4.1 Article

Phylogenetic relationships among reindeer lichens of North America

期刊

LICHENOLOGIST
卷 48, 期 3, 页码 209-227

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0024282915000572

关键词

AMOVA; Cladina; haplotype network; ITS rDNA; monophyly; mtSSU; phylogeny

资金

  1. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)
  2. European Union [PIEF-GA-2013-625653]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cladonia is one of the largest lichen-forming ascomycete genera. It was formerly divided into ten sections, three of which, Crustaceae (Cladina), Tenues, and Impexae, are called the reindeer lichens. While previous studies have elucidated the relationships between species and sections, they often examined only one or a few specimens of each species in the analysis. This study examined the monophyly of selected members of sections Crustaceae, Tenues, and Impexae and their relationships in the genus Cladonia using the internal transcribed spacer region of the nuclear ribosomal DNA (ITS rDNA) and the mitochondrial small subunit gene of the mitochondrial ribosomal DNA(mtSSU). The phylogenetic tree contained four clades, two representing species in section Impexae, one representing species that belong to sections Crustaceae and Tenues, and one clade with C. arbuscula and related species. Five of 22 species, C. pycnoclada, C. stellaris, C. evansii, C. ciliata and C. subtenuis, showed monophyly in the phylogenetic tree; some of these 5 species have been shown previously to be monophyletic. The thallus branching pattern was interpreted as an important heritable character using the mtSSU network. Three duplets of paraphyletic species were further examined using ITS rDNA haplotype networks and AMOVA analysis. The results for the species duplets showed some mixing of haplotypes but the AMOVA analysis provided support for species separation within the duplets. While the evidence supports distinct species, further study is needed to conclusively show separate species in these duplets.

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

4.1
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