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...
Main Authors: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |