Format: ORAL

Ezgi Ogutcen1,2, Paola de Lima Ferreira1,3, Natascha D. Wagner4, Jing Vir Leong1,5, Gibson Aubona1,5, Jeannine Cavender-Bares6, Jan Michlek1,7, Lucy Schroeder6, Brian E. Sedio8,9, Radim Vaut10,11, Martin Volf1,5

1 Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Ceske Budejovice, CZ 2 Department of Environment and Biodiversity, Paris Lodron University of Salzburg, Salzburg, AT 3 Department of Biology, Aarhus University, Aarhus, DK 4 Department of Systematics, Biodiversity and Evolution of Plants, University of Goettingen, Göttingen, DE 5 Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, Ceske Budejovice, CZ 6 Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA 7 Institute of Microbiology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Centre Algatech, Trebon, CZ 8 Department of Integrative Biology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, US 9 Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Apartado 0843–03092, Ancón, PA 10 Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, Palacký University in Olomouc, Olomouc, CZ 11 Department of Biology, Faculty of Education, Palacký University in Olomouc, Olomouc, CZ

With over 1,400 species, the Salicaceae exhibit broad distribution across tropical and temperate forests. Despite ongoing efforts in genome-based approaches, the family lacks a comprehensive phylogeny due to high rates of hybridization and polyploidy. With a sampling of 75 species, our study aimed to reconstruct an extensive Salicaceae phylogeny using whole-genome sequence (WGS) data. We utilized a set of 23,393 RAD-Seq loci from Salix as an initial reference library for mapping. The resulting matrix was then used in a second round of mapping, thereby extending the reads recovered from the main WGS dataset. Additionally, we extracted two targeted-capture subsets from our WGS data: the Angiosperms353 and a Salicaceae-specific gene sets.Applying various quality-trimming parameters, we compared phylogenetic informativeness across datasets. We performed ML-based phylogenetic reconstructions using supermatrix and coalescent-based supertree approaches. The length and the number of loci recovered from the WGS data varied between different filtering schemes. Compared to the WGS datasets, both targeted-capture datasets have longer loci with more parsimony informative sites. For both targeted-capture datasets, locus recovery rates were higher for the ingroup samples than the outgroups. Overall, phylogenetic reconstructions revealed consistent family-level topologies, highlighting the monophyly of the family and detailed relationships within. In contrast, the relationships within Salix showed lower support and some incongruence across different methods and datasets. In most phylogenies, the subgenera Chamaetia and Vetrix were recovered as monophyletic, but monophyly of the subgenus Salix was not supported in any of the phylogenies. Our study provides a thorough comparison of various genome-based sequencing datasets and phylogenetic reconstruction methods, while enhancing our understanding of the Salicaceae evolution by providing valuable insights into the complex relationships within the family.