Plant Systematics and Evolution

, Volume 179, Issue 3–4, pp 141–153 | Cite as

Phylogenetic analysis of pines using ribosomal DNA restriction fragment length polymorphisms

  • Diddahally Govindaraju
  • Paul Lewis
  • Christopher Cullis


Phylogenetic relationships among 30 species of the genusPinus were studied using restriction site polymorphism in the large subunit of nuclear rDNA. Of the 58 restriction sites scored, 48 were phylogenetically informative, and the 30 species reduced to ten taxa when species with identical restriction site patterns were combined. These ten taxa corresponded to the currently recognized subsections of the genus, with the sole exception ofP. leiophylla, which was identical in its pattern of restriction sites to all three species included from subsect.Oocarpae despite its being in a different section of subg.Pinus (Pinea instead ofPinus). A measure of the proportion of phylogenetic information contained within the data set (Homoplasy Excess Ratio, or HER) revealed that the character states were significantly non-randomly distributed among the ten taxa (HER = 0.71, p < 0.01). Branchand-bound searches using either Wagner or Dollo parsimony as the optimization criterion were carried out using PAUP in order to estimate phylogenetic relationships among the ten taxa. Three taxa (Picea pungens, Tsuga canadensis, andLarix decidua) were used independently as outgroups for purposes of rooting the trees. Despite the extreme differences in the assumptions underlying the Wagner and Dollo parsimony, the two gave surprisingly similar estimates of phylogeny, with both analyses supporting the monophyly of the two major subgeneraPinus andStrobus and differing in topology only in the placement of subsect.Ponderosae within subg.Pinus. The likelihood for the Wagner tree was only slightly higher than that computed for the Dollo tree.

Key words

Gymnosperms Conifers Pinaceae Pinus rDNA restriction fragments molecular systematics evolution phylogeny 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Archie, J. W., 1989a: A randomization test for phylogenetic information in systematic data. — Syst. Zool.38: 239–252.Google Scholar
  2. —, 1989b: Homoplasy excess ratios: new indices for measuring levels of homoplasy in phylogenetic systematics and a critique of the consistency index. — Syst. Zool.38: 253–269.Google Scholar
  3. -Felsenstein, J., 1990: The expected number of steps on random and minimum length trees for random evolutionary data. — Theor. Popul. Biol. (in press).Google Scholar
  4. Arnheim, N., 1983: Concerted evolution in multigene families. — InNei, M., Koehn, R. K., (Eds.): Evolution of genes and proteins, pp. 38–61. — Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  5. Bellarosa, R., Delre, V., Schirone, B., Maggini, F., 1990: Ribosomal RNA genes inQuercus spp. (Fagaceae). — Pl. Syst. Evol.172: 127–139.Google Scholar
  6. Bremer, K., 1990: Combinable component consensus. — Cladistics6: 369–372.Google Scholar
  7. Critchfield, W. B., 1967: Crossability and relationships of the closed-cone pines. — Silvae Genet.16: 89–97.Google Scholar
  8. Cullis, C. A., Creissen, G. P., Gorman, S. W., Teasdale, R. D., 1988: The 25S, 18S, and 5S ribosomal genes fromPinus radiata D. Don. — InCheliak, W. M., Yapa, A. C., (Eds.): Molecular genetics of forest trees, pp. 24–40. — Petawawa: Petawawa National Forestry Inst.Google Scholar
  9. DeBry, R. W., Slade, N. A., 1985: Cladistic analysis of restriction endonuclease cleavage maps within a maximum-likelihood framework. — Syst. Zool.34: 21–34.Google Scholar
  10. Doyle, J. J., Beachy, R. N., 1985: Ribosomal gene variation in soybean (Glycine) and its relatives. — Theor. Appl. Genet.70: 369–376.Google Scholar
  11. Duffield, J. W., 1952: Relationships and species hybridization in the genusPinus. — Silvae Genet.1: 93–100.Google Scholar
  12. Erdtman, H., Kimland, B., Norin, T., 1966: Pine phenolics and pine classification. — Bot. Mag. Tokyo79: 499–505.Google Scholar
  13. Farjon, A., 1984: Pines: drawings and descriptions of the genusPinus. — Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
  14. Feinberg, A. P., Vogelstein, B., 1983: A technique for radiolabelling DNA restriction endonuclease fragments to high specific activity. — Anal. Biochem.132: 6–13.Google Scholar
  15. Felsenstein, J., 1978: Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. — Syst. Zool.27: 401–410.Google Scholar
  16. —, 1985: Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. — Evolution39: 783–791.Google Scholar
  17. —, 1990: Phylogeny Inference Package (PHYLIP) version 3.3. — Seattle: University of Washington.Google Scholar
  18. Goldsborough, P. B., Cullis, C. A., 1981: Characterization of the genes for ribosomal RNA in flax. — Nucl. Acids Res.9: 1301–1309.Google Scholar
  19. Hart, J. A., 1987: Cladistic analysis of conifers: preliminary results. — J. Arnold Arbor.68: 269–307.Google Scholar
  20. Hillis, D. M., 1987: Molecular versus morphological approaches to systematics. — Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst.18: 23–43.Google Scholar
  21. —,Davis, S. K., 1987: Evolution of the 28 S ribosomal RNA gene in anurans: Regions of variability and their phylogenetic implications. — Mol. Biol. Evol.4: 117–125.Google Scholar
  22. Jorgensen, R. A., Cluster, P. D., 1988: Modes and tempos in the evolution of nuclear ribosomal DNA: new characters for evolutionary studies. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.75: 1238–1247.Google Scholar
  23. Karalamangala, R., Nickrent, D. L., 1989: An electrophoretic study of representatives of subgenusDiploxylon ofPinus. — Canad. J. Bot.67: 1750–1759.Google Scholar
  24. King, L. M., Schaal, B. A., 1989: Ribosomal DNA variation and distribution inRudbeckia missouriensis. — Evolution43: 1117–1119.Google Scholar
  25. Kluge, A. G., Farris, J. S., 1969: Quantitative phyletics and the evolution of Anurans. — Syst. Zool.18: 1–32.Google Scholar
  26. Little, E. L., Critchfield, W. B., 1969: Subdivisions of the genusPinus. — USDA Misc. Publ.1144.Google Scholar
  27. Long, E. O., Dawid, I. B., 1980: Repeated genes in eukaryotes. — Ann. Rev. Biochem.49: 727–764.Google Scholar
  28. McCune, B., 1988: Ecological diversity in north American pines. — Amer. J. Bot.75: 353–368.Google Scholar
  29. Millar, C. I., Strauss, S. H., Conkle, M. T., Westfall, R. D., 1988: Allozyme differentiation and biosystematics of the California closed-cone pines (Pinus subsect.Oocarpae). — Syst. Bot.13: 351–371.Google Scholar
  30. Mirov, N. T., 1967: The genusPinus. — New York: Ronald Press.Google Scholar
  31. Palmer, J. D., 1987: Chloroplast DNA evolution and biosystematic uses of chloroplast DNA variation. — Amer. Naturalist130: s 6–29.Google Scholar
  32. Reed, K. C., Mann, D. A., 1985: Rapid DNA transfer from agarose gels to nylon membranes. — Nucleic Acids Res.13: 7207–7221.Google Scholar
  33. Sanderson, M. J., Donoghue, M. J., 1989: Patterns of variation in levels of homoplasy. — Evolution43: 1781–1795.Google Scholar
  34. Saylor, L. C., 1972: Karyotype analysis of the genusPinus subgenusPinus. — Silvae Genet.43: 155–163.Google Scholar
  35. Schaal, B. A., Learn, G. H., 1988: Ribosomal DNA variation within and among plant populations. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.75: 1207–1216.Google Scholar
  36. Shaw, G. R., 1914: The genusPinus. — Arnold Arbor. Publ. No. 5. — Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  37. Strauss, S. H., Doerksen, A. H., 1990: Restriction fragment analysis of pine phylogeny. — Evolution44: 1081–1096.Google Scholar
  38. —, —,Byrne, J. R., 1990: Evolutionary relationships of Douglas-fir and its relatives (genusPseudotsuga) from DNA restriction fragment analysis. — Canad. J. Bot.68: 1502–1510.Google Scholar
  39. Swofford, D. L., 1985: PAUP-Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony, Version 2.4. Computer program and documentation. — Champaign: Illinois Natural History Survey.Google Scholar
  40. —, 1991: PAUP-Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony, Version 3.0o. Computer program and documentation. — Champaign: Illinois Natural History Survey.Google Scholar
  41. —,Olsen, G. J., 1990: Phylogeny reconstruction. — InHillis, D. M., Moritz, C., (Eds.): Molecular systematics, pp. 411–501. — Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
  42. Szmidt, A. E., Sigurgeirsson, A., Wang, X.-R., Hallgren, J.-E., Lindgren, D., 1988a: Genetic relationships amongPinus species based on chloroplast DNA polymorphism. — InHallgren, J.-E., (Ed.): Molecular genetics of forest trees, pp. 33–47. — Umeå: Frans Kempe Symp.Google Scholar
  43. —, —, —, —, —, 1988b: Chloroplast DNA variation among north AmericanPicea species, and its phylogenetic implications. — InHallgren, J.-E., (Ed.): Molecular genetics of forest trees, pp. 49–65. — Umeå: Frans Kempe Symp.Google Scholar
  44. Wagner, D. B., Furnier, G. R., Sagahai-Maroof, M. A., Williams, S. M., Dancik, B. P., Allard, R. W., 1987: Chloroplast DNA polymorphisms in lodgepole and jack pines and their hybrids. — Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.84: 2097–2100.Google Scholar
  45. Wheeler, N. C., Guries, R. P., O'Malley, D. M., 1983: Biosystematics of the genusPinus, subsectionContortae. — Biochem. Syst. Ecol.11: 333–340.Google Scholar
  46. Zimmer, E. A., Jupe, E. R., Walbot, V., 1988: Ribosomal gene structure, variation, and inheritance in maize and its ancestors. — Genetics120: 1125–1136.Google Scholar
  47. —,Hamby, R. K., Arnold, M. L., Leblanc, D. A., Theriot, E. C., 1989: Ribosomal RNA phylogenies and flowering plant evolution. — InFernholm, B., Bremer, K., Jornvall, H., (Eds.): The hierarchy of life, pp. 205–214. — Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diddahally Govindaraju
    • 1
  • Paul Lewis
    • 2
  • Christopher Cullis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyCase Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations