Phylogenetic relationships in subfamily Tillandsioideae (Bromeliaceae) based on DNA sequence data from seven plastid regions

Abstract

Molecular phylogenetic studies of seven plastid DNA regions were used to resolve circumscriptions at generic and infrageneric levels in subfamily Tillandsioideae of Bromeliaceae. One hundred and ten tillandsioid samples were analyzed, encompassing 10 genera, 104 species, and two cultivars. Two species of Bromelioideae, eight species of the polymorphic Pitcairnioideae, and two species of Rapateaceae were selected as outgroups. Parsimony analysis was based on sequence variation of five noncoding (partial 5' and 3' trnK intron, rps16 intron, trnL intron, trnL-trnF intergenic spacer, atpB-rbcL intergenic spacer) and two coding plastid regions (rbcL and matK). Phylogenetic analyses of individual regions produced congruent, but mostly weakly supported or unresolved clades. Results of the combined data set, however, clearly show that subfamily Tillandsioideae is monophyletic. The earliest divergence separates a lineage comprised of Glomeropitcairnia and Catopsis from the "core" tillandsioids. In their present circumscriptions, genera Vriesea and Tillandsia, and their subgenera or sections, as well as Guzmania and Mezobromelia, are poly- and/or paraphyletic. Genera Alcantarea, Werauhia, Racinaea, and Viridantha appear monophyletic, but separation of these from Vriesea and Tillandsia makes the remainder paraphyletic. Nevertheless, Tillandsioideae separates into four main clades, which are proposed as tribes, viz., Catopsideae, Glomeropitcairnieae, Vrieseeae, and Tillandsieae.

Anatomy of the floral scape of Bromeliaceae

“…It is included in the order Poales (APG II 2003), close to the Typhaceae (Typha e Sparganium) and Rapateaceae (Bremer 2002, Davis et al 2004, Linder & Rudall 2005, and has traditionally been divided in to three subfamilies: Pitcairnioideae, Tillandsioideae and Bromelioideae, according to the growth habit, the ovary position and fruit and seed morphology (Smith & Downs 1974, 1977. Recent phylogenetic analyses (Crayn et al 2000, Horres et al 2000, Barfuss et al 2005 confirmed the monophyly of the Bromelioideae and Tillandsioideae, but indicated the Pitcairnioideae as a polyphyletic group (Crayn et al 2000, Horres et al 2000.…”

Vriesea (Bromeliaceae, Tillandsioideae): a cladistic analysis of eastern Brazilian species based on morphological characters

“…However, the genus has been recognized as polyphyletic (Terry et al 1997b;Horres et al 2000;Barfuss et al 2005;Givnish et al 2011;Gomes-da-Silva et al 2012) and many taxonomic and nomenclatural changes were made, including transferring of species to Tillandsia L. and the segregation of the genera Alcantarea (E.Morren ex Mez) Harms and Werauhia J.R.Grant (Grant 1993(Grant , 1995a(Grant , 1995b(Grant , 2004Butcher 2009). Besides its controversial circumscription, there is also difficulties to delimit several species (Costa & Wendt 2007;Costa et al , 2014.…”

“…The analysis conducted by Barfuss et al (2005), based on seven plastidial regions, suggest the polyphyly of Vriesea, since its species emerged into the two main lineages of "core tillandsioids". In one of these lineages, the tribe Vrieseeae, at least four distinct lineages were recognized: two of them formed by Brazilian species of Vriesea, with Alcantarea as the sister-group; and two others formed by extra-Brazilian species of Vriesea and species of Werauhia.…”

“…and Glomeropitcairnia (Mez) Mez (Terry et al 1997b;Horres et al 2000;Barfuss et al 2005;Givnish et al 2007Givnish et al , 2011Gomesda-Silva 2013). Despite the homogeneity of the plastid and nuclear sequences used in the analysis in Bromeliaceae (Terry et al 1997b;Horres et al 2000;Barfuss et al 2005;Gomes-da-Silva 2013), the "core tillandsioid" shows great morphological This paper has additional data published in its electronic version. and ecological diversification in relation to the rest of the family (Gomes-da-Silva 2013).…”

“…Phylogenetic studies have been conducted in the Bromeliaceae based on both molecular and morphological data. The first group of studies used different data sets, with a focus on relationships among the subfamilies (Ranker et al 1990;Terry et al 1997a;Horres et al 2000;Givnish et al 2007Givnish et al , 2011, within the subfamilies (Terry et al 1997b;Crayn et al 2000;Barfuss et al 2005;Horres et al 2007;Schulte et al 2009;Sass & Specht 2010) or within genera and subgenera (Rex et al 2007;Sousa et al 2007;Chew et al 2010;Versieux et al 2012). With the exception of the study of Gilmartin & Brown (1987), which questioned the monophyly of the family, its possible sistergroup, and the relationships among the subfamilies, phylogenetic analysis based on morphological data have focused on subfamilies (Varadarajan & Gilmartin 1988), tribes (Forzza 2001), genera (Gilmartin et al 1989;Leme 2000;Faria et al 2004;Hornung-Leoni & Sosa 2008;Almeida et al 2009;Monteiro 2009, Gomes-da-Silva et al 2012Saraiva 2013) or subgenera (Gilmartin & Brown 1986;Beaman & Judd 1996;Tardivo 2002;Sousa 2004) in all subfamilies.…”