植物学报 ›› 2020, Vol. 55 ›› Issue (4): 457-467.DOI: 10.11983/CBB19228

• 研究报告 • 上一篇    下一篇

基于多个叶绿体基因序列片段重建广义苋科系统发育关系

黄久香1,陈文娜2,李玉玲1,姚纲1,*()   

  1. 1华南农业大学林学与风景园林学院, 中国南方石灰岩植物研究中心, 广州 510642
    2河北工程大学园林与生态工程学院, 邯郸 056038
  • 收稿日期:2019-11-23 接受日期:2020-03-01 出版日期:2020-07-01 发布日期:2020-05-21
  • 通讯作者: 姚纲
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(31500180);广东省自然科学基金(2019A1515011695)

Phylogenetic Study of Amaranthaceae sensu lato Based on Multiple Plastid DNA Fragments

Jiuxiang Huang1,Wenna Chen2,Yuling Li1,Gang Yao1,*()   

  1. 1South China Limestone Plants Research Center, College of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
    2College of Landscape and Ecological Engineering, Hebei University of Engineering, Handan 056038, China
  • Received:2019-11-23 Accepted:2020-03-01 Online:2020-07-01 Published:2020-05-21
  • Contact: Gang Yao

摘要: 苋科(Amaranthaceae sensu lato)是石竹目(Caryophyllales)第二大科, 目前被普遍接受的苋科为其广义概念, 含狭义苋科(Amaranthaceae sensu stricto)和藜科(Chenopodiaceae)。然而到目前为止, 藜科是否应作为独立的科还存在争议。此外, 广义苋科内部各亚科之间的系统关系也尚未厘清。对广义苋科所有13个亚科代表类群进行取样(共59种), 基于8个叶绿体序列片段重建其系统发育关系, 并结合分子钟估算, 对该科及其主要分支的起源与分化时间进行推测。结果表明, 广义苋科与狭义苋科都是很好的单系, 但藜科并非单系, 因此不支持藜科在科级水平的地位, 支持广义苋科的观点。除了多节草亚科(Polycnemoideae)之外, 其它亚科的系统位置均得到很好的分辨。分子钟估算结果表明, 广义苋科于白垩纪晚期约69.9 Ma分化出该科的2个主要分支, 且该科在白垩纪-古近纪边界附近时期(约66.0 Ma)可能发生过快速辐射分化事件。

关键词: 苋科, 石竹目, 分化时间, 系统发育

Abstract: Amaranthaceae sensu lato, including Amaranthaceae sensu stricto and Chenopodiaceae, is the second largest family in Caryophyllales. However, the family status of Chenopodiaceae is disputable and phylogenetic relationships among all of the subfamilies circumscribed within Amaranthaceae s.l. have not been well resolved to date. In the present study, phylogeny of Amaranthaceae s.l. was reconstructed based on a comprehensive taxonomic sampling of all 13 subfamilies (59 species) circumscribed using eight plastid DNA fragments, and a molecular dating analysis of the family was also conducted. Results revealed that, the monophyly of Amaranthaceae both in broad and narrow sense was strongly supported, but the monophyly of Chenopodiaceae was rejected. Thus the concept of Amaranthaceae s.l. is accepted here. Phylogenetic positions of all subfamilies were all resolved with strong support values, except that the position of the subfamily Polycnemoideae was weakly supported. Additionally, the crown age of Amaranthaceae s.l. was estimated at ca. 69.9 million years ago (Ma) in the late Cretaceous, and a period of rapid divergence may have occurred near the Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) boundary (ca. 66.0 Ma).

Key words: Amaranthaceae, Caryophyllales, molecular dating, phylogeny