Resolving a phylogenetic hypothesis for parrots: implications from systematics to conservation

ABSTRACT

Advances in sequencing technology and phylogenetics have revolutionised avian biology by providing an evolutionary framework for studying natural groupings. In the parrots (Psittaciformes), DNA-based studies have led to a reclassification of clades, yet substantial gaps remain in the data gleaned from genetic information. Here we provide an overview of published genetic data of parrots, characterise sampling depth across the phylogeny, and evaluate support for existing systematic treatments. We inferred a concatenated tree with 307 species from a 30-gene supermatrix. We recovered well-supported relationships among recently proposed clades. Taxonomic groups were more stable towards the base of the tree and increased sampling will be required to clarify relationships at the tips, particularly below the generic level. Only a third of species have been sampled intraspecifically in population genetic or phylogeographic surveys. Intraspecific sampling has not been geographically or phylogenetically even across Psittaciformes, especially poor in the cockatoos, Southeast Asia, and parts of Australo-Papua. Threatened species are poorly sampled in the Neotropics. We highlight where effort should be focused to improve sampling based on geography and conservation status. In sum, phylogenetic relationships among the major parrot clades are robust, but relationships within and between genera and species provide opportunities for future investigations.

KEYWORDS:

• Psittaciformes
• supermatrix
• biodiversity
• phylogeography
• conservation genetics
• IUCN Red List

View correction statement:

Corrigendum

Acknowledgements

We thank R. Heinsohn for inviting our contribution to this issue. We acknowledge our great debt to all workers who originally produced the data used in this study. We thank R. DeSalle, A. Paasch, A. Buczek, M. Ingala, D. DeCarle, J. Tejada, and A. DeRenzis for support during this work. We also thank K. Buchanan and T. Wright for reviews, as well as L. R. Moreira, L. Musher, W. M. Mauck III, L. A. Coelho, A. V. Rocha, M. Andersen, J. Cracraft, and J. Klicka for comments and suggestions.

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.