4.6 Article

Leaf reflectance spectra capture the evolutionary history of seed plants

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 228, 期 2, 页码 485-493

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nph.16771

关键词

evolution; leaf spectra; phylogenetic signal; remote sensing; seed plants

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DEB-1342872, DEB-1342778, DEB-1342823]
  2. National Aeronautics and Space Administration through the Dimensions of Biodiversity program [DEB-1342872, DEB-1342778, DEB-1342823]
  3. National Institute for Mathematical Biology and Synthesis
  4. University of Zurich
  5. USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project through the Maine Agricultural & Forest Experiment Station [ME0-22022]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Leaf reflectance spectra have been increasingly used to assess plant diversity. However, we do not yet understand how spectra vary across the tree of life or how the evolution of leaf traits affects the differentiation of spectra among species and lineages. Here we describe a framework that integrates spectra with phylogenies and apply it to a global dataset of over 16 000 leaf-level spectra (400-2400 nm) for 544 seed plant species. We test for phylogenetic signal in spectra, evaluate their ability to classify lineages, and characterize their evolutionary dynamics. We show that phylogenetic signal is present in leaf spectra but that the spectral regions most strongly associated with the phylogeny vary among lineages. Despite among-lineage heterogeneity, broad plant groups, orders, and families can be identified from reflectance spectra. Evolutionary models also reveal that different spectral regions evolve at different rates and under different constraint levels, mirroring the evolution of their underlying traits. Leaf spectra capture the phylogenetic history of seed plants and the evolutionary dynamics of leaf chemistry and structure. Consequently, spectra have the potential to provide breakthrough assessments of leaf evolution and plant phylogenetic diversity at global scales.

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

4.6
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