| Literature DB >> 29463716 |
Jennifer L Morris1, Mark N Puttick1,2, James W Clark1, Dianne Edwards3, Paul Kenrick2, Silvia Pressel4, Charles H Wellman5, Ziheng Yang6,7, Harald Schneider8,4,9, Philip C J Donoghue8.
Abstract
Establishing the timescale of early land plant evolution is essential for testing hypotheses on the coevolution of land plants and Earth's System. The sparseness of early land plant megafossils and stratigraphic controls on their distribution make the fossil record an unreliable guide, leaving only the molecular clock. However, the application of molecular clock methodology is challenged by the current impasse in attempts to resolve the evolutionary relationships among the living bryophytes and tracheophytes. Here, we establish a timescale for early land plant evolution that integrates over topological uncertainty by exploring the impact of competing hypotheses on bryophyte-tracheophyte relationships, among other variables, on divergence time estimation. We codify 37 fossil calibrations for Viridiplantae following best practice. We apply these calibrations in a Bayesian relaxed molecular clock analysis of a phylogenomic dataset encompassing the diversity of Embryophyta and their relatives within Viridiplantae. Topology and dataset sizes have little impact on age estimates, with greater differences among alternative clock models and calibration strategies. For all analyses, a Cambrian origin of Embryophyta is recovered with highest probability. The estimated ages for crown tracheophytes range from Late Ordovician to late Silurian. This timescale implies an early establishment of terrestrial ecosystems by land plants that is in close accord with recent estimates for the origin of terrestrial animal lineages. Biogeochemical models that are constrained by the fossil record of early land plants, or attempt to explain their impact, must consider the implications of a much earlier, middle Cambrian-Early Ordovician, origin.Entities:
Keywords: Embryophyta; evolution; phylogeny; plant; timescale
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29463716 PMCID: PMC5877938 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1719588115
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ISSN: 0027-8424 Impact factor: 11.205
Fig. 1.The seven alternative hypotheses considered in the dating analyses. (A) Monophyletic bryophytes; (B) liverwort–moss sister clade to tracheophytes; (C) mosses, liverworts, and hornworts as successive sister lineages to tracheophytes; (D) a moss–liverwort sister clade to other embryophytes; (E) hornworts, mosses, and liverworts as successive sister lineages to tracheophytes; (F) mosses, hornworts, and liverworts as successive sister lineages to tracheophytes; and (G) a moss–hornwort sister clade to tracheophytes.
Summary of the analyses performed employing the seven alternative hypotheses, removal of the embryophyte constraints, and trimming dataset size
| Node distribution | |||||||||||
| Uniform | Skew-t 850,000 | Cauchy 850,000 | |||||||||
| Dataset | 850,000 | 1.7 million | 435,000 | 290,000 | 19,000 | 2,000 | 850,000 | 1.7 million | |||
| Dataset no. | |||||||||||
| A Monophyletic | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| B Hornworts−sister | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| C Hornworts−liverworts−mosses | ✓ | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| D Liverworts−mosses−sister | ✓ | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| E Liverworts−mosses−hornworts | ✓ | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| F Liverworts−hornworts−mosses | ✓ | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| G Liverworts−sister | ✓ | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Monophyletic (embryophytes only) | X | ✓ | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Hornworts−sister (embryophytes only) | X | ✓ | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Monophyletic ( | X | ✓ | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Hornworts−sister ( | X | ✓ | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
All input topologies are based on the 290,718-nucleotide dataset, except for the Chara-embryophytes topology, which is based on the likelihood phylogeny of 1.7 million nucleotides.
A correlated model was used to estimate substitution rates on branches rather than the uncorrelated model used in all other analyses.
Fig. 2.Age estimates for the seven topologies used in analyses, highlighting the 95% HPD age uncertainty for embryophytes and tracheophytes. Age estimates are shown for (A) monophyletic bryophytes, (B) hornworts−sister, (C) hornworts−liverworts−mosses, (D) liverworts−mosses−sister, (E) liverworts−mosses−hornworts, (F) liverworts−hornworts−mosses, and (G) liverworts−sister.
The 95% HPD age estimates for of embryophytes and tracheophytes from divergence time analyses using the seven alternative topologies
| Topology | Embryophytes, Ma | Tracheophytes, Ma |
| Dataset no. | ||
| A Monophyletic | 514.8–473.5 | 450.8–431.2 |
| B Hornworts−sister | 515.2–482.1 | 450.8–430.4 |
| C Hornworts−liverworts−mosses | 515.2–483.3 | 450.7–419.3 |
| D Liverworts−mosses−sister | 514.9–477.7 | 450.8–431.1 |
| E Liverworts−mosses−hornworts | 515.1–480.8 | 450.7–427.9 |
| F Liverworts−hornworts−mosses | 515.1–483.2 | 450.7–428.5 |
| G Liverworts−sister | 514.9–478.4 | 450.8–428.2 |
The 95% HPD age estimates for named nodes in the analyses using the two main topologies of early land plants (monophyletic, hornworts−sister)
| Clade | Monophyletic, Ma | Hornworts−sister, Ma |
| Viridiplantae | 972.4–669.9 | 968.0–676.7 |
| Streptophyta | 890.9–629.1 | 875.4–637.4 |
| Embryophyta | 514.8–473.5 | 515.2–482.1 |
| Bryophytes | 506.4–460.3 | N/A |
| Marchantiophyta | 443.6–405.3 | 442.0–405.3 |
| Marchantiopsida | 354.9–228.0 | 357.9–228.0 |
| Bryophyta | 448.6–344.3 | 443.0–343.4 |
| Tracheophyta | 450.8–431.2 | 450.8–430.4 |
| Lycopodiophyta | 432.5–392.8 | 431.2–392.8 |
| Euphyllophyta | 437.6–402.2 | 435.7–402.2 |
| Monilophyta | 411.5–384.9 | 409.3–384.9 |
| Spermatophyta | 365.0–330.9 | 365.0–329.8 |
| Acrogymnospermae | 337.2–308.4 | 335.9–308.4 |
| Pinopsida | 301.3–172.4 | 302.8–172.1 |
| Angiospermae | 246.5–197.5 | 246.6–195.4 |
| Mesangiospermae | 180.4–139.5 | 177.6–139.2 |
| Magnoliids | 149.9–118.9 | 149.1–119.1 |
| Piperales | 103.7–51.4 | 106.7–50.6 |
| Eudicotyledoneae | 125.0–119.7 | 124.2–119.7 |
| Monocotyledoneae | 128.5–114.5 | 128.5–114.6 |
N/A, not applicable.
Fig. 3.Detailed phylogenies showing the congruent age estimates produced using the monophyletic (A) and hornworts−sister (B) topologies.
Fig. 4.Infinite site plots showing the effects of including more sequence data on the precision of age estimates. All ages are plotted using the monophyletic bryophytes topology with (A) datasets including all sites, and datasets trimmed so sequences are complete for (B) 50%, (C) 75%, (D) 95%, and (E) 99.9% of taxa.
Fig. 5.The estimated ages of embryophyte and tracheophyte divergence is more variable due to differences in modeling compared with differences in dataset size or topology. Using the monophyletic topology, the impact on age estimation was tested by using alternative strategies to model substitution rates, age constraints, and by excluding outgroups. An asterisk (*) denotes analysis performed on hornworts−sister topology.
95% HPD age estimates for embryophytes and tracheophytes in analyses after removing all nonembryophyte lineages, employing a correlated clock model, and applying different strategies for the shape of prior node age constraints (uniform unless stated)
| Dating strategies | Embryophytes, Ma | Tracheophytes, Ma |
| Monophyletic no outgroup | 515.0–473.6 | 450.8–430.1 |
| Hornworts−sister no outgroup | 515.1–478.6 | 450.8–430.1 |
| Monophyletic correlation | 514.0–470.0 | 450.9–440.7 |
| Hornworts−sister correlation | 514.4–475.0 | 450.9–439.8 |
| Monophyletic no embryophyte constraint | 535.3–475.7 | 450.8–431.4 |
| Hornworts−sister no embryophyte constraint | 583.1–489.2 | 450.8–431.7 |
| Monophyletic cauchy | 515.3–470.4 | 472.2–424.2 |
| Hornworts−sister cauchy | 534.0–471.4 | 463.4–423.2 |
| Monophyletic skew-t | 493.8–470.7 | 457.7–422.7 |
| Hornworts−sister skew-t | 497.3–471.1 | 444.8–422.4 |
| Monophyletic ( | 514.9–476.6 | 450.9–436.7 |
| Hornworts−sister ( | 515.2–484.1 | 450.9–434.5 |
There is greater variance when these uncertainties are used compared with the smaller variance seen on dating analyses using the alternative topologies.