Translator Disclaimer
25 August 2017 Phylogenomics of Andropogoneae (Panicoideae: Poaceae) of Mainland Southeast Asia
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

The grass tribe Andropogoneae is distributed in warm regions around the globe but has been poorly studied in mainland Southeast Asia. This is particularly true for the cosmopolitan genera Andropogon and Schizachyrium, with several species that appear to be narrowly distributed in this region. Additionally, lesser-known species in the genera Hemisorghum, Kerriochloa, and Pseudosorghum also occur inmainland Southeast Asia. A phylogeny is needed to address questions of taxonomy and trait evolution. Whole chloroplast genomes of Andropogoneae species and two outgroup species of Garnotia (tribe Arundinelleae) were analyzed using maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian inference (BI). Ancestral character states were reconstructed usingML for four morphological characters key to Andropogon and Schizachyrium identification.Apreviously-unidentified clade of Southeast Asian endemic taxa is found, including one species formerly classified in Andropogon. Other Southeast Asian taxa fall in an unresolved grade outside the major radiation of the tribe. Andropogon and Schizachyrium are both polyphyletic. Convergent evolution and reversal of characters are common throughout Andropogoneae. Addition of species from mainland Southeast Asian finds unexpected phylogenetic diversity. Southeast Asian Schizachyrium sanguineum forms two separate clades, which could reflect cryptic species differentiation, hybridization, introgression, or some combination.

Poaceae (the grass family) is one of the most diverse plant families in the world, containing approximately 12,000 species, many of which are ecologically and economically important (Clayton and Renvoize 1986; Watson and Dallwitz 1992; Kellogg 2015; Soreng et al. 2015). This is particularly true in the tribe Andropogoneae, which includes maize (Zea mays L.), sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench), Job's tears (Coix lacryma-jobi L.), and also ecologically dominant genera such as Andropogon L., Arthraxon P. Beauv., Heteropogon Pers., Schizachyrium Nees, and Themeda Forssk.

Andropogoneae is clearly monophyletic, and includes over 1,200 species in ca. 90 genera that dominate tropical and subtropical regions throughout the world (Clayton and Renvoize 1986; GPWG 2001; Chen et al. 2006; Simon 2007; Kellogg 2015). One putative synapomorphy for the tribe is the presence of paired spikelets, with one member of the pair sessile and the other pedicellate (Kellogg 2015). The phylogeny of the tribe has been difficult to resolve, apparently because of a rapid radiation early in the evolution of the tribe (Mathews et al. 2002; Spangler et al. 1999; Bouchenak-Khelladi et al. 2008). However, by using multiple concatenated nuclear genes, Estep et al. (2014) were able to identify early-diverging lineages including Arthraxon, Chrysopogon Trin., and a Zea-Tripsacum clade, a somewhat miscellaneous grade of smaller groups, and a Saccharum L. clade. About half of the species in the tribe were placed in a large well-supported clade that they called informally “the core Andropogoneae.” The “core” was made up of two subclades, one containing Themeda, Heteropogon, Bothriochloa Kuntze, Dichanthium Willemet, and Capillipedium Stapf, and the other containing Diheteropogon (Hack.) Stapf, Andropogon, Schizachyrium, and Hyparrhenia Andersson ex Fourn. (DASH clade).

Elements of the tribe from mainland Southeast Asia include Dimeria R. Br., Eremochloa Buse, Germainia Balansa & Poitr., Hemisorghum C.E. Hubb. ex Bor, Kerriochloa C.E. Hubb., and Pseudosorghum A. Camus (Clayton and Renvoize 1986; Buitenhuis and Veldkamp 2001; Neamsuvan et al. 2009; Teerawatananon et al. 2014). Few phylogenetic and evolutionary studies have included these genera (but see Skendzic et al. 2007; Teerawatananon et al. 2011; Soreng et al. 2015). Consequently, additional data for these particular genera could help illuminate their evolutionary relationships, divergence pattern, and character evolution relative to other Andropogoneae species. Using species counts and data from floristic treatments, Hartley (1958) identified a center of diversity for Andropogoneae in Southeast Asia, and speculated that the tribe had originated in that part of the world, with subsequent radiations into drier areas such as Africa and parts of the western hemisphere.

Considering the Andropogoneae as a whole, two of the largest genera of the core are Andropogon and Schizachyrium, which together form a clade (Giussani et al. 2001; Mathews et al. 2002; Skendzic et al. 2007; Teerawatananon et al. 2011; Estep et al. 2014). These are major grasses for forage and ecosystems and have been used as representatives for many studies in ecology, taxonomy, and phylogenetics. Andropogon, the type genus of Andropogoneae, comprises over 100 species in tropical and subtropical regions of Africa, America, and Asia with a well-known diversity hotspot in Africa (Bor 1960; Anderson 1966; Gould 1967; Campbell and Windisch 1986; Clayton and Renvoize 1986; Zanin and Longhi-Wagner 2011; Nagahama and Norrmann 2012: Vorontsova et al. 2013). Schizachyrium includes ca. 60 species worldwide with an extensive distribution range in Africa, America, Asia, and Australia (Clayton 1972; Türpe 1984; Watson and Dallwitz 1992; Peichoto 2010).

Andropogon has no obvious synapomorphies. It is morphologically similar to Schizachyrium, from which it is distinguished by having paired or digitate branches in the inflorescence versus unbranched inflorescences in Schizachyrium (e.g. Clayton and Renvoize 1986). However, in a few species of Andropogon (e.g. A. fastigiatus Sw., segregated by some authors as Diectomis fastigiata (Sw.) P. Beauv.), the inflorescence branches are solitary as in Schizachyrium. In both genera, the sessile spikelet has bisexual florets while those of the pedicellate spikelet are either male or barren (Clayton and Renvoize 1986; Shouliang and Phillips 2006). Other characters of the two genera are largely overlapping (Clayton et al. 2006).

Consistent with the lack of defining morphological characters, species of Andropogon and Schizachyrium often appear as intermixed in gene trees, and nuclear and chloroplast gene trees show unresolved and/or incongruent phylogenetic relationships. Depending on the taxon sample and marker used, Andropogon and Schizachyrium have appeared as polyphyletic or paraphyletic. No study has sampled the genera in any depth in any part of their range (Mathews et al. 2002; Skendzic et al. 2007; Teerawatananon et al. 2011).

In Thailand, species assigned to Andropogon and Schizachyrium occur in open areas of savanna, dry dipterocarp forest, and highland pine forest and are distributed throughout the country except in the south (Nanakorn 1990). Five species of Andropogon (A. burmanicus Bor, A. chinensis (Nees) Merr., A. distachyos L., A. fastigiatus, and A. polyptychos Steud.) and three species of Schizachyrium (S. brevifolium (Sw.) Nees ex Buse, S. exile (Hochst.) Pilg., and S. sanguineum (Retz.) Alston) are reported in Thailand. The morphological features of the species are largely distinct (Table 1), but, given questions about the limits of Andropogon in particular, it is unclear whether the Thai species are correctly assigned to genera. Andropogon burmanicus was mentioned in passing by Bor (1960), and is reported to have a narrow distribution, collected only from Myanmar before our accession was collected in Thailand (Bor 1960; Nanakorn 1990). The deeply-grooved lower glume of the sessile spikelet, rachis internode that extends into two lobes at the apex, and narrow distribution are distinctive for this species. Andropogon distachyos is geographically isolated, raising a question of whether it has been properly identified, classified, or is possibly introduced.

Advances in high throughput DNA sequencing have made recovery of chloroplast gene sets, and whole chloroplast genomes, increasingly easier (Steele et al. 2012; Stull et al. 2013). A number of studies have taken advantage of this technology, using either chloroplast protein-coding genes (e.g. Givnish et al. 2015; Washburn et al. 2015; Barrett et al. 2016) or complete chloroplast genomes (e.g. Carbonell-Caballero et al. 2015; Cotton et al. 2015; Burke et al. 2016; McKain et al. 2016b) to resolve phylogenetic relationships from as deep as across Viridiplantae (Ruhfel et al. 2014) to within a species complex (e.g. Mimulus L.; Vallejo-Mar´ın et al. 2016). The versatility of whole chloroplast genomes to resolve intrageneric relationships is promising for establishing evolutionary relationships in Andropogoneae of mainland Southeast Asia, an intratribal taxonomic issue spanning 26 million years (Estep et al. 2014).

Table 1.

Morphological comparison among Andropogon and Schizachyrium species in Thailand. SS, sessile spikelet; PS, pedicellate spikelet; glume 1, lower glume.

t01_418.gif

In summary, this paper addresses the placement of mainland Southeast Asian species of Andropogon and Schizachyrium relative to each other and to other Southeast Asian Andropogoneae using sequences of whole chloroplast genomes (plastomes). We then investigate the evolution of taxonomic characters that distinguish the genera Andropogon and Schizachyrium from both each other and other members of Andropogoneae.

Materials and Methods

Plant Materials—Fifty-two species in 32 genera were sampled for this study. Multiple samples were included for many species, particularly those from mainland Southeast Asia in order to confirm the placement of the species, and to test for cryptic differentiation among populations. Of these specimens, 34 species of Andropogoneae and two species of Arundinelleae were collected from different locations in Thailand from September to December 2014 and leaf samples preserved in silica gel. In addition, 16 species of Andropogoneae were added from African and South American collections. For the latter, DNA was either extracted from leaves of field samples preserved in silica or from fresh leaves of samples grown from seed. All samples are listed in Appendix 1 with collector's numbers and herbarium locations. The geographic distribution of taxa is shown in Appendix 2.

DNA Extraction, DNA Shearing, Library Preparation and Quantification—DNA extractions were performed using a modified CTAB method (Doyle and Doyle 1987, 1990) for 0.5 mg of silica-dried plant leaves in each sample. DNA was run on a 1%agarose gel at 36 V for 1 h and 30 min to verify the quality and size distribution for library preparation. After DNA extraction, the concentration of DNA was adjusted for shearing and 50 ml of each DNA sample was sheared with a Covaris S2 focused ultrasonicator targeting a distribution of fragments with a median of 500 bp. Whole genomic Illumina libraries were prepared using NEB Next ultra DNA library prep kit for Illumina (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, Massachusetts) using the manufacturer's protocol with the following alterations. Libraries were size selected for a size of 600–800 bp using Agencourt AMPure XP beads (Beckman Coulter, Brea, California) as per the NEBNext ultra DNA library prep kit protocol. A total of 10 cycles was used for library amplification and final libraries were cleaned using Agencourt AMPure XP beads using a total volume of 0.9X beads and the NEBNext protocol. Samples were eluted in a final volume of 30 ml nucleasefree water.

Library quality was determined by running samples on a 1%agarose gel at 36 V for 1 h and 30 min to identify size and absence of adapter dimers or over-amplification. A Qubit 2.0 fluorometer (Invitrogen Life Technologies, Carlsbad, California) was used to quantify double-stranded DNA concentrations (ng/ml). Molarity of libraries was calculated from an estimated average library length and concentration and adjusted to 10 nM for final library pooling. All libraries were pooled and the concentration adjusted to 10 nM for paired-end Illumina sequencing. Libraries were sequenced using a 2x150 Rapid Run on an Illumina HiSeq2500 at the New York University School of Medicine Genome Technology Center.

Chloroplast Assembly and Annotation—Prior to sequence assembly, sequence trimming and quality filtering of the reads were performed by Trimmomatic v.0.32 (Bolger et al. 2014) using the ILLUMINACLIP parameter for adapter trimming (TruSeq3-PE-2.fa:1:30:10), a sliding window of 10 base pairs with a minimum average quality score of 20 (SLIDINGWINDOW:10:20), and a minimum length of 40 bp (MINLEN:40). Filtered reads were then mapped to reference Andropogoneae plastomes using bowtie2 v.2.2.9 under the “very-sensitive-local” parameter set (Langmead and Salzberg 2012). Plastomes were initially assembled from mapped reads using SPAdes version 3.1.0 (Nurk et al. 2013) under the “only-assembler” option with k-mer sizes of 55, 87, and 121. SPAdes contigs were further assembled using the custom assembler afin (McKain et al. unpublished;  https://github.com/mrmckain/Fast-Plast) with an initial contig trimming of 100 bp, an extension length of 100 bp, a stop extension minimum of 0.1, and 100 search loops tometa-assemble and fuse existing contigs. The genome of Schizachyrium scoparium (Michx.) Nash was fully assembled first, and all subsequent afin contigs were mapped to it as a reference to illustrate gene arrangement and provide scaffolding in partially complete plastomes. Coverage levels of afin contigs were estimated using the coverage analysis pipeline available in Fast-Plast ( https://github.com/mrmckain/Fast-Plast). Cleaned reads were mapped to the contigs using bowtie2 v.2.2.9, using the “very-sensitive-local” parameter set. Jellyfish v.2.2.3 (Marçais and Kingsford 2011) was then used to estimate 25-mer abundance for mapped reads. K-mer abundance was then mapped across the contig sequences using a sliding 25 bp window. Boundaries between the large single copy (LSC), small single copy (SSC), and inverted repeats (IR) were initially identified using coverage, with the IR being approximately 2 × that of the single copy regions, and verified by sequence identity. Identified chloroplast regions were rearranged in the order LSC, IRB, and SSC and extended with a reverse complemented copy of IRB to represent the IRA segment in Geneious R8 (Kearse et al. 2012). For incomplete afin assembly files, contigs were assembled by in silico plastomewalking using cleaned reads to generate larger contigs until complete contigs were produced. In 18 out of a total of 76 plastomes, contigs of a plastome could not be joined, and N's were inserted in the sequence equal to the distance between the scaffolded contigs as estimated by the alignment to Schizachyrium scoparium. Coverage analyses were conducted with all finished plastome assemblies before annotation and phylogenetic analysis as above. An assembly was considered acceptable when the plastome had greater than zero coverage for all non-N sequence windows less than 25 bp in length. All plastomes were annotated by annoBTD as implemented in Verdant (McKain et al. 2016a;  http://verdant.iplantcollaborative.org). Final plastome sequences were deposited in GenBank (numbers in Appendix 1)

Phylogenetic Analyses—All analytical procedures were performed in the CIPRES Science Gateway 3.3 (Miller et al. 2010). The LSC, SSC, and IR were extracted from the whole plastome sequence using the plastome_ info_regions.pl script ( https://github.com/mrmckain/Chloroplast-Phylogenomics-Utilities) and separately aligned with MAFFT v.5 (Katoh et al. 2005) on XSEDE (Katoh et al. 2005). Aligned regions were concatenated into whole plastomes using the script concat_plastomes.pl ( https:// github.com/mrmckain/Chloroplast-Phylogenomics-Utilities).Arundinelleae, represented here by Garnotia Brongn., was selected as the outgroup for the ML reconstruction and BI, based on previous morphological and molecular data (Clayton and Renvoize 1986; Kellogg 2000; Teerawatananon et al. 2011; Soreng et al. 2015; Veldkamp et al. 2015). ML analysis was performed on the concatenated sequences under the General Time Reversible (GTR)model with the proportion of invariant sites and a gammashaped distribution of rates across sites (GTR + Г + I) in RAxML v8.2.4 (Stamatakis 2006) with 1,000 bootstraps. For BI, MrBayes v3.2.6 was run (Ronquist et al. 2012) with the GTR + Г + I model using four gamma rate categories and six substitution types. The Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method was applied with two independent runs each time with four chains for a total of 10,000,000 generations each. FigTree v1.4.2 (Rambaut 2014)was used to visualize and edit for font type of taxa nameand line thickening in the phylogenetic trees. Alignments have been deposited at Dryad (Arthan et al. 2017).

Morphological Character Evolution—We used the ML chloroplast phylogeny to investigate the evolution of inflorescence architecture, the extent of development of the pedicellate spikelet, and the relative sizes of sessile and pedicellate spikelets, characters that vary in and are used to distinguish the species investigated here (Table 1; Appendix 3). Data were based on descriptions in Clayton and Renvoize (1986), Watson and Dallwitz (1992), and Clayton et al. (2006), and supplemented and checked by our own observations. The pedicellate spikelet was scored as present, absent, or rudimentary. This character sometimes varies within a genus, so data presented here could be over-simplified particularly when only one species is sampled. Relative size of sessile and pedicellate spikelets was scored as having the sessile spikelet larger than, smaller than, or equal to the pedicellate one. A fourth state accommodated plants in Dimeria ornithopoda in which the sessile spikelet is absent.

Information on inflorescence architecture followed the morphological interpretations in Kellogg (2015). Specifically, Clayton and Renvoize (1986) use the terms “raceme” and “panicle” to describe grass inflorescences, but these terms are borrowed from dicots and fail to capture grass diversity. Instead we use two characters, number of primary branches and number of orders of branching. We consider primary branches to be those produced by the inflorescence meristem (IM) and bearing spikelet pairs, structures that Clayton and Renvoize (1986) call “racemes.” Barkworth (2003) calls these “rames” if they are disarticulating. While the spikelet pairs themselves can be considered primary branches if produced by the inflorescence meristem, they are developmentally and genetically different from long branches (Thompson 2014); spikelet pairs never become long branches in the course of normal development. The number of primary branches may be zero, with the IM producing only spikelet pairs (as in Schizachyrium, Heteropogon, and Themeda), fixed at one (i.e. the main axis and a branch, as in Hyparrhenia and Cymbopogon Spreng.), variable but rarely more than five (as in Andropogon burmanicus), and five to many. The latter state includes both species in which the primary branches are unbranched, such as Arthraxon, and those in which the branches go on to produce higher orders of branching, such as Chrysopogon and Sorghum Moench. For Zea, which has different branching patterns in the staminate and pistillate inflorescences (tassel and ear, respectively), we followed convention in the literature (e.g. Watson and Dallwitz 1992) and scored the morphology of the pistillate inflorescence.

In order to capture the distinction between the Arthraxon-type inflorescence and the Chrysopogon-Sorghum type, we use the character “number of orders of branching,” which reflects the fate of the primary branch meristem. In species with an unbranched axis, no primary branches are produced and thus the order of branching cannot be determined (coded NA). Species that produce only primary branches have a single order of branching (state 1). For species in which the primary branches themselves branch, the number of orders of branching is two or more (state 2). The latter state reflects inflorescences called “panicles” by Clayton and Renvoize (1986) and Clayton et al. (2006).

We did not attempt to assess whether the primary branches are digitate or sub-digitate, although this character appears commonly in keys. “Digitate or subdigitate branches” are in fact states of a quantitative character, “inflorescence internode length.” If internodes are very short, the branches appear digitate. Length of inflorescence internodes is controlled by different genes than the number of primary branches (the character illustrated) and is determined much later in the development (Doust et al. 2005; Kellogg et al. 2013). Primary branch number is determined soon after the transition of the shoot apical meristem from vegetative to inflorescence identity, whereas internode elongation occurs as the inflorescence is extending up through the leaf sheath. For all species with non-digitate branches (i.e. species with internode length more than about 1 mm), the character varies between internodes of an inflorescence and would need to be standardized, probably by internode position. It also varies within and between plants as well as between species and genera. Thus a meaningful analysis of the character would require extensive sampling and statistical analysis, neither of which was the goal of the present study.

Ancestral state reconstruction (ASR) for the above characters was conducted using a maximum likelihood method implemented in BayesTraits v.2.0 (Barker et al. 2007) on the plastome-based ML tree. The optimal discrete character evolutionary model was identified using the fitMK function of Phytools v.5–10 (Lewis 2001; Revell 2012; Table 2). We compared the equal rates (“ER”) model, the symmetrical (“SYM”) model, and the all rates different (“ARD”) model. The ER model, as the name implies, has one rate of change for all states. The SYM model has variable rates for each state, but forward and reverse rates are equal. The ARD model has variable rates for all states in forward and reverse. Models of character evolution were tested using the Akaike information criterion (AIC) as implemented in fitMK for each trait. The ER model was found to be optimal for inflorescence branch number (delta AIC 4.84). The SYM model was optimal for the order of inflorescence branching (delta AIC 2.31) and relative size of the sessile spikelet to the pedicellate spikelet (delta AIC 7.16). The ARD model was found to be optimal for pedicellate spikelet presence (delta AIC 2.35). Trees were drawn using the ape v.3.4 (Paradis et al. 2004) module in R.

Results

Chloroplast Genome Structure—Chloroplast genome structure is largely conserved across all species in this study. Plastome sequence lengths range from at least 134,982 bp in Heteropogon contortus (L.) P. Beauv. ex Roem. & Schult. to 141,091 bp in Eulaliopsis binata (Retz.) C.E. Hubb., which are within the typical size range of grass plastomes (Palmer 1985; Hand et al. 2013; Cotton et al. 2015). Major divisions of the chloroplast genomes ranged in size from 80,172 to 83,733 bp for the LSC, 12,438 to 14,807 bp for the SSC, and 20,599 to 22,900 bp for the IR. Overall GC content was stable, ranging from 37.1 to 37.5%. IR boundaries are conserved for gene content in our sampled Andropogoneae with no gene movement in or out of the IR. rps19 and psbA fall on either side of the LSC-IRA boundary, rpl22 and rps19 the LSC and IRB boundary, rps15 and ndhF the SSC and IRB boundary, and ndhH and rps15 the SSC and IRA boundary. Sampled chloroplast genomes demonstrate stability in overall architecture for Andropogoneae.

Phylogenetic Analyses—The LSC, SSC, and IR alignments were concatenated to produce a combined alignment of 133,506 characters. The tree topology was well resolved in ML analysis under the GTR+Г+I model and had a likelihood (-lnL) of -335146.1879. BI produced a congruent topology (Fig. 1). High bootstrap values (BS > 90) and posterior probabilities (PP =1) supported most nodes except for the one at the divergence of the Kerriochloa clade from the rest of Andropogoneae (BS =67 and PP =0.96), the Mnesithea-Eremochloa clade and the rest of Andropogoneae (BS =77 and PP =0.98), the Heteropogon triticeus clade and Cymbopogon (BS =82 and PP = 0.98), and within the Heteropogon triticeus clade (BS = 81 and PP = 0.33), the Andropogon chinensis clade (BS = 71 and PP = 0.42), and the Schizachyrium sanguineum clades (BS = 81 and 64 and PP = 0.81 and 0.81, respectively).

Multiple accessions were sequenced for twelve species (Andropogon burmanicus (2 accessions), A. chinensis (3), A. fastigiatus (4), Arthraxon lanceolatus (Roxb.) Hochst. (2), Eriochrysis cayennensis P. Beauv. (2), Heteropogon triticeus (4), Hyparrhenia rufa (Nees) Stapf (2), Kerriochloa siamensis C.E. Hubb. (2), Polytoca digitata (L. f.) Druce (2), Pseudosorghum fasciculare (Roxb.) A. Camus (2), Schizachyrium brevifolium (5), and S. sanguineum (6). These accessions form strongly supported species-specific clades, as indicated by the heavy lines in Fig. 1. The exception is S. sanguineum, in which we found two well-supported monophyletic sets of accessions (Fig. 1). One clade was sister to S. scoparium plus S. spicatum (Spreng.) Herter, and the other was grouped with S. exile with both supported by bootstrap values of 100 and posterior probabilities of 1.

Table 2.

Morphological characters, character states, best fit model, and delta AIC scores. ER = equal rates; SYM = symmetrical rates; ARD = all rates different; SS = sessile spikelet; PS = pedicellate spikelet.

t02_418.gif

Many genera are para- or polyphyletic. Schizachyrium forms a polyphyletic group with S. imberbe A. Camus and S. tenerum Nees forming a clade sister to A. fastigiatus with bootstrap value and posterior probability of 100 and 1, respectively; this Schizachyrium+A. fastigiatus clade is then sister to a clade comprised of the remaining Schizachyrium species and A. chinensis (Fig. 1). Andropogon is polyphyletic; A. chinensis is sister to most species of Schizachyrium, A. fastigiatus is sister to S. imberbe plus S. tenerum, A. distachyos and A. abyssinicus R. Br. ex Fresen. together are sister to Hyparrhenia, and A. burmanicus is sister to Eulalia contorta (Brongn.)Kuntze (Fig. 1). Eulalia Kunth is also polyphyletic and Heteropogon is paraphyletic.

After rooting the tree at Garnotia (Arundinelleae, or Andropogoneae s. l.), the Arthraxon clade (represented by A. hispidus (Thunb.) Makino, A. lanceolatus, A. microphyllus (Trin.) Hochst., and A. prionodes (Steud.) Dandy) was sister to the rest of the Andropogoneae with strong support (BP = 100 and PP = 1). The core Andropogoneae is made up of two major subclades: the Andropogon-Schizachyrium-Hyparrhenia clade (BS = 100 and PP = 1) and the Themeda-Heteropogon- Cymbopogon-Dichanthium clade (BS = 99 and PP = 1).

Outside the core is a set of smaller, less well-defined groups. Of particular interest here is the clade made up of Eriochrysis P. Beauv., Chrysopogon, Andropogon burmanicus, Eulalia contorta and Parahyparrhenia siamensis A. Camus. Many of these taxa are Southeast Asian and poorly known. Coix L. and Kerriochloa were isolated and their position was not resolved in the trees. Mnesithea Kunth and Eremochloa formed a monophyletic group. Also, a monophyletic clade was observed for Eulaliopsis Honda and Dimeria. Germainia, Pogonatherum P. Beauv., Hemisorghum, Sorghum, Eulalia siamensis Bor. and Pseudosorghum were grouped in a single clade (BS = 100 and PP = 1).

Analysis of Character Evolution—Inflorescence architecture is variable and dynamic among Andropogoneae (Fig. 2). For the number of primary branches (i.e. branches that are the product of the IM), the analysis favored a model in which all character state changes are equally likely. Given this taxon sample, having an unbranched inflorescence is most likely to be ancestral for the core Andropogoneae, and indeed for all of Andropogoneae excluding Garnotia, though there is much uncertainty in the backbone of the tree (Fig. 2A). Having exactly one primary branch (i.e. the main axis and one branch) is derived independently several times as are the states of having 3 to 5 branches and having many branches (Fig. 2A). Number of orders of branching varies between zero (not applicable) and one throughout most of the tree with potentially three to four origins of second order branching in Garnotia, Chrysopogon, and the Sorghum+Hemisorghum+Pseudosorghum+E. siamensis clades (Fig. 2B); this model is symmetrical suggesting that reversals of states are as likely as forward changes. The ancestral number of orders of branching appears to contradict the optimization of the ancestral state of “unbranched” for numbers of axes. The interpretation of this is discussed below.

Fig. 1.

Maximum likelihood tree based on whole chloroplast genome data of 76 Andropogoneae taxa and produced by RAxML under the general time reversible evolution model (GTR + Г + I). Unlabeled nodes and heavy lines have ML bootstrap of 100 and posterior probability of 1. Nodes with lower values are labeled as ML bootstrap / posterior probability and indicated by lighter lines. Taxa from Southeast Asia are in orange. Species that are types for their respective genera are noted with an asterisk. Collection numbers are included only where there are multiple accessions of the same species. Core Andropogoneae is well-supported as are subtribes Andropogoninae and Anthistiriinae. A horizontal arrow points to Andropogon burmanicus, which is unrelated to other species of Andropogon.

f01_418.jpg

Fig. 2.

Evolution of inflorescence branching traits. A. Number of primary branches, products of the inflorescence meristem. Excluding the spikelet pairs, the number of branches produced by the inflorescence meristem is either zero (blue circles), fixed at one (green), fixed at 3 to 5 (yellow), or greater than 5 (violet). Primary branches are shown in red. B. Number of orders of branching, products of the branch meristems. Excluding the spikelet pairs, the number of order of branching is either not applicable (blue circles, the inflorescence unbranched), one (green, primary branches do not themselves branch), or greater than or equal to two (yellow, higher order branches are present). Representative primary branches are shown in red, secondary branch in blue.

f02_418.jpg

The ancestral state for pedicellate spikelet development is also completely ambiguous. The ARD (all rates different) model is the best fit of the models that we tested (Table 2). Under this model, the probabilities of change from rudimentary to pedicellate and from absent to pedicellate are quite high (1,000 and 398, respectively), whereas the probability of change from pedicellate to rudimentary or pedicellate to absent is much lower, and the probability of change from rudimentary to absent is zero. If the ancestral state is for the pedicellate spikelet to be present (blue), then pedicellate spikelets could have been reduced or lost up to six times in the evolution of the tribe (Fig. 3A), in Garnotia thailandica Gould, Arthraxon hispidus, Zea mays, Coix lacryma-jobi, Eremochloa+Mnesithea, and one clade of Schizachyrium. However, the ancestral state could have been “absent,” in which case there could have been many origins of pedicellate spikelets.

Fig. 3.

Pedicellate spikelet (PS) development and relative size. A. the pedicellate spikelet may be present (blue circles), rudimentary (yellow), or absent (green). B. the sessile and pedicellate spikelets may be the same size (SS=PS, yellow), the sessile spikelet may be larger than the pedicellate spikelet (SS>PS, blue), the sessile spikelet may be smaller than the pedicellate spikelet (SS<PS, green), or the sessile spikelet may be absent (violet, only Dimeria). The cartoon of each sessile-pedicellate pair shows, from left to right, the attached inflorescence internode (brown), the sessile spikelet (green) with its attached awn, the pedicel (brown), and the pedicellate spikelet.

f03_418.jpg

Relative size of the two spikelets of a pair (Fig. 3B) also varies between species and best fits a symmetrical model. Within the DASH clade in particular sessile spikelets may be smaller than, equal to, or larger than pedicellate spikelets. Dimeria ornithopoda Trin. is unique in our sample, as it does not have sessile spikelets at all. Andropogon burmanicus shares similar character states to other Andropogon species, as it has pedicellate spikelets that are smaller than the sessile spikelets. This character combination is shared with closely related species like Parahyparrhenia siamensis and the genus Eriochrysis. Ancestral state reconstructions point to the ancestral state being for the pedicellate spikelet to be the same size as or smaller than the pedicellate one. Under this optimization, having a pedicellate spikelet larger than the sessile one has originated independently five times.

Discussion

Andropogon and Schizachyrium—The original goal of this study was placement of the Thai species of Andropogon and Schizachyrium. Like most previous studies, we found a clade including Andropogon, Schizachyrium, and a monophyletic Hyparrhenia (Mathews et al. 2002; Skendzic et al. 2007; Estep et al. 2014). Andropogon and Schizachyrium are morphologically similar and have always been assumed to be closely related (Clayton 1964; Clayton 1972; Estes and Tyrl 1976; Clayton and Renvoize 1986). Likewise, the monophyly of Hyparrhenia has never been questioned, with all species having exactly two inflorescence axes (the main axis and one primary branch) and having the callus of the sessile spikelet applied obliquely to the rachis (Clayton et al. 2006; Kellogg 2015). In contrast, Andropogon inflorescences vary in number of primary branches, and Schizachyrium has none; in both genera the callus is inserted into the cup-like apex of the internode below (Clayton et al. 2006; Kellogg 2015).

Andropogon is clearly polyphyletic, with species appearing even more widely scattered in the phylogeny than in previous studies (e.g. Estep et al. 2014), probably as a result of our sample of more disparate members of the genus. Although this study still includes only a fraction of the species in the genus, we think it is unlikely that inclusion of additional species will cause Andropogon to appear as monophyletic. A phylogeny including 40 species of Andropogon retrieves results consistent with those presented here (McKain and Kellogg, unpublished data). Andropogon abyssinicus and A. distachyos formed a clade sister to Hyparrhenia with which they share geographic provenance in Africa (Skendzic et al. 2007; Nagahama and Norrmann 2012) and an inflorescence with exactly two axes. Andropogon distachyos is rare in Thailand and might have been imported for fodder. Both A. abyssinicus and A. distachyos have a winged lower glume on the sessile spikelet, a character that is not reported for Hyparrhenia.

Andropogon fastigiatus is on a long branch sister to Schizachyrium imberbe and S. tenerum, which together have been placed in Schizachyrium Section A (Fig. 1; Clayton 1964). Like Schizachyrium, A. fastigiatus has an unbranched inflorescence (Fig. 2A, B). It is sometimes segregated as its own genus, Diectomis Kunth, based on its enlarged pedicellate spikelet, a character that is unusual in the Andropogon-Schizachyrium- Hyparrhenia clade (Fig. 3B). The A. fastigiatus clade includes two subclades indicating different types of plastomes in these populations (Fig. 1).

Placement of A. burmanicus in a clade with Eulalia contorta and Parahyparrhenia siamensis was unexpected but was confirmed by sequences from two plants collected at different times (Appendix 1). The plants appear morphologically similar to other species of Andropogon in having a small number of inflorescence axes which do not branch further (Fig. 2A, B; Bor 1960 and personal observations) in addition to a caespitose habit. Also like other Andropogon species, A. burmanicus has a well-developed pedicellate spikelet (Fig. 3A), although the pedicellate spikelet is smaller than the sessile one (Fig. 3B). It also has a deeply grooved lower glume on the sessile spikelet, a character that appears in some species of Andropogon as well as in other species throughout the tribe. In contrast to A. burmanicus, the inflorescence in Eulalia contorta has more branches, and that of Parahyparrhenia siamensis has only one in addition to the main axis (Fig. 2A). However, all three species have only first order branches (Fig. 2B). Andropogon burmanicus also has a pyriform and ciliate rachis internode and pedicel, and an appendaged pedicellate spikelet (Chen et al. 2012) similar to that found in some species of Microstegium Nees (e.g. M. eucnemis (Nees ex Steud.) A. Camus). However, A. burmanicus exhibits a pronounced longitudinal groove on the rachis internode, and leaf blades that are narrow and have a waxy abaxial surface creating a distinctive bicolored appearance; none of these characters are described in Microstegium. Because Microstegium was not included in this analysis, more extensive sampling is required to determine the exact position of A. burmanicus.

Schizachyrium contains two separate lineages, one clade with the majority of Schizachyrium species and the other of S. imberbe and S. tenerum (Fig. 1). The latter two species were placed in Schizachyrium section A by Clayton (1964) based on their glabrous rachis internodes and pedicels, well-developed pedicellate spikelets (Fig. 3B), and shortly bilobed upper lemmas (T ¨ urpe 1984; Peichoto 2010), similar to their sister species Andropogon fastigiatus.

In contrast, the members of the larger clade, proposed as section B by Clayton (1964), share pubescent rachis internodes and pedicels, reduced pedicellate spikelets, and deeply bilobed upper lemmas. The trend raises the hypothesis that the surface of the rachis internode or pedicel, the development of the pedicellate spikelet, and the shape of the upper lemma could be synapomorphic for major groups in Schizachyrium. However, much more extensive taxon sampling, particularly from Africa and South America, is recommended for future study.

Andropogon chinensis is sister to Schizachyrium section B, from which it differs by having one long branch in addition to the main inflorescence axis (Fig. 2A) and well-developed pedicellate spikelets (Fig. 3A). However, it is similar in having pubescent rachis internodes and pedicels.

Two distinct groups of S. sanguineum were discovered in this study (Fig. 1), although their morphology is apparently indistinguishable. One group of S. sanguineum plastomes clustered with American Schizachyrium (S. scoparium and S. spicatum) and the other with Asian species (S. exile and S. brevifolium). All S. sanguineum samples were collected in Thailand, suggesting either a deep coalescence of chloroplast haplotypes within S. sanguineum that predate the geographical disjunction of other Schizachyrium species or admixture of haplotypes through allopolyploidy as discussed below(Peichoto et al. 2011; Estep et al. 2014).

The Core Andropogoneae—The core Andropogoneae has been widely accepted and retrieved in all phylogenetic studies to date, including analyses of nuclear genes such as PHYB (Mathews et al. 2002), GBSSI (Mason-Gamer et al. 1998; Mathews et al. 2002), single-copy genes (Estep et al. 2014; Welker et al. 2015, 2016), and ITS (Skendzic et al. 2007), chloroplast genes such as ndhF (Giussani et al. 2001; Mathews et al. 2002) and trnL-F (Teerawatananon et al. 2011), and combined data. Two clades are clearly found: 1) the group of Cymbopogon, Dichanthium, Heteropogon, and Themeda and 2) the group of Andropogon, Hyparrhenia, and Schizachyrium.

Two subclades based on inflorescence shape appear in Themeda, spindle-shaped in T. arundinacea (Roxb.) A. Camus and T. villosa (Poir.) A. Camus and fan-shaped in T. triandra Forssk. and T. arguens (L.) Hack., with the shape difference caused by the arrangement of the homogamous spikelets at different and equal levels, respectively. Interestingly, Heteropogon is paraphyletic. The two species of this genus included here are similar in having a long and bearded callus, awnless homogamous spikelets at the base of the raceme, and awned sessile spikelets on the top portion of the raceme. It will be interesting in the future to include the remaining four species of Heteropogon.

Mainland Southeast Asia Contains Unexpected Phylogenetic Diversity—This study discovered unexpected diversity among Andropogoneae of mainland Southeast Asia, implying that the endemic grass flora of Southeast Asia is richer in Andropogoneae genera than previously thought. More than half a century ago, Hartley (1950, 1958) proposed the hypothesis that Southeast Asia might be the origin of the Andropogoneae. However, this interesting possibility needs to be optimized on a more completely sampled phylogeny to answer this question.

Based on overall morphological similarity (as described in, for example, Clayton 1972; Clayton and Renvoize 1986; Watson and Dallwitz 1992; Veldkamp 2003; Soreng et al. 2015), we had expected that Andropogon burmanicus would fall within Andropogon, Parahyparrhenia siamensis would be closely related to Hyparrhenia, and Pseudosorghum fasciculare would be close to Sorghum. Instead A. burmanicus and Parahyparrhenia siamensis are in a clade with Eulalia contorta that is entirely Southeast Asian, but sister to the widespread genus Eriochrysis. Pseudosorghum fasciculare is sister to Eulalia siamensis, and neither is closely related to Eulalia contorta, supporting the polyphyly of Eulalia as noted by other authors (Skendzic et al. 2007; Teerawatananon et al. 2011; GPWG II 2012; Estep et al. 2014; Soreng et al. 2015; Welker et al. 2016).

Likewise, Southeast Asian species such as Polytoca digitata, Kerriochloa siamensis, andMnesithea helferi (Hook. f) de Koning& Sosef fall in clades outside the core Andropogoneae, and are not embedded in larger genera (Fig. 1). Kerriochloa siamensis is in an isolated position in this study as in the analyses of combined chloroplast genes and ITS data from Teerawatananon et al. (2011). Estep et al. (2014) placed it as the sister to Microstegium vimineum (Trin.) A. Camus and Sehima nervosum (Rottler ex Roem. & Schult.) Stapf, but neither of these species was included in the current analysis. The grouping of Mnesithea and Eremochloa is supported by the appearance of numerous appendages on the rim of the lower glume in M. glandulosa (Trin.) de Koning & Sosef, resembling those in Eremochloa (Buitenhuis and Veldkamp 2001; Traiperm 2007; Veldkamp et al. 2013). These two genera are morphologically similar to other members of subtribe Rottboelliinae in that they lack an awn on the upper lemma (Clayton and Renvoize 1986; Kellogg 2015; Soreng et al. 2015).

The Southeast Asian species Eulaliopsis binata falls in a clade with Dimeria ornithopoda, although the two share no obvious characteristics. The former species has multiple inflorescence branches, whereas the latter has only one in addition to the main axis (Fig. 2A). Dimeria is also the only member of Andropogoneae that lacks a sessile spikelet (Fig. 3B; Kellogg 2015).

Germainia and Pogonatherum, which are strongly supported as sisters, both have sessile spikelets with the upper floret male and the pedicellate spikelet female or bisexual, reversing the condition in most Andropogoneae (Clayton and Renvoize 1986; Clayton et al. 2006; Kellogg 2015). In other Andropogoneae, the awn occurs on the lemma of the seed-bearing floret, which is normally in the sessile spikelet. In Germainia and Pogonatherum, however, the lemma of the upper floret of the pedicellate spikelet is awned, indicating that presence or absence of the awn is correlated with development of a functional ovary.

Hemisorghum, Pseudosorghum, and Sorghum are phylogenetically related and are morphologically similar in having robust highly branched inflorescences and 2-keeled lower glumes (Clayton and Renvoize 1986; Neamsuvan et al. 2009). Hemisorghum mekongense (A. Camus) C.E. Hubb. was originally described as a species of Sorghum but was segregated by Hubbard in Bor (1960). Our data show that it is closely related.

The position of Eulalia siamensis as sister to Pseudosorghum fasciculare is hard to explain morphologically. Like other species classified in Eulalia and unlike other members of its clade, the sessile and pedicellate spikelets are morphologically indistinguishable (Fig. 3B). In addition, E. siamensis exhibits only one order of branching, whereas the other members of the clade have highly branched inflorescences (Fig. 2B).

Arthraxon, Polytoca, and Zea—The placement of Arthraxon, Zea, and Polytoca R. Br. as successive sisters to the rest of Andropogoneae is consistent with the results of other studies (Giussani et al. 2001; GPWG II 2012; Soreng et al. 2015). Our data show that Arthraxon is monophyletic, in accord with other taxonomic and phylogenetic studies (Bouchenak- Khelladi et al. 2008; Christin et al. 2009; Teerawatananon et al. 2011; Estep et al. 2014; Kellogg 2015; Soreng et al. 2015; Welker et al. 2015). The species of Arthraxon display broadlanceolate to ovate leaves clasping the culm, and have an awn originating at the base of the fertile upper lemma in the sessile spikelet (Clayton 1972; Van Welzen 1981; Teerawatananon et al. 2011). Arthraxon hispidus was found to have distinctive cells in the leaves, which are not commonplace in Andropogoneae but could be detected in the genera Arundinella Raddi and Garnotia, the sister genera to Andropogoneae (Ueno 1995). Thus the presence of distinctive cells might be a shared character in the common ancestor of Arundinelleae and Andropogoneae.

Zea mays diverges after the Arthraxon clade consistent with previous phylogenies of chloroplast genes (e.g. Bouchenak- Khelladi et al. 2008; Soreng et al. 2015). Geographically, the genus Zea originated in Mexico (Doebley 1990; Jannink and Veldkamp 2002; Zuloaga et al. 2007), while the center of diversity of Arthraxon is Africa and India (Van Welzen 1981).

We scored Zea as having an unbranched inflorescence (Figs. 2A, B), following the convention in the grass literature to report the morphology of the female-fertile spikelet and inflorescence (see Watson and Dallwitz 1992). However, the male inflorescences have many primary branches and thus are more similar in that character to Arthraxon. Many other characters differ between the male and female inflorescences of Zea. Because of its position near the base of the tree, the states of these characters could easily influence estimation of the ancestral state for the tribe. Likewise, we scored Polytoca as having an unbranched inflorescence, although P. wallichiana (not sampled here) may have many inflorescence branches. In both species, the structure of the staminate and pistillate parts of the inflorescence is somewhat different. Estep et al. (2014) demonstrated that there is considerable diversity found between Zea and the core Andropogoneae that is not sampled here. A more diverse set of genera within Andropogoneae is needed to resolve relationships and patterns of morphological evolution along the backbone of the phylogeny.

The phylogeny (Fig. 1) includes representatives of all four monoecious clades in the tribe. Other data (e.g. Estep et al. 2014) show that Zea is sister to the monoecious Tripsacum, Polytoca is sister to Chionachne, Coix is of uncertain placement, and Heteropogon contortus falls among the core taxa. Therefore, additional sampling is not likely to change our view of the origin of monoecy in the tribe.

Chrysopogon and Eriochrysis—Both Chrysopogon and Eriochrysis are monophyletic, consistent with previous results (Mathews et al. 2002; Estep et al. 2014; Welker et al. 2016). Chrysopogon species fall into two groups, the clade of C. gryllus (L.) Trin. and C. zizanioides (L.) Roberty, and that of C. orientalis (Desv.) A. Camus and C. serrulatus Trin.

Eriochrysis forms a well-supported clade and is sister to a clade of endemic Southeast Asian species. Although all samples of Eriochrysis in the analyses are American, members of the genus Eriochrysis are also distributed in Africa and India (Clayton and Renvoize 1986; Kellogg 2015; Welker and Longhi-Wagner 2012; Welker et al. 2016). In future studies, African or Indian Eriochrysis species should be included to determine whether they are more closely related to the Southeast Asian ones and diverge before the American species as suggested by Welker et al. (2016).

Implications for Classification—The phylogeny presented here contains a broad sample of genera of Andropogoneae, but because of the focus on mainland Southeast Asia, we feel that changes to classification are premature. In addition, because this phylogeny reflects only the history of the chloroplast in a group known for extensive hybridization (cf. Estep et al. 2014 and below), it is only a partial picture of the evolutionary history.

If supported by data on nuclear genes, A. burmanicus may need to be removed from Andropogon. Andropogon distachyos is the type species of the genus Andropogon (Hitchcock and Green 1947; Jarvis 1992), which suggests that Andropogon s. s. will be the clade that is sister to Hyparrhenia. Likewise, Hemisorghum can probably be returned to Sorghum, to which is it morphologically similar, if future analyses confirm the placement shown here. Our data reaffirm the decision to combine Chrysopogon and Vetiveria Bory because of morphological overlap between C. zizanioides (previously known as Vetiveria zizanioides (L.) Nash) and other species of Chrysopogon (Celarier 1959; Veldkamp 1999; Skendzic et al. 2007; Kellogg 2015).

Andropogon fastigiatus has been placed in its own genus, Diectomis, removed from Andropogon on the basis of its single inflorescence axis and the large glumes on its pedicellate spikelets. Our data place it in a separate clade from Andropogon s. s., suggesting it is indeed misplaced and may be more closely related to Schizachyrium, to which it is morphologically similar.

The type species of Schizachyrium is S. brevifolium, and thus the name Schizachyrium will apply to the clade with reduced pedicellate spikelets that is sister to Andropogon chinensis. If the current topology is supported, then S. tenerum and S. imberbe would need to be transferred to another genus. Alternatively, A. chinensis and A. fastigiatus could be transferred to Schizachyrium to preserve monophyly.

Like generic limits, subtribal limits within Andropogoneae are still in flux. The most recent classifications by Kellogg (2015) and Soreng et al. (2015) differ both in the number of recognized subtribes and their circumscription. The difference in part is because Kellogg (2015) avoids monogeneric subtribes for genera that are not strongly placed in the phylogeny, whereas Soreng et al. (2015) use available subtribal names when possible. The core Andropogoneae was placed in a very broad Andropogoninae by Kellogg (2015) but divided by Soreng et al. (2015) into Andropogoninae and Anthistiriinae, although the circumscription of those subtribes was different from those suggested by Clayton and Renvoize (1986). Figure 1 shows two major clades within the core, which were also found by Estep et al. (2014) in their study of nuclear genes. Thus we suggest following Soreng et al. (2015) in recognizing both Andropogoninae (Andropogon, Schizachyrium, and Hyparrhenia) and Anthistiriinae (Themeda, Heteropogon, and Cymbopogon) as making up the core Andropogoneae.

Because of the sample presented here, our data do not test monophyly of subtribes Ischaeminae (including Dimeria, and Ischaemum L.) or Germainiinae (including Germainia and Apocopis Nees). The monotypic genus Kerriochloa was placed in Ischaeminae by Clayton and Renvoize (1986) and by Soreng et al. (2015), who distinguished it from other genera based on the presence of a spatheole wrapped around the single inflorescence axis. However, Kellogg (2015) placed the genus incertae sedis in Andropogoneae, a placement we feel is still appropriate based on its lack of close relatives in the current tree.

We confirmed the traditional subtribe “Saccharinae” as polyphyletic (Hodkinson et al. 2002; Welker et al. 2016), with scattered positions of Eulalia, Eulaliopsis, and Pogonatherum. Prior to this study, Teerawatananon et al. (2011), GPWG II (2012), Estep et al. (2014), and Welker et al. (2015, 2016) also demonstrated that Pogonatherum is linked with subtribe Germainiinae (Germainia and Apocopis). Furthermore, the sister relationship of subtribe Sorghinae, represented here by Hemisorghum, Pseudosorghum, and Sorghum, to the core Andropogoneae was also verified in this study (Soreng et al. 2015).

Chrysopogon and Eriochrysis are placed incertae sedis in both current classifications (Soreng et al. 2015; Kellogg 2015).

Morphological Character Evolution—The morphological characters traditionally used to distinguish Andropogon from Schizachyrium, as well as to characterize other genera, vary not only in those two genera but among many members of the tribe. The number of primary branches in the inflorescence (i.e. the products of the IM) and the number of orders of branching (i.e. the products of the branch meristems) are variable enough that ancestral state reconstructions are ambiguous throughout the tree, precluding any reliable estimates of the number of changes. Not only do these characters fail to distinguish species classified in Andropogon from those in Schizachyrium (see for example Andropogon fastigiatus), but they also are highly variable within other clades as well (Fig. 2).

The character state at the base of the tree is ambiguous for both characters. However, our optimization suggests a high probability that the primary branch number is zero at the deepest nodes of the phylogeny, whereas the number of orders of branching has a high probability of being one at the deepest nodes, implying that the number of primary branches must be more than zero. The apparent contradiction between the characters is almost certainly an artifact. The two characters have different numbers of states and are estimated to be evolving under different modes of evolution. Also, they are known to be genetically separable and to vary independently (Kellogg et al. 2013). While the common ancestor cannot have had both an unbranched inflorescence and a single order of branching, analyses of both characters are consistent in suggesting that highly branched inflorescences (“panicles”) are derived.

Likewise, the extent of development of the pedicellate spikelet and its size relative to the sessile spikelet are variable, implying that they are easily modified in evolutionary time. Pedicellate spikelets are rudimentary in a number of species of Schizachyrium, and are lost entirely in Eremochloa, Coix, and the female inflorescences of Zea. Only in the genus Dimeria is the sessile spikelet lost.

The sex expression of the two spikelets varies among genera. In some genera (e.g. Miscanthus Andersson, Eriochrysis), both the sessile and pedicellate spikelets bear bisexual florets. The lack of differentiation between sessile and pedicellate spikelets is the characteristic that Hartley (1958) interpreted to be primitive. More commonly (e.g. Andropogon, Schizachyrium), the sessile spikelet bears a bisexual floret whereas the pedicellate spikelet is staminate or sterile. In a handful of taxa (e.g. Germainia), the situation is reversed and the pedicellate spikelet is pistillate with the sessile one staminate or sterile (Clayton and Renvoize 1986).

Some genera (e.g. Hyparrhenia) also bear one or more pairs of staminate spikelets at the bases of the inflorescence branches; such pairs are known as homogamous pairs (Clayton 1990). Homogamous spikelet pairs are found in the clade of Cymbopogon, Dichanthium, Heteropogon, and Themeda (subtribe Anthistiriinae). Outside this lineage, the pairs are also found in Hyparrhenia and Germainia. Consistent with all its closely related species, Parahyparrhenia siamensis lacks homogamous pairs. However, the other five (unsampled) species of Parahyparrhenia A. Camus have them(Clayton 1969; Teerawatananon et al. 2013). Because we only sampled P. siamensis, our data may indicate that homogamous pairs arise independently in the Parahyparrhenia-Eulalia contorta-Andropogon burmanicus clade. Alternatively, Parahyparrhenia may be polyphyletic, and the unsampled species may all belong in the Hyparrhenia clade.

Hybridization and Polyploidy as Explanations for the Phylogenetic Pattern—Estep et al. (2014) documented extensive hybridization and polyloidy in Andropogoneae. Their phylogenetic data showed that a minimum of 1/3 of the species were allopolyploids and that most formed in independent polyploidization events. When combined with facultative apomixis, which occurs in some genera of Andropogoneae, the possibility exists of a highly reticulate evolutionary pattern, as previously demonstrated for Bothriochloa, Capillipedium and Dichanthium (Estep et al. 2014). Thus, many of the surprising placements of taxa we find here could be explained by hybridization, which can in turn lead to changes in distribution and ecological tolerance. The chloroplast genome can identify only one parental genome of an allopolyploid species (Mason-Gamer 2007, 2013; Kellogg 2016), and low-copy nuclear genes will need to be employed to test our results.

The limitations of plastome sequences for uncovering evolutionary relationships are especially clear in the case of S. sanguineum. This species has been reported to have a great range of allopolyploid levels based on cytology and analysis of low-copy loci (Peichoto et al. 2011; Estep et al. 2014). The two independent S. sanguineum clades could represent distinct allopolyploidy events. For example, Old World S. exile might have donated the plastome to S. sanguineum populations in Central Thailand. Alternatively, the presence of two clades could indicate wide introgression, but this seems unlikely given the distant geographic origins of the two clades. A final possibility is that of cryptic species. Although the major morphological characters place all specimens in S. sanguineum, it is possible that there are subtle characters not yet identified that distinguish the two clades. Apomixis has been reported in S. sanguineum (Carman and Hatch 1982), and this could easily lead to subtle morphological distinctions among populations that are partially or wholly reproductively isolated.

The tribe Andropogoneae is a primary component of grasslands and savannahs in the Americas and Africa, where members of the tribe tend to grow in areas with slightly higher precipitation than those of the drought-tolerant Chloridoideae and less tree cover than C3 tropical species in Paniceae (Gibson 2008; Bocksberger et al. 2016). However, Hartley (1958) recognized southeastern Asia as a center of diversity for Andropogoneae, characterized in part by the presence of multiple genera including Sorghum, Miscanthus, Chrysopogon, Schizachyrium, and Andropogon. Here, we have shown that cryptic diversity exists in mainland Southeast Asia, exemplified by Andropogon burmanicus, Eulalia contorta and Parahyparrhenia siamensis, by identifying a previously unidentified lineage in Andropogoneae with inflorescence characters that appear convergent with those of well-established genera. This study suggests that Southeast Asia may indeed harbor unique diversity in Andropogoneae and merits deeper study including characterization of polyploidy and hybridization through the use of low copy nuclear loci. Further implications of the phylogeny suggest that key characters for identification in Andropogoneae may be the result of convergent evolution and require revised taxonomic treatment.

Acknowledgments.

The authors would like to express gratitude to the Development and Promotion of Science and Technology Talents Project (DPST) to WA and PT, National Science Foundation Grant DEB-1457748 to EAK for financial support, and the reviewers for their comments on the manuscript.

Literature Cited

1.

Anderson, J. G. 1966. The genus Andropogon in Southern Africa. Bothalia 9: 5–30. Google Scholar

2.

Arthan, W., M. R. McKain, P. Traiperm, C. A. D.Welker , J. K. Teisher, and E. A. Kellogg. 2017. Data from: Phylogenomics of Andropogoneae (Panicoideae: Poaceae) of mainland Southeast Asia. Dryad Digital Repository.  http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.p01f4Google Scholar

3.

Barker, D., A. Meade, and M. Pagel. 2007. Constrained models of evolution lead to improved prediction of functional linkage from correlated gain and loss of genes. Bioinformatics 23: 14–20. Google Scholar

4.

Barkworth, M. E. 2003. Andropogoneae Dumort. Pp. 602–704 in Flora of North America North of Mexico, vol. 25. Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Poaceae, part 2, eds. M. E. Barkworth, K.M. Capels, S. Long, and M. B. Piep. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar

5.

Barrett, C. F., W. J. Baker, J. R. Corner, J. G. Conran, S. C. Lahmeyer, J. H. Leebens-Mack, J. Li, G. S. Lim, D. R. Mayfield-Jones, L. Perez, J. Medina, J. C. Pires, C. Santos, D. W. Stevenson, W. B. Zomlefer, and J. I. Davis. 2016. Plastid genomes reveal support for deep phylogenetic relationships and extensive rate variation among palms and other commelinid monocots. The New Phytologist 209: 855–870. Google Scholar

6.

Bocksberger, G., J. Schnitzler, C. Chatelain, P. Daget, T. Janssen, M. Schmidt, A. Thiombiano, and G. Zizka. 2016. Climate and the distribution of grasses in West Africa. Journal of Vegetation Science 27: 306–317. Google Scholar

7.

Bolger, A. M., M. Lohse, and B. Usadel. 2014. Trimmomatic: A flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30: 2114–2120. Google Scholar

8.

Bor, N. L. 1960. The grasses of Burma, Ceylon, India, and Pakistan (excluding Bambuseae). New York: Pergamon Press. Google Scholar

9.

Bouchenak-Khelladi, Y., N. Salamin, V. Savolainen, F. Forest, M. van der Bank, M. W. Chase, and T. R. Hodkinson. 2008. Large multi-gene phylogenetic trees of the grasses (Poaceae): Progress towards complete tribal and generic level sampling. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 47: 488–505. Google Scholar

10.

Buitenhuis, A. G. and J. F. Veldkamp. 2001. Revision of Eremochloa (Gramineae-Andropogoneae-Rottboelliinae). Blumea 46: 399–420. Google Scholar

11.

Burke, S. V., W. P. Wysocki, F. O. Zuloaga, J. M. Craine, J. C. Pires, P. P. Edger, D. Mayfield-Jones, L. G. Clark, S. A. Kelchner, and M. R. Duvall. 2016. Evolutionary relationships in panicoid grasses based on plastome phylogenomics (Panicoideae; Poaceae). BMC Plant Biology 16: 140. Google Scholar

12.

Campbell, C. S. and P.G. Windisch. 1986. Chromosome numbers and their taxonomic implications for eight Brazilian Andropogons (Poaceae: Andropogoneae). Brittonia 38: 411–414. Google Scholar

13.

Camus, E. G. and A. Camus. 1922. Flore générale de l'Indo-Chine 1(3). Masson, Paris, France. Google Scholar

14.

Carbonell-Caballero, J., R. Alonso, V. Ibañez, J. Terol, M. Talon, and J. Dopazo. 2015. A phylogenetic analysis of 34 chloroplast genomes elucidated the relationships between wild and domestic species within the genus Citrus. Molecular Biology and Evolution 32: 2015–2035. Google Scholar

15.

Carman, J. G. and S. L. Hatch. 1982. Aposporous apomixis in Schizachyrium (Poaceae: Andropogoneae). Crop Science 22: 1252–1255. Google Scholar

16.

Celarier, R. P. 1959. Cytotaxonomy of the Andropogoneae. IV. Subtribe Sorgheae. Cytologia 24: 285–303. Google Scholar

17.

Chen, S., S. Bixing, S. M. Phillips, and S. A. Renvoize. 2006. Tribe Andropogoneae. Pp. 570–573 in Flora of China , vol. 22, Poaceae, eds. W. Zhengyi, P. H. Raven, and H. Deyuan. Beijing and St. Louis, Missouri: Science Press and Missouri Botanical Garden. Google Scholar

18.

Chen, C. H., J. F. Veldkamp, and C. S. Kuoh. 2012. Taxonomic revision of Microstegium s. str. (Andropogoneae, Poaceae). Blumea 57: 160–189. Google Scholar

19.

Christin, P. A., E. Samaritani, B. Petitpierre, N. Salamin, and G. Besnard. 2009. Evolutionary insights on C4 photosynthetic subtypes in grasses from genomics and phylogenetics. Genome Biology and Evolution 1: 221–230. Google Scholar

20.

Clayton, W. D. 1964. Studies in the Gramineae: V. Kew Bulletin 17: 465–470. Google Scholar

21.

Clayton, W. D. 1969. A revision of the genus Hyparrhenia. Surrey, U. K.: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Google Scholar

22.

Clayton, W. D. 1972. The awned genera of Andropogoneae. Studies in the Gramineae: XXXI. Kew Bulletin 27: 457–474. Google Scholar

23.

Clayton, W. D. 1990. The spikelet. Pp. 32–49 in Reproductive versatility in the grasses , ed. G. P. Chapman. Cambridge, U. K.: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar

24.

Clayton, W. D. and S. A. Renvoize. 1986. Genera graminum. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Google Scholar

25.

Clayton, W. D., M. S. Vorontsova, K. T. Harman, and H. Williamson. 2006. onwards. GrassBase - The online world grass flora.  http://www.kew.org/data/grasses-db.htmlGoogle Scholar

26.

Cotton, J. L., W. P. Wysocki, L. G. Clark, S. A. Kelchner, J. C. Pires, P. P. Edger, D. Mayfield-Jones, and M. R. Duvall. 2015. Resolving deep relationships of PACMAD grasses: A phylogenomic approach. BMC Plant Biology 15: 178. Google Scholar

27.

Doebley, J. 1990. Molecular evidence and the evolution of maize. Economic Botany 44: 6–27. Google Scholar

28.

Doyle, J. J. and J. L. Doyle. 1987. A rapid DNA isolation procedure for small quantities of fresh leaf tissue. Phytochemical Bulletin 19: 11–15. Google Scholar

29.

Doyle, J. J. and J. L. Doyle. 1990. Isolation of plant DNA from fresh tissue. Focus (San Francisco, Calif.) 12: 13–15. Google Scholar

30.

Doust, A. N., K. M. Devos, M. Gadberry, M. D. Gale, and E. A. Kellogg. 2005. The genetic basis for inflorescence variation between foxtail and green millet (Poaceae). Genetics 169: 1659–1672. Google Scholar

31.

Estep, M. C., M. R. McKain, D. Vela Diaz, J. Zhong, J. G. Hodge, T. R. Hodkinson, D. J. Layton, S. T. Malcomber, R. Pasquet, and E. A. Kellogg. 2014. Allopolyploidy, diversification, and the Miocene grassland expansion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 111: 15149–15154. Google Scholar

32.

Estes, J. R. and R. J. Tyrl. 1976. The grasses and grasslands of Oklahoma: Status of current research on the native and introduced grasses of the state: A symposium. Ardmore, Oklahoma: Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation. Google Scholar

33.

Gibson, D. J. 2008. Grasses and grassland ecology. Oxford, U. K.: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar

34.

Gilliland, H. B. 1971. A revised flora of Malaya: an illustrated systematic account of the Malayan flora, including commonly cultivated plants. Volume III, Grasses of Malaya. Singapore: The government printing office. Google Scholar

35.

Giussani, L. M., J. H. Cota-Sánchez, F. O. Zuloaga, and E. A. Kellogg. 2001. A molecular phylogeny of the grass subfamily Panicoideae (Poaceae) shows multiple origins of C4 photosynthesis. American Journal of Botany 88: 1993–2012. Google Scholar

36.

Givnish, T. J., D. Spalink, M. Ames, S. P. Lyon, S. J. Hunter, A. Zuluaga, W. J. D. Iles, M. A. Clements, M. T. K. Arroya, J. Leebens-Mack, L. Endara, R. Kriebel, K. M. Neubig, W. M. Whitten, N. H. Williams, and K. M. Cameron. 2015. Orchid phylogenomics and multiple drivers of their extraordinary diversification. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 282: 20151553. Google Scholar

37.

Gould, F. W. 1967. The genus Andropogon in the United States. Brittonia 19: 70–76. Google Scholar

38.

GPWG (Grass Phylogeny Working Group). 2001. Phylogeny and subfamilial classification of the grasses (Poaceae). Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 88: 373–457. Google Scholar

39.

GPWG II (Grass Phylogeny Working Group II). 2012. New grass phylogeny resolves deep evolutionary relationships and discovers C4 origins. The New Phytologist 193: 304–312. Google Scholar

40.

Hand, M. L., G. C. Spangenberg, J. W. Forster, and N. O. I. Cogan. 2013. Plastome sequence determination and comparative analysis for members of the Lolium-Festuca grass species complex. G3-Genes Genomes Genetics 3: 607–616. Google Scholar

41.

Hartley, W. 1950. The global distribution of tribes of the Gramineae in relation to historical and environmental factors. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 1: 355–372. Google Scholar

42.

Hartley, W. 1958. Studies on the origin, evolution and distribution of the Gramineae. I. The tribe Andropogoneae. Australian Journal of Botany 6: 116–128. Google Scholar

43.

Hitchcock, A. S. and M. L. Green. 1947. Supplement: Species Lectotypicae Generum Linnaei. Brittonia 6: 114–118. Google Scholar

44.

Hodkinson, T. R., M. W. Chase, M. D. Lled´o, N. Salamin, and S. A. Renvoize. 2002. Phylogenetics of Miscanthus, Saccharum and related genera (Saccharinae, Andropogoneae, Poaceae) based on DNA sequences from ITS nuclear ribosomal DNA and plastid trnL intron and trnL-F intergenic spacers. Journal of Plant Research 115: 381–392. Google Scholar

45.

Jannink, T. A. and J. F. Veldkamp. 2002. Revision of Chionachninae (Gramineae: Andropogoneae). Blumea 47: 545–580. Google Scholar

46.

Jarvis, C. E. 1992. Seventy-two proposals for the conservation of types of selected Linnaean generic names, the report of Subcommittee 3C on the lectotypification of Linnaean generic names. Taxon 41: 552–583. Google Scholar

47.

Katoh, K., K. I. Kuma, H. Toh, and T. Miyata. 2005. MAFFT version 5: Improvement in accuracy of multiple sequence alignment. Nucleic Acids Research 33: 511–518. Google Scholar

48.

Kearse, M., R. Moir, A. Wilson, S. Stones-Havas, M. Cheung, S. Sturrock, S. Buxton, A. Cooper, S. Markowitz, C. Duran, T. Thierer, B. Ashton, P. Meintjes, and A. Drummond. 2012. Geneious basic: An integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics 28: 1647–1649. Google Scholar

49.

Kellogg, E. A. 2000. Molecular and morphological evolution in the Andropogoneae. Pp. 149–158 in Grasses: Systematics and evolution , eds. S. W. L. Jacobs. and J. Everett. Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO. Google Scholar

50.

Kellogg, E. A. 2015. Tribe Andropogoneae Dumort. Pp. 289–314 in The families and genera of vascular plants vol. XIII, ed. K. Kubitski. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International. Google Scholar

51.

Kellogg, E. A. 2016. Has the connection between polyploidy and diversification actually been tested?. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 30: 25–32. Google Scholar

52.

Kellogg, E. A., P. E. A. S. Camara, P. J. Rudall, P. Ladd, S. T. Malcomber, C. J. Whipple, and A.N. Doust. 2013. Early inflorescence development in the grasses (Poaceae). Frontiers in Plant Science 4: 250. Google Scholar

53.

Langmead, B. and S. Salzberg. 2012. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nature Methods 9: 357–359. Google Scholar

54.

Lazarides, M. 1980. Phanerogamarum monographiae. Tomus XII: The tropical grasses of Southeast Asia (excluding bamboos). Germany: Strauss and Cramer. Google Scholar

55.

Lewis, P. O. 2001. A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data. Systematic Biology 50: 913–925. Google Scholar

56.

Marçais, G. and C. Kingsford. 2011. A fast, lock-free approach for efficient parallel counting of occurrences of k-mers. Bioinformatics 27: 764–770. Google Scholar

57.

Mason-Gamer, R. J. 2007. Allopolyploids of the genus Elymus (Triticeae, Poaceae): A phylogenetic perspective. Aliso 23: 372–379. Google Scholar

58.

Mason-Gamer, R. J. 2013. Phylogeny of a genomically diverse group of Elymus (Poaceae) allopolyploids reveals multiple levels of reticulation. PLoS One 8: e78449. Google Scholar

59.

Mason-Gamer, R. J., C. F. Weil, and E. A. Kellogg. 1998. Granule-bound starch synthase: structure, function, and phylogenetic utility. Molecular Biology and Evolution 15: 1658–1673. Google Scholar

60.

Mathews, S., R. E. Spangler, R. J. Mason-Gamer, and E. A. Kellogg. 2002. Phylogeny of Andropogoneae inferred fromphytochrome B, GBSSI, and ndhF. International Journal of Plant Sciences 163: 441–450. Google Scholar

61.

McKain, M. R., R. H. Hartsock, M. M. Wohl, and E. A. Kellogg. 2016a. Verdant: Automated annotation, alignment and phylogenetic analysis of whole chloroplast genomes. Bioinformatics 33: 130–132. Google Scholar

62.

McKain, M. R., J. R. McNeal, P. R. Kellar, L. E. Eguiarte, J. C. Pires, and J. Leebens-Mack. 2016b. Timing of rapid diversification and convergent origins of active pollination within Agavoideae (Asparagaceae). American Journal of Botany 103: 1717–1729. Google Scholar

63.

Miller, M. A., W. Pfeiffer, and T. Schwartz. 2010. Creating the CIPRES science gateway for inference of large phylogenetic trees. Proceedings of the Gateway Computing Environments Workshop (GCE) in New Orleans, Louisiana. Google Scholar

64.

Nagahama,N. and G. A. Norrmann. 2012. Review of the genus Andropogon (Poaceae: Andropogoneae) in America based on cytogenetic studies. Le Journal de Botanique 2012: 1–9. Google Scholar

65.

Nanakorn,W. 1990. The floristic treatment of the tribe Andropogoneae: subtribes Andropogoninae, Anthistiriinae and Saccharinae (Gramineae) for the flora of Thailand. Ph.D. dissertation. New York: The City University of New York. Google Scholar

66.

Neamsuvan, O., J. F. Veldkamp, and T. Seelanan. 2009. A revision of Hemisorghum (Poaceae, Sorghineae) in Thailand. Gardens' Bulletin Singapore 61: 145–149. Google Scholar

67.

Nurk, S., A. Bankevich, D. Antipov, A. A. Gurevich, A. Korobeynikov, A. Lapidus, A. D. Prjibelsky, A. Pyshkin, A. Sirotkin, Y. Sirotkin, R. Stepanauskas, S. R. Clingenpeel, T. Woyke, J. S. McLean, R. Lasken, G. Tesler, M. A. Alekseyev, and P. A. Pevzner. 2013. Assembling genomes andmini-metagenomes from highly chimeric reads. Research in Computational Molecular Biology 7821: 158–170. Google Scholar

68.

Palmer, J. D. 1985. Comparative organization of chloroplast genomes. Annual Review of Genetics 19: 325–354. Google Scholar

69.

Paradis, E., J. Claude, and K. Strimmer. 2004. APE: Analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20: 289–290. Google Scholar

70.

Peichoto, M. C. 2010. Revisioón taxonoómica de las especies del género Schizachyrium (Poaceae: Andropogoneae) de Sudamérica. Candollea (Gen`eve) 65: 301–345. Google Scholar

71.

Peichoto, M. C., F. Galdeano, M. M. Arbo, and V. G. S. Neffa. 2011. Chromosome number and ploidy level of some South American species of Schizachyrium (Poaceae, Andropogoneae). Plant Systematics and Evolution 292: 63–71. Google Scholar

72.

Rambaut, A. 2014. FigTree, version 1.4.2 forWindows. Computer program and documentation distributed by the author.  http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/ (last accessed 21 March 2016). Google Scholar

73.

Revell, L. J. 2012. phytools: An R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3: 217–223. Google Scholar

74.

Ronquist, F., M. Teslenko, P. van der Mark, D. L. Ayres, A. Darling, S. Höhna, B. Larget, L. Liu, M. A. Suchard, and J. P. Huelsenbeck. 2012. Mr Bayes 3.2: Efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Systematic Biology 61: 539–542. Google Scholar

75.

Ruhfel, B. R., M. A. Gitzendanner, P. S. Soltis, D. E. Soltis, and J.G. Burleigh. 2014. From algae to angiosperms - inferring the phylogeny of green plants (Viridiplantae) from 360 plastid genomes. BMC Evolutionary Biology 14: 23. Google Scholar

76.

Shouliang, C. and S. M. Phillips. 2006. Andropogon. Pp. 570–573 in Flora of China vol. 22, eds. W. Zhengyi, P. H. Raven, and H. Deyuan. Beijing and St. Louis, Missouri: Science Press andMissouri Botanical Garden. Google Scholar

77.

Simon, B. K. 2007. Grass phylogeny and classification: Conflicts of morphology and molecules. Aliso 23: 259–266. Google Scholar

78.

Skendzic, E.M., J. T. Columbus, and R. Cerros-Tlatilpa. 2007. Phylogenetics of Andropogoneae (Poaceae: Panicoideae) based on nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer and chloroplast trnL-F sequences. Aliso 23: 530–544. Google Scholar

79.

Soreng, R. J., P. M. Peterson, K. Romaschenko, G. Davidse, F. O. Zuloaga, E. J. Judziewicz, T. S. Filgueiras, J. I. Davis, and O. Morrone. 2015. A worldwide phylogenetic classification of the Poaceae. Journal of Systematics and Evolution 53: 117–137. Google Scholar

80.

Spangler, R., B. Zaitchik, E. Russo, and E.A. Kellogg. 1999. Andropogoneae evolution and generic limits in Sorghum (Poaceae) using ndhF sequences. Systematic Botany 24: 267–281. Google Scholar

81.

Stamatakis, A. 2006. RAxML-VI-HPC: Maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics 22: 2688–2690. Google Scholar

82.

Steele, P. R., K. L. Hertweck, D. Mayfield-Jones, M. R. McKain, J. Leebens-Mack, and J. C. Pires. 2012. Quality and quantity of data recovered from massively parallel sequencing: Examples in Asparagales and Poaceae. American Journal of Botany 99: 330–348. Google Scholar

83.

Stull, G. W., M. J. Moore, V. S. Mandala, N. A. Douglas, H.-R. Kates, X. Qi, S. F. Brockington, P. S. Soltis, D. E. Soltis, and M. A. Gitzendanner. 2013. A targeted enrichment strategy for massively parallel sequencing of Angiosperm plastid genomes. Applications in Plant Sciences 1: 1200497. Google Scholar

84.

Teerawatananon, A., V. Boontia, B. Chantarasuwan, T. R. Hodkinson, and S. Sungkaew. 2014. A taxonomic revision of the genus Dimeria (Poaceae: Panicoideae) in Thailand. Phytotaxa 186: 137–147. Google Scholar

85.

Teerawatananon, A., S. W. L. Jacobs, and T. R. Hodkinson. 2011. Phylogenetics of Panicoideae (Poaceae) based on chloroplast and nuclear DNA sequences. Telopea 13: 115–142. Google Scholar

86.

Teerawatananon, A., S. Sungkaew, V. Boontia, and T. R. Hodkinson. 2013. A taxonomic revision of Germainia (Andropogoneae: Poaceae) in Thailand. Blumea 57: 221–228. Google Scholar

87.

Thompson, B. 2014. Genetic and hormonal regulation of maize inflorescence development. Advances in Botanical Research 72: 263–296. Google Scholar

88.

Traiperm, P. 2007. Systematics of Ischaeminae and Rottboelliinae (Poaceae) in Thailand. Ph.D. dissertation. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University. Google Scholar

89.

Türpe,A.M. 1984. Revision of the South American species of Schizachyrium (Gramineae). Kew Bulletin 39: 169–178. Google Scholar

90.

Ueno, O. 1995. Occurrence of distinctive cells in leaves of C4 species in Arthraxon and Microstegium (Andropogoneae-Poaceae) and the structural and immunocytochemical characterization of these cells. International Journal of Plant Sciences 156: 270–289. Google Scholar

91.

Vallejo-Mar´ın, M., A. M. Cooley, M. Y. Lee, M. Folmer, M. R. McKain, and J. R. Puzey. 2016. Strongly asymmetric hybridization barriers shape the origin of a new polyploid species and its hybrid ancestor. American Journal of Botany 103: 1272–1288. Google Scholar

92.

Van Welzen, P. C. 1981. A taxonomic revision of the genus Arthraxon Beauv. (Gramineae). Blumea 27: 255–300. Google Scholar

93.

Veldkamp, J. F. 1999. A revision of Chrysopogon Trin. including Vetiveria Bory (Poaceae) in Thailand and Malesia with notes on some other species from Africa and Australia. Austrobaileya 5: 503–533. Google Scholar

94.

Veldkamp, J. F. 2003. Miscellaneous notes on Thai Gramineae. Blumea 48: 495–501. Google Scholar

95.

Veldkamp, J. F., M. E. B. van den Boogaart, J. Heidweiller, M. A. F. van der Klaauw, R. de Koning, A. R. Kraaijeveld, M. S. M. Sosef, and R. C. W. Strucker. 2013. A revision of Mnesithea (Gramineae - Rottboelliinae) in Malesia and Thailand. Blumea 58: 277–292. Google Scholar

96.

Veldkamp, J. F., A. Teerawatananon, and S. Sungkaew. 2015. A revision of Garnotia (Gramineae) in Malesia and Thailand. Blumea 59: 229–237. Google Scholar

97.

Vorontsova, M. S., G. Ratovonirina, and T. Randriamboavonjy. 2013. Revision of Andropogon and Diectomis (Poaceae: Sacchareae) in Madagascar and the new Andropogon itremoensis from the Itremo Massif. Kew Bulletin 68: 1–15. Google Scholar

98.

Washburn, J. D., J. C. Schnable, G. Davidse, and J. C. Pires. 2015. Phylogeny and photosynthesis of the grass tribe Paniceae. American Journal of Botany 102: 1493–1505. Google Scholar

99.

Watson, L. and M. J. Dallwitz. 1992. The grass genera of the world. Wallingford, Oxon, U. K.: CAB International. Google Scholar

100.

Welker, C. A. D. and H. M. Longhi-Wagner. 2012. The genera Eriochrysis P. Beauv., Imperata Cirillo and Saccharum L. (Poaceae - Andropogoneae - Saccharinae) in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Botany 35: 87–105. Google Scholar

101.

Welker, C. A. D., T. T. Souza-Chies, H. M. Longhi-Wagner, M. C. Peichoto, M. R. McKain, and E. A. Kellogg. 2015. Phylogenetic analysis of Saccharum s.l. (Poaceae; Andropogoneae), with emphasis on the circumscription of the South American species. American Journal of Botany 102: 248–263. Google Scholar

102.

Welker, C. A. D., T. T. Souza-Chies, H. M. Longhi-Wagner, M. C. Peichoto, M. R. McKain, and E. A. Kellogg. 2016. Multilocus phylogeny and phylogenomics of Eriochrysis P. Beauv. (Poaceae-Andropogoneae): Taxonomic implications and evidence of interspecific hybridization. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 99: 155–167. Google Scholar

103.

Zanin, A. and H. M. Longhi-Wagner. 2011. Revis~ao de Andropogon (Poaceae - Andropogoneae) para o Brasil. Rodriguésia 62: 171–202. Google Scholar

104.

Zuloaga, F. O., O. Morrone, G. Davidse, and S. J. Pennington. 2007. Classification and biogeography of Panicoideae (Poaceae) in the New World. Aliso 23: 503–529. Google Scholar

Appendices

Appendix 1.

Taxa included in this study, collection localities, voucher specimens, herbarium location, and GenBank accession number.

eA01_418.gif
eA02_418.gif

Appendix 2.

Geographical distribution of taxa in this study, showing location in Southeast Asia. SC =Southern China; My =Myanmar; T =Thailand; L =Laos; V =Vietnam; Ca =Cambodia; PM =Peninsular Malaysia; I =Indonesia; Ph =Philippines. Data from Bor (1960), Camus and Camus (1922), Gilliland (1971), Lazarides (1980), Nanakorn (1990), and from the following electronic resources: An online resource for monocot plants. (n.d.). Retrieved January 16, 2017,  http://e-monocot.org/; Kew Herbarium Catalogue. (n.d.). Retrieved January 16, 2017, from  http://apps.kew.org/herbcat/navigator.do; Flora of China@efloras.org. (n.d.). Retrieved January 16, 2017,  http://www.efloras.org/flora_page.aspx?flora_id=2&; Tropicos - Home. (n.d.). Retrieved January 16, 2017, from  http://www.tropicos.org/

eA03_418.gif

Appendix 3.

Characters and character states for morphological analysis. Characters are primary inflorescence branches, orders of inflorescence branching, size of SS relative to PS, and presence or absence of the PS, respectively. The number of orders of inflorescence branching excludes spikelet pairs. SS =sessile spikelet; PS =pedicellate spikelet.

eA04_418.gif
© 2017 by the American Society of Plant Taxonomists
Watchara Arthan, Michael R. McKain, Paweena Traiperm, Cassiano A. D. Welker, Jordan K. Teisher, and Elizabeth A. Kellogg "Phylogenomics of Andropogoneae (Panicoideae: Poaceae) of Mainland Southeast Asia," Systematic Botany 42(3), 418-431, (25 August 2017). https://doi.org/10.1600/036364417X696023
Published: 25 August 2017
JOURNAL ARTICLE
14 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top