Biogeography of the xerophytic genus Anabasis L. (Chenopodiaceae)

Abstract Aim Using the extremophile genus Anabasis, which includes c. 28 succulent, xerophytic C4 species, and is widely distributed in arid regions of Northern Africa, Arabia, and Asia, we investigate biogeographical relationships between the Irano‐Turanian floristic region (ITfr) and its neighbori...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Maximilian Lauterbach, Marie Claire Veranso‐Libalah, Alexander P. Sukhorukov, Gudrun Kadereit
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2019-03-01
Series:Ecology and Evolution
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4987
id doaj-9bdc132403944abfb2ba2858eb9b006e
record_format Article
spelling doaj-9bdc132403944abfb2ba2858eb9b006e2021-04-02T13:30:12ZengWileyEcology and Evolution2045-77582019-03-01963539355210.1002/ece3.4987Biogeography of the xerophytic genus Anabasis L. (Chenopodiaceae)Maximilian Lauterbach0Marie Claire Veranso‐Libalah1Alexander P. Sukhorukov2Gudrun Kadereit3Institut für Molekulare Physiologie Johannes Gutenberg‐Universität Mainz MainzGermanyInstitut für Molekulare Physiologie Johannes Gutenberg‐Universität Mainz MainzGermanyDepartment of Higher Plants Biological Faculty Moscow Lomonosov State University Moscow RussiaInstitut für Molekulare Physiologie Johannes Gutenberg‐Universität Mainz MainzGermanyAbstract Aim Using the extremophile genus Anabasis, which includes c. 28 succulent, xerophytic C4 species, and is widely distributed in arid regions of Northern Africa, Arabia, and Asia, we investigate biogeographical relationships between the Irano‐Turanian floristic region (ITfr) and its neighboring regions. We test whether the spread of arid and semi‐arid biomes in Eurasia coincides with the biogeography of this drought‐adapted genus, and whether the ITfr acted as source area of floristic elements for adjacent regions. Location Deserts and semi‐deserts of Northern Africa, Mediterranean, Arabia, West and Central Asia. Methods Four cpDNA markers (rpL16 intron, atpB‐rbcL, trnQ‐rps16, and ndhF‐rpL32 spacers) were sequenced for 58 accessions representing 21 Anabasis species. Phylogenetic relationships and divergence times were inferred using maximum likelihood and a time‐calibrated Bayesian approach. To document the extant distribution of Anabasis, material from 23 herbaria was surveyed resulting in 441 well‐documented collections used for the coding of eight floristic regions. Using this coded data, ancestral range was estimated using “BioGeoBEARS” under the DEC model. Results Anabasis originated during the Late Miocene and the ancestral range was probably widespread and disjunct between Western Mediterranean and the Irano‐Turanian regions. Diversification started with two divergence events at the Miocene/Pliocene boundary (5.1 and 4.5 mya) leading to Asian clade I with ITfr origin which is sister to a slightly younger Asian clade II, which originated in the Western ITfr, and a Mediterranean/North African clade with an origin in the Western Mediterranean. Main conclusions Anabasis did not follow aridification and continuously expanded its distribution area, in fact its probably wide ancestral distribution area seems to have been fragmented during the very Late Miocene and the remnant lineages then expanded into neighboring arid regions. This genus supports the role of the ITfr as source area for xerophytic elements in the Mediterranean and Central Asia.https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4987ancestral range estimationarid and semi‐arid desertsEurasian desertsIrano‐Turanian floristic regionmediterranean regionmolecular phylogeny
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Maximilian Lauterbach
Marie Claire Veranso‐Libalah
Alexander P. Sukhorukov
Gudrun Kadereit
spellingShingle Maximilian Lauterbach
Marie Claire Veranso‐Libalah
Alexander P. Sukhorukov
Gudrun Kadereit
Biogeography of the xerophytic genus Anabasis L. (Chenopodiaceae)
Ecology and Evolution
ancestral range estimation
arid and semi‐arid deserts
Eurasian deserts
Irano‐Turanian floristic region
mediterranean region
molecular phylogeny
author_facet Maximilian Lauterbach
Marie Claire Veranso‐Libalah
Alexander P. Sukhorukov
Gudrun Kadereit
author_sort Maximilian Lauterbach
title Biogeography of the xerophytic genus Anabasis L. (Chenopodiaceae)
title_short Biogeography of the xerophytic genus Anabasis L. (Chenopodiaceae)
title_full Biogeography of the xerophytic genus Anabasis L. (Chenopodiaceae)
title_fullStr Biogeography of the xerophytic genus Anabasis L. (Chenopodiaceae)
title_full_unstemmed Biogeography of the xerophytic genus Anabasis L. (Chenopodiaceae)
title_sort biogeography of the xerophytic genus anabasis l. (chenopodiaceae)
publisher Wiley
series Ecology and Evolution
issn 2045-7758
publishDate 2019-03-01
description Abstract Aim Using the extremophile genus Anabasis, which includes c. 28 succulent, xerophytic C4 species, and is widely distributed in arid regions of Northern Africa, Arabia, and Asia, we investigate biogeographical relationships between the Irano‐Turanian floristic region (ITfr) and its neighboring regions. We test whether the spread of arid and semi‐arid biomes in Eurasia coincides with the biogeography of this drought‐adapted genus, and whether the ITfr acted as source area of floristic elements for adjacent regions. Location Deserts and semi‐deserts of Northern Africa, Mediterranean, Arabia, West and Central Asia. Methods Four cpDNA markers (rpL16 intron, atpB‐rbcL, trnQ‐rps16, and ndhF‐rpL32 spacers) were sequenced for 58 accessions representing 21 Anabasis species. Phylogenetic relationships and divergence times were inferred using maximum likelihood and a time‐calibrated Bayesian approach. To document the extant distribution of Anabasis, material from 23 herbaria was surveyed resulting in 441 well‐documented collections used for the coding of eight floristic regions. Using this coded data, ancestral range was estimated using “BioGeoBEARS” under the DEC model. Results Anabasis originated during the Late Miocene and the ancestral range was probably widespread and disjunct between Western Mediterranean and the Irano‐Turanian regions. Diversification started with two divergence events at the Miocene/Pliocene boundary (5.1 and 4.5 mya) leading to Asian clade I with ITfr origin which is sister to a slightly younger Asian clade II, which originated in the Western ITfr, and a Mediterranean/North African clade with an origin in the Western Mediterranean. Main conclusions Anabasis did not follow aridification and continuously expanded its distribution area, in fact its probably wide ancestral distribution area seems to have been fragmented during the very Late Miocene and the remnant lineages then expanded into neighboring arid regions. This genus supports the role of the ITfr as source area for xerophytic elements in the Mediterranean and Central Asia.
topic ancestral range estimation
arid and semi‐arid deserts
Eurasian deserts
Irano‐Turanian floristic region
mediterranean region
molecular phylogeny
url https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4987
work_keys_str_mv AT maximilianlauterbach biogeographyofthexerophyticgenusanabasislchenopodiaceae
AT marieclaireveransolibalah biogeographyofthexerophyticgenusanabasislchenopodiaceae
AT alexanderpsukhorukov biogeographyofthexerophyticgenusanabasislchenopodiaceae
AT gudrunkadereit biogeographyofthexerophyticgenusanabasislchenopodiaceae
_version_ 1721564828891348992