How Advances in Phylogenetic Methods Change Our Understanding of the Evolutionary Emergence of Land Plants (Embryophyta)

Abstract

The origin and subsequent evolution of land plants have transformed the terrestrial environment, with their emergence leading to profound changes to the Earth's ecosystem, climate and the evolution of life. Embryophyta (land plants) evolved once, so to understand this event we need an accurate phylogeny of their four principal lineages: bryophytes (mosses, hornworts, liverworts) and the more complex vascular tracheophytes (e.g. ferns, conifers and flowering plants). Phylogenetic inference has supported seven different hypotheses of how these four lineages are related, each with different implications for the anatomy, genome and physiology of the ancestral embryophyte. Recent developments in phylogenetics mean that we cannot assume that the first plants to live on land resembled modern bryophytes, and that the ancestral embryophyte may have been more complex than previously thought.

Key Concepts

  • Land plants include flowering plants, conifers, cycads, ferns, lycophytes and mosses that contribute a considerable proportion of living biomass.
  • Before land plants, there was a barren, rocky terrestrial environment with a minimal, superficial biological cover.
  • Embryophyta (land plants) evolved once from an aquatic algal ancestor in the green clade Streptophyta.
  • After their emergence, embryophytes led to the development of soils, changes in the global climate and affected the evolution of other groups, including animals and fungi.
  • The early‐diverging topology of the land plants consists of the bryophytes (liverworts, mosses and hornworts) and the tracheophytes.
  • It is generally assumed the biology of bryophytes (e.g. small size, haploid‐dominated life cycle, no vascular tissue) is representative of the ancestral embryophyte, and tracheophytes subsequently acquired their complexity.
  • Studies have supported seven alternative arrangements between the four lineages (liverworts, hornworts, mosses, tracheophytes) of land plants.
  • Despite the development of sophisticated phylogenetic techniques and new sources of data, there has been a continuous debate around the phylogeny of early land plants.
  • Many results do not support a natural grouping of bryophytes, indicating they do not share a single recent ancestor (e.g. they are paraphyletic). This arrangement suggests that the bryophytes emerged sequentially, and the tracheophytes are derived.
  • Recent research shows the topology of sequentially diverging bryophyte lineages and the tracheophytes is the result of model biases. More recent studies support the monophyly of bryophytes by correcting for the model biases, with a grouping of the mosses and liverworts in a clade called Setaphyta.
  • The new topology with an initial split between vascular plants and a natural group of bryophytes has important evolutionary implications. We cannot accept that the ancestral embryophyte resembled a modern bryophyte in biology. The new topology with a more ambiguous relationship to land plants indicates that the ancestral embryophyte could have been more complex than a modern bryophyte.

Keywords: land plants; embryophyta; evolution; phylogeny

Figure 1. Seven topologies of the arrangement of hornworts, liverworts, mosses (the bryophytes) and the vascular plants have been supported in scientific papers. To understand the formative episode at the origin of land plants it is necessary to clarify these relationships.
Figure 2. The fossil record for early land plants is incomplete. There is evidence of body fossils of the taxon Cooksonia in the Silurian period, and evidence of embryophyte spores pre‐dating this to around 469 Ma. However, divergence ages estimated from the molecular clock indicate that the ages of embryophytes are even older, so to understand this event we need a resolved phylogeny.
close

References

Bar‐On YM , Phillips R and Milo R (2018) The biomass distribution on Earth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115: 6506–6511.

Bowman JL , Kohchi T , Yamato KT , et al. (2017) Insights into land plant evolution garnered from the Marchantia polymorpha genome. Cell 171: 287–304.

Cox CJ , Li B , Foster PG , Embley MT and Civan P (2014) Conflicting phylogenies for early land plants are caused by composition biases among synonymous substitutions. Systematic Biology 63: 272–279.

Cronquist A (1971) Introductory Botany. 2nd edn. Harper and Row: New York.

Dayhoff M (1972) A model of evolutionary change in proteins. Atlas of Protein Sequence and Structure 5: 89–99.

Dayhoff M , Schwartz R and Orcutt B (1978) A model of evolutionary change in proteins. In: Dayhoff MO and Ech RV (eds) Atlas of Protein Sequence and Structure, pp 345–352. National Biomedical Research Foundation Silver Spring.

de Sousa F , Foster PG , Donoghue PCJ , Schneider H and Cox CJ (2019) Nuclear protein phylogenies support the monophyly of the three bryophyte groups (Bryophyta Schimp.). New Phytologist 222: 565–575.

Delwiche CF , Goodman CA and Chang C (2017) Land plant model systems branch out. Cell 171: 265–266.

Donoghue PCJ and Benton MJ (2007) Rocks and clocks: calibrating the Tree of Life using fossils and molecules. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22: 424–431.

dos Reis M , Thawornwattana Y , Angelis K , et al. (2015) Uncertainty in the timing of origin of animals and the limits of precision in molecular timescales. Current Biology 25: 2939–2950.

Felsenstein J (1978) Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Systematic Zoology 27: 401–410.

Felsenstein J (1981) Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach. Journal of Molecular Evolution 17: 368–376.

Felsenstein J (2004) Inferring Phylogenies. Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, MA.

Foster PG (2004) Modeling compositional heterogeneity. Systematic Biology 53: 485–495.

Goldman N , Anderson JP and Rodrigo AG (2000) Likelihood‐based tests of topologies in phylogenetics. Systematic Biology 49: 652–670.

Goloboff PA , Torres A and Arias JS (2018) Weighted parsimony outperforms other methods of phylogenetic inference under models appropriate for morphology. Cladistics 34: 407–437.

Graham LE and Gray J (2001) The origin, morphology and ecophysiology of early embryophytes. In: Gensel PG and Edwards D (eds) Plants invade the land: evolutionary and environmental perspectives, pp 140–158. Columbia University Press: New York, USA.

Guo C , Edwards D , Wu P , et al. (2012) Review of palaeobotany and palynology Riccardiothallus devonicus gen. et sp. nov., the earliest simple thalloid liverwort from the lower devonian of Yunnan, China. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 176–177: 35–40.

Hasegawa M , Kishino H and Yano T (1985) Dating of the human‐ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA. Journal of Molecular Evolution 22: 160–174.

Jones DT , Taylor WR and Thornton JM (1992) The rapid generation of mutation data matrices from protein sequences. Bioinformatics 8: 275–282.

Jukes TH and Cantor CR (1969) Evolution of protein molecules. Mammalian Protein Metabolism 3: 132.

Karol KG , Arumuganathan K , Boore JL , et al. (2010) Complete plastome sequences of Equisetum arvense and Isoetes flaccida: implications for phylogeny and plastid genome evolution of early land plant lineages. BMC Evolutionary Biology 10: 1–16.

Kenrick P and Crane PR (1997) The origin and early evolution of plants on land. Nature 389: 33–39.

Kimura M (1980) A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. Journal of Molecular Evolution 16: 111–120.

Kishino H and Hasegawa M (1989) Evaluation of the maximum likelihood estimate of the evolutionary tree topologies from DNA sequence data, and the branching order in hominoidea. Journal of Molecular Evolution 29: 170–179.

Lartillot N and Phillippe H (2004) A Bayesian mixture model for across‐Site heterogeneities in the amino‐acid replacement process. Systematic Biology 21: 1095–1109.

Lartillot N and Philippe H (2004) A Bayesian mixture model for across‐site heterogeneities in the amino‐acid replacement process. Molecular biology and evolution 21: 1095–1109.

Le SQ and Gascuel O (2008) An improved general amino acid replacement matrix. Molecular Biology and Evolution 25: 1307–1320.

Mishler BD and Churchill SP (1984) A cladistic approach to the phylogeny of the “Bryophytes”. Brittonia 36: 406–424.

Morris JL , Puttick MN , Clark JW , et al. (2018) The timescale of early land plant evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115: E2274–E2283.

Nishiyama T , Wolf PG and Kugita M (2004) Chloroplast phylogeny indicates that bryophytes are monophyletic. Molecular Biology and Evolution 21: 1813–1819.

O'Reilly JE , Puttick MN , Parry L , et al. (2016) Bayesian methods outperform parsimony but at the expense of precision in the estimation of phylogeny from discrete morphological data. Biology Letters 12: 20160081.

Parenti LR (1980) A phylogenetic analysis of the land plants. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 13: 225–242.

Philippe H , Zhou Y , Brinkmann H , Rodrigue N and Delsuc F (2005) Heterotachy and long‐branch attraction in phylogenetics. BMC Evolutionary Biology 8: 1–8.

Puttick MN , O'Reilly JE , Tanner AR , et al. (2017) Uncertain‐tree: discriminating among competing approaches to the phylogenetic analysis of phenotype data. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 284: 20162290.

Puttick MN , Morris JL , Williams TA , et al. (2018) The interrelationships of land plants and the nature of the ancestral embryophyte. Current Biology 28: 733–745.

Qiu YL and Palmer JD (1999) Phylogeny of early land plants: insights from genes and genomes. Trends in plant Science 4: 26–30.

Qiu Y , Li L , Wang B , et al. (2006) The deepest divergences in land plants inferred from phylogenomic evidence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103: 15511–15516.

Quang LS , Gascuel O and Lartillot N (2008) Empirical profile mixture models for phylogenetic reconstruction. Bioinformatics 24: 2317–2323.

Rubinstein CV , Gerrienne P , Astini RA and Steemans P (2010) Rapid report early middle ordovician evidence for land plants in Argentina (eastern Gondwana). New Phytologist 188: 365–369.

Scotland RW , Olmstead RG and Bennett JR (2003) Phylogeny reconstruction: the role of morphology. Systematic Biology 52: 539–548.

Shimodaira H and Hasegawa M (1999) Multiple comparisons of log‐likelihoods with applications to phylogenetic inference. Molecular Biology and Evolution 16: 1114–1116.

Shimodaira H (2002) An approximately unbiased test of phylogenetic tree selection. Systematic Biology 51: 492–508.

Smoot EL , Jansen RK and Taylor TN (1981) A phylogenetic analysis of the land plants: a botanical commentary. Taxon 30: 65–67.

Steel M and Rodrigo A (2008) Maximum likelihood supertrees. Systematic Biology 57: 243–250.

Tavaré S (1986) Some probabilistic and statistical problems in the analysis of DNA sequences. Lectures on Mathematics in the Life Sciences 17: 57–86.

Whelan S and Goldman N (1995) A general empirical model of protein evolution derived from multiple protein families using a maximum‐likelihood approach. Molecular Biology and Evolution 18: 691–699.

Wickett NJ , Mirarab S , Nguyen N , et al. (2014) Phylotranscriptomic analysis of the origin and early diversification of land plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111: E4859–E4868.

Yang Z (1994) Maximum likelihood phylogenetic estimation from DNA sequences with variable rates over sites: approximate methods. Journal of Molecular Evolution 39: 306–314.

Yang Z (2014) Molecular Evolution: A Statistical Approach. OUP: Oxford.

Further Reading

Cox CJ (2018) Land plant molecular phylogenetics: a review with comments on evaluating incongruence among phylogenies. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 37: 113–127.

Rensing SA (2018) Great moments in evolution: the conquest of land by plants. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 42: 49–54.

Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

How to Cite close
Puttick, Mark N, Morris, Jennifer L, Williams, Tom A, Edwards, Dianne, Kenrick, Paul, Pressel, Silvia, Wellman, Charles H, Schneider, Harald, Pisani, David, and Donoghue, Philip CJ(Feb 2020) How Advances in Phylogenetic Methods Change Our Understanding of the Evolutionary Emergence of Land Plants (Embryophyta). In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0003361.pub2]