Supporting Spartina: Interdisciplinary perspective shows spartina as a distinct solid genus

Thumbnail Image
Date
2019-09-19
Authors
Bortolus, Alejandro
Adam, Paul
Adams, Janine B.
Ainouche, Malika L.
Ayres, Debra
Bertness, Mark D.
Bouma, Tjeerd J.
Bruno, John F.
Caçador, Isabel
Carlton, James T.
Castillo, Jesus M.
Costa, Cesar S.B.
Davy, Anthony J.
Deegan, Linda A.
Duarte, Bernardo
Figueroa, Enrique
Gerwein, Joel
Gray, Alan J.
Grosholz, Edwin D.
Hacker, Sally D.
Hughes, A. Randall
Mateos‐Naranjo, Enrique
Mendelssohn, Irving A.
Morris, James T.
Muñoz‐Rodríguez, Adolfo F.
Nieva, Francisco J.J.
Levin, Lisa A.
Li, Bo
Liu, Wenwen
Pennings, Steven C.
Pickart, Andrea
Redondo‐Gómez, Susana
Richardson, David M.
Salmon, Armel
Schwindt, Evangelina
Silliman, Brian
Sotka, Erik E.
Stace, Clive
Sytsma, Mark
Temmerman, Stijn
Turner, R. Eugene
Valiela, Ivan
Weinstein, Michael P.
Weis, Judith S.
Alternative Title
Date Created
Location
DOI
10.1002/ecy.2863
Related Materials
Replaces
Replaced By
Keywords
Botanical nomenclature
Coastal ecology
Cordgrass
Integrative analysis
Interdisciplinary decisions
Salt marsh
Abstract
In 2014, a DNA‐based phylogenetic study confirming the paraphyly of the grass subtribe Sporobolinae proposed the creation of a large monophyletic genus Sporobolus, including (among others) species previously included in the genera Spartina, Calamovilfa, and Sporobolus. Spartina species have contributed substantially (and continue contributing) to our knowledge in multiple disciplines, including ecology, evolutionary biology, molecular biology, biogeography, experimental ecology, biological invasions, environmental management, restoration ecology, history, economics, and sociology. There is no rationale so compelling to subsume the name Spartina as a subgenus that could rival the striking, global iconic history and use of the name Spartina for over 200 yr. We do not agree with the subjective arguments underlying the proposal to change Spartina to Sporobolus. We understand the importance of both the objective phylogenetic insights and of the subjective formalized nomenclature and hope that by opening this debate we will encourage positive feedback that will strengthen taxonomic decisions with an interdisciplinary perspective. We consider that the strongly distinct, monophyletic clade Spartina should simply and efficiently be treated as the genus Spartina.
Description
Author Posting. © Ecological Society of America, 2019. This article is posted here by permission of Ecological Society of America for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Ecology (2019): e02863, doi:10.1002/ecy.2863.
Embargo Date
Citation
Bortolus, A., Adam, P., Adams, J. B., Ainouche, M. L., Ayres, D., Bertness, M. D., Bouma, T. J., Bruno, J. F., Cacador, I., Carlton, J. T., Castillo, J. M., Costa, C. S. B., Davy, A. J., Deegan, L., Duarte, B., Figueroa, E., Gerwein, J., Gray, A. J., Grosholz, E. D., Hacker, S. D., Hughes, A. R., Mateos-Naranjo, E., Mendelssohn, I. A., Morris, J. T., Munoz-Rodriguez, A. F., Nieva, F. J. J., Levin, L. A., Li, B., Liu, W., Pennings, S. C., Pickart, A., Redondo-Gomez, S., Richardson, D. M., Salmon, A., Schwindt, E., Silliman, B. R., Sotka, E. E., Stace, C., Sytsma, M., Temmerman, S., Turner, R. E., Valiela, I., Weinstein, M. P., & Weis, J. S. (2019). Supporting Spartina: Interdisciplinary perspective shows spartina as a distinct solid genus. Ecology, e02863.
Cruises
Cruise ID
Cruise DOI
Vessel Name