4.5 Article

Phylogenetic origins of Lophocereus (Cactaceae) and the senita cactus-senita moth pollination mutualism

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
卷 89, 期 7, 页码 1085-1092

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.3732/ajb.89.7.1085

关键词

Carnegiea; chloroplast DNA; Lophoccreus; mutualism; Neobuxbaumia; Pachycereus; pollination; Stenocereus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent ecological research has revealed that the Sonoran Desert columnar cactus Lophocereus and the pyralid moth Upiga virescens form in obligate pollination mutualism, a rare but important case of coevolution. To investigate the phylogenetic origins of this unusual pollination system, we used molecular sequence data to reconstruct the phylogeny of the four taxa within the genus Lophocereus and to determine the phylogenetic position of Lophocereus within the North American columnar cacti (tribe Pachycereeae). Our analysis included Lophocereus, six Pachycereus species, Carnegiea gigantea, and Neobuxbaumia tetetzo within the subtribe Pachycereinae, and Stenocereus thurberi as an outgroup within the Stenocereinae. Extensive screening of chloroplast and mitochondrial genomes failed to reveal sequence variation within Lophocereus. At a deeper phylogenetic level, however, we found strong support for the placement of Lophocercus within Pachycereus as sister group to the hummingbird-pollinated P. marginatus. we discuss possible hypotheses that may explain the transition from but pollination (ancestral) to moth and hummingbird pollination in Lophocereus and P. marginatus, respectively. Additional phylogenetic analyses suggest that the genus Pachycereus should be expanded to include Lophocercus, Carnegiea, Neobuxbaumia, and perhaps other species, whereas P. hollianus may need to be excluded from this clade. Future Study will be needed to test taxonomic distinctions within Lophocereus, to test for parallel cladogenesis between phylogroups within Lophocereus and Upiga, and to fully delineate the genus Pachycereus and relationships among genera in the Pachycereinae.

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