4.1 Article

New insights in Salicomia L. and allied genera (Chenopodiaceae) inferred from nrDNA sequence data

期刊

PLANT BIOSYSTEMS
卷 138, 期 3, 页码 215-223

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/11263500400006977

关键词

Arthrocnemum; Chenopodiaccae; ITS; phylogeny; Salicornia; Sarcocornia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

species of Salicornia, the three allied genera Arthrocnemum, Sarcocornia and Halocnemum of the same tribe Salicornieae, and other genera of the subfamily Salicornioideae used in previous studies. Bassia hirsuta, Camphorosma monspeliaca (subfamily Chenopodioideae) and four species of Suaeda (subf. Suaedoideae) were chosen as outgroups. Results show that the annual genus Salicornia is a sister group to the perennial genera Sarcocornia, Arthrocnemum and Halocnemum. Moreover, the phylogenetic analysis based on ITS results distinguished two groups of Salicornia species which fitted with ploidy level: one group consisted of diploid species, and the second of tetraploid ones. Sarcocornia and Arthrocnemum are shown to be closely related, even though the species investigated here exhibited an evident distance between their ITS sequences. On the basis of our results, these two genera should be united. Bienertia (already separated as Bienertieae) was confirmed as probable outgroup to the subf. Salicornioideae, while Kalidium (subf. Salicornioideae, tribe Halopeplideae) was an outgroup to the rest of the Salicornioideae (tribe Salicornieae). The group Allenrolfea plus Halocnemum was the most basal of the tribe Salicornieae amongst those investigated in this study. The two samples of Halocnemum strobilaceum used in this work displayed numerous changes (transitions and transversions) in their respective sequences, probably related to their morphological and chorological differentiation. On the basis of our analysis, the most probable basal chromosome number for Salicornieae appears to be 2n = 18. The same number would also be the base number for the annual genus Salicornia and the perennial

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