Insights on Using Morphologic Data for Phylogenetic Analysis in Sedges (Cyperaceae)

Abstract

Sedges are often viewed as difficult subjects for morphology-based phylogenetic analysis, due to several difficulties, including finding an adequate number of characters to yield well-resolved and well-supported trees, correctly assessing homology of characters and character states, and selecting appropriate outgroups for character state polarizations. The published literature holds only 11 papers with morphology-based phylogenetic analyses of sedges. This paper reviews those studies, and presents the phylogeny of two groups of sedges: (1) Carex section Deweyanae, and (2) Carex sections Careyanae, Granulares, and Griseae. This paper also presents recommendations for using morphologic data to reconstruct sedge phylogenies, based on comparisons of the trees resulting from the present study with the previous sedge studies and with similar studies of phylogeny of other groups of flowering plants. In the two groups of Carex examined, morphology does provide sufficient characters to infer well-resolved trees, with some nodes having good to strong support at levels consistent with those found in morphology-based analyses of other groups of flowering plants. The inclusion of micromorphologic and anatomic characters substantially enhances the resolving power of macromorphologic characters in sedge analyses, and increases the support for some clades.

Leaf epidermal micromorphology and its implications in systematics of certain taxa of the fern family Pteridaceae from Northern Pakistan

“…Moreover, leaf micro morphological qualitative and quantative traits were used for the first time in phylogenetic analysis of Pteridaceae. A similar morphology based cladistics have been reported in many plant groups including ferns (Naczi, ; Sundue, ; Vega et al, ). Additional research on anatomical features should be continued to obtain more useful characters for ferns phylogeny.…”

Plant DNA barcodes and species resolution in sedges (Carex, Cyperaceae)

“…Deweyanae , it was treated as such for the purposes of this study (see Naczi 2002; Ford et al . 2006; Naczi 2009).…”

Developmental anatomy of Cyperus laxus (non-Nranz) and Fimbristylis dichotoma (Kranz) (Cyperaceae, Poales) and tissue continuity

“…The anatomical studies of Cyperaceae usually have emphasized taxonomy (Govindarajalu 1974, Metcalfe 1971, Naczi 2009, Hefl er and LonghiWagner 2010, and studies on anatomical development have been restricted to a few species that are of economic importance, such as Cyperus rotundus (Wills and Briscoe 1970), Cyperus esculentus (Wills 605-613 606 SHIRLEY MARTINS andVERA L. SCATENA et al 1980, Gifford andBayer 1995) and Cyperus papyrus (Menezes et al 2005). In general, studies on anatomical development are restricted to a description of only one organ, such as the roots in Cyperus giganteus (Rodrigues and Estelita 2004); rhizomes in Cyperus esculentus (Bendixen 1973), Cyperus giganteus (Rodrigues and Estelita 2002) and Scleria (Lima and Menezes 2009); and leaves in Cyperus eragrostis (Soros and Dengler 1996) and Cyperus giganteus (Rodrigues and Estelita 2003).…”