Inflorescence diversification in the panicoid "bristle grass" clade (Paniceae, Poaceae): evidence from molecular phylogenies and developmental morphology.

Grasses exhibit a great variety of inflorescence forms and these appear homoplasious when mapped onto cladograms. The overall pattern is sufficiently complex that it is difficult to analyze inflorescence evolution. We have reduced the complexity of the problem by examining one group of grasses, the panicoid "bristle clade," which exhibits a less complex pattern of variation. The clade is morphologically defined by inflorescences bearing both spikelets and sterile bristles and is monophyletic in both morphological and molecular phylogenetic analyses. We have constructed a chloroplast DNA phylogeny of the three main genera, which finds three well-supported clades, two comprising species placed in Setaria and one of Pennisetum + Cenchrus. In this tree Cenchrus is monophyletic, but both Setaria and Pennisetum are paraphyletic. Developmental morphology of these groups is very similar at early stages. Changes in axis ramification, primordial differentiation, and axis elongation account for most variation in mature inflorescence morphology. Characters derived from comparisons of developmental sequences were optimized onto one of the most parsimonious trees. Most developmental characters were congruent with the molecular phylogeny except for three reversals in the subclade containing S. barbata, S. palmifolia, and two accessions of S. poiretiana. Changes in just a handful of developmental events account for inflorescence evolution in the bristle clade, and similar changes may account for inflorescence diversity in the grasses as a whole.

[1]  E. Kellogg,et al.  A molecular phylogeny of the grass subfamily Panicoideae (Poaceae) shows multiple origins of C4 photosynthesis. , 2001, American journal of botany.

[2]  H. Darmency,et al.  Phylogenetic and genomic relationships in Setaria italica and its close relatives based on the molecular diversity and chromosomal organization of 5S and 18S-5.8S-25S rDNA genes , 2001, Theoretical and Applied Genetics.

[3]  A. Vegetti,et al.  Inflorescence typology in setaria p.beauv. (poaceae, paniceae): With 7 figures , 2001 .

[4]  H. Darmency,et al.  Genomic in situ hybridization (GISH) discriminates between the A and the B genomes in diploid and tetraploid Setaria species. , 2001, Genome.

[5]  E. Kellogg,et al.  Evolutionary history of the grasses. , 2001, Plant physiology.

[6]  P. Grandcolas,et al.  Phylogenetics and Ecology: As Many Characters as Possible Should Be Included in the Cladistic Analysis 1 , 2001 .

[7]  M. Zelditch,et al.  SPATIOTEMPORAL REORGANIZATION OF GROWTH RATES IN THE EVOLUTION OF ONTOGENY , 2000, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[8]  K. Devos,et al.  Genome Relationships: The Grass Model in Current Research , 2000, Plant Cell.

[9]  B. Zaitchik,et al.  Andropogoneae evolution and generic limits in Sorghum (Poaceae) using ndhF sequences. , 1999 .

[10]  K. Devos,et al.  Plant comparative genetics after 10 years. , 1998, Science.

[11]  K. Devos,et al.  Construction of RFLP-based maps of foxtail millet, Setaria italica (L.) P. Beauv. , 1998, Theoretical and Applied Genetics.

[12]  C. Cunningham,et al.  Can three incongruence tests predict when data should be combined? , 1997, Molecular biology and evolution.

[13]  J. Wendel,et al.  A Phylogeny of the Grass Family (Poaceae) Based on ndhF Sequence Data , 1995 .

[14]  L. Hufford Patterns of ontogenetic evolution in perianth diversification of Besseya (Scrophulariaceae) , 1995 .

[15]  Richard G. Olmstead,et al.  Combining Data in Phylogenetic Systematics: An Empirical Approach Using Three Molecular Data Sets in the Solanaceae , 1994 .

[16]  J. Thompson,et al.  CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. , 1994, Nucleic acids research.

[17]  C. Bult,et al.  TESTING SIGNIFICANCE OF INCONGRUENCE , 1994 .

[18]  P. Deleporte CHARACTERS, ATTRIBUTES AND TESTS OF EVOLUTIONARY SCENARIOS , 1993, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[19]  Paula M. Mabee Phylogenetic interpretation of ontogenetic change: sorting out the actual and artefactual in an empirical case study of centrarchid fishes , 1993 .

[20]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Universal primers for amplification of three non-coding regions of chloroplast DNA , 1991, Plant Molecular Biology.

[21]  J. Felsenstein CONFIDENCE LIMITS ON PHYLOGENIES: AN APPROACH USING THE BOOTSTRAP , 1985, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[22]  A. R. Templeton,et al.  PHYLOGENETIC INFERENCE FROM RESTRICTION ENDONUCLEASE CLEAVAGE SITE MAPS WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE EVOLUTION OF HUMANS AND THE APES , 1983, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[23]  A. Arber Studies in the Gramineae X. I. Pennisetum, Setaria, and Cenchrus. 2. Alopecurus. 3. Lepturus , 1931 .

[24]  E. Kellogg,et al.  Molecular and morphological evolution in the Andropogoneae. , 2000 .

[25]  A. Culham,et al.  Phylogeny of the subfamily Panicoideae with emphasis on the tribe Paniceae: evidence from the trnL-F cpDNA region. , 2000 .

[26]  J. Pensiero Las especies sudamericanas del género Setaria (Poaceae, Paniceae) , 1999 .

[27]  M. Zelditch,et al.  Heterochrony and heterotopy: stability and innovation in the evolution of form , 1996, Paleobiology.

[28]  M. W. Evans,et al.  Developmental morphology of the growing point of the shoot and the inflorescence in grasses. , 1940 .

[29]  K. Schumann Neue untersuchungen über den Blüthenanschluss , 1890 .