Abstract
Previous works resolved diverse phylogenetic positions for genera of the Fabaceae tribe Thermopsideae, without a thoroughly biogeography study. Based on sequence data from nuclear ITS and four cpDNA regions (matK, rbcL, trnH-psbA, trnL-trnF) mainly sourced from GenBank, the phylogeny of tribe Thermopsideae was inferred. Our analyses support the genera of Thermopsideae, with the exclusion of Pickeringia, being merged into a monophyletic Sophoreae. Genera of Sophoreae were assigned into the Thermopsoid clade and Sophoroid clade. Monophyly of Anagyris, Baptisia and Piptanthus were supported in the Thermopsoid clade. However, the genera Thermopsis and Sophora were resolved to be polyphyly, which require comprehensive taxonomic revisions. Interestingly, Ammopiptanthus, consisting of A. mongolicus and A. nanus, nested within the Sophoroid clade, with Salweenia as its sister. Ammopiptanthus and Salweenia have a disjunct distribution in the deserts of northwestern China and the Hengduan Mountains, respectively. Divergence age was estimated based on the ITS phylogenetic analysis. Emergence of the common ancestor of Ammopiptanthus and Salweenia, divergence between these two genera and the split of Ammopiptanthus species occurred at approximately 26.96 Ma, 4.74 Ma and 2.04 Ma, respectively, which may be in response to the second, third and fourth main uplifts of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, respectively.
Keywords: Phylogeny, Biogeography, Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau uplift, Evolutionary divergence, Salweenia, Thermopsideae, Ammopiptanthus
Introduction
Thermopsideae (Yakovlev, 1972) is a small tribe in Fabaceae, comprising six genera, Ammopiptanthus S.H. Cheng, Anagyris L., Baptisia Vent., Pickeringia Nutt. ex Torr. & A. Gray, Piptanthus Sweet and Thermopsis R.Br. ex W.T. Aiton, with a total of ca. 45 species. Thermopsideae ranges from the Mediterranean Basin, central and northeastern Asia to temperate North America (Lock, 2005; Turner, 1981; Wang, 2001). Early phylogenetic works supported that the genera composing Thermopsideae, except for Pickeringia, were nested in the “core Genistoids” group, which always contains quinolizidine alkaloids (Crisp, Gilmore & Van Wyk, 2000; Wojciechowski, Lavin & Sanderson, 2004). A subsequent study conducted by Wang et al. (2006) resolved two clades in this tribe: the genus Ammopiptanthus clade and the “core genera” clade, consisting of Anagyris, Baptisia, Piptanthus and Thermopsis. However, Thermopsideae was not monophyletic, because Sophora nested within this tribe. Based on the plastid marker matK, recent analyses conducted by Cardoso et al. (2012a) and Cardoso et al. (2013) treated the five genera of Thermopsideae, Ammopiptanthus, Anagyris, Baptisia, Piptanthus and Thermopsis, into a narrowly defined tribe Sophoreae. However, Zhang et al. (2015a) accepted the tribe Thermopsideae and their two phylogenetic trees showed different positions of Sophora. The monophyly and genera included in the tribe Thermopsideae are thus controversial and the relationship between Thermopsideae and Sophora remains unclear. Within Thermopsideae, Anagyris (Ortega-Olivencia, 2009), Baptisia (Larisey, 1940a; Turner, 2006), Pickeringia (Wojciechowski, 2013), Piptanthus (Turner, 1980; Wei, 1998; Wei & Lock, 2010) and Thermopsis (Chen, Mendenhall & Turner, 1994; Czefranova, 1970; Larisey, 1940b; Peng & Yuan, 1992; Sa, 1999; Sa, Sudebilige & Chen, 2000) were studied taxonomically, phylogenetically and biogeographically.
Within Thermopsieae, Ammopiptanthus is a small genus, established by Cheng (1959) on the basis of A. mongolicus (Maxim.) Cheng. and A. nanus (M. Pop.) Cheng f., and being widely accepted (Yakovlev, 1988; Yakovlev, Sytin & Roskov 1996; Wei, 1998). But Wei & Lock (2010) unified the two species. Although some phylogenetic studies indicated a well-supported Ammopiptanthus (Cardoso et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2006), the infra- and inter-generic phylogeny of this genus needs further research. Zhang et al. (2015a) inferred a diverging time for Ammopiptanthus from the “core Genera” clade, but some closely related Sophoreae genera were not sampled (see Cardoso et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2006), which may have affected the accuracy of the dating.
The effects of geological and climatic factors play a key role in the spatiotemporal evolution of plants (Meng et al., 2017). The uplifts of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau (QTP) lead to a long-term climate oscillation in central and northern Asia. At 45–30 Ma, the collision of the Indian plate and the Asian plate triggered the first uplifting of the QTP, the Himalayan orogeny and the retreat of the Tethys (Harrison et al., 1992; Shi, Li & Li, 1999); the second main uplift (ca. 25 Ma) changed the planetary wind system and initiated the Asian monsoon (Chen et al., 1999; Li et al., 2001; Shi, Li & Li, 1999; Teng et al., 1997). The third (7–8 Ma; Harrison et al., 1992; Liu et al., 2001; Wang et al., 2008; Zheng & Yao, 2006) and fourth uplifting of QTP (3.6–2.5 Ma; Chen et al., 1999; Li & Fang, 1999; Li et al., 2001; Tang & Liu, 2001; Zheng & Yao, 2006) rendered the Asian interior cooler and drier, so evergreen forests vanished. The Tertiary broadleaf forest in Central Asia was taken over by drought-withstanding shrubs and herbs (Meng et al., 2015).
Two species of Ammopiptanthus disjunctively distributed in the southwestern Mongolian Plateau and the southwestern Pamir Plateau (Wei, 1998). Liu, Wang & Wang (1996) suggested that the ancestor of this genus emerged in the southern hemisphere, dispersing northwards when the Tertiary forest expanded due to the uplift of the QTP and the retreat of the Tethys. Subsequent studies postulated a southern Laurasian origin for Ammopiptanthus and regarded this genus as a relic of the Tertiary flora (Sun, 2002a; Sun & Li, 2003; Wang, 2001). Based on molecular evidence, Wang et al. (2006) and Zhang et al. (2015a) supported the relic status postulated for Ammopiptanthus, proposing that its ancestral area was in central Asia. However, the existing phylogeny-based biogeographic analyses used an inadequate sample of the tribe Sophoreae, which is closely related to Thermopsideae (Cardoso et al., 2012a; Cardoso et al., 2013; Azani et al., 2017), leading to possible inaccuracies in the bioinformatic inferences.
We herein employ existing GenBank sequences and newly generated sequences of the nuclear ITS and the plastid matK, rbcL, trnL-trnF and psbA-trnH gene regions, with an extensive sampling for Thermopsideae and Sophoreae, to (a) test the monophyly and systematic status of Thermopsideae; and (b) infer the phylogeny and biogeography of Ammopiptanthus.
Materials and Methods
Sampling scheme
Nine haplotypes of the two species of Ammopiptanthus found by Su et al. (2016) were included in the present study. Both species of Salweenia Baker f. were sampled (Yue et al., 2011). The nuclear internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequences for Salweenia wardii Baker f. and Maackia amurensis Rupr. and the plastid psbA-trnH and trnL-trnF intergenic spacer sequences for Maackia amurensis were generated for the present study. The DNA extraction, amplification and sequencing methods followed Su et al. (2016). All other ITS, matK, rbcL, trnL-trnF and psbA-trnH sequences were obtained from GenBank. Guided by the phylogenetic analyses of Ammopiptanthus by Wang et al. (2006) and Zhang et al. (2015a), and the phylogeny of the Genistoids s.l. (Cardoso et al., 2012b; Crisp, Gilmore & Van Wyk, 2000; Pennington et al., 2001; Peters et al., 2010; Wojciechowski, 2003), we included all the available species of Thermopsideae and Sophoreae s.s. in our analyses. In total, we sampled 21 species in Thermopsis, seven species of Piptanthus, two species of Anagryris, six species of Bapstisia, 13 species of Sophora, three species in Maackia, two species in Euchresta and one species in each of the following genera: Ammodendron, Ammothamnus and Echinosophora. Some other species of the Genistoids s.l. were also selected according to previous phylogenetic frameworks (Cardoso et al., 2012b; Cardoso et al., 2013). Ormosia was set as the outgroup. The specific taxa, including their GenBank accession numbers, are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Taxa names, sources and GenBank accession numbers of DNA sequences.
New sequences generated in this study are indicated by an asterisk (*). Missing sequences are indicated by a dash (–).
| Species Pop. | GenBank accession number | Sources | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ITS | rbcL | matK | psbA-trnH | trnL-trnF | ||
| Ammopiptanthus nanus | KP636563 | – | JQ820170 | KP636577 | KP636626 | |
| Ammopiptanthus nanus A | KU178932 | – | – | KU178934 | KU178937 | 39.66°N, 74.75°E, 2290 m |
| Ammopiptanthus nanus B | KU178932 | – | – | KU178935 | KU178937 | 39.49°N, 74.88°E, 2512 m |
| Ammopiptanthus nanus C | KU178932 | – | – | KU178934 | KU178937 | 39.76°N, 76.39°E, 2350 m |
| Ammopiptanthus mongolicus | KP636562 | – | JQ820168 | KP636576 | KP636624 | |
| Ammopiptanthus mongolicus D | KU178933 | – | – | KU178936 | KU178938 | 41.63°N, 103.22°E, 1010 m |
| Ammopiptanthus mongolicus E | KU178933 | – | – | KU178936 | KU178939 | 40.49°N, 106.86°E, 1039 m |
| Ammopiptanthus mongolicus F | KU178933 | – | – | KU178936 | KU178940 | 38.98°N, 105.87°E, 1762 m |
| Ammopiptanthus mongolicus G | KU178933 | – | – | KU178936 | KU178941 | 37.99°N, 105.25°E, 1323 m |
| Ammopiptanthus mongolicus H | KU178933 | – | – | KU178936 | KU178940 | 37.93°N, 105.26°E, 1355 m |
| Ammopiptanthus mongolicus 270 | KU178933 | – | – | MF444199∗ | MF444205∗ | China: Turpan, Turpan Eremophytes Botanic Garden, Pan b. r. (TURP) |
| Ammodendron conollyi | EF457705 | – | – | – | – | |
| Ammodendron argenteum | – | – | AY386957 | – | – | |
| Ammothamnus lehmannii | EF457706 | – | – | – | – | |
| Anagyris foetida | AY091571 | Z70122 | KP230735 | – | FJ499429 | |
| Anagyris latifolia | FJ482248 | – | – | – | FJ499419 | |
| Anarthrophyllum desideratum | – | – | AY386923 | – | – | |
| Anarthrophyllum rigidum | FJ839488 | – | – | – | FJ839594 | |
| Baptisia alba | AY773348 | KP126860 | KP126860 | – | – | |
| Baptisia cinerea | AY773350 | – | – | – | – | |
| Baptisia tinctoria | Z72314& Z72315 | Z70120 | – | – | AJ890964 | |
| Baptisia sphaerocarpa | AY773351 | – | – | – | – | |
| Baptisia australis | AY091572 | KF613006 | AY386900 | – | FJ499421 | |
| Baptisia bracteata | AY773349 | KP126854 | KP126854 | – | – | |
| Bolusanthus speciosus | EF457708 | U74243 | AF142685 | – | AF310994 | |
| Bowdichia nitida | JX124478 | – | JX124419 | – | JX124432 | |
| Cadia purpurea | KF850559 | U74192 | JX295932 | – | AF309863 | |
| Castanospermum australe | MF444193∗ | – | MF444197∗ | MF444201∗ | MF444203∗ | USA: Sri Lanka, kandy, Rudd v.e. 3339 (US) |
| Calpurnia aurea | CAU59887 | U74239 | AY386951 | – | AF310993 | |
| Clathrotropis brachypetala | EF457714 | – | – | – | AF309827 | |
| Clathrotropis macrocarpa | – | – | JX295930 | – | JX275957 | |
| Crotalaria incana | JQ067262 | JQ591662 | GQ246141 | JQ067481 | KP691137 | |
| Cyclolobium nutans | AF467041 | – | AF142686 | – | AF309857 | |
| Cytisus scoparius | AF351120 | KM360746 | AY386902 | – | KJ746350& AF352216 | |
| Dicraeopetalum mahafaliense | EF457716 | – | – | – | – | |
| Dicraeopetalum stipulare | – | – | GQ246142 | – | AF310995 | |
| Diplotropis purpurea | JX124507 | JQ625878 | JX124418 | GQ428691 | JX124441 | |
| Echinosophora koreensis | – | AB127036 | – | – | AB127028 | |
| Euchresta formosana | – | AB127039 | – | – | AB127031 | |
| Euchresta japonica | – | AB127040 | – | – | AB127032 | |
| Genista monspessulana | JF338307 | KM360800 | AY386862 | – | JF338219& JF338559 | |
| Guianodendron praeclarum | JX124489 | – | JX124403 | – | JX124443 | |
| Lupinus argenteus | AY338929 | – | AY386956 | – | AY618502& AF538706 | |
| Maackia amurensis | MF444195∗ | Z70137 | AY386944 | MF444200∗ | MF444206∗ | China: Jilin, Fusong, Sun s.n. (NENU) |
| Maackia amurensis subsp. buergeri | – | AB127041 | – | – | – | |
| Maackia chinensis | EF457721 | – | – | – | – | |
| Maackia floribunda | – | AB127042 | – | – | AB127034 | |
| Maackia tashiroi | – | AB127043 | – | – | AB127035 | |
| Ormosia amazonica | EF457724 | GQ981820 | – | GQ982307 | AF309484 | |
| Ormosia fordiana | KP092737 | KP094453 | KP093527 | KP095377 | – | |
| Ormosia coccinea | – | JQ625915 | GQ982055 | GQ982308 | – | |
| Ormosia costulata | – | – | JX295887 | – | JX275917 | |
| Pickeringia montana | MF444194∗ | – | MF444198∗ | MF444202∗ | MF444204∗ | Mexico: Tecate, Moran r. 13982 (US) |
| Ormosia arborea | – | KF981227 | JX295939 | – | – | |
| Piptanthus laburnifolius | KP636565 | – | – | KP636579 | KP636630 | |
| Piptanthus nepalensis | AF215922 | Z70123 | AY386924 | – | – | |
| Piptanthus nepalensis1 | FJ482250 | – | – | KP636581 | KP636631 | |
| Piptanthus tomentosus | AY091570 | – | – | – | – | |
| Piptanthus concolor | KP636564 | – | – | KP636578 | KP636629 | |
| Piptanthus leiocarpus | AY091569 | – | – | KP636580 | – | |
| Piptanthus leiocarpus | KP636566 | – | – | – | – | |
| Poecilanthe itapuana | KJ028462 | AB045818 | KJ028458 | – | – | |
| Poecilanthe parviflora | KJ028463 | – | KJ028459 | – | AF208897 | |
| Salweenia wardii | MF444196∗ | U74251 | – | JF725689 | JF725659 | China: Tibet, Qamdo, Chang et al. QZ-491 (WUK) |
| Salweenia bouffordiana | – | – | – | JF725692 | JF725662 | |
| Sophora davidii | AY773352 | Z70138 | AY386958 | JF725695 | JF725665 | |
| Sophora flavescens | FJ528290 | Z70139 | HM049520 | JF725696 | JF725666 | |
| Sophora velutina | FN813569 | – | – | – | AF309828 | |
| Sophora jaubertii | Z72342& Z72343 | Z70140 | – | – | – | |
| Sophora macrocarpa | Z95563& Z95577 | AY725479 | JQ619975 | – | – | |
| Sophora inhambanensis | FN813570 | KM894237 | KM896910 | – | – | |
| Sophora tomentosa | HQ207666 | AB127038 | – | JX495463 | AB127030 | |
| Sophora tetraphylla | AJ310734 | – | – | – | – | |
| Sophora howinsula | AY046514 | – | – | – | – | |
| Sophora microphylla | AY056075 | AY725480 | JQ619976 | GQ248391 | – | |
| Sophora prostrata | AY056077 | – | – | – | – | |
| Sophora raivavaeensis | AY056080 | – | – | – | – | |
| Sophora toromiro | AY056079 | GQ248696 | GQ248201 | GQ248392 | – | |
| Sophora viciifolia | – | KP088855 | KP089313 | – | – | |
| Spartium junceum | DQ524327 | KM360993 | AY386901 | HE966833 | JF338264& JF338600 | |
| Thermopsis inflata | AF123451 | – | – | – | – | |
| Thermopsis inflata 1 | – | – | – | KP636586 | KP636638 | |
| Thermopsis inflata 2 | – | – | – | – | KP636639 | |
| Thermopsis inflata 3 | – | – | – | KP636587 | KP636640 | |
| Thermopsis smithiana | KP636573 | – | – | KP636597 | KP636650 | |
| Thermopsis turkestanica | KP636574 | – | – | KP636598 | KP636651 | |
| Thermopsis mongolica | KP636570 | – | – | KP636594 | KP636647 | |
| Thermopsis alpina | KP636567 | – | JQ669594 | KP636582 | KP636632 | |
| Thermopsis alpina 1 | AF123447 | – | – | – | KP636633 | |
| Thermopsis alpina 2 | – | – | – | KP636583 | KP636634 | |
| Thermopsis alpina 3 | – | – | – | KP636584 | KP636635 | |
| Thermopsis alpina 4 | – | – | – | KP636585 | KP636636 | |
| Thermopsis lanceolata | AF123448 | – | JQ669595 | KP636589 | KP636642 | |
| Thermopsis lanceolata 1 | – | – | – | KP636590 | KP636643 | |
| Thermopsis przewalskii | KP636571 | – | – | – | KP636648 | |
| Thermopsis schischkinii | KP636572 | – | – | KP636596 | KP636649 | |
| Thermopsis yushuensis | KP636575 | – | – | KP636599 | KP636652 | |
| Thermopsis barbata | KP636568 | – | – | – | KP636637 | |
| Thermopsis licentiana | KP636569 | – | – | – | – | |
| Thermopsis licentiana 1 | – | – | – | KP636591 | KP636644 | |
| Thermopsis licentiana 3 | – | – | – | KP636592 | KP636645 | |
| Thermopsis licentiana 4 | – | – | – | KP636593 | KP636646 | |
| Thermopsis turcica | JQ425645 | KT175217 | KT175216 | KT175218 | – | |
| Thermopsis chinensis | AF123443 | – | – | GU396777 | – | |
| Thermopsis macrophylla | AF123450 | – | – | – | – | |
| Thermopsis divaricarpa | AY091575 | – | – | – | – | |
| Thermopsis villosa | AY773355 | – | – | – | AF311384 | |
| Thermopsis rhombifolia | KP861904 | JX848468 | AY386866 | KP861905 | AY618487 | |
| Thermopsis rhombifolia var. ovata | AF007468 | – | – | – | – | |
| Thermopsis fabacea | AY091573 | Z70121 | – | – | – | |
| Thermopsis kaxgarica | – | – | – | KP636588 | KP636641 | |
| Thermopsis montana | AY091574 | – | – | – | AF385411& AF385937 | |
| Ulex europaeus | AY263686 | KM361025 | JQ669586 | – | AF385427& AY264062 | |
Phylogenetic analyses
Multiple sequence alignments were performed using MUSCLE (Edgar, 2004) in the Geneious v.8.1.2 platform (Kearse et al., 2012) with default settings and manual adjustments. The best-fit substitution models for the ITS1, 5.8S, ITS2, matK, psbA-trnH, rbcL and trnL-trnF regions were determined separately using jModelTest v.2.1.7 (Darriba et al., 2012). Phylogenetic relationships were inferred using Bayesian inference (BI) as implemented in MrBayes v.3.2.5 (Ronquist & Huelsenbeck, 2003) and maximum likelihood (ML) analysis with RAxML v.8.2 (Stamatakis, 2014). The nuclear ITS dataset was partitioned into ITS1, 5.8S and ITS2 partitions. For the concatenated plastid dataset, data was partitioned separately for matK, psbA-trnH, rbcL and trnL-trnF. Two independent analyses for BI were conducted, with one cold and three incrementally heated Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) chains run for 10,000,000 generations. Trees were sampled every 1,000 generations. All Bayesian analyses produced split frequencies of less than 0.01, showing convergence between the paired runs. The first 2,500 trees were discarded as burn-in and the remaining trees were used to construct a 50% majority-rule consensus tree and posterior probabilities (PP). For the ML analyses, a rapid bootstrap analysis was performed with a random seed, 1,000 alternative runs, and the same partition scheme as in the Bayesian analysis. The model parameters for each partition of the dataset were optimized using RAxML with the GTRCAT command. Trees were visualized in FigTree v1.4.3 (http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/). The ML bootstrap support values (BS) were labeled on the corresponding branches of the BI trees.
Estimation of divergence times
Divergence times were estimated using the ITS dataset and the BEAST v.2.4.3 package (Bouckaert et al., 2014). The ITS dataset was partitioned into the ITS1, 5.8S and ITS2 partitions, and nucleotide substitution models were unlinked across the three partitions. Models were determined using jModelTest. The log normal relaxed clock model was used, and the clock model was linked across partitions. The birth-death model was employed and was linked across partitions. Two independent MCMCs were each run for 50,000,000 generations, and samples were stored every 1,000 generations. The effective sample size (ESS) of each sampled parameter and the convergence between runs were checked using Tracer v.1.6 (http://beast.bio.ed.ac.uk/Tracer). The ESSs of all parameters exceeded 200, and the two independent runs were convergent. After removing a 25% burn-in from each run, the trees from the two runs were combined by using LogCombiner (Bouckaert et al., 2014). The maximum clade credibility tree was found and annotated using TreeAnnotator (Bouckaert et al., 2014), and only the branches with a posterior probability of greater than 0.5 were annotated. The dated tree was visualized in FigTree v.1.4.3.
Calibration points were chosen from the molecular dating analysis of Fabaceae conducted by Lavin, Herendeen & Wojciechowski (2005). In the matK phylogeny reported in Lavin, Herendeen & Wojciechowski (2005), the essential Genistoid crown clade (excluding Ormosia Jacks.) had been set to a minimum of 56 million years ago (Ma) according to fossil records (Herendeen & Dilcher, 1990; Crepet & Herendeen, 1992). This clade was equal to our ingroup clade; therefore, the crown age of our ingroup was set as an exponential distribution with a mean of 1 and an offset of 56 Ma. The Genistoid crown age had been estimated as 56.4 ± 0.2 Ma (Lavin, Herendeen & Wojciechowski, 2005); this age was used to set the age of the root of our tree as a normal distribution with a mean of 56.4 Ma and a standard deviation of 0.2 Ma. The age of the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of Bolusanthus speciosus Harms and Spartium junceum Linn. was set as a normal distribution with a mean of 45.2 Ma and a standard deviation of 2.2 Ma. The age of the MRCA of Piptanthus nepalensis Sweet and Baptisia australis R.Br. was set as a normal distribution with a mean of 26.5 Ma and a standard deviation of 3.4 Ma, according to the ages of the equivalent nodes that were previously estimated by Lavin, Herendeen & Wojciechowski (2005).
Results
Phylogenetic analyses
Since plastid sequences putatively evolve as a single molecule, sequences of the four plastid markers (matK, rbcL, psbA-trnH and trnL-trnF) were concatenated. Phylogenetic analyses were conducted on both the nuclear and four combined plastid data sets (Figs. 1–3: Fig. 1 emphasized the position of Pickeringia; Figs. 2 and 3 intensified the sampling for Sophoreae). The models used in the Bayesian analyses were as follows: matK: GTR+G; psbA-trnH: HKY+G; rbcL: HKY+I+G; trnL-trnF: GTR+G; ITS1: GTR+G; 5.8S: K80+G; ITS2: GTR+G. The ITS and plastid tree topologies were distinct with regard to some key groups, thus we analyzed them separately.
Figure 1. Bayesian tree of the concatenated nuclear ITS (A) and the concatenated plastid data of matK, rbcL, trnL-trnF and psbA-trnH sequences (B) for Themopsideae and related genera.
Bayesian posterior probabilities and maximum likelihood bootstrap values are given above the branches.
Figure 3. Bayesian tree of the concatenated plastid data of matK, rbcL, trnL-trnF and psbA-trnH sequences, showing Sophoreae and its allies.
Bayesian posterior probabilities and maximum likelihood bootstrap values are given above the branches.
Figure 2. Bayesian tree of the concatenated nuclear ITS data, showing Sophoreae and its allies.
Bayesian posterior probabilities and maximum likelihood bootstrap values are given above the branches.
Our analysis (Fig. 1) showed that Pickeringia was distantly related to the Thermopsideae genera. According to the detailed trees (Figs. 2 and 3), all genera of this tribe, except Pickeringia, belonged to the well supported core Genistoids (PP = 1/BS = 100% and PP = 1/BS = 94% in Fig. 2 and 3, respectively). Four genera, Anagyris, Baptisia, Piptanthus and Thermopsis, clustered into the “Thermopsoid clade” (1/100% for ITS tree; 1/94% for plastid tree), within which Anagyris (1/100% & 1/99%) and Baptisia (1/100% & 0.95/95%) were shown to be monophyletic. The monophyly of Piptanthus was also strongly supported by the ITS tree (1/99%). Ammopiptanthus, appearing to be a sister group of Salweenia (1/100% in both trees), was monophyletic (1/100% & 0.99/89%). These two genera were not related to the Thermopsoid clade but nested in the Sophoroid clade (0.99/83% & 0.71/74%), which in turn formed a robustly supported group (1/96% & 1/100% for the tribe Sophoreae; see Discussion) sister to the Thermopsoid clade.
The sampled taxa from the tribes Crotalarieae, Genisteae and Podalyrieae formed a clade (the PCG clade; 0.89/80% & 0.92/79%), while Bolusanthus Harms and Dicraeopetalum Harms clustered together (the BOD clade; 1/100% in both trees). These two clades occupied a different position in relation to Sophoreae (0.92/88% & 0.99/56%).
Estimating divergence time
Phylogenetic dating was conducted based on the ITS dataset (Fig. 4). The estimated mean ages of the relevant clades and the 95% posterior density intervals (in parentheses) are as follows: 41.24 (35.2, 46.93) Ma for the Sophoreae plus PCG clade, 35.59 (28.88, 42.44) Ma for the Sophoroid plus Thermopsoid clade, 30.61 (22.91, 38.28) Ma for the Maackia plus its sister clade, 26.96 (19.36, 34.62) Ma for Node I, 4.74 (1.72, 8.77) Ma for Node II and 2.04 (0.67, 3.73) Ma for Node III.
Figure 4. Divergence times for Sophoreae/Themopsideae genera estimated by using BEAST based on the ITS dataset.
Calibration points are marked by A–D. Node labels and bars represent the estimated mean ages (in Ma) and their 95% highest posterior density intervals. Node I, II and III represent the divergence ages of 26.96 Ma, 4.74 Ma and 2.04 Ma, respectively.
Discussion
Phylogenetic position of Thermopsideae
Thermopsideae, the widely distributed legume tribe containing six genera, was proposed by Yakovlev (1972), and was accepted in most subsequent studies (Lock, 2005; Polhill, 1994; Turner, 1981; Wang, 2001; Wei, Gao & Huang, 2010; Wei, 1998; Yakovlev, 1972). Phylogenetic research has indicated that most genera of this tribe are members of the core Genistoids, which in turn belongs to the Genistoid clade in a broad sense (Cardoso et al., 2012b; Cardoso et al., 2016; Cardoso et al., 2013; Crisp, Gilmore & Van Wyk, 2000; Pennington et al., 2001; Peters et al., 2010; Wojciechowski, 2003). However, the western North American endemic genus, Pickeringia, was an outlier from the core Genistoids (Fig. 1; see also Lavin, Herendeen & Wojciechowski, 2005; Wojciechowski, 2013; Wojciechowski, Lavin & Sanderson, 2004; Azani et al., 2017). Therefore, Lock (2005) suggested that this genus should be excluded from Thermopsideae. Our results confirm this exclusion (Fig. 1). Pickeringia (x = 7) also differs from other genera of Thermopsideae (x = 8) in basic chromosome number (Chen, Zhu & Yuan, 1992; Goldblatt, 1981; Pan & Huang, 1993) and the absence of quinolizidine alkaloids (see Turner, 1981; Käss & Wink, 1994; Crisp, Gilmore & Van Wyk, 2000; Doyle et al., 2000; Wink, 2013).
With the exclusion of Pickeringia, Cardoso et al. (2012b) and Cardoso et al. (2013) proposed to merge Thermopsideae into Sophoreae sensu Cardoso, which is characterized by free stamens, to render it monophyletic. Merging Thermopsideae into Sophoreae is verified by our results (Figs. 2 and 3). A more inclusive Sophoreae sensu Cardoso can serve to avoid taxonomic over-fragmentation of the core Genistoids taxa and the establishments of new tribes based on many small clades. On the other hand, the clade comprising Bolusanthus speciosus Harms and Dicraeopetalum mahafaliense (M. Peltier) Yakovlev (the BOD clade), was included in Sophoreae by Cardoso et al. (2013), but was weakly supported. Such a relationship is not validated by our ITS tree (Fig. 2; it is also not supported by the likelihood bootstrap value of the plastid tree, see Fig. 3). The newly circumscribed Sophoreae, equal to Sophoreae sensu Cardoso but with the exclusion of the BOD clade, is further divided into the Thermopsoid clade and the Sophoroid clade (Figs. 2 and 3). Cardoso et al. (2013) elevated Ormosia from Sophoreae as a distinct tribe (Ormosieae), yet our results do not confirm the affiliation of Clathrotropis with this tribe (Figs. 2 and 3).
The core Genistoids is composed of three robust groups: Sophoreae, the BOD clade and the PCG clade. Our ITS and plastid tree topologies are incongruent with regard to these clades. Sophoreae forms a clade with the PCG clade in the ITS tree (Fig. 2), but the PCG clade is sister to the BOD clade in the plastid tree (Fig. 3). Although not all of the support values are significant (BI posterior probability > 0.95, ML bootstrap value > 70%), the current case of topological discordance is similar to Xu et al. (2012), García et al. (2014) and Duan et al. (2016), which likely implied a chloroplast capture event in the origin of Sophoreae. Nevertheless, highly supported phylogenetic trees based on multi-locus nuclear and plastid genes are required to further verify this hypothesis.
Phylogeny of the Thermopsoid clade
The Thermopsoid clade includes four genera: Anagyris, Baptisia, Piptanthus and a polyphyletic Thermopsis. The clade is divided into two well supported groups: the Eurasian group and the American group (Figs. 2 and 3).
The monophyletic Anagyris (also see Ortega-Olivencia, 2009) is endemic to the Mediterranean region, and belongs to the Eurasian group (Figs. 2 and 3). The Eurasian group also includes the Hengduan-Himalaya-distributed genus Piptanthus, whose monophyly was accepted by Wang et al. (2006) and supported by our ITS results (Fig. 2). Baptisia is restricted to North America (central, northern and southern states of the USA) and is embedded within the American Thermopsoid group. Our analyses yielded robust support for this genus, similar to Wang et al. (2006), Uysal, Ertuğrul & Bozkurt (2014) and Zhang et al. (2015a).
Previous studies (Uysal, Ertuğrul & Bozkurt, 2014; Wang et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2015a) and the present results (Figs. 2 and 3) indicate a polyphyletic Thermopsis, with its species being assigned into both the Eurasian and the American groups. It is obvious that Thermopsis needs further taxonomic revision. It is noteworthy that three Asian species, Thermopsis fabacea (Pall.) DC., T. chinensis Benth. ex S. Moore and T. turcica Kit Tan, Vural & Küçük., cluster with the American group, making the biogeography of this genus an attractive topic for future research. In addition, our trees failed to support the generic status of the monotypic Vuralia Uysal & Ertuğrul (=Thermopsis turcica), which was proposed by Uysal, Ertuğrul & Bozkurt (2014) mainly based on some unique morphological characters such as a three-carpellate ovary and indehiscent fruit.
Ammopiptanthus within the Sophoroid clade
Within the Sophoroid clade, the monophyletic Maackia Rupr. diverges first, and the remaining taxa are divided into two highly supported groups. The first group contains a non-monophyletic Sophora (also see Cardoso et al., 2013; Kajita et al., 2001; Käss & Wink, 1997; Lee, Tokuoka & Heo, 2004; Wink & Mohamed, 2003) and some allied Sophoreae genera, i.e., Ammodendron Fisch. ex DC., Ammothamnus Bunge, Echinosophora Nakai and Euchresta Benn. Sophora is a widely distributed genus, and has been revised by various taxonomists (Bao & Vincent, 2010; Heenan, Dawson & Wagstaff, 2004; Ma, 1990; Ma, 1994; Tsoong & Ma, 1981a; Tsoong & Ma, 1981b; Vasil’chenko, 1945; Yakovlev, Sytin & Roskov 1996). The phylogeny and circumscription of the genus are long-standing puzzles that require considerable effort to solve.
The former Thermopsideae member, Ammopiptanthus, which is sister to Salweenia, constitutes another entity in the Sophoroid clade (Figs. 2 and 3). Traditionally, Ammopiptanthus contains two species: A. mongolicus and A. nanus (Cheng, 1959; Fu, 1987; Li & Yan, 2011; Wei, 1998; Yakovlev, Sytin & Roskov 1996), while Wei & Lock (2010) merged the latter species into the former. Our results (Figs. 2 and 3) confirmed the specific status of A. nanus, which is confined to southwest Xinjiang in China and eastern Kyrgyzstan, compared to a non-overlapping range of A. mongolicus in northern Inner Mongolia, northern Gansu, eastern Xinjiang, China and southern Mongolia (Fig. 5). Taxonomic separation of the two species is also supported by morphological (Cheng, 1959; Wei, 1998), anatomical (Yuan & Chen, 1993), cytological (Chen, Zhu & Yuan, 1992; Liu, Wang & Wang, 1996; Pan & Huang, 1993) and biochemical (Feng et al., 2011; Shi, Pan & Zhang, 2009; Wei et al., 2007; Wei & Shi, 1995; Yin & Zhang, 2004) evidence. Recently, Lazkov (2006) described a new species in Kyrgyzstan: Ammopiptanthus kamelinii Lazkov. The type specimen is not significantly distinct from A. nanus and the type locality overlapped with that of A. nanus, so we suspend the recognition of A. kamelinii.
Figure 5. Distribution (A) and representative plants of Ammopiptanthus (B & C) and Salweenia (D).
(A) red - Ammopiptanthus (I: distribution of A. mongolicus; II: distribution of A. nanus), green - Salweenia; (B) Ammopiptanthus mongolicus; (C) Ammopiptanthus nanus; (D) Salweenia wardii. Image credit for (D): Professor Zhao-Yang Chang.
On the other hand, Salweenia was originally established as a monotypic genus in Sophoreae and Yue et al. (2011) identified a second species of this genus based on morphological and phylogenetic evidence. Both species are endemic to the Hengduan Mountains in southwest China. Phylogenetic reconstruction based on the plastid rbcL sequence showed that Salweenia was sister to a Maackia-Sophora-Euchresta clade (Doyle et al., 1997). Its sistership with Ammopiptanthus is firstly discovered herein, which is further explicated as follow.
Biogeography of Ammopiptanthus and Salweenia
The abovementioned Ammopiptanthus-Salweenia group has a disjunct distribution. Ammopiptanthus is recorded from arid regions of northwest China, southern Mongolia and eastern Kyrgyzstan (Fig. 5A–5C). In contrast, Salweenia is endemic to the Hengduan Mountains in the eastern Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau (QTP) (Fig. 5A & 5D). Several hypotheses have been proposed for the evolutionary history of Ammopiptanthus, most of which suggest that this genus is a relic survivor of the Tertiary flora (Sun, 2002a; Sun & Li, 2003; Wang, 2001; Wang et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2015a). Yet these studies were conducted in the now outdated context of Thermopsideae, rather than the more informative context of Sophoreae. Furthermore, few studies have highlighted the sister relationship between Ammopiptanthus and Salweenia.
A central Asian origin for Ammopiptanthus, as suggested by Wang et al. (2006) and Zhang et al. (2015a), may be valid if judged by the unique habit in the northwest desert of China: it is the only evergreen broadleaf shrub in this region, which can be regarded as a symplesiomorphy associated with Tertiary flora. Additionally, Salweenia is an evergreen shrub (Yue et al., 2011); this similar habit further supports its sister relationship status with Ammopiptanthus. Due to the monophyly of the Ammopiptanthus-Salweenia group, the ancestral range of Salweenia is probably not in Gondwana as described in Li & Ni (1982) and Yue et al. (2011). Thus, we hypothesize the evolution of this group as described below (see Fig. 4). The Himalayan orogeny and uplifting of the QTP initiated the retreat of the Tethys (ca. 45–30 Ma; Harrison et al., 1992; Shi, Li & Li, 1999; Zhang & Fang, 2016). The second major uplift of the QTP occurred at ca. 25 Ma, triggering the East Asian monsoonal climate of the Asian interior, including Central Asia, northwestern China and the Mongolian Plateau, which began to fluctuate, though evergreen forest temporarily remained (Teng et al., 1997; Chen et al., 1999; Shi, Li & Li, 1999; Li et al., 2001; Zhang & Fang, 2016). The common ancestor of Ammopiptanthus and Salweenia arose in the Tertiary evergreen forest of ancient Central Asia (the north coast of the Tethys) before 26.96 Ma (Fig. 4: Node I). During the expansion of the Central Asian evergreen forest, this common ancestor probably dispersed southwards along new land that emerged from the Tethys (as in Sun, 2002b).
The third rapid uplift of the QTP happened 7–8 Ma (Harrison et al., 1992; Liu et al., 2001; Wang et al., 2008; Zheng & Yao, 2006) and was followed by a major raising of the northwest QTP at ca. 4.5 Ma (Zheng et al., 2000), causing a cooler climate and aridification of the Asian inland. The Tertiary forest gradually gave way to psychrophytic and xerophytic shrubs and herbs (Sun, 2002a; Meng et al., 2015). This dramatic environmental change possibly led to the divergence between Ammopiptanthus and Salweenia (ca. 4.74 Ma, see Fig. 4: Node II). The former, remained in the Asian interior, kept the evergreen shrubby habit, and acquired xeric characters, such as the pubescent, coriaceous leaves, in the arid central Asian habitat; while the latter retained more traits from Tertiary flora in the less disturbed and wetter region of the Hengduan Mountains (Sun, 2002a; Sun, 2002b; Sun & Li, 2003).
The split of the two Ammopiptanthus species (2.04 Ma; see Fig. 4: Node III) is possibly a response to the last (fourth) rapid uprising of the QTP, when aridification of the Asian interior intensified and the Loess Plateau formed, which potentially served as a geological barrier and facilitated speciation (3.6-2.5 Ma; Chen et al., 1999; Li & Fang, 1999; Li et al., 2001; Tang & Liu, 2001; Zheng & Yao, 2006). This estimated age is slightly older than that proposed in Su et al. (2016), who similarly suggested that the speciation of Ammopiptanthus was caused by climate oscillation and range shifts. Ammopiptanthus nanus grows in a dryer habitat than that of A. mongolicus; the former, therefore, possesses more xeric apomorphies such as shorter habit, usually 1-foliolate leaves, conspicuous leaf venation, thicker root cortex, more complex karyotype and more vulnerable phytocommunities (Cheng, 1959; Pan & Huang, 1993; Wei, 1998; Zhang et al., 2007).
Such disjunction resulting from the QTP uplift can be found in other Fabaceae species. Examples are the infra-generic biogeography of some genera in the tribe Caraganeae (QTP-NW China/C Asia disjunction; see Zhang et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2015b; Zhang et al., 2015c) and the inter-generic evolutionary history of Gueldenstaedtia and Tibetia (mesic E Asia-QTP disjunction; see Xie et al., 2016). Our results may provide new insight into the evolutionary pattern of an inter-generic QTP-Asian interior disjunctive distribution.
Conclusion
Thermopsideae is a widely spread tribe of Leguminosae, ranging in temperate Eurasia and North America, its phylogeny has been controversial for decades. According to our results, Pickeringia was excluded from Thermopsideae. The previous finding, that this tribe is part of an expanded Sophoreae, was confirmed herein. The re-delimited Sophoreae contained two clades: Thermopsoid and Sophoroid clade. Monophyly of Anagyris, Baptisia and Piptanthus were supported in the former clade. On the other hand, Ammopiptanthus, including A. mongolicus and A. nanus, nested within the Sophoroid clade, with Salweenia as its sister. The Ammopiptanthus-Salweenia clade displayed a disjunctive distribution in northwestern China-central Asia and Hengduan Mountains, respectively. The estimation of divergence ages showed the emergence of the common ancestor of Ammopiptanthus and Salweenia, divergence between these two genera and the split of Ammopiptanthus species are in response to the second, third and fourth main uplifts of the QTP, respectively.
Supplemental Information
The nuclear ITS and combined plastid datasets are given in fasta format.
Acknowledgments
We thank Dr. Ming-Zhou Sun for kindly providing samples and Prof. Zhao-Yang Chang for providing the photograph in Fig. 5D.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41271070) and the grants from the Special Service Project of Chinese Academy of Sciences (No. TSS-2015-014-FW-4-1). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Additional Information and Declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare there are no competing interests.
Author Contributions
Wei Shi conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Pei-Liang Liu conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Lei Duan performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Bo-Rong Pan was the project leader.
Zhi-Hao Su performed the experiments.
Data Availability
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
The raw data has been supplied as Supplemental Information 1.
References
- Azani et al. (2017).Azani N, Babineau M, Bailey CD, Banks H, Barbosa AR, Pinto RB, Boatwright JS, Borges LM, Brown GK, Bruneau A, Candido E, Cardoso D, Chung K-F, Clark RP, Conceicao ADS, Crisp M, Cubas P, Delgado-Salinas A, Dexter KG, Doyle JJ, Duminil J, Egan AN, De la Estrella M, Falcao MJ, Filatov DA, Fortuna-Perez AP, Fortunato RH, Gagnon E, Gasson P, Rando JG, Goulart de Azevedo Tozzi AM, Gunn B, Harris D, Haston E, Hawkins JA, Herendeen PS, Hughes CE, Iganci JRV, Javadi F, Kanu SA, Kazempour-Osaloo S, Kite GC, Klitgaard BB, Kochanovski FJ, Koenen EJM, Kovar L, Lavin M, Le Roux M, Lewis GP, De Lima HC, Lopez-Roberts MC, Mackinder B, Maia VH, Malecot V, Mansano VF, Marazzi B, Mattapha S, Miller JT, Mitsuyuki C, Moura T, Murphy DJ, Nageswara-Rao M, Nevado B, Neves D, Ojeda DI, Pennington RT, Prado DE, Prenner G, De Queiroz LP, Ramos G, Ranzato Filardi FL, Ribeiro PG, Rico-Arce MDL, Sanderson MJ, Santos-Silva J, Sao-Mateus WMB, Silva MJS, Simon MF, Sinou C, Snak C, De Souza ER, Sprent J, Steele KP, Steier JE, Steeves R, Stirton CH, Tagane S, Torke BM, Toyama H, Da Cruz DT, Vatanparast M, Wieringa JJ, Wink M, Wojciechowski MF, Yahara T, Yi T, Zimmerman E. A new subfamily classification of the Leguminosae based on a taxonomically comprehensive phylogeny. Taxon. 2017;66:44–77. doi: 10.12705/661.3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Bao & Vincent (2010).Bao BJ, Vincent MA. Sophora. In: Wu ZY, Hong DY, Raven PH, editors. Flora of China. Vol. 10. Science Press & Missouri Botanical Garden Press; Beijing & St. Louis: 2010. pp. 85–93. [Google Scholar]
- Bouckaert et al. (2014).Bouckaert R, Heled J, Kühnert D, Vaughan T, Wu CH, Xie D, Suchard MA, Rambaut A, Drummond AJ. BEAST 2: a software platform for Bayesian evolutionary analysis. PLOS Computational Biology. 2014;10:e1003537. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003537. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cardoso et al. (2012a).Cardoso D, De Lima HC, Rodrigues RS, De Queiroz LP, Pennington RT, Lavin M. The realignment of Acosmium sensu stricto with the Dalbergioid clade (Leguminosae: Papilionoideae) reveals a proneness for independent evolution of radial floral symmetry among early-branching papilionoid legumes. Taxon. 2012a;61:1057–1073. [Google Scholar]
- Cardoso et al. (2016).Cardoso D, Harris DJ, Wieringa JJ, São Mateus WM, Batalha-Filho H, Torke BM, Prenner G, De Queiroz LP. A molecular-dated phylogeny and biogeography of the monotypic legume genus Haplormosia, a missing African branch of the otherwise American-Australian Brongniartieae clade. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2016;107:431–442. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2016.12.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cardoso et al. (2012b).Cardoso D, De Queiroz LP, Pennington RT, De Lima HC, Fonty É, Wojciechowski MF, Lavin M. Revisiting the phylogeny of papilionoid legumes: new insights from comprehensively sampled early-branching lineages. American Journal of Botany. 2012b;99:1991–2013. doi: 10.3732/ajb.1200380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cardoso et al. (2013).Cardoso D, Pennington R, De Queiroz L, Boatwright J, Van Wyk B-E, Wojciechowski M, Lavin M. Reconstructing the deep-branching relationships of the papilionoid legumes. South African Journal of Botany. 2013;89:58–75. doi: 10.1016/j.sajb.2013.05.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Mendenhall & Turner (1994).Chen CJ, Mendenhall MG, Turner BL. Taxonomy of Thermopsis (Fabaceae) in North America. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 1994;81:714–742. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Zhu & Yuan (1992).Chen CJ, Zhu XY, Yuan YM. Cytological studies on the tribe Thermopsideae (Fabaceae) I: report on karyotypes of eleven species of four genera. Cathaya. 1992;4:103–116. [Google Scholar]
- Chen et al. (1999).Chen LX, Liu JP, Zhou XJ, Wang PX. Impact of uplift of Qinghai-Xizang Plateau and change of land-ocean distribution on climate over Asia. Quaternary Sciences. 1999;4:314–329. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng (1959).Cheng SH. Ammopiptanthus Cheng f. a new genus of Leguminosae from central Asia. Botanicheskii Zhurnal. 1959;44:1381–1386. [Google Scholar]
- Crepet & Herendeen (1992).Crepet WL, Herendeen PS. Papilionoid flowers from the early Eocene of southeastern North America. In: Herendeen P, Dilcher D, editors. Advances in legume systematics. Vol. 4. Royal Botanic Gardens; Kew: 1992. pp. 43–55. [Google Scholar]
- Crisp, Gilmore & Van Wyk (2000).Crisp M, Gilmore S, Van Wyk BE. Molecular phylogeny of the genistoid tribes of papilionoid legumes. In: Herendeen P, Bruneau A, editors. Advances in legume systematics. Vol. 9. Royal Botanic Gardens; Kew: 2000. pp. 249–276. [Google Scholar]
- Czefranova (1970).Czefranova Z. Series novae generis Thermopsis R.Br. Novitates Systematicae Plantarum Vascularium. 1970;7:213–216. [Google Scholar]
- Darriba et al. (2012).Darriba D, Taboada GL, Doallo R, Posada D. jModelTest 2: more models, new heuristics and parallel computing. Nature Methods. 2012;9:772–772. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Doyle et al. (2000).Doyle J, Chappill J, Bailey C, Kajita T. Towards a comprehensive phylogeny of legumes: evidence from rbcL sequences and non-molecular data. In: Herendeen P, Bruneau A, editors. Advances in Leguminosae systematics. Vol. 9. Royal Botanic Gardens; Kew: 2000. pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar]
- Doyle et al. (1997).Doyle JJ, Doyle JL, Ballenger JA, Dickson EE, Kajita T, Ohashi H. A phylogeny of the chloroplast gene rbcL in the Leguminosae: taxonomic correlations and insights into the evolution of nodulation. American Journal of Botany. 1997;84:541–554. doi: 10.2307/2446030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Duan et al. (2016).Duan L, Yang X, Liu PL, Johnson G, Wen J, Chang ZY. A molecular phylogeny of Caraganeae (Leguminosae, Papilionoideae) reveals insights into new generic and infrageneric delimitations. PhytoKeys. 2016;70:111–137. doi: 10.3897/phytokeys.70.9641. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Edgar (2004).Edgar RC. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Research. 2004;32:1792–1797. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh340. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Feng et al. (2011).Feng WJ, Ou YF, Su YL, Li J, Ji TF. Chemical constituents of Ammopiptanthus mongolicus. China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica. 2011;36:1040–1042. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fu (1987).Fu KT. Ammopiptanthus and Thermopsis. In: Liou YX, editor. Flora in desertis reipublicae populorum sinarum. Vol. 2. Science Press; Beijing: 1987. pp. 230–232. [Google Scholar]
- García et al. (2014).García N, Meerow AW, Soltis DE, Soltis PS. Testing deep reticulate evolution in Amaryllidaceae tribe Hippeastreae (Asparagales) with ITS and chloroplast sequence data. Systematic Botany. 2014;39:75–89. doi: 10.1600/036364414X678099. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Goldblatt (1981).Goldblatt P. Cytology and the phylogeny of Leguminosae. In: Polhill RM, Raven PH, editors. Advances in legume systematics. Vol. 1. Royal Botanic Gardens; Kew: 1981. pp. 427–463. [Google Scholar]
- Harrison et al. (1992).Harrison TM, Copel P, Kidd WSF, Yin A. Raising Tibet. Science. 1992;255:1663–1670. doi: 10.1126/science.255.5052.1663. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Heenan, Dawson & Wagstaff (2004).Heenan PB, Dawson MI, Wagstaff SJ. The relationship of Sophora sect. Edwardsia (Fabaceae) to Sophora tomentosa, the type species of the genus Sophora, observed from DNA sequence data and morphological characters. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. 2004;146:439–446. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2004.00348.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Herendeen & Dilcher (1990).Herendeen PS, Dilcher DL. Diplotropis (Leguminosae, Papilionoideae) from the Middle Eocene of southeastern North America. Systematic Botany. 1990;15:526–533. doi: 10.2307/2419152. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Kajita et al. (2001).Kajita T, Ohashi H, Tateishi Y, Bailey CD, Doyle JJ. rbcL and legume phylogeny, with particular reference to Phaseoleae, Millettieae and allies. Systematic Botany. 2001;26:515–536. doi: 10.1043/0363-6445-26.3.515. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Käss & Wink (1994).Käss E, Wink M. Molecular phylogeny of the papilionoideae (family Leguminosae) - rbcl gene-sequences versus chemical taxonomy. Botanica Acta. 1994;108:149–162. doi: 10.1111/j.1438-8677.1995.tb00845.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Käss & Wink (1997).Käss E, Wink M. Phylogenetic relationships in the papilionoideae (family Leguminosae) based on nucleotide sequences of cpDNA (rbcL) and ncDNA (ITS 1 and 2) Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 1997;8:65–88. doi: 10.1006/mpev.1997.0410. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kearse et al. (2012).Kearse M, Moir R, Wilson A, Stones-Havas S, Cheung M, Sturrock S, Buxton S, Cooper A, Markowitz S, Duran C, Thierer T, Ashton B, Meintjes P, Drummond A. Geneious Basic: an integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2012;28:1647–1649. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts199. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Larisey (1940a).Larisey MM. A monograph of the genus Baptisia. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 1940a;27:119–244. doi: 10.2307/2394327. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Larisey (1940b).Larisey MM. A revision of the North American species of the genus Thermopsis. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 1940b;27:245–258. doi: 10.2307/2394328. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Lavin, Herendeen & Wojciechowski (2005).Lavin M, Herendeen PS, Wojciechowski MF. Evolutionary rates analysis of Leguminosae implicates a rapid diversification of lineages during the Tertiary. Systematic Biology. 2005;54:575–594. doi: 10.1080/10635150590947131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lazkov (2006).Lazkov G. Generis Ammopiptanthus S.H.Cheng (Fabaceae) species nova e Kyrgyzstania. Novitates Systematicae Plantarum Vascularium. 2006;38:134–138. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, Tokuoka & Heo (2004).Lee WK, Tokuoka T, Heo K. Molecular evidence for the inclusion of the Korean endemic genus “Echinosophora” in Sophora (Fabaceae) and embryological features of the genus. Journal of Plant Research. 2004;117:209–219. doi: 10.1007/s10265-004-0150-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Li & Fang (1999).Li J, Fang X. Uplift of the Tibetan Plateau and environmental changes. Chinese Science Bulletin. 1999;44:2117–2124. doi: 10.1007/BF03182692. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Li et al. (2001).Li JJ, Fang XM, Pan BT, Zhao ZJ, Song YG. Late Cenozoic intensive uplift of Qinghai-Xizang Plateau and its impacts on environments in surrounding area. Quaternary Sciences. 2001;21:381–391. [Google Scholar]
- Li & Ni (1982).Li PQ, Ni CC. The formation and differentiation of the Leguminosae flora in Xizang (Tibet) Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica. 1982;20:142–156. [Google Scholar]
- Li & Yan (2011).Li XY, Yan P. Leguminosae. In: Sheng GM, editor. Flora Xinjiangensis. Vol. 3. Xinjiang Science & Technology Publishing House; Xinjiang: 2011. pp. 11–12. [Google Scholar]
- Liu et al. (2001).Liu S, Chi X, Li C, Yang R. The summarizing for the forming and uplifted mechanism of Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. World Geology. 2001;20:105–112. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Wang & Wang (1996).Liu YH, Wang SM, Wang HS. A study on the chromosomal geography of Ammopiptanthus genus. Geographical Research. 1996;15(4):40–47. [Google Scholar]
- Lock (2005).Lock J. Thermopsideae. In: Lewis G, Schrire B, Mackinder B, Lock M, editors. Legumes of the world. Royal Botanic Gardens; Kew: 2005. pp. 263–265. [Google Scholar]
- Ma (1990).Ma CY. Review of the classifical system on the genus Sophora. Bulletin of Botanical Research. 1990;10:77–86. [Google Scholar]
- Ma (1994).Ma CY. Sophora. In: Wei Z, editor. Flora reipublicae popularis sinicae. Vol. 40. Science Press; Beijing: 1994. pp. 64–95. [Google Scholar]
- Meng et al. (2015).Meng HH, Gao XY, Huang JF, Zhang ML. Plant phylogeography in arid Northwest China: retrospectives and perspectives. Journal of Systematics and Evolution. 2015;53(1):33–46. doi: 10.1111/jse.12088. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Meng et al. (2017).Meng HH, Su T, Gao XY, Li J, Jiang XL, Sun H, Zhou ZK. Warm-cold colonization: response of oaks to uplift of the Himalaya-Hengduan Mountains. Molecular Ecology. 2017;26:3276–3294. doi: 10.1111/mec.14092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ortega-Olivencia (2009).Ortega-Olivencia A. Systematics and evolutionary history of the circum-Mediterranean genus Anagyris L.(Fabaceae) based on morphological and molecular data. Taxon. 2009;58:1290–1306. [Google Scholar]
- Pan & Huang (1993).Pan BR, Huang SP. A cytological studies of genus Ammopiptanthus. Acta Botanica Sinica. 1993;35:314–317. [Google Scholar]
- Peng & Yuan (1992).Peng ZX, Yuan YM. Systematic revision on Thermopsideae (Leguminosae) of China. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica. 1992;12:158–166. [Google Scholar]
- Pennington et al. (2001).Pennington RT, Lavin M, Ireland H, Klitgaard B, Preston J, Hu JM. Phylogenetic relationships of basal papilionoid legumes based upon sequences of the chloroplast trnL intron. Systematic Botany. 2001;26:537–556. doi: 10.1043/0363-6445-26.3.537. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Peters et al. (2010).Peters WS, Haffer D, Hanakam CB, Van Bel AJ, Knoblauch M. Legume phylogeny and the evolution of a unique contractile apparatus that regulates phloem transport. American Journal of Botany. 2010;97:797–808. doi: 10.3732/ajb.0900328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Polhill (1994).Polhill RM. Classification of the Leguminosae. In: Southon IW, Bisby FA, Buckingham J, Harborne JB, editors. Phytochemical dictionary of the Leguminosae. Chapman & Hall; London: 1994. pp. XXXV–LVII. [Google Scholar]
- Ronquist & Huelsenbeck (2003).Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP. MrBayes 3: bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics. 2003;19:1572–1574. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sa (1999).Sa R. PhD thesis. 1999. Systematics of Thermopsis (Leguminosae) [Google Scholar]
- Sa, Sudebilige & Chen (2000).Sa R, Sudebilige, Chen JR. Epidermal characters of leaves in Thermopsis and their biolocal significances. Acta Agrestia Sinica. 2000;8:66–76. [Google Scholar]
- Shi, Li & Li (1999).Shi Y, Li J, Li B. Uplift of the Qinghai-Xizang (Tibetan) plateau and east Asia environmental change during late Cenozoic. Acta Geographica Sinica-Chinese Edition. 1999;54:20–28. [Google Scholar]
- Shi, Pan & Zhang (2009).Shi W, Pan BR, Zhang Q. Comparison of element contents in habitat soil and plant leaves of Ammopiptanthus nanus and A. mongolicus. Chinese Journal of Applied and Environmental Biology. 2009;15:660–665. [Google Scholar]
- Stamatakis (2014).Stamatakis A. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:1312–1313. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Su et al. (2016).Su Z, Pan B, Zhang M, Shi W. Conservation genetics and geographic patterns of genetic variation of endangered shrub Ammopiptanthus (Fabaceae) in northwestern China. Conservation Genetics. 2016;17:485–496. doi: 10.1007/s10592-015-0798-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Sun (2002a).Sun H. Tethys retreat and Himalayas-Hengduanshan Mountains uplift and their significance on the origin and development of the Sino-Himalayan elements and alpine flora. Acta Botanica Yunnanica. 2002a;24:273–288. [Google Scholar]
- Sun (2002b).Sun H. Evolution of arctic-tertiary flora in Himalayan-Hengduan Mountains. Acta Botanica Yunnanica. 2002b;24:671–688. [Google Scholar]
- Sun & Li (2003).Sun H, Li Z. Qinghai-Tibet Plateau uplift and its impact on Tethys flora. Advances in Earth Science. 2003;18:852–862. [Google Scholar]
- Tang & Liu (2001).Tang M, Liu Y. On causes and environmental consequences of the uplift of Qinghai-Xizang Plateau. Quaternary Sciences. 2001;21:500–507. [Google Scholar]
- Teng et al. (1997).Teng JW, Zhang ZJ, Zhang BM, Zhang H. Environmental change and the uplift of Tibetan Plateau. Earth Science Frontiers. 1997;4:247–254. [Google Scholar]
- Tsoong & Ma (1981a).Tsoong PC, Ma CY. A study on the genus Sophora Linn. Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica. 1981a;19:1–22. [Google Scholar]
- Tsoong & Ma (1981b).Tsoong PC, Ma CY. A study on the genus Sophora Linn. (Cont.) Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica. 1981b;19:143–167. [Google Scholar]
- Turner (1980).Turner BL. Revision of the genus Piptanthus (Fabaceae, Thermopsideae) Brittonia. 1980;32:281–285. doi: 10.2307/2806715. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Turner (1981).Turner BL. Thermopsodeae. In: Polhill RM, Raven PH, editors. Advances in legume systematics. Vol. 1. Royal Botanic Garden; Kew: 1981. pp. 403–407. [Google Scholar]
- Turner (2006).Turner BL. Overview of the genus Baptisia (Leguminosae) Phytologia. 2006;88:253–268. doi: 10.5962/bhl.part.10453. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Uysal, Ertuğrul & Bozkurt (2014).Uysal T, Ertuğrul K, Bozkurt M. A new genus segregated from Thermopsis (Fabaceae: papilionoideae): Vuralia. Plant Systematics and Evolution. 2014;300:1627–1637. doi: 10.1007/s00606-014-0988-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Vasil’chenko (1945).Vasil’chenko IT. Sophora. In: Komarov VL, editor. Flora of the USSR. Vol. 11. Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR; Leningrad: 1945. pp. 20–24. [Google Scholar]
- Wang (2001).Wang H. A preliminary study on phytogeography of the tribe Thermopsideae (Papilionaceae) Acta Botanica Yunnanica. 2001;23:17–28. [Google Scholar]
- Wang et al. (2006).Wang HC, Sun H, Compton JA, Yang JB. A phylogeny of Thermopsideae (Leguminosae : Papilionoideae) inferred from nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequences. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. 2006;151:365–373. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2006.00512.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Wang et al. (2008).Wang C, Zhao X, Liu Z, Lippert PC, Graham SA, Coe RS, Yi H, Zhu L, Liu S, Li Y. Constraints on the early uplift history of the Tibetan Plateau. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2008;105:4987–4992. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0703595105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wei (1998).Wei SQ. Thermopsideae. In: Cui HB, editor. Flora reipublicae popularis sinicae. Vol. 42(2) Science Press; Beijing: 1998. pp. 88–411. [Google Scholar]
- Wei, Gao & Huang (2010).Wei KH, Gao SL, Huang HP. Tissue culture and generation of autotetraploid plants of Sophora flavescens Aiton. Pharmacognosy Magazine. 2010;6:286. doi: 10.4103/0973-1296.71793. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wei & Shi (1995).Wei Y, Shi QH. Spectrum analysis on the esterase isozymes of Ammopiptanthus. Arid Zone Research. 1995;12:36. 53–54. [Google Scholar]
- Wei et al. (2007).Wei H, Wu P, Ge X, Liu M, Wei X. Chemical constituents of the seeds of Ammopiptanthus (Leguminosae) and their systematic and ecological significance. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology. 2007;35:274–280. doi: 10.1016/j.bse.2006.10.015. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Wei & Lock (2010).Wei Z, Lock JM. Fabaceae tribe thermopsideae. In: Wu ZY, Hong DY, Raven PH, editors. Flora of China. Vol. 10. Science Press & Missouri Botanical Garden Press; Beijing & St. Louis: 2010. pp. 100–104. [Google Scholar]
- Wink (2013).Wink M. Evolution of secondary metabolites in legumes (Fabaceae) South African Journal of Botany. 2013;89:164–175. doi: 10.1016/j.sajb.2013.06.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Wink & Mohamed (2003).Wink M, Mohamed G. Evolution of chemical defense traits in the Leguminosae: mapping of distribution patterns of secondary metabolites on a molecular phylogeny inferred from nucleotide sequences of the rbcL gene. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology. 2003;31:897–917. doi: 10.1016/S0305-1978(03)00085-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Wojciechowski (2003).Wojciechowski MF. Reconstructing the phylogeny of legumes (Leguminosae): an early 21st century perspective. In: Klitgaard BB, Bruneau A, editors. Advances in legume systematics. Vol. 10. Royal Botanic Garden; Kew: 2003. pp. 5–35. [Google Scholar]
- Wojciechowski (2013).Wojciechowski MF. The origin and phylogenetic relationships of the californian chaparral ‘paleoendemic’ Pickeringia (Leguminosae) Systematic Botany. 2013;38:132–142. doi: 10.1600/036364413X662024. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Wojciechowski, Lavin & Sanderson (2004).Wojciechowski MF, Lavin M, Sanderson MJ. A phylogeny of legumes (Leguminosae) based on analyses of the plastid matK gene resolves many well-supported subclades within the family. American Journal of Botany. 2004;91(11):1846–1862. doi: 10.3732/ajb.91.11.1846. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Xie et al. (2016).Xie YP, Meng Y, Sun H, Nie Z-L. Molecular phylogeny of Gueldenstaedtia and Tibetia (Fabaceae) and their biogeographic differentiation within Eastern Asia. PLOS ONE. 2016;11:e0162982. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162982. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Xu et al. (2012).Xu B, Wu N, Gao XF, Zhang L-B. Analysis of DNA sequences of six chloroplast and nuclear genes suggests incongruence, introgression and incomplete lineage sorting in the evolution of Lespedeza (Fabaceae) Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2012;62:346–358. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2011.10.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Yakovlev (1972).Yakovlev GP. A contribution to the system of the order Fabales Nakai (Leguminales Jones) Botanicheskii Zhurnal. 1972;57:592. [Google Scholar]
- Yakovlev (1988).Yakovlev GP. Plants of Central Asia. Vol. 8a. Science Publishers; Enfield & Plymouth: 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Yakovlev, Sytin & Roskov (1996).Yakovlev GP, Sytin AK, Roskov YR. Legumes of Northern Eurasia: a checklist. Royal Botanic Gardens; Kew: 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Yin & Zhang (2004).Yin LK, Zhang J. Change of the protein amino acid content in Ammopiptanthus Cheng f. under the different habitats. Arid Zone Research. 2004;21:269–274. [Google Scholar]
- Yuan & Chen (1993).Yuan YM, Chen JR. Anatomical evidence for phylogeny of the tribe Thermopsideae (Fabaceae) Journal of Lanzhou University Natural Sciences. 1993;29:97–104. [Google Scholar]
- Yue et al. (2011).Yue XK, Yue JP, Yang LE, Li ZM, Sun H. Systematics of the genus Salweenia (Leguminosae) from Southwest China with discovery of a second species. Taxon. 2011;60:1366–1374. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang et al. (2010).Zhang J, Liao K, Li D, Yan Z, Zhang J. Distribution pattern and characteristics of Ammopiptanthus mongolicus in several different habitat conditions. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment. 2010;24:151–154. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang & Fang (2016).Zhang LS, Fang XQ. Palaeogeography of China: formation of natural environment in China. Science Press; Beijing: 2016. pp. 137–206. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang et al. (2015a).Zhang ML, Huang JF, Sanderson SC, Yan P, Wu YH, Pan BR. Molecular biogeography of tribe Thermopsideae (Leguminosae): a Madrean-Tethyan disjunction pattern with an African origin of core genistoides. BioMed Research International. 2015a;2015 doi: 10.1155/2015/864804. Article 864804. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zhang et al. (2007).Zhang Q, Pan BR, Zhang YZ, Duan SM. Analysis on the characteristics of communities of Ammopiptanthus nanus and A. mongolicus. Arid Zone Research. 2007;24:487–494. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang et al. (2015b).Zhang ML, Wen ZB, Fritsch PW, Sanderson SC. Spatiotemporal evolution of Calophaca (Fabaceae) reveals multiple dispersals in central Asian mountains. PLOS ONE. 2015b;10:e0123228. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123228. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zhang et al. (2015c).Zhang ML, Wen ZB, Hao XL, Byalt VV, Sukhorukov AP, Sanderson SC. Taxonomy, phylogenetics and biogeography of Chesneya (Fabaceae), evidenced from data of three sequences, ITS, trnS-trnG and rbcL. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology. 2015c;63:80–89. doi: 10.1016/j.bse.2015.09.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Zheng et al. (2000).Zheng H, Powell CM, An Z, Zhou J, Dong G. Pliocene uplift of the northern Tibetan Plateau. Geology. 2000;28:715–718. doi: 10.1130/0091-7613(2000)28<715:PUOTNT>2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Zheng & Yao (2006).Zheng D, Yao TD. Uplifting of Tibetan Plateau with its environmental effects. Advances in Earth Science. 2006;21:451–458. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
The nuclear ITS and combined plastid datasets are given in fasta format.
Data Availability Statement
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
The raw data has been supplied as Supplemental Information 1.