Biol. 1482:2211-2220.
70. Wilgenbusch J.C., Warren D.L., Swofford D.L. 2004. AWTY: a system for graphical exploration of MCMC convergence in Bayesian phylogenetic inference. Available from: http://www.ceb.csit.fsu.edu/awty.