Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

A taxonomic monograph of Ipomoea integrated across phylogenetic scales

Abstract

Taxonomic monographs have the potential to make a unique contribution to the understanding of global biodiversity. However, such studies, now rare, are often considered too daunting to undertake within a realistic time frame, especially as the world’s collections have doubled in size in recent times. Here, we report a global-scale monographic study of morning glories (Ipomoea) that integrated DNA barcodes and high-throughput sequencing with the morphological study of herbarium specimens. Our approach overhauled the taxonomy of this megadiverse group, described 63 new species and uncovered significant increases in net diversification rates comparable to the most iconic evolutionary radiations in the plant kingdom. Finally, we show that more than 60 species of Ipomoea, including sweet potato, independently evolved storage roots in pre-human times, indicating that the storage root is not solely a product of human domestication but a trait that predisposed the species for cultivation. This study demonstrates how the world’s natural history collections can contribute to global challenges in the Anthropocene.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Natural history collections facilitate biodiversity studies at a global scale.
Fig. 2: Integrating morphology and DNA in global taxonomic studies is key to utilizing the resources of natural history collections.
Fig. 3: Megadiverse plant groups demand a global approach.
Fig. 4: Rapid radiations in Ipomoea.
Fig. 5: Storage roots evolved multiple times independently in Ipomoea.
Fig. 6: Diversity within sweet potato predates agriculture.

Data availability

Passport data for all specimens included in the molecular studies presented in this paper are available in Supplementary Data File 2. Additional records and information for the collections included in this study and for specimens added subsequently are available through the project website (https://herbaria.plants.ox.ac.uk/bol/ipomoea). DNA barcode sequences are available through GenBank and genome assemblies are available through the Oxford Repository Archive (https://doi.org/10.5287/bodleian:kepgnxzeK). Illumina raw reads are available through the Sequence Read Archive (BioProject PRJNA453382). Alignment files and other materials are available from the corresponding author upon request.

References

  1. 1.

    Brownsey, P. The Banks and Solander collections—a benchmark for understanding the New Zealand flora. J. R. Soc. N. Z. 42, 131–137 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Mabberley, D. J. Jupiter botanicus: Robert Brown of the British Museum 1st edn (Lubrecht & Cramer Ltd, 1985).

  3. 3.

    Goodwin, Z. A., Harris, D. J., Filer, D., Wood, J. R. I. & Scotland, R. W. Widespread mistaken identity in tropical plant collections. Curr. Biol. 25, R1066–R1067 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    The Science and Technology Committee Systematics and Taxonomy in Crisis (Authority of the House of Lords, 2008).

  5. 5.

    Riedel, A., Sagata, K., Suhardjono, Y. R., Tänzler, R. & Balke, M. Integrative taxonomy on the fast track - towards more sustainability in biodiversity research. Front. Zool. 10, 15 (2013).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Bradley, R. D., Bradley, L. C., Garner, H. J. & Baker, R. J. Assessing the value of natural history collections and addressing issues regarding long-term growth and care. BioScience 64, 1150–1158 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Plant Conservation Report. A Review of Progress in Implementing the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2009).

  8. 8.

    Feeley, K. J. & Silman, M. R. The data void in modeling current and future distributions of tropical species. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 626–630 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Scotland, R. W. & Wood, J. R. I. Accelerating the pace of taxonomy. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 415–416 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Bisby, F. A., Shimura, J., Ruggiero, M., Edwards, J. & Haeuser, C. Taxonomy, at the click of a mouse. Nature 418, 367–367 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Joppa, L. N., Roberts, D. L. & Pimm, S. L. The population ecology and social behaviour of taxonomists. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 551–553 (2011).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Bacher, S. Still not enough taxonomists: reply to Joppa et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 65–66 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Wheeler, Q. D. et al. Mapping the biosphere: exploring species to understand the origin, organization and sustainability of biodiversity. Syst. Biodivers. 10, 1–20 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Costello, M. J., May, R. M. & Stork, N. E. Can we name Earth’s species before they go extinct? Science 339, 413–416 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Bebber, D. P., Wood, J. R. I., Barker, C. & Scotland, R. W. Author inflation masks global capacity for species discovery in flowering plants. New Phytol. 201, 700–706 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Wortley, A. H. & Scotland, R. W. Synonymy, sampling and seed plant numbers. TAXON 53, 478–480 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Tautz, D., Arctander, P., Minelli, A., Thomas, R. H. & Vogler, A. P. DNA points the way ahead in taxonomy. Nature 418, 479–479 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Tautz, D., Arctander, P., Minelli, A., Thomas, R. H. & Vogler, A. P. A plea for DNA taxonomy. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 70–74 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Chase, M. W. et al. Phylogenetics of seed plants: an analysis of nucleotide sequences from the plastid gene rbcL. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 80, 528–580 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG II. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 141, 399–436 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Hollingsworth, P. M., Li, D.-Z., van der Bank, M. & Twyford, A. D. Telling plant species apart with DNA: from barcodes to genomes. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 371, 20150338 (2016).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    CBOL Plant Working Group et al. A DNA barcode for land plants. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 12794–12797 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Weitemier, K. et al. Hyb-Seq: combining target enrichment and genome skimming for plant phylogenomics. Appl. Plant Sci. 2, 1400042 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Frodin, D. G. History and concepts of big plant genera. TAXON 53, 753–776 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Wood, J. et al. A foundation monograph of Convolvulus L. (Convolvulaceae). PhytoKeys 51, 1–282 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Doyle, J. J. Gene trees and species trees: molecular systematics as one-character taxonomy. Syst. Bot. 17, 144 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Muñoz-Rodríguez, P. et al. Reconciling conflicting phylogenies in the origin of sweet potato and dispersal to Polynesia. Curr. Biol. 28, 1246–1256 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Baldwin, B. G. Phylogenetic utility of the internal transcribed spacers of nuclear ribosomal DNA in plants: an example from the Compositae. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 1, 3–16 (1992).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Álvarez, I. & Wendel, J. F. Ribosomal ITS sequences and plant phylogenetic inference. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 29, 417–434 (2003).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Feliner, G. N. & Rosselló, J. A. Better the devil you know? Guidelines for insightful utilization of nrDNA ITS in species-level evolutionary studies in plants. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 44, 911–919 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Miller, R. E., Rausher, M. D. & Manos, P. S. Phylogenetic systematics of Ipomoea (Convolvulaceae) based on ITS and Waxy sequences. Syst. Bot. 24, 209–227 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Huang, J., Corke, H. & Sun, M. Highly polymorphic AFLP markers as a complementary tool to ITS sequences in assessing genetic diversity and phylogenetic relationships of sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.) and its wild relatives. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 49, 541–550 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Roullier, C. et al. Disentangling the origins of cultivated sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.). PLoS ONE 8, e62707 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    De Queiroz, K. Species concepts and species delimitation. Syst. Biol. 56, 879–886 (2007).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Wood, J. R. I., Bianchini, R. S. & Fuentes, A. F. in Catálogo de las Plantas Vasculares de Bolivia (eds Jorgensen, P. M. et al.) 520–531 (Missouri Botanical Garden Press, 2015).

  36. 36.

    Wood, J. R. I. et al. Ipomoea (Convolvulaceae) in Bolivia. Kew Bull. 70, 31 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Wood, J. R. I., Martinez Ugarteche, M. T., Muñoz-Rodríguez, P. & Scotland, R. W. Additional notes on Ipomoea (Convolvulaceae) in Bolivia. Kew Bull. 73, 57 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Wood, J. R. I., Muñoz-Rodríguez, P., Williams, B. R. M. & Scotland, R. W. A foundation monograph of Ipomoea (Convolvulaceae) in the New World. Phytokeys (in the press).

  39. 39.

    Wood, J. R. I., de Arrúa, R. D., de Rojas, G. D. & Scotland, R. W. Two overlooked species of Ipomoea L. (Convolvulaceae) from Paraguay. Kew Bull. 71, 25 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Wood, J. R. I., Urbanetz, C. & Scotland, R. W. Ipomoea pantanalensis, a new species of Ipomoea L. (Convolvulaceae) from the Pantanal, Brazil. Kew Bull. 71, 6 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Wood, J. R. I. & Scotland, R. W. Notes on Ipomoea L. (Convolvulaceae) in Cuba and neighbouring islands with a checklist of species found in Cuba. Kew Bull. 72, 45 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Wood, J. R. I. & Scotland, R. W. Misapplied names, synonyms and new species of Ipomoea (Convolvulaceae) from South America. Kew Bull. 72, 9 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Wood, J. R. I. & Scotland, R. W. Notes on Ipomoea (Convolvulaceae) from the Amazonian periphery. Kew Bull. 72, 10 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Wood, J. R. I., Muñoz-Rodríguez, P., Degen, R. & Scotland, R. W. New species of Ipomoea (Convolvulaceae) from South America. PhytoKeys 88, 1–38 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Wood, J. R. I., Buril, M. T. & Scotland, R. W. Remarkable disjunctions in Ipomoea species (Convolvulaceae) from NE Brazil and Central America and their taxonomic implications. Kew Bull. 72, 44 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Wood, J. R. I., Vasconcelos, L. V., Simão-Bianchini, R. & Scotland, R. W. New species of Ipomoea (Convolvulaceae) from Bahia. Kew Bull. 72, 8 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Wilkin, P. A morphological cladistic analysis of the Ipomoeeae (Convolvulaceae). Kew Bull. 54, 853–876 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Beerling, D. J. & Osborne, C. P. The origin of the savanna biome. Glob. Change Biol. 12, 2023–2031 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Scheiter, S. et al. Fire and fire-adapted vegetation promoted C4 expansion in the late Miocene. New Phytol. 195, 653–666 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Baldwin, B. G. & Sanderson, M. J. Age and rate of diversification of the Hawaiian silversword alliance (Compositae). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 9402–9406 (1998).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Hughes, C. & Eastwood, R. Island radiation on a continental scale: exceptional rates of plant diversification after uplift of the Andes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 10334–10339 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Givnish, T. J. et al. Origin, adaptive radiation and diversification of the Hawaiian lobeliads (Asterales: Campanulaceae). Proc. R. Soc. B 276, 407–416 (2009).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Koenen, E. J. M. et al. Exploring the tempo of species diversification in legumes. South Afr. J. Bot. 89, 19–30 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Zhang, D., Cervantes, J., Huamán, Z., Carey, E. & Ghislain, M. Assessing genetic diversity of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.) cultivars from tropical America using AFLP. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 47, 659–665 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Roullier, C., Kambouo, R., Paofa, J., McKey, D. & Lebot, V. On the origin of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.) genetic diversity in New Guinea, a secondary centre of diversity. Heredity 110, 594–604 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Yang, J. et al. Haplotype-resolved sweet potato genome traces back its hexaploidization history. Nat. Plants 3, 696–703 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Wu, S. et al. Genome sequences of two diploid wild relatives of cultivated sweetpotato reveal targets for genetic improvement. Nat. Commun. 9, 4580 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Austin, D. F. The Ipomoea batatas complex-I. Taxonomy. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 105, 114–129 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Harris, D. J. & Wortley, A. H. Monograph of Aframomum (Zingiberaceae) (The American Society of Plant Taxonomists, 2018).

  60. 60.

    Drew, L. W. Are we losing the science of taxonomy? As need grows, numbers and training are failing to keep up. BioScience 61, 942–946 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Thiers, B. Index Herbariorum: A Global Directory of Public Herbaria and Associated Staff (New York Botanical Garden’s Virtual Herbarium, 2018).

  62. 62.

    Katoh, K. MAFFT: a novel method for rapid multiple sequence alignment based on fast Fourier transform. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, 3059–3066 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Katoh, K. & Standley, D. M. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30, 772–780 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Stamatakis, A. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30, 1312–1313 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Price, M. N., Dehal, P. S. & Arkin, A. P. FastTree 2 – approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS ONE 5, e9490 (2010).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Ronquist, F. et al. MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Syst. Biol. 61, 539–542 (2012).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Bruen, T. C. A simple and robust statistical test for detecting the presence of recombination. Genetics 172, 2665–2681 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Sanderson, M. J. Estimating absolute rates of molecular evolution and divergence times: a penalized likelihood approach. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19, 101–109 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Smith, S. A. & O’Meara, B. C. treePL: divergence time estimation using penalized likelihood for large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 28, 2689–2690 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Hohna, S. et al. RevBayes: Bayesian phylogenetic inference using graphical models and an interactive model-specification language. Syst. Biol. 65, 726–736 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Rabosky, D. L. Automatic detection of key innovations, rate shifts, and diversity-dependence on phylogenetic trees. PLoS ONE 9, e89543 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the financial support of The Leverhulme Trust for our Ipomoea Foundation Monograph project and the University of Oxford through The John Fell Fund for travel and sequencing costs. P.M.-R. was funded by a BBSRC scholarship granted through the Interdisciplinary Bioscience DTP Programme and by the University of Oxford Global Challenges Research Fund; he also received additional funding from a Santander Travel Award and from the Synthesys project (FR-TAF-6575). J.R.I.W. received travel awards from the Synthesis project to visit Paris (FR-TAF), Madrid (ES-TAF) and Stockholm (SE-TAF) and B.R.M.W. received a Synthesis travel award to visit Leiden (NF-TAF). R.W.S. and P.M.-R. acknowledge funding from the BBSRC GCRF-IAA fund (BB/GCRF-IAA/16 and BB/GCRF-IAA/17/16). T.C. was funded by a NERC scholarship granted through the Environmental Research DTP Programme. We thank all herbarium curators for granting access to their collections. We thank T. Wells for his comments on the genomic analyses. We also thank all colleagues who contributed to this project through fieldwork and continuous discussion (see the list in Supplementary Information, Section 7).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Conceptualization, supervision and project administration was performed by R.W.S. Funding acquisition was performed by R.W.S., J.R.I.W., P.M.-R. and T.C. Methodology was defined by R.W.S., J.R.I.W., A.L., S.K., K.W., B.K., D.H., D.F., P.M.-R. and T.C. Resources were obtained by J.R.I.W., B.R.M.W., P.M.-R., A.S., Z.G., N.L.A. and M.D.R. Formal analysis and investigation were performed by P.M.-R., T.C. and J.R.I.W. Writing of the original draft was performed by P.M.-R., R.W.S., T.C. and J.R.I.W., and writing and review of the final draft was performed by all authors. Visualization and image design was performed by P.M.-R.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert W. Scotland.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Plants thanks Matt Lavin, Quentin Wheeler and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 DNA barcode sequences used and statistics.

3,035 DNA barcode sequences were obtained from herbarium specimens spanning the last two and a half centuries. 88.5% specimens were collected in the last 50 years and 22 samples came from pre-20th century collections.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Use of ITS phylogeny in the taxonomic process.

We used the ITS phylogeny of Ipomoea as a single taxonomic character. a, We inferred a ML tree that included, when possible, multiple accessions of each putative species and interpreted it in three distinct ways, monophyly of accessions, non-monophyly and distantly related, non-monophyly but closely related. b, accessions of a given species are monophyletic (black triangles). Also, two existing species (I. piurensis and I. acanthocarpa) that we considered conspecific formed a clade of accessions that are intermingled (dashed-line green box), confirming our hypothesis. c, accessions of a given species are non-monophyletic and appear in very different parts of the Ipomoea phylogeny. In the example shown, our hypothesis based on morphology was a monophyletic I. squamosa but the ITS tree split the specimens, with some forming a clade in clade D and others forming a clade in clade A which is very distantly related to clade D. In such cases, we re-examined the morphology and usually found a mis-identified specimen(s). In other cases, specimens were similar on herbarium sheets but could be distinguished on closer inspection. In this case, the ITS tree alerted us to re-examine and have a closer look at specimens and subsequently describe the new species I. cryptica. de, in some parts of the ITS phylogeny there was a lack of resolution, with only a small number of subclades recognised and generally lacking support. Here we show an example with the clade including sweet potato. In such cases, we did not follow the ITS phylogeny but relied on morphology and genomic data when available. This decision was based on the fact that f, genomic phylogenies for the sweet potato clade demonstrate that nearly all species are monophyletic.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Summary genomic phylogenies of Ipomoea.

Summary phylogeny of Ipomoea inferred from A) 605 putative single-copy nuclear coding regions using Astral-II and B) whole chloroplast genomes using Maximum Likelihood showing the main clades identified in the genus. See Supplementary Discussion, Phylogeny of Ipomoea. Complete phylogenies in Supplementary data files 37.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Patterns of diversification-rate-variation in nuclear time-calibrated phylogenies inferred with smoothing values that differ from the optimum.

The coloured tree in each sub-figure represents the pattern of diversification-rate-variation with the highest posterior probability and the posterior probability is shown in the top left corner of each sub-figure. If present, alternative patterns of diversification-rate-variation that have a posterior probability of greater than 0.05 are indicated with coloured arrows, with the position of the arrow indicating the position of the diversification rate shift. Arrows with the same colour indicate a single set of diversification rate shifts that have a specific posterior probability (indicated next to one arrow for each colour). a) A single rate shift at the origin of the diverse South America and Central American clades has a posterior probability of 0.98. b) A single rate shift at the origin of the diverse South America and Central American clades has a posterior probability of 0.98. c) A single rate shift at the origin of the diverse South America and Central American clades has a posterior probability of 0.98.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Patterns of diversification-rate-variation in the chloroplast time-calibrated phylogeny inferred with the optimum smoothing value.

The coloured tree, posterior probabilities, and coloured arrows are indicated according to the same conventions as Extended Data Fig. 4. A single rate increase near the origin of the diverse South American clade has a posterior probability of 0.8. Two alternative patterns of diversification-rate-variation, where there are rate increases on immediately ancestral branches, have posterior probabilities of 0.11 and 0.058.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Patterns of diversification-rate-variation in chloroplast time-calibrated phylogenies inferred with smoothing values that differ from the optimum.

The coloured trees, posterior probabilities, and coloured arrows are indicated according to the same conventions as Extended Data Fig. 4. a) A model with no discrete rate shifts has a posterior probability of 0.54. Two alternative patterns of diversification-rate-variation, where there are rate increases near the origin of the diverse South American clade, have posterior probabilities of 0.34 and 0.058 respectively. b) A single rate shift near the origin of the diverse South American clade has a posterior probability of 0.51. An alternative pattern of diversification-rate-variation, where there is a rate increase on immediately ancestral branch, has a posterior probability of 0.088. c) A single rate shift at the origin of the diverse South American clade has a posterior probability of 0.81. An alternative pattern of diversification-rate-variation, where there is a rate increase on an immediately ancestral branch, has a posterior probability of 0.11.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Biome occupancy and growth habit of sampled taxa for the clades with elevated speciation rates.

A section of the time-calibrated phylogeny shown in Fig. 4, for which elevated speciation rates were inferred. Biome occupancy and growth habit of sampled taxa are indicated. This indicates that there are likely to have been multiple shifts into and out of fire-adapted cerrado-type habitats, and multiple shifts between different growth forms amongst recently diverged taxa.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Discussion, Supplementary Tables and Supplementary References.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Data 1

GBIF data of Ipomoea.

Supplementary Data 2

Passport data of all accessions used in this study.

Supplementary Data 3

ITS phylogeny of Ipomoea.

Supplementary Data 4

Nuclear phylogeny of Ipomoea inferred from gene trees using the coalescent.

Supplementary Data 5

Nuclear phylogeny of Ipomoea inferred from concatenated alignments.

Supplementary Data 6

Chloroplast phylogeny of Ipomoea inferred using Bayesian inference.

Supplementary Data 7

Chloroplast phylogeny of Ipomoea inferred using maximum likelihood.

Supplementary Data 8

Chloroplast phylogeny of Ipomoea inferred using parsimony.

Supplementary Data 9

Chloroplast phylogeny used to estimate diversity existing within the crop.

Supplementary Data 10

Nuclear phylogeny used to estimate diversity existing within the crop.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Muñoz-Rodríguez, P., Carruthers, T., Wood, J.R.I. et al. A taxonomic monograph of Ipomoea integrated across phylogenetic scales. Nat. Plants 5, 1136–1144 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-019-0535-4

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing