| Literature DB >> 35185977 |
Ai-Qun Hu1,2,3, Stephan W Gale3, Zhong-Jian Liu4, Gunter A Fischer3, Richard M K Saunders2.
Abstract
Evolutionary slowdowns in diversification have been inferred in various plant and animal lineages. Investigation based on diversification models integrated with environmental factors and key characters could provide critical insights into this diversification trend. We evaluate diversification rates in the Cirrhopetalum alliance (Bulbophyllum, Orchidaceae subfam. Epidendroideae) using a time-calibrated phylogeny and assess the role of Crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) as a hypothesised key innovation promoting the spectacular diversity of orchids, especially those with an epiphytic habit. An explosive early speciation in the Cirrhopetalum alliance is evident, with the origin of CAM providing a short-term advantage under the low atmospheric CO2 concentrations (pCO2) associated with cooling and aridification in the late Miocene. A subsequent slowdown of diversification in the Cirrhopetalum alliance is possibly explained by a failure to keep pace with pCO2 dynamics. We further demonstrate that extinction rates in strong CAM lineages are ten times higher than those of C3 lineages, with CAM not as evolutionarily labile as previously assumed. These results challenge the role of CAM as a "key innovation" in the diversification of epiphytic orchids.Entities:
Keywords: CAM; diversification slowdown; evolutionary dead-end; key innovation; pCO2
Year: 2022 PMID: 35185977 PMCID: PMC8851032 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.794171
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Summary of the various diversification models tested.
| Model and descriptions | Method used | Data used | Results |
| Null models: constant rates and pure birth | γ statistics in LASER (ML models testing; | Dataset 3 and 1,000 simulated trees based on Dataset 1 | Null models rejected, supporting the hypothesis of a slowdown in diversification |
| Diversity-dependent (DD) model: rates vary as a function of species density | DDD (ML models testing; | 100 simulated trees based on Dataset 1 | DD models rejected, supporting the alternative diversity-independent model |
| Models in which rates vary among clades and time | BAMM (Bayesian models testing; | Dataset 1 | No significant rate shift detected; speciation decreased through time |
| Time-dependent (TD) model: rates vary discretely as a function of time | LASER and RPANDA (fit_bd) (ML models testing; | Dataset 1 and Dataset 2 | Speciation rate is dramatically decreased and extinction rate is constant |
| Palaeoenvironment-dependent model: rates vary continuously as a function of both time and environmental condition | RPANDA (fit_env) (ML models testing; | Dataset 2 | Speciation is positively correlated to the drop of atmospheric |
| Trait-dependent model: rates vary as a function of character states | DIVERSITREE (BiSSE) (ML models testing; | Dataset 3 | Higher CAM associated speciation rate and 10-fold extinction rate to C3 |
| Trait-dependent model: rates vary as a function of hidden character states | HISSE (ML models testing; | Dataset 1 | Photosynthetic pathways explain most of the diversification heterogeneity |
Results of diversification analyses for the Cirrhopetalum alliance.
| Model type | Model descriptions | Rate variation | NP | logL | AICc | AIC wt | λ (initial/present) | μ (initial/present) |
| Constant rate | Constant BD | Constant | 2 | −205.6502 | 412.2852 | 0 | 0.3723 | −0.0009 |
| Time dependence | B variable, no D | Exponential | 2 | −205.2479 | 412.8934 | 0 | 0.3368/0.0316 | NA |
| B variable, D constant | Exponential | 3 | −205.2481 | 413.6977 | 0 | 0.3377/0.0302 | −0.0045 | |
| B constant, D variable | Exponential | 3 | −205.5027 | 414.1959 | 0 | 0.3792 | −0.0003/−0.0019 | |
| B variable, D variable | Exponential | 4 | −205.2482 | 415.8917 | 0 | 0.3380/0.0377 | 0.0023/−0.1173 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| B variable, D constant | Exponential | 3 | −205.4890 | 413.9813 | 0.1596 | 0.4037/−0.0004 | −0.0004 | |
| B constant, D variable | Exponential | 3 | −205.6109 | 414.4023 | 0.1471 | 0.3720 | −0.0002/−0.0016 | |
| B variable, D variable | Exponential | 4 | −205.5772 | 416.4616 | 0 | 0.4421/−0.0007 | 0.0484/−0.0020 |
The best-fit model, the pCO
FIGURE 1Maximum clade credibility chronogram of the Cirrhopetalum alliance clade (CAC) and its sister group. Asterisk indicates nodes with posterior clade probabilities (PP) < 0.95; otherwise, PP ≥ 0.95. Node numbers correspond with those in Supplementary Table 4. The inserted curve (A) represents estimated mean atmospheric CO2 concentration change based on palaeoclimatic pCO2 data extracted from Foster et al. (2017); the inserted phylorate plot (B) corresponds to the topology of CAC, showing net species diversification rate (lineage/Myr; cool colours = slow, warm = fast). B., Bulbophyllum; Ma, million years ago; Pl., Pleistocene; Pli., Pliocene.
The fit of BiSSE models of photosynthetic pathway evolution in the Cirrhopetalum alliance based on Dataset 3.
| Model | d.f. | λ0 | λ1 | μ0 | μ1 |
|
| lnLik | AIC | ΔAIC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| μ1 = 0 | 5 | 0.333 | 0.404 | 0.0003 | 0 | 0.043 | 0.004 | −234.176 | 478.352 | 1.688 |
| μ0 = μ1 | 5 | 0.333 | 0.404 | 0.0003 | 0.0003 | 0.043 | 0.004 | −234.247 | 478.494 | 1.83 |
| μ0 = 0 | 5 | 0.332 | 0.408 | 0 | 0.007 | 0.041 | 0.007 | −234.446 | 478.892 | 2.228 |
| λ0 = λ1 | 5 | 0.373 | 0.373 | 0.032 | 0.002 | 0.042 | 0.005 | −234.825 | 479.649 | 2.985 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 | 0.330 | 0.41 | 0.004 | 0.009 | 0.029 | 0.029 | −236.098 | 482.196 | 5.532 | |
| 5 | 0.314 | 0.419 | 0.0006 | 0.041 | 0 | 0.057 | −237.103 | 484.207 | 7.543 | |
| λ0 = 0 | 5 | 0 | 0.592 | 0.171 | 0.0001 | 3.908 | 3.49 | −265.279 | 540.559 | 63.895 |
| λ1 = 0 | 5 | 0.512 | 0 | 0.0001 | 0.156 | 3.19 | 4.408 | −268.279 | 546.559 | 69.895 |
λ, speciation rates; μ, extinction rates; q, transition rates; d.f., degrees of freedom. The coding of photosynthetic pathways follows Coding Scheme 1 (S1): C
Divergence times for the origin of CAM within the Cirrhopetalum alliance clade based on Coding Schemes S1 and S2.
| CAM type and clade (or tip) | Median stem age (95% HPD) | Median crown age (95% HPD) |
|
| ||
| Clade 60 | 11.8 (9–14.9) | 11.3 (8.1–13.8) |
| Clade 35 | 5.1 (3.5–6.8) | 4.2 (2.8–5.5) |
| Clade 33 | 6.6 (4.7–8.7) | 2 (0.8–3.6) |
| Clade 14 | 3.2 (1.9–4.7) | 1.4 (0.5–2.6) |
| Tip | Tip | |
| Tip | Tip | |
| Tip | Tip | |
| Tip | Tip | |
| Tip | Tip | |
| Clade 60 | 11.8 (9–14.9) | 11.3 (8.1–13.8) |
| Clade 32 | 8.9 (6.7–11.3) | 6.6 (4.7–8.7) |
| Clade 12 | 6.4 (3.9–8) | 3.2 (1.9–4.7) |
| Clade 8 | 3.9 (2.4–5.3) | 1 (0.2–1.9) |
| Tip | Tip | |
| Tip | Tip | |
| Tip | Tip | |
| Tip | Tip | |
| Tip | Tip |
FIGURE 2Reconstruction of the evolution of photosynthetic pathways in the Cirrhopetalum alliance clade, based on two coding schemes of photosynthetic modes described in the main text. Panel (A) corresponds to Coding Scheme S1 and panel (B) corresponds to Coding Scheme S2. Pie charts at internal nodes show relative probabilities assigned to each ancestral state. Clade numbers correlate with those shown in Figure 1 and Supplementary Table 4. Ma, million years ago.