Qian Zhang1, Renske E Onstein1,2, Stefan A Little1, Hervé Sauquet1,3. 1. Laboratoire Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Univ. Paris-Sud, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, Orsay, France. 2. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv), Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. 3. National Herbarium of New South Wales (NSW), Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Although dioecy, which characterizes only 6 % of angiosperm species, has been considered an evolutionary dead end, recent studies have demonstrated that this is not necessarily the case. Moraceae (40 genera, 1100 spp., including Ficus, 750 spp.) are particularly diverse in breeding systems (including monoecy, gynodioecy, androdioecy and dioecy) and thus represent a model clade to study macroevolution of dioecy. Methods: Ancestral breeding systems of Ficus and Moraceae were inferred. To do so, a new dated phylogenetic tree of Ficus and Moraceae was first reconstructed by combining a revised 12-fossil calibration set and a densely sampled molecular data set of eight markers and 320 species. Breeding system evolution was then reconstructed using both parsimony and model-based (maximum likelihood and Bayesian) approaches with this new time scale. Key Results: The crown group ages of Ficus and Moraceae were estimated in the Eocene (40.6-55.9 Ma) and Late Cretaceous (73.2-84.7 Ma), respectively. Strong support was found for ancestral dioecy in Moraceae. Although the ancestral state of Ficus remained particularly sensitive to model selection, the results show that monoecy and gynodioecy evolved from dioecy in Moraceae, and suggest that gynodioecy probably evolved from monoecy in Ficus. Conclusions: Dioecy was found not to be an evolutionary dead end in Moraceae. This study provides a new time scale for the phylogeny and a new framework of breeding system evolution in Ficus and Moraceae.
Background and Aims: Although dioecy, which characterizes only 6 % of angiosperm species, has been considered an evolutionary dead end, recent studies have demonstrated that this is not necessarily the case. Moraceae (40 genera, 1100 spp., including Ficus, 750 spp.) are particularly diverse in breeding systems (including monoecy, gynodioecy, androdioecy and dioecy) and thus represent a model clade to study macroevolution of dioecy. Methods: Ancestral breeding systems of Ficus and Moraceae were inferred. To do so, a new dated phylogenetic tree of Ficus and Moraceae was first reconstructed by combining a revised 12-fossil calibration set and a densely sampled molecular data set of eight markers and 320 species. Breeding system evolution was then reconstructed using both parsimony and model-based (maximum likelihood and Bayesian) approaches with this new time scale. Key Results: The crown group ages of Ficus and Moraceae were estimated in the Eocene (40.6-55.9 Ma) and Late Cretaceous (73.2-84.7 Ma), respectively. Strong support was found for ancestral dioecy in Moraceae. Although the ancestral state of Ficus remained particularly sensitive to model selection, the results show that monoecy and gynodioecy evolved from dioecy in Moraceae, and suggest that gynodioecy probably evolved from monoecy in Ficus. Conclusions: Dioecy was found not to be an evolutionary dead end in Moraceae. This study provides a new time scale for the phylogeny and a new framework of breeding system evolution in Ficus and Moraceae.
Authors: Nina Rønsted; George D Weiblen; James M Cook; Nicolas Salamin; Carlos A Machado; Vincent Savolainen Journal: Proc Biol Sci Date: 2005-12-22 Impact factor: 5.349
Authors: Douglas E Soltis; Stephen A Smith; Nico Cellinese; Kenneth J Wurdack; David C Tank; Samuel F Brockington; Nancy F Refulio-Rodriguez; Jay B Walker; Michael J Moore; Barbara S Carlsward; Charles D Bell; Maribeth Latvis; Sunny Crawley; Chelsea Black; Diaga Diouf; Zhenxiang Xi; Catherine A Rushworth; Matthew A Gitzendanner; Kenneth J Sytsma; Yin-Long Qiu; Khidir W Hilu; Charles C Davis; Michael J Sanderson; Reed S Beaman; Richard G Olmstead; Walter S Judd; Michael J Donoghue; Pamela S Soltis Journal: Am J Bot Date: 2011-04-08 Impact factor: 3.844
Authors: Cibele Cássia-Silva; Cíntia G Freitas; Lucas Jardim; Christine D Bacon; Rosane G Collevatti Journal: Ann Bot Date: 2021-07-30 Impact factor: 4.357
Authors: Djivan Prentout; Olga Razumova; Bénédicte Rhoné; Hélène Badouin; Hélène Henri; Cong Feng; Jos Käfer; Gennady Karlov; Gabriel A B Marais Journal: Genome Res Date: 2020-02-07 Impact factor: 9.043