4.4 Article

A revised evolutionary history of Poales: origins and diversification

期刊

BOTANICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
卷 175, 期 1, 页码 4-16

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/boj.12160

关键词

molecular dating; ancestral reconstructions; CO2-concentrating mechanisms; Cenozoic; radiation; open and dry habitats

资金

  1. Swiss National Foundation
  2. National Research Foundation (South Africa)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Poales represents more than one-third of all monocotyledons (c. 20 000 species in 16 families) and constitutes a microcosm of the angiosperms. The extreme variation in species richness among the families of Poales is still not understood: Poaceae includes similar to 10 000 species, whereas six families have fewer than ten species. Here, using the largest phylogenetic analysis of Poales to date, molecular dating, ancestral reconstructions and diversification analyses, we develop a macro-evolutionary and macro-ecological approach to seek correlates for changing diversification patterns. We show that the poalean families diverged in the Late Cretaceous, a time of high levels of CO2 and high rainfall. Our habitat reconstructions indicate that Poales inhabited open and dry habitats in this environment. We also demonstrate that lineages with CO2-concentrating mechanisms inhabiting dry and open environments exhibited higher diversification rates than C-3, shade and wet lineages. CO2-concentrating mechanisms counteract the effects of low atmospheric CO2 and reduce phototranspiration. It is believed that the parallel evolution of C-4 and CAM (Crassulacean acid metabolism) photosynthesis in Poaceae, Cyperaceae and Bromeliaceae is an adaptation to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Combinations of extrinsic and intrinsic factors might have played a role in shifts in diversification rates and may explain the variation in species richness in Poales. (c) 2014 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2014, 175, 4-16.

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

4.4
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