Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Dataset . 2023
License: CC 0
Data sources: ZENODO
DRYAD
Dataset . 2023
License: CC 0
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Data from: Reassessment of morphological species delimitations in the Cyperus margaritaceus-niveus complex using morphometrics

Authors: Xanthos, Martin;

Data from: Reassessment of morphological species delimitations in the Cyperus margaritaceus-niveus complex using morphometrics

Abstract

Background and aims – The Cyperus margaritaceus-niveus complex is a group of ten tropical species from sub-Saharan Africa and Madagascar: C. karlschumanii, C. kibweanus, C. ledermannii, C. margaritaceus, C. niveus, C. nduru, C. obtusiflorus, C. somaliensis, C. sphaerocephalus, and C. tisserantii. They are characterised by a capitate head of white-yellow spikelets and modified culm bases and recent molecular analysis puts them in as a distinct clade. The group lacks a modern taxonomic revision, and the taxa described in the Flora treatments of the past 50 years differ considerably in their circumscription. In this study, morphometric analyses are used to test species limits to establish more stable morphological delimitations of the taxa. Material and methods – An examination of 15 morphological characters on 489 herbarium specimens was carried out and the data was analysed using Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) with cross-validation, and Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis. Cyperus kibweanus was not further considered due to lack of material. Key results – Both PCA and LDA showed varying degrees of overlap in the nine remaining taxa, with no single group clearly separating in multivariate space. However, cross-validation clearly showed C. margaritaceus as a distinct entity despite its overwhelming presence in the PCA. Both LDA and CART failed to separate C. niveus as a distinct group as its specimens were dispersed among the other groups. Differing results were obtained for other taxa depending on the type of analysis. C. margaritaceus, C. nduru, and C. sphaerocephalus were divided into two groups by CART but re-examination of the specimens does not definitively support the idea that these infraspecific groups represent separate taxa. Conclusions – The results show that eight morphospecies are recognised by LDA and six morphospecies by CART. Characters used to separate the taxa in Flora treatments scored high loadings in the analysis showing their high taxonomic utility value. The methods used can be applied to resolving other complexes in the Cyperaceae.

Please see the README document and the accompanying published article: Xanthos, M., Mayo, S.J. & Larridon (2022) Reassessment of morphological species delimitations in the Cyperus margaritaceus-niveus complex using morphometrics. Plant Ecology and Evolution. 156 (1): 112-127.

The programs and software required to open the data files are as follows: R Studio 2022.07.02 Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64), AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko), QtWebEngine/5.12.8, Chrome/69.0.3497.128, Safari/537.36

Related Organizations
Keywords

Species complex, Cyperaceae, Morphometrics, FOS: Natural sciences, Taxonomy

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    OpenAIRE UsageCounts
    Usage byUsageCounts
    visibility views 5
    download downloads 4
  • 5
    views
    4
    downloads
    Powered byOpenAIRE UsageCounts
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
visibility
download
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
views
OpenAIRE UsageCountsViews provided by UsageCounts
downloads
OpenAIRE UsageCountsDownloads provided by UsageCounts
0
Average
Average
Average
5
4
Related to Research communities