Systematic Biology Advance Access originally published online on May 30, 2009
Systematic Biology 2009 58(2):240-256; doi:10.1093/sysbio/syp021
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© Society of Systematic Biologists
Complete Generic-Level Phylogenetic Analyses of Palms (Arecaceae) with Comparisons of Supertree and Supermatrix Approaches
1 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB, UK
2 Imperial College London, Silwood Park Campus, Buckhurst Road, Ascot, Berkshire SL5 7PY, UK
3 Department of Ecology, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 21, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
4 Department of Plant Biology, Cornell University, 412 Mann Library Building, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
5 Department of Zoology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK
* Correspondence to be sent to: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB, UK; E-mail: w.baker{at}kew.org.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
Supertree and supermatrix methods have great potential in the quest to build the tree of life and yet they remain controversial, with most workers opting for one approach or the other, but rarely both. Here, we employed both methods to construct phylogenetic trees of all genera of palms (Arecaceae/Palmae), an iconic angiosperm family of great economic importance. We assembled a supermatrix consisting of 16 partitions, comprising DNA sequence data, plastid restriction fragment length polymorphism data, and morphological data for all genera, from which a highly resolved and well-supported phylogenetic tree was built despite abundant missing data. To construct supertrees, we used variants of matrix representation with parsimony (MRP) analysis based on input trees generated directly from subsamples of the supermatrix. All supertrees were highly resolved. Standard MRP with bootstrap-weighted matrix elements performed most effectively in this case, generating trees with the greatest congruence with the supermatrix tree and fewest clades unsupported by any input tree. Nonindependence due to input trees based on combinations of data partitions was an acceptable trade-off for improvements in supertree performance. Irreversible MRP and the use of strictly independent input trees only provided no obvious benefits. Contrary to previous claims, we found that unsupported clades are not infrequent under some MRP implementations, with up to 13% of clades lacking support from any input tree in some irreversible MRP supertrees. To build a formal synthesis, we assessed the cross-corroboration between supermatrix trees and the variant supertrees using semistrict consensus, enumerating shared clades and compatible clades. The semistrict consensus of the supermatrix tree and the most congruent supertree contained 160 clades (of a maximum of 204), 137 of which were present in both trees. The relationships recovered by these trees strongly support the current phylogenetic classification of palms. We evaluate 2 composite supertree support measures (rQS and V) and conclude that it is more informative to report numbers of input trees that support or conflict with a given supertree clade. This study demonstrates that supertree and supermatrix methods can provide effective, explicit, and complimentary mechanisms for synthesizing disjointed phylogenetic evidence while emphasizing the need for further refinement of supertree methods.
Keywords: Arecaceae; congruence; matrix representation with parsimony (MRP); Palmae; phylogeny; supermatrix; supertree
Received August 5, 2008; Revised October 30, 2008; Accepted February 25, 2009