Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Intercontinental and intracontinental biogeography—patterns and methods

2009; Wiley; Volume: 47; Issue: 5 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1111/j.1759-6831.2009.00052.x

1674-4918

Jun Wen, Qiu‐Yun Xiang, Hong Qian, Jianhua Li, X.-Q. Wang, Stefanie M. Ickert‐Bond,

Plant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics

Journal of Systematics and EvolutionVolume 47, Issue 5 p. 327-330 Free Access Intercontinental and intracontinental biogeography—patterns and methods Jun WEN, Corresponding Author Jun WEN (Department of Botany, MRC-166, Smithsonian Institution, PO Box 37012, Washington DC 20013-7012, USA) * Author for correspondence. E-mail: wenj@si.edu.Search for more papers by this authorQiu-Yun (Jenny) XIANG, Qiu-Yun (Jenny) XIANG (Department of Plant Biology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7612, USA)Search for more papers by this authorHong QIAN, Hong QIAN (Research and Collections Center, Illinois State Museum, Springfield, IL 62703, USA)Search for more papers by this authorJianhua LI, Jianhua LI (Biology Department, Hope College, Holland, MI 49423, USA)Search for more papers by this authorXiao-Quan WANG, Xiao-Quan WANG (State Key Laboratory of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, China)Search for more papers by this authorStefanie M. ICKERT-BOND, Stefanie M. ICKERT-BOND (UA Museum of the North Herbarium and Department of Biology and Wildlife, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775-6960, USA)Search for more papers by this author Jun WEN, Corresponding Author Jun WEN (Department of Botany, MRC-166, Smithsonian Institution, PO Box 37012, Washington DC 20013-7012, USA) * Author for correspondence. E-mail: wenj@si.edu.Search for more papers by this authorQiu-Yun (Jenny) XIANG, Qiu-Yun (Jenny) XIANG (Department of Plant Biology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7612, USA)Search for more papers by this authorHong QIAN, Hong QIAN (Research and Collections Center, Illinois State Museum, Springfield, IL 62703, USA)Search for more papers by this authorJianhua LI, Jianhua LI (Biology Department, Hope College, Holland, MI 49423, USA)Search for more papers by this authorXiao-Quan WANG, Xiao-Quan WANG (State Key Laboratory of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, China)Search for more papers by this authorStefanie M. ICKERT-BOND, Stefanie M. ICKERT-BOND (UA Museum of the North Herbarium and Department of Biology and Wildlife, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775-6960, USA)Search for more papers by this author First published: 24 September 2009 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-6831.2009.00052.xCitations: 9AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat The study of biogeography has benefited from the exponential increase of DNA sequence data from recent molecular systematic studies, the development of analytical methods in the last decade concerning divergence time estimation and geographic area analyses, and the availability of large-scale distribution data of species in many groups of organisms. The underlying principle of divergence time estimation from DNA and protein data is that sequence divergence depends on the product of evolutionary rate and time. With their molecular clock hypothesis, Zuckerkandl and Pauling (1965) separated rates of molecular evolution from time by incorporating fossil evidence. Originally, a constant rate of sequence evolution was assumed, but soon it became evident that many data sets do not obey the constant rate assumption of a strict molecular clock. In fact, many studies have revealed extreme heterogeneity of nucleotide substitution rates over time. To account for the heterogeneity, relaxed molecular clock approaches have been developed (Thorne et al., 1998; Sanderson, 2002; Yang & Yoder, 2003; Drummond et al., 2006) with the availability of computer programs such as r8s, multidivtime, and BEAST (Thorne & Kishino, 2002; Sanderson, 2003; Drummond & Rambaut, 2007; see reviews by Renner, 2005 and by Rutschmann, 2006). Area relationships were primarily inferred using methods in phylogenetic biogeography (Brundin, 1988), cladistic biogeography (Humphries & Parenti, 1999), and panbiogeography (Craw et al., 1999) in the 1980's and 1990's. These different biogeographic methods all have some limitations. The cladistic biogeographic approach emphasizes vicariance in forming biogeographic patterns, but underestimates the impact of processes such as dispersal and extinction (Ronquist, 1996, 1997). Different groups of organisms may respond differently to biogeographic barriers, which complicate the inference of general area relationship from taxon cladograms. In response to these limitations, Ronquist (1997) proposed the dispersal-vicariance (DIVA) analysis as an alternative approach of quantification of historical biogeography. This method reconstructs the ancestral distribution in a phylogeny using a three-dimensional step matrix, while allowing for dispersal and extinction to occur. The optimal ancestral distributions are inferred by minimizing the number of dispersal and extinction events (see review by Lamm & Redelings, this issue). Many studies have employed DIVA for inferring historical biogeography in a wide range of organisms (e.g., Sanmartín & Ronquist, 2004; also see Harris & Xiang, this issue). Recent advances in ancestral area reconstruction have brought forward additional approaches, such as the Bayes-DIVA method (Nylander et al., 2008), as well as the dispersal-extinction-cladogenesis (DEC) analysis (Ree et al., 2005; Ree & Smith, 2008; also see review by Lamm & Redelings, this issue). DEC analysis uses a phylogenetic model of geographic range evolution to infer ancestral ranges and biogeographic events given rates of stochastic dispersal and local extinction estimated by maximum likelihood, and can be implemented in Lagrange version 2.0.1. (available at: http://lagrange.googlecode.com). The newly developed methods have stimulated strong interests in reconstructing the intercontinental disjunctions and intracontinental patterns of biogeography. The results on the divergence times and area relationships have stimulated debates on the significance of vicariance and dispersal. In many cases, dispersal has been validated as an important hypothesis of the origin of many disjunctions (De Queiroz, 2005; Posadas et al., 2006; Wen & Ickert-Bond, this issue). Several important biogeographic patterns especially at the intercontinental level have been examined and reviewed, such as the northern hemisphere disjunctions (see Xiang et al., 1998; Wen, 1999; Manos & Donoghue, 2001; Donoghue & Smith, 2004), the tropical disjunctions (Givnish & Renner, 2004), and the southern hemisphere patterns (Sanmartín & Ronquist, 2004). This special issue of Journal of Systematics and Evolution includes 12 papers, which examine the current intercontinental and intracontinental patterns and explore new analytical methods. Specifically, Wen and Ickert-Bond review two major patterns of intercontinental disjunctions (the Madrean-Tethyan and the North and South American amphitropical disjunctions). Harris and Xiang propose a statistical approach for analyses using DIVA without fully bifurcating trees. Lamm and Redelings provide a review of newly developed methods for reconstructing ancestral ranges. Milne explores the effects of taxon sampling on dating within-genus divergence using deep fossils. Yue et al. examine the geographic assembly of the flora of the Hengduan Mountains using the brassicaceous genus Solms-laubachia as a case study. Nie et al. employ Toxicodendron as a model genus for analyzing the biogeographic interaction of the temperate and tropical elements. Simpson et al. reconstruct the biogeographic pattern in the Andes. Ickert-Bond et al. infer the intercontinental biogeographic disjunctions between the Old and the New World in Ephedra. Dillon et al. explore the biogeographic patterns and diversification of the Atacama and the Peruvian deserts. Fiaschi and Pirani review biogeographic patterns and studies of Brazil. Heinrichs et al. provide an updated summary of the biogeographic disjunctions in bryophytes and the impact of molecular work on bryophyte taxonomy. Qian succinctly compares the global patterns of beta diversity among mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. We hope this collection of papers will stimulate future biogeographic analyses on intercontinental and intracontinental patterns and facilitate collaborations of colleagues from different continents. It is important to explore new analytical methods, which may bring better synthesis of data from different fields such as phylogenetics, paleontology and ecology (Donoghue & Moore, 2003; Crisci, 2006). More model-based techniques are needed for rigorous statistical test of hypotheses pertaining to historical biogeography (Ree & Sanmartín, 2009). Robust data using multiple loci including cytoplasmic and nuclear markers are needed in molecular biogeographic studies, especially for groups with frequent interspecific hybridization (Peng & Wang, 2008). Many intercontinental disjunct patterns are particular to either the northern hemisphere or the southern hemisphere. It is nevertheless important to characterize the biogeographic interactions between the northern and the southern hemispheres. Comprehensive biogeographic analyses at the global scale are clearly needed in the future. Recent biogeographic analyses have provided important insights into intercontinental patterns, yet we need to rigorously explore the intracontinental patterns of different regions using comparative phylogeographic and ecological approaches (Soltis et al., 2006). In particular, phylogeographic studies are helpful for understanding intracontinental disjunctions (Yang et al., 2008). It is an exciting period for biogeography, and we hope to see important syntheses that will lead to better understanding of both intracontinental and intercontinental biogeographic dynamics. Acknowledgments Acknowledgements We thank Jeff Thorne for helpful comments and edits on this editorial. References Brundin LZ. 1988. Phylogenetic biogeography. In: AA Myers, PS Giller eds. Analytical biogeography. New York : Chapman & Hall. 343– 369. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Craw RC, Grehan JR, Heads MJ. 1999. Panbiogeography: tracking the history of life. New York : Oxford University Press. Google Scholar Crisci J. 2006. Bridging historical and ecological approaches in biogeography. L. A. Johnson Review No. 4. Australian Systematic Botany 19: 1– 10. CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar De Queiroz A. 2005. The resurrection of oceanic dispesal in historical biogeography. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20: 68– 73. Google Scholar Donoghue MJ, Moore BR. 2003. Toward an integrative historical biogeography. Integrative and Comparative Biology 43: 261– 270. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Donoghue MJ, Smith SA. 2004. Patterns in the assembly of temperate forests around the Northern Hemisphere. Philosophical Transactions from the Royal Society London, Series B, 359: 1633– 1644. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Drummond AJ, Ho SYW, Phillips MJ, Rambaut A. 2006. Relaxed phylogenetics and dating with confidence. PLoS Biology 4: 699– 710. CrossrefCASWeb of Science®Google Scholar Drummond AJ, Rambaut A. 2007. BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling trees. BMC Evolutionary Biology 7: 214. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Givnish TJ, Renner SS. 2004. Tropical intercontinental disjunctions: Gondwana breakup, immigration from the boreotropics, and transoceanic dispersal. International Journal of Plant Sciences 165: S1– S6. CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Harris AJ, Xiang Q-Y. 2009. Estimating ancestral distributions of lineages with uncertain sister groups: a statistical approach to Dispersal-Vicariance Analysis and a case using Aesculus L. (Sapindaceae) including fossils. Journal of Systematics and Evolution 47: 349– 368. Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Humphries CJ, Parenti LR. 1999. Cladistic biogeography: interpreting patterns of plant and animal distributions, 2nd edition. New York : Oxford University Press. Google Scholar Lamm KS, Redelings BD. 2009. Reconstructing ancestral ranges in historical biogeography: properties and prospects. Journal of Systematics and Evolution 47: 369– 382. Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Manos PS, Donoghue MJ. 2001. Progress in Northern Hemisphere phytogeography. International Journal of Plant Sciences 162: S1– S2. CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Nylander JAA, Olsson U, Alstrom P, Sanmartin I. 2008. Accounting for phylogenetic uncertainty in biogeography: a Bayesian approach to Dispersal–Vicariance Analysis of the thrushes (Aves: Turdus). Systematic Biology 57: 257– 268. Google Scholar Peng D, Wang XQ. 2008. Reticulate evolution in Thuja inferred from multiple gene sequences: implications for the study of biogeographical disjunction between eastern Asia and North America. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 47: 1190– 1202. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Posadas P, Crisci JV, Katinas L. 2006. Historical biogeography: a review of its basic concepts and critical issues. Journal of Arid Environments 66: 389– 403. CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Ree RH, Smith SA. 2008. Maximum likelihood inference of geographic range evolution by dispersal, local extinction, and cladogenesis. Systematic Biology 57: 4– 14. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Ree RH, Moore BR, Webb CO, Donoghue MJ. 2005. A likelihood framework for inferring the evolution of geographic range on phylogenetic trees. Evolution 59: 2299– 2311. Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Ree RH, Sanmartín I. 2009. Prospects and challenges for parametric models in historical biogeographical inference. Journal of Biogeography 36: 1211– 1220. Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Renner SS. 2005. Relaxed molecular clocks for dating historical plant dispersal events. Trends in Plant Science 10: 550– 558. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Ronquist F. 1996. DIVA, version 1.1. Computer program and manual available from Uppsala University, http://www.ebc.uu.se/systzoo/research/diva/diva.html. Google Scholar Ronquist F. 1997. Dispersal-vicariance analysis: a new approach to the quantification of historical biogeography. Systematic Biology 46: 195– 203. CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Rutschmann F. 2006. Molecular dating of phylogenetic trees: a brief review of current methods that estimate divergence times. Diversity and Distributions 12: 35– 48. Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Sanderson MJ. 2002. Estimating absolute rates of molecular evolution and divergence times, a penalized likelihood approach. Molecular Biolology and Evolution 19: 101– 109. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Sanderson MJ. 2003. r8s: inferring absolute rates of molecular evolution and divergence dates in the absence of a molecular clock. Bioinformatics 19: 301– 302. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Sanmartín I, Ronquist F. 2004. Southern hemisphere biogeography inferred by event-based models: plant versus animal patterns. Systematic Biology 53: 216– 243. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Soltis DE, Morris AB, McLachlan JS, Manos PS, Soltis PS. 2006. Comparative phylogeography of unglaciated eastern North America. Molecular Ecology 15: 4261– 4293. Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Thorne JL, Kishino H. 2002. Divergence time and evolutionary rate estimation with multilocus data. Systematic Biology 51: 689– 702. CASGoogle Scholar Thorne JL, Kishino H, Painter IS. 1998. Estimating the rate of evolution of the rate of molecular evolution. Molecular Biology and Evolution 15: 1647– 1657. Google Scholar Wen J. 1999. Evolution of eastern Asian and eastern North American disjunct distributions in flowering plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30: 421– 455. CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Wen J, Ickert-Bond SM. 2009. Evolution of the Madrean-Tethyan disjunctions and the North and South American amphitropical disjunctions in plants. Journal of Systematics and Evolution 47: 331– 348. Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Xiang Q-Y, Soltis DE, Soltis PS. 1998. The eastern Asian and eastern and western North America floristic disjunction: congruent phylogenetic patterns in seven diverse genera. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 10: 178– 190. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Yang FS, Li YF, Ding X, Wang XQ. 2008. Extensive population expansion of Pedicularis longiflora (Orobanchaceae) on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau and its correlation with the Quaternary climate change. Molecular Ecology 17: 5135– 5145. Wiley Online LibraryCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Yang Z, Yoder AD. 2003. Comparison of likelihood and Bayesian methods for estimating divergence times using multiple loci and calibration points, with application to a radiation of cute-looking mouse lemur species. Systematic Biology 52: 705– 716. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Zuckerkandl E, Pauling L. 1965. Evolutionary divergence and convergence in proteins. In: V Bryson, HJ Vogel eds. Evolving genes and proteins. New York : Academic Press. 97– 106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Citing Literature Volume47, Issue5September 2009Pages 327-330 ReferencesRelatedInformation