4.5 Article

Molecular phylogeny and evolution of inflorescence types in Eperua

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajb2.16229

Keywords

Eperua; Fabaceae; inflorescence morphology; molecular phylogeny; pollen; pollination; pollinator shift

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the evolution of different inflorescence types within the Amazonian hyperdominant genus Eperua. The results show that the shift from bat to bee and bee to bat pollination has occurred multiple times within the genus, but the bee to bat pollination doesn't always lead to a pendant inflorescence.
Premise: The Amazonian hyperdominant genus Eperua (Fabaceae) currently holds 20 described species and has two strongly different inflorescence and flower types, with corresponding different pollination syndrome. The evolution of these vastly different inflorescence types within this genus was unknown and the main topic in this study.Methods: We constructed a molecular phylogeny, based on the full nuclear ribosomal DNA and partial plastome, using Bayesian inference and maximum likelihood methods, to test whether the genus is monophyletic, whether all species are monophyletic and if the shift from bat to bee pollination (or vice versa) occurred once in this genus.Results: All but two species are well supported by the nuclear ribosomal phylogeny. The plastome phylogeny, however, shows a strong geographic signal suggesting strong local hybridization or chloroplast capture, rendering chloroplast barcodes meaningless in this genus.Conclusions: With our data, we cannot fully resolve the backbone of the tree to clarify sister genera relationships and confirm monophyly of the genus Eperua. Within the genus, the shift from bat to bee and bee to bat pollination has occurred several times but, with the bee to bat not always leading to a pendant inflorescence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available