4.5 Article

Molecular phylogeny of Juglans (Juglandaceae):: a biogeographic perspective

期刊

TREE GENETICS & GENOMES
卷 3, 期 4, 页码 363-378

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11295-006-0078-5

关键词

biogeography; chloroplast DNA; cladogenesis; disjunction; Juglandaceae; Juglans; Noncoding spacer sequence; phylogeny; walnut

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The eastern Asian and eastem North American disjunction in Juglans offers an opportunity to estimate the time since divergence of the Eurasian and American lineages and to compare it with paleobotanical evidence. Five chloroplast DNA noncoding spacer (NCS) sequences: trnT-trnF, psbA-trnH, atpB-rbcL, trnV-16S rRNA, and trnS-trnfM and data from earlier studies (matK, ITS, and nuclear RFLP) were used to reconstruct phylogeny and to estimate the divergence time of major lineages. Seventeen taxa from four sections of Juglans and two outgroup taxa, Pterocarya stenoptera and Carya illinoiensis were included. NCS data was congruent only with matK data. Both maximum parsimony (MP) and maximum likelihood (ML) cladograms were concordant at the sectional level and revealed three well-supported monophyletic clades corresponding to sections Juglans, Cardiocaryon, and Rhysocaryon in both NCS and combined analyses. The single extant American butternut, Juglans cinerea was placed within the poorly resolved, but well-supported Rhysocaryon. Placement of taxa within Rhysocaryon and Cardiocaryon were inconsistent between NCS and combined analyses. Overall, the results suggest that: (1) the NCS sequence divergence observed within and between sections of Juglans is low and the addition of matK data only marginally improved resolution within Rhysocaryon; (2) the early divergence of section Juglans in both MP and ML analyses of NCS and combined data implies its ancient origin in contrast to fossil evidence, which suggests the earliest divergence of sections Rhysocaryon and Cardiocaryon; and (3) the extant taxa may not hold the footprints to unravel the evolutionary history of the genus.

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