4.5 Article

UNDERSTANDING ANGIOSPERM DIVERSIFICATION USING SMALL AND LARGE PHYLOGENETIC TREES

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
卷 98, 期 3, 页码 404-414

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.3732/ajb.1000481

关键词

angiosperms; diversification rate; flowering plants; key innovation; mega-phylogeny

资金

  1. iPlant Collaborative
  2. German Science Foundation (DFG)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

How will the emerging possibility of inferring ultra-large phylogenies influence our ability to identify shifts in diversification rate? For several large angiosperm clades (Angiospermae, Monocotyledonae, Orchidaceae, Poaceae, Eudicotyledonae, Fabaceae, and Asteraceae), we explore this issue by contrasting two approaches: (1) using small backbone trees with an inferred number of extant species assigned to each terminal clade and (2) using a mega-phylogeny of 55 473 seed plant species represented in GenBank. The mega-phylogeny approach assumes that the sample of species in GenBank is at least roughly proportional to the actual species diversity of different lineages, as appears to be the case for many major angiosperm lineages. Using both approaches, we found that diversification rate shifts are not directly associated with the major named clades examined here, with the sole exception of Fabaceae in the GenBank mega-phylogeny. These agreements are encouraging and may support a generality about angiosperm evolution: major shifts in diversification may not be directly associated with major named clades, but rather with clades that are nested not far within these groups. An alternative explanation is that there have been increased extinction rates in early-diverging lineages within these clades. Based on our mega-phylogeny, the shifts in diversification appear to be distributed quite evenly throughout the angiosperms. Mega-phylogenetic studies of diversification hold great promise for revealing new patterns, but we will need to focus more attention on properly specifying null expectation.

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