Plant Systematics and Evolution

, Volume 172, Issue 1–4, pp 99–118 | Cite as

A phylogenetic and allozyme approach to understanding rarity in three “green ash” eucalypts (Myrtaceae)

  • S. Prober
  • J. C. Bell
  • G. Moran
Article

Abstract

Phylogenetic relationships among the 12 species of the “green ash” group of eucalypts were examined using allozyme data, to investigate the causes of rarity in three localized endemics of the group. The relationships suggested by the allozyme data showed both similarities to and differences from those estimated from morphological data byLadiges and coworkers. The phylogenetic relationships suggest that rarity inEucalyptus burgessiana may be related to recent divergence, whileE. paliformis andE. rupicola are relatively old species, more likely to be relicts, and/or restricted to a rare habitat.

Key words

Angiosperms Myrtaceae Eucalyptus Rarity allozymes phylogeny 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brooker, M. I. H., 1977: Internal bud morphology, seedling characters and classification in the ash group of eucalypts. — Austral. For. Res.7: 197–207.Google Scholar
  2. Buth, D. G., 1984: The application of electrophoretic data in systematic studies. — Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.15: 501–522.Google Scholar
  3. Cain, S. A., 1944: Foundations of plant geography. — New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  4. Carey, K., Ganders, F. R., 1987: Patterns of isoenzyme variation inPlectritis (Valerianaceae). — Syst. Bot.12: 125–132.Google Scholar
  5. Chippendale, G. M., 1988:Eucalyptus, Angophora (Myrtaceae), flora of Australia19. — Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
  6. Conkle, M. T., Hodgskiss, P. D., Nunnally, L. B., Hunter, S. C., 1982: Starch gel electrophoresis of conifer seeds: a laboratory manual. — United States Department of Agriculture General Technical Report PSW-64, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.Google Scholar
  7. Crawford, D. J., 1985: Electrophoretic data and plant speciation. — Syst. Bot.10: 405–416.Google Scholar
  8. —, 1987: Allozyme divergence and the evolution ofDendroseris (Compositae:Lactuceae) on the Juan Fernandez Islands. — Syst. Bot.12: 435–443.Google Scholar
  9. Decker, D. S., Wilson, H. D., 1987: Allozyme variation in theCucurbita pepo complex:C. pepo var.ovifera vsC. texana. — Syst. Bot.12: 263–273.Google Scholar
  10. Engler, A., 1882: Versuch einer Entwicklungsgeschichte der Pflanzenwelt. — Leipzig: Engelman.Google Scholar
  11. Farris, J., 1972: Estimating phylogenetic trees from distance matrices. — Amer. Naturalist106: 645–668.Google Scholar
  12. —, 1981: Distance data in phylogenetic analysis. — InFunk, V. A., Brooks, D. R., (Eds.): Advances in cladistics: proceedings of the first meeting of the Willi Hennig Society, pp. 3–23. — Bronx, New York: The New York Botanical Garden.Google Scholar
  13. - 1988: HENNIG 86 Reference, Version 1.5. — 41 Admiral St, Port Jefferson Station, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Fiedler, P. L., 1986: Concepts of rarity in vascular plant species, with special reference to the genusCalochortus Pursh (Liliaceae). — Taxon35: 502–518.Google Scholar
  15. Gottlieb, L. D., 1977: Electrophoretic evidence and plant systematics. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.64: 161–180.Google Scholar
  16. —, 1981: Elecrophoretic evidence and plant populations. — Prog. Phytochem.7: 1–46.Google Scholar
  17. Helenurm, K., Ganders, F., 1985: Adaptive radiation and genetic differentiation in HawaiianBidens. — Evolution39: 753–765.Google Scholar
  18. Huxley, J., 1963: The modern synthesis. — London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  19. Ladiges, P. Y., Humphries, C. J., Brooker, M. I. H., 1987: Cladistic and biogeographic analysis of Western Australian species ofEucalyptus L'Hérit., informal subgenusMonocalyptus Pryor andJohnson. — Austral. J. Bot.35: 251–281.Google Scholar
  20. —, 1989: Systematics and biogeography of the Australian “green ash” eucalypts (Monocalyptus). — Cladistics5: 345–364.Google Scholar
  21. Leigh, J., Briggs, J., Hartley, W., 1981: Rare or threatened Australian plants. — Austral. Nat. Parks & Wildlife Service Spec. Publ.7.Google Scholar
  22. Lonie, J. S., 1982: Genetic variability inEucalyptus pulverulenta. — Honours Thesis, Department of Botany, Australian National University.Google Scholar
  23. Lowrey, T. K., Crawford, D. J., 1985: Allozyme divergence and evolution inTetramolopium (Compositae: Astereae) on the Hawaiian Islands. — Syst. Bot.10: 64–72.Google Scholar
  24. Manos, P. S., Fairbrothers, D. E., 1987: Allozyme variation in populations of six northeastern American red oaks (Fagaceae: Quercus subg.Erythrobalanus). — Syst. Bot.12: 365–373.Google Scholar
  25. McIntyre, C. L., 1988: Variation at isozyme loci inTriticeae. — Pl. Syst. Evol.160: 123–142.Google Scholar
  26. Mickevich, M. F., Johnson, M. S., 1976: Congruence between morphological and allozyme data in evolutionary inference and character evolution. — Syst. Zool.25: 260–270.Google Scholar
  27. —, 1981: Treating polymorphic characters in systematics: a phylogenetic treatment of electrophoretic data. — InFunk, V. A., Brooks, D. R., (Eds.): Advances in cladistics: proceedings of the first meeting of the Willi Hennig Society, pp. 45–58. — Bronx, New York: The New York Botanical Garden.Google Scholar
  28. Millar, C. I., Strauss, S. H., Conkle, M. T., Westfall, R. D., 1988: Allozyme differentiation and biosystematics of the Californian closed-cone pines (Pinus subsect.Oocarpae). — Syst. Bot.13: 351–370.Google Scholar
  29. Moran, G. F., Bell, J. C., 1983:Eucalyptus. — InTanksley, S. D., Orton, T. J., (Eds.): Isozymes in plant genetics and breeding, Part B, pp. 423–441. — Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  30. —, 1987: Conservation of the genetic resources of rare and widespread eucalypts in remnant vegetation. — InSaunders, D. A., Arnold, G. W., Burbidge, A. A., Hopkins, A. J. M., (Eds.): Nature conservation: the role of remnants of native vegetation, pp. 151–162. — Sydney: Beatty & Sons.Google Scholar
  31. Nei, M., 1978: Estimation of average heterozygosity and genetic distance from a small number of individuals. — Genetics89: 583–590.Google Scholar
  32. Pryor, L. D., Johnson, L. A. S., 1971: A classification of the eucalypts. — Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
  33. Rafinesque, C. S., 1836: New flora of North America. — Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  34. Raven, P. H., 1964: Catastrophic selection and edaphic endemism. — Evolution18: 336–338.Google Scholar
  35. Richardson, B. J., Baverstock, P. R., Adam, M., 1986: Allozyme electrophoresis. A handbook for animal systematics and population studies. — Sydney: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  36. Rogers, J. S., 1972: Measures of genetic similarity and distance. Studies in genetics 7. — University of Texas Publication7203: 145–153.Google Scholar
  37. —, 1984: Deriving phylogenetic trees from allele frequencies. — Syst. Zool.33: 52–63.Google Scholar
  38. Saidman, B. O., Vilardi, J. C., 1987: Analysis of the genetic similarities among seven species ofProsopis (Leguminosae: Mimosoideae). — Theor. Appl. Genet.75: 109–116.Google Scholar
  39. Sneath, P. H. A., Sokal, R. R., 1973: Numerical taxonomy. — San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  40. Stebbins, G. L., Major, J., 1965: Endemism and speciation in the California flora. — Ecol. Mon.35: 1–35.Google Scholar
  41. Swofford, D. L., 1984: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony. Version 2.3. — Illinois Natural History Survey Publication.Google Scholar
  42. —, 1981: A computer program for the analysis of allelic variation in genetics. — J. Heredity72: 281–283.Google Scholar
  43. Vences, F. J., Vaquero, F., Pérez de la Vega, M., 1987: Phylogenetic relationships inSecale (Poaceae): an isozymatic study. — Pl. Syst. Evol.157: 33–47.Google Scholar
  44. West, J. G., McIntyre, C. L., Appels, R., 1988: Evolution and systematic relationships in theTriticeae (Poaceae). — Pl. Syst. Evol.160: 1–28.Google Scholar
  45. Willis, J. C., 1922: Age and area: a study in geographical distribution and origin of species. — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Wright, S., 1956: Modes of selection. — Amer. Naturalist90: 5–24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Prober
    • 1
  • J. C. Bell
    • 2
  • G. Moran
    • 2
  1. 1.Ecosystem Dynamics, Research School of Biological SciencesThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  2. 2.C.S.I.R.O. Division of Forestry and Forest ProductsCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations