4.5 Article

Phylogenetic relationships in Betula (Betulaceae) based on AFLP markers

期刊

TREE GENETICS & GENOMES
卷 4, 期 4, 页码 911-924

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11295-008-0162-0

关键词

Betula; birch; AFLP; amplified fragment length polymorphism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The genus Betula comprises various species in boreal and temperate climate zones of the Northern Hemisphere. The taxonomy of Betula is controversial and complicated by parallel evolution of morphological traits, polyploidization events, and extensive hybridization and introgression among species. Multilocus molecular data from AFLPs were used to provide phylogenetic information. A large number of polymorphic markers (321 variable bands) were produced in 107 Betula accessions from 23 species and 11 hybrids. The AFLP results were largely congruent with the results from previously examined nuclear DNA markers. Four distinct subgenera were identified within the genus Betula. These subgenera were partly in disagreement with the traditional (but disputed) division of the genus. In addition, the results indicated several groups of conspecific taxa. The majority of the species fell within subgenus Betula and shared a high degree of similarity with B. pendula. All hybrids were associated with this group, and the AFLP data contained signals on putative parents for some of the interspecific hybrids. Subgenus Chamaebetula and part of the Neurobetula species should be merged with Betula. The subgenera Betulenta, Betulaster, and the remaining part of Neurobetula are distinct and well supported. Although our results indicate that four major taxonomic groups can be recognized within the genus Betula, the relationship between them remains unclear. This may be due to the occurrence of hybridization and introgression, which would have a homogenizing effect on the relationships between species. Naturally occurring Betula species of hybrid origin may explain the low bootstrap values within the Betula clade.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据