| Literature DB >> 28646152 |
Shiliang Liu1,2, Rongjie Yang1, Jun Yang1, Tongpei Yi1, Huixing Song1, Mingyan Jiang1, Durgesh K Tripathi3, Mingdong Ma4, Qibing Chen5.
Abstract
Fargesia Franchet emend. Yi is closely allied with Thamnocalamus Munro but differs in many major morphological characteristics. Based on traditional morphological characters, it is difficult to differentiate these two genera. The current study measured 19 species in these two genera to determine whether variations in 12 categories of major characters are continuous. In addition, a self-organizing map (SOM) and cluster analysis were used together to reveal whether the known species of Fargesia represent discontinuous sampling of Thamnocalamus. The results show that 46 morphological characteristics exhibited high variation at the generic and species levels. In addition, the cluster analysis showed that 32 morphological characteristics of Thamnocalamus and Fargesia were divided between two species and well separated from the outgroup. Additionally, significant differences (P < 0.01) were observed in the reproductive structures between these two genera. The unrooted dendrogram, which was based on the SOM neural network, shows the same results as the cluster analysis of morphological characteristics. These data indicate that Fargesia is not a result of discontinuous sampling of Thamnocalamus; thus, Fargesia should not be treated as a synonym for Thamnocalamus.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28646152 PMCID: PMC5482892 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-04613-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Plant material used in the study.
| Species | Acronym | Location | No. of individuals | No. of samples | Altitude (m) | Longitude (E) | Latitude (N) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| F.a | Mianning, Liangshan, Sichuan, China | 3 | 16 | 2360–2700 | 102.17 | 28.57 |
|
| F.ba | Hongchi, Wuxi, Chongqing, China | 3 | 24 | 2300–2750 | 109.07 | 31.54 |
|
| F.d | Beichuan, Mianyang, Sichuan, China | 3 | 18 | 3500–3600 | 104.81 | 31.70 |
|
| F.dr | Guandu, Wanyuan, Dazhou, Sichuan, China | 3 | 30 | 1500–2200 | 108.06 | 32.15 |
|
| F.f | Kangding, Ganzi, Sichuan, China | 3 | 28 | 1700–2800 | 101.95 | 30.13 |
|
| F.fu | Baiji, Weixi, Diqing, Yunnan, China | 3 | 31 | 1800–2700 | 99.08 | 27.36 |
|
| F.g | Cuona, Shannan, Tibet, China | 3 | 19 | 2300–3000 | 91.94 | 28.21 |
|
| F.h | Shuiping, Jinping, Honghe, Yunnan, China | 3 | 32 | 1950–2100 | 103.24 | 22.85 |
|
| F.l | Daxueshan, Yongde, Lincang, Yunnan, China | 3 | 21 | 3300–3400 | 99.74 | 24.02 |
|
| F.m | Baidiao, Muli, liangshan, Sichuan, China | 3 | 20 | 3100–3500 | 101.46 | 28.05 |
|
| F.me | Baimang snow mountain, Deqin, Yunnan, China | 3 | 22 | 3300–3400 | 98.96 | 28.39 |
|
| F.n | Dalu, Jiuzhaigou, Aba, Sichuan, China | 3 | 27 | 2900–3000 | 103.67 | 33.56 |
|
| F.b | Taiping,Fengdu, Chongqing, China | 3 | 23 | 2000–2150 | 107.73 | 29.92 |
|
| F.p | Yaoshang, Qiaojia, Yunnan, China | 3 | 17 | 2100–2200 | 103.03 | 27.08 |
|
| F.r | Wolong, Wenchuan, Aba, Sichuan, China | 3 | 29 | 1700–2800 | 103.19 | 31.04 |
|
| F.sp | Yuanping, Chengkou, Chongqing, China | 3 | 25 | 1600–2400 | 108.34 | 31.92 |
|
| F.sc | Beichuan, Mianyang, Sichuan, China | 3 | 26 | 1450–2520 | 104.81 | 31.70 |
|
| T.a | Eastern India | 1 | 15 | 2500–3000 | 81.51 | 24.45 |
|
| T.u | Zhangmu, Nielamu, Shigatse, Tibet, China | 14 | 1~14 | 2650–3300 | 85.98 | 28.00 |
Coding of qualitative characteristics into binary or ordered multistate characteristics.
| Categories | Characteristics | Acronym | Encoding number | Standard deviation | Kruskal– | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | TM | FM | All | Wallis Test | |||
| Stem | Type of underground stem | TUS | Sympodial-clumping | Sympodial-scattering | — | — | 0.00 | 1.12 | 1 | 0.00** |
| Leaf sheath | Number | LSN | — | — | — | — | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00** |
| Length relative to inflorescences | CPI | Longer | Shorter | Equal | — | 0.49 | 1.17 | 1 | 0.05 | |
| Leaf present or absent | WOL | Absent | Present | — | — | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | — | |
| Extent of expansion around the spathe | ES | Not expanded | Expanded slightly | Expanded | — | 0.00 | 1.01 | 1 | 0.00** | |
| Inflorescences | Genuine or false | IGF | False | Genuine | — | — | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | — |
| Botryose or conical | IB/IC | Botryose | Conical | — | — | 0.00 | 0.94 | 1 | 0.00** | |
| Compact or squarrose | IC/IS | Compact | Squarrose | — | — | 0.54 | 1.06 | 1 | 0.00** | |
| Terminal or lateral | IL/IT | Terminal | Lateral | — | — | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00** | |
| Bracts present or absent | IWOB | Absent | Present | — | — | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00** | |
| Length (mm) | ILG | — | — | — | — | 0.90 | 0.99 | 1 | 0.02* | |
| Spikelet | Number | SN | — | — | — | — | 0.27 | 0.81 | 1 | 0.00** |
| Length (mm) | SLG | — | — | — | — | 0.43 | 1.18 | 1 | 0.04* | |
| Number of florets | SFN | — | — | — | — | 0.43 | 1.07 | 1 | 0.00** | |
| Color of florets | SFC | Light yellow | Light green | Green | — | 0.00 | 0.77 | 1 | 0.00** | |
| Length of rachilla (mm) | SRLG | — | — | — | — | 0.38 | 1.21 | 1 | 0.42 | |
| Length of pedicel (mm) | SPLG | — | — | — | — | 0.27 | 1.20 | 1 | 0.15 | |
| Hairs on pedicel present or absent | SPH | Absent | Present | — | — | 0.00 | 1.18 | 1 | 0.01** | |
| Bracts at the base of pedicel present or absent | SPB | Absent | Present | — | — | 0.00 | 0.98 | 1 | 0.00** | |
| Glume texture | Glume and texture | GM | Papery | Membranous | — | — | 1.14 | 0.92 | 1 | 0.76 |
| First glume | Shape | FS | Linear-lanceolate | Ovate-lanceolate | Long/narrow lanceolate | — | 0.00 | 1.29 | 1 | 0.20 |
| Length (mm) | FLG | — | — | — | — | 0.49 | 1.22 | 1 | 0.09 | |
| Number of nerves | FNN | — | — | — | — | 0.00 | 1.29 | 1 | 0.37 | |
| Second glume | Shape | SS | Linear-lanceolate | Ovate-lanceolate | Long/narrow lanceolate | — | 0.00 | 1.30 | 1 | 0.21 |
| Length (mm) | SLG | — | — | — | — | 0.45 | 1.25 | 1 | 0.60 | |
| Number of nerves | SNN | — | — | — | — | 0.00 | 1.28 | 1 | 0.10 | |
| Lemma | Shape | LS | Linear-lanceolate | Ovate-lanceolate | Long/narrow lanceolate | — | 0.00 | 0.85 | 1 | 0.00** |
| Length (mm) | LLG | — | — | — | — | 0.60 | 1.21 | 1 | 0.73 | |
| Number of nerves | LNN | — | — | — | — | 0.40 | 1.09 | 1 | 0.00** | |
| Hairs present or absent | LWOH | Absent | Present | — | — | 0.00 | 1.23 | 1 | 0.06 | |
| Texture | LM | Papery | Membranous | — | — | 0.00 | 1.2 | 1 | 0.02* | |
| Palea | Length (cm) | PLG | — | — | — | — | 0.64 | 1.15 | 1 | 0.15 |
| Two cristae present or absent | PWOC | Absent | Present | — | — | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | — | |
| Apex split into two | PAS | No | Yes | — | — | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | — | |
| Hairs on cristae present or absent | PCH | Absent | Present | — | — | 0.00 | 1.26 | 1 | 0.15 | |
| Hairs between cristae present or absent | PBH | Absent | Present | — | — | 0.54 | 1.06 | 1 | 0.00** | |
| Lodicule | Number | LN | — | — | — | — | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | — |
| Shape | LS | Lanceolate | Triangular | Ovate | — | 0.00 | 1.27 | 1 | 0.25 | |
| Relative size | LSSN | Equal | Not equal | — | — | 0.00 | 1.21 | 1 | 0.03* | |
| Hairs on margins present or absent | LMH | Absent | Present | — | — | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | — | |
| Stamen | Number | SUN | — | — | — | — | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | — |
| Color of anther | AAC | Yellow | Brownish yellow | Purple | — | 0.00 | 0.50 | 1 | 0.00** | |
| Gynoecium | Shape of ovary | GOS | Elliptic | Ovate | Oblong | — | 0.30 | 1.23 | 1 | 0.18 |
| Hairs present or absent | GWOH | Absent | Present | — | — | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | — | |
| Number of styles | GSN | — | — | — | — | 0.00 | 1.26 | 1 | 0.15 | |
| Number of stigmas | GSTN | — | — | — | — | 0.46 | 0.97 | 1 | 0.00** | |
The significance of differences and standard deviations between Fargesia and Thamnocalamus were calculated with the Kruskal–Wallis test. ** P < 0.01, * P < 0.05. TM, the mean standard deviation (SD) of Thamnocalamus species; FM, the mean SD of Fargesia species; All, the SD of Fargesia and Thamnocalamus species.
Pearson’s correlation coefficients between the significant discriminatory characteristics as indicated by the Kruskal–Wallis test results in Table 2.
| TUS | LSN | ES | IB/IC | IC/IS | IL/IT | IWOB | SN | SFN | SFC | SPH | SPB | LS | PBH | AAC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LSN |
| ||||||||||||||
| ES | 0.01 |
| |||||||||||||
| IB/IC |
|
| 0.31 | ||||||||||||
| IC/IS |
|
| 0.08 |
| |||||||||||
| IL/IT |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
| IWOB |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||
| SN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
| SFN |
|
| 0.14 |
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
| SFC | 0.34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| SPH | 0.13 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.31 |
| 0.39 | |||||
| SPB | 0.10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.30 | ||||
| LS |
|
|
|
| 0.54 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| PBH |
|
| 0.40 | 0.38 | 0.32 |
|
|
| 0.11 |
|
|
|
| ||
| AAC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| GSTN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.30 | 0.36 |
|
|
|
Values highlighted in bold are statistically significant at P < 0.01(**).
Feature comparison of the inflorescences of representatives of the genera in the Thamnocalamus group.
| Genera | Glume buds | Bracts | Fasciculation | Pulvini | Florets |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Common | Usual | None | No | Many |
|
| Common | Often | Yes | No | Many |
|
| Rare | Few | No | Few | Many |
|
| None | None | No | Many | Many |
|
| None | None | Yes | No | 2-several |
|
| None | None | Reduced | No | 1 |
Figure 1Scatterplot of the scores for the first (PC1) and second (PC2) principal components based on the principal component analysis (PCA). The data were subjected to z-score standardization prior to analysis. Red squares represent Fargesia species, and green circles represent Thamnocalamus species. Please see Table 1 for details.
Figure 2Hierarchical clustering (HC) dendrogram of 32 accessions derived from 46 morphological characteristics. (A) Distances between pairs of objects were calculated based on Euclidean distances, and the cluster linkage model utilized the inner squared distance; (B) distances between objects (one minus the sample correlation). The cluster linkage model had the greatest distance. In both figures, red lines represent Fargesia accessions, and green lines represent Thamnocalamus accessions. Please see Table 1 for details.
Figure 3Unrooted dendrogram representing relationships among Fargesia and Thamnocalamus species estimated with a SOM neural network. For all characters, the mean value was used to construct the dendrogram. Tree distances were calculated with the SOM Neural Network Toolbox for MATLAB software (MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA, USA) and the online tool Interactive Tree Of Life (ITOL; http://itol.embl.de/).
Figure 4Geographic distribution of accessions of Fargesia and Thamnocalamus species used in this study. Red squares represent Fargesia species, and green circles indicate Thamnocalamus species. Please see Table 1 for details. The figure was generated with Adobe® Photoshop® CS3 extend 10.0.1 software (Adobe Systems Inc., San Jose, CA, USA; URL link: https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop.html ? promoid = KLXLS) based on Google® maps (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA; URL link: https://www.google.com/maps).
Figure 5Trained classification structure model (A) and weight structure (B,C and D) of the SOM neural network. We converted the 46 morphological characters into normalized vectors of codon usage x(t), and 32 accessions were classified by character factors. Symmetrical effects and differences among the samples are more obvious and significant, although off-diagonal weight points are observed.