生物多样性 ›› 2026, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (2): 25373.  DOI: 10.17520/biods.2025373  cstr: 32101.14.biods.2025373

• • 上一篇    下一篇

垂枝柏复合体物种界定研究

程家劲1,2, 马仁义3*, 毛康珊1,2*   

  1. 1.生物资源与生态环境教育部重点实验室,山地植物迁地保护与资源利用实验室,四川大学生命科学学院,成都 610064;2.成都市植物园,成都 610083; 3.云南省林业和草原科学院云南省高黎贡山生物多样性重点实验室,昆明,650201;
  • 出版日期:2026-02-20
  • 通讯作者: 马仁义

Species boundaries of Juniperus recurva complex

Jiajing Cheng1,2, Renyi Ma3*, Kangshan Mao1,2*   

  1. 1 Key Laboratory of Bio-Resource and Eco-Environment of Ministry of Education, Laboratory for Ex Situ Conservation and Resource Utilization of Mountain Plants, College of Life Sciences, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610064, China 

    2 Chengdu Botanical Garden, Chengdu 610083, China 

    3 Yunnan Key Laboratory of Biodiversity of Gaoligong Mountain, Kunming 650201, China

  • Online:2026-02-20
  • Contact: Renyi Ma

摘要:

物种是生物学研究和生物多样性保护与管理的基本单元。近年来,整合物种概念逐渐广受青睐,其强调近缘物种之间划分时应该满足多方面的证据。小果垂枝柏(Juniperus coxii)原为垂枝柏(J. recurva)的变种,后被提升为独立物种,但目前尚缺乏群体水平的证据支持。本文覆盖横断山-喜马拉雅东部区域采集垂枝柏复合体26个居群197个个体样品,一方面基于叶绿体DNA数据划分谱系,另一方面开展代表性居群形态学统计分析和生态位分化分析,并整合本文的样本采集地点和已发布采集地点的环境气候因子开展生态位模拟,旨在更准确地厘清两个分类群的界限。叶绿体单倍型网络分析将垂枝柏复合体分成东部和西部两个谱系,地理分布上大致以错那县为界;两个谱系在形态上存在一定程度的差异,但重叠度较高;东、西部谱系生态位存在显著分化。以上证据支持将错那县以西的居群划分为垂枝柏,而将错那县以东的居群应划分为小果垂枝柏。本文初步厘清了垂枝柏和小果垂枝柏之间的物种界限,为横断山-喜马拉雅区域的物种界定研究提供新案例,对于该地区垂枝柏复合体的生物多样性保护与管理具有重要意义。

关键词: 垂枝柏, 小果垂枝柏, 物种界定, 整合物种概念

Abstract

Background & Aim: Species represent fundamental entities in biological research. In recent years, the Integrative Species Concept has gained increasing popularity. It emphasizes that the delimitation of closely related species should be based on multiple lines of evidence. J. coxii, initially described as a variety of J. recurva, was subsequently elevated to species rank by Adams et al. Nevertheless, population-level evidence supporting this taxonomic classification remains scarce. 

Methods: To clarify the boundaries between two taxa within the J. recurva complex from the eastern Hengduan-Himalayan region, chloroplast DNA sequences were obtained from 197 individuals across 26 populations for lineage delimitation. While the molecular data delineated the phylogenetic framework, statistical morphological analyses and niche differentiation assessments were further conducted on representative populations. Additionally, ecological niche modeling was performed by integrating environmental climatic factors from both our sampling sites and previously published occurrence records. 

Results: Chloroplast haplotype network analysis has divided the J. recurva complex into two lineages: eastern and western. Geographically, these lineages have been roughly separated by Cona County. No significant statistical discontinuity has been observed in their morphology, although morphological variation has been found among individuals. The ecological niches of the eastern and western lineages have shown significant differentiation, but some overlap has remained. 

Conclusion: The above evidence supports classifying populations west of Cona County as J. recurva, while eastern populations represent J. coxii. However, as this study relies exclusively on chloroplast DNA data, further research employing nuclear genome-derived molecular markers is warranted.

Key words: Juniperus recurva, Juniperus coxii, species delimitation, integrative species concept