DOI: 10.1126/science.1157704 , 1763 (2008); 320Science

et al.Shannon J. Hackett,Evolutionary HistoryA Phylogenomic Study of Birds Reveals Their

www.sciencemag.org (this information is current as of June 26, 2008 ):The following resources related to this article are available online at

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/320/5884/1763version of this article at:

including high-resolution figures, can be found in the onlineUpdated information and services,

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/320/5884/1763/DC1 can be found at: Supporting Online Material

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/320/5884/1763#otherarticles, 4 of which can be accessed for free: cites 24 articlesThis article

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/collection/evolutionEvolution

: subject collectionsThis article appears in the following

http://www.sciencemag.org/about/permissions.dtl in whole or in part can be found at: this article

permission to reproduce of this article or about obtaining reprintsInformation about obtaining

registered trademark of AAAS. is aScience2008 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science; all rights reserved. The title

CopyrightAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. (print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published weekly, except the last week in December, by theScience

on

June

26,

200

8 ww

w.sc

ienc

emag

.org

Down

load

ed fr

om

A Phylogenomic Study of BirdsReveals Their Evolutionary HistoryShannon J. Hackett,1* Rebecca T. Kimball,2*† Sushma Reddy,1* Rauri C. K. Bowie,1,3,4Edward L. Braun,2 Michael J. Braun,5,6 Jena L. Chojnowski,2 W. Andrew Cox,2Kin-Lan Han,2,5,6 John Harshman,1,7 Christopher J. Huddleston,5 Ben D. Marks,8Kathleen J. Miglia,9 William S. Moore,9 Frederick H. Sheldon,8 David W. Steadman,10Christopher C. Witt,8,11 Tamaki Yuri2,5

Deep avian evolutionary relationships have been difficult to resolve as a result of a putativeexplosive radiation. Our study examined ~32 kilobases of aligned nuclear DNA sequences from 19independent loci for 169 species, representing all major extant groups, and recovered a robustphylogeny from a genome-wide signal supported by multiple analytical methods. We documentedwell-supported, previously unrecognized interordinal relationships (such as a sister relationshipbetween passerines and parrots) and corroborated previously contentious groupings (such asflamingos and grebes). Our conclusions challenge current classifications and alter ourunderstanding of trait evolution; for example, some diurnal birds evolved from nocturnal ancestors.Our results provide a valuable resource for phylogenetic and comparative studies in birds.

Although well studied, the evolutionaryrelationships among major avian groupsare contentious (1–6). Recovering deep

evolutionary relationships in birds is difficult,probably reflecting a rapid divergence early intheir evolutionary history (1–3, 7, 8) that hasresulted in many distinctive, morphologically co-hesive groups (e.g., owls, parrots, and doves) withfew, if any, extant intermediary forms linkingthem to other well-defined groups. This extremeradiation alsomakes it difficult to place fossil taxa,which further contributes to the difficulty in pre-cisely timing avian divergences (3, 9).

Only two nodes at the base of the avian treeare consistently supported by both molecular andmorphological phylogenetic studies (2–5, 10–14).The first divides the Paleognathae (ratites andtinamous) and Neognathae (all other birds), andthe second splits the neognaths between theGalloanserae (chickens, ducks, and allies) andNeoaves (other neognaths). Although the Neoavesrepresents the majority of avian diversity (95% of

extant species) and is the focus of most compar-ative studies, little consensus exists regarding rela-tionships within this clade (1–5, 8). The absence ofintermediate forms linking well-defined groups,combined with the difficulty of resolving relation-ships, led to hypotheses that the base of Neoavesrepresents an unresolved evolutionary radiation(polytomy) (7, 8). Previous efforts to reconstructthese phylogenetic relationships have been limitedby taxon sampling, the number of loci, and/orslowly evolving loci with limited power to re-solve short internodes [e.g., (3, 4, 10, 12, 14)].Moreover, conflicting results have been obtainedwith morphology (13, 15), DNA-DNA hybridiza-tion (6), whole mitochondrial genomes (16–18),and different nuclear exon, ribosomal RNA, andintron sequences (1, 3, 4, 10, 12, 14).

Phylogenomics is useful for resolving diffi-cult phylogenies and for verifying or overturningrelationships created on the basis of single genes(19–21). We collected a large DNA sequencedata set to address avian phylogenetic relation-ships from 171 species representing all but threenonpasserine families, all major passerine clades,and two crocodilian outgroups (22). Our alignmentof 32 kb represents 19 nuclear loci located on 15different chromosomes in the chicken genome (22),with introns (74%), coding exons (23%), and un-translated regions (UTRs) (3%). Data quality andsequence alignments were assessed before analy-ses (22).We analyzed the data using different optimali-ty criteria and distinct tree-search algorithms (22).

Our sampling of many loci allowed us to as-sess whether relationships were supported by a sig-nal across the genome or were driven by a singlelocus.We (i) analyzed individual loci, (ii) conducted“gene-jackknifing” (excluding one locus at a time,then analyzing the remaining data) to determinewhether conclusions were driven by a single locus,(iii) conducted a partitioned–maximum likelihood(ML) analysis (where each locus had a distinctiveset of parameters), and (iv) coded the data as R(purine) or Y (pyrimidine) to avoid conclusionsdriven by base-compositional biases [e.g., (16)].

Analyses of individual loci showed that nosingle genewas able to recover all nodes identifiedwith the concatenated data (Fig. 1). The low powerof individual loci was themost pronounced in shortand slowly evolving genes, which generally didnot resolve any interordinal relationships (Fig. 1).

Consistent with previous studies, we recov-ered genome-wide support for basal divergencesbetween Paleognathae and Neognathae andbetween Galloanserae and Neoaves (Fig. 2) withrobust support. The topology at the base ofNeoaves, with extremely short internodes, indi-cated a rapid radiation (Fig. 3) that likely explainsconflicts among previous studies. However, weconsistently found several, well-supported, deepdivisions within Neoaves (highlighted in differentcolors in Figs. 2 to 4).

Our study (i) revealed robust higher-levelgroupings within Neoaves, (ii) suggested severalpreviously unrecognized interordinal relation-ships, (iii) supported previously proposed clades,(iv) reinforced established relationships not con-sistently recovered in previous studies, and (v)found well-supported groupings at the tips ofmajor clades. The results discussed below focuson groups that are found with multiple analyticalmethods and partitions and that exhibit strongsupport (ML bootstrap support ≥ 70%) (23).

The largest clade in Neoaves was a well-supported land bird clade (green, node F, Fig. 2)(3) that contained the Passeriformes (perchingbirds, representing more than half of all avianspecies), which is allied with several morpholog-ically diverse orders. These included Piciformes(woodpeckers and allies), Falconiformes (hawksand falcons), Strigiformes (owls), Coraciiformes(kingfishers, hornbills, rollers, and allies), Psitta-ciformes (parrots), Coliiformes (mousebirds), andTrogoniformes (trogons). One of the most un-expected findings was the sister relationshipbetween Passeriformes and Psittaciformes (nodeA, Fig. 2), with Falconidae (falcons) sister to thisclade. This relationship varied slightly amonganalyses and gene-jackknifing (Fig. 1), yet theclose relationship between passerines with par-rots and/or falcons appeared consistently.

Sister to the land birds is the Charadriiformes(shorebirds, gulls, and alcids; yellow, node G,Fig. 2). This grouping seems to be driven pri-marily by the b-fibrinogen gene (FGB), becauseit was present in analyses of only this gene anddisappeared when the gene was removed throughjackknifing (Fig. 1). Regardless of the exactplacement of the Charadriiformes in our analy-ses, we consistently support that this order is notbasal within Neoaves (24) and thus refute thehypothesis that transitional shorebirds gave riseto all modern birds (7). Our phylogeny revealed ahighly supported water bird clade (blue, node H,Fig. 2) (3, 14), including members of thePelecaniformes (totipalmate birds), Ciconiifor-mes (storks and allies), Procellariiformes (tube-nosed birds), Sphenisciformes (penguins), andGaviiformes (loons). Basal to the water birdswere two clades of terrestrial and arboreal taxa

1Zoology Department, Field Museum of Natural History,1400 South Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60605, USA.2Department of Zoology, University of Florida, Gainesville,FL 32611, USA. 3Museum of Vertebrate Zoology andDepartment of Integrative Biology, University of California,Berkeley, CA 94720, USA. 4Department of Science andTechnology–National Research Foundation Centre ofExcellence at the Percy FitzPatrick Institute, Departmentof Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University, Matieland7602, South Africa. 5Department of Vertebrate Zoology,Smithsonian Institution, 4210 Silver Hill Road, Suitland,MD 20746, USA. 6Behavior, Ecology, Evolution, andSystematics Program, University of Maryland, College Park,MD 20742, USA. 7Pepperwood Way, San Jose, CA 95124,USA. 8Museum of Natural Science, 119 Foster Hall,Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA.9Department of Biological Sciences, Wayne State Uni-versity, 5047 Gullen Mall, Detroit, MI 48202, USA.10Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida,Gainesville, FL 32611, USA. 11Department of Biology andMuseum of Southwestern Biology, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA.

*These authors contributed equally to this work.†To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:rkimball@ufl.edu

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 320 27 JUNE 2008 1763

REPORTS

Fig. 1. Congruence of clades as determined fromconcatenated analyses and multiple data partitions. Nodesrefer to groups in Fig. 2. Dark blue or dark gray cellsindicate those with relationships present in maximumparsimony (MP) and ML [GARLI (31) and RAxML (32)]analyses (A) or in ML (B and C); light blue or light graycells indicate relationships present with the exception of orinclusion of one taxon; and striped cells indicate relation-ships found by either GARLI or RAxML, but not both. Thesize of each data partition is listed below its name. (A)major partitions (BS, bootstrap support; dashes representclades with less than 50% bootstrap support); (B)individual locus analyses; (C) gene-jackknifing analyses.n/a, not applicable.

27 JUNE 2008 VOL 320 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org1764

REPORTS

(node J, Fig. 2): Musophagiformes (turacos) anda clade (gray, node I, Fig. 2) including coreGruiformes (rails, cranes, and allies), Cuculifor-mes (cuckoos), and Otididae (bustards, which are

typically considered as belonging toGruiformes).These latter relationships were also largelydependent on the presence of FGB (Fig. 1) andrequire further study to determine their validity.

One of our most important findings was thatseveral well-accepted orders were not mono-phyletic. Our analyses provided strong supportthat (i) Tinamiformes (tinamous) are found

SylviaTurdus

PasserPloceusVidua

Corvus

PipraPitta

Falco

Alcedo

Todus

Bucco

Capito

Tockus

Upupa

Colius

Tyto

StrixButeo

Jacana

LarusTurnix

AcanthisittaBombycillaRegulus

Fringilla

Picathartes

MalurusClimacterisMenuraDendrocolaptesScytalopusGrallariaThamnophilusMionectesTyrannus

SmithornisSapayoaAlisterusPsittaculaMicropsittaChalcopsittaPlatycercusPsittacusCacatuaDaptrius

HerpetotheresMicrasturCariama

Momotus

Brachypteracias

Merops

Galbula

MegalaimaDryocopusIndicatorBucorvus

Phoeniculus

PharomachrusTrogonLeptosomus

UrocoliusPhodilus

Speotyto

GampsonyxPandionSagittariusCathartesSarcoramphusArenaria

RostratulaPedionomusThinocorusDromas

BurhinusCharadriusPhegornisHaematopus

***

**

****

*

*

**

** *

* *

** ******

***

****

**

* * *

60

98

54

67

81

77

73

64

69

*****

98

98

**

*

71

85

*******

*61

98

81

**

D

B

C

A

*

*

98

96

96

*

*

Morus

Ardea

Gavia

Grus

Rallus

Coua

Treron

Gallus

CraxAnasAythya

Anser

Rhea

AnhingaPhalacrocorax

Fregata

CochleariusEudocimusBalaenicepsScopusPelecanusCiconiaDiomedeaOceanodromaPelecanoidesPuffinusOceanitesEudyptula

CorythaeolaTauracoAramus

PsophiaHeliornisSarothruraHimantornis

Centropus

CoccyzusPhaenicophaeusCuculusCrotophagaGeococcyxChoriotisEupodotisOpisthocomusAegothelesAerodramusStreptoprocneHemiprocneColibriPhaethornisCaprimulgusEurostopodusBatrachostomusPodargusNyctibius bracteatusNyctibius grandisSteatornisEurypygaRhynochetosColumbaGeotrygon

ColumbinaOtidiphapsMesitornisMoniasPteroclesSyrrhaptesPhaethon lepturusPhaethon rubricaudaPhoenicopterusPodicepsAlecturaMegapodiusColinusCoturnix

RollulusNumida

Biziura

MalacorhynchusOxyuraAnseranasChaunaApteryxCasuariusDromaiusCrypturellusTinamusEudromiaNothoprocta

Struthio

*

****72

68

**

**

**

88

81

94

9889

86

****

*

****

**

*

68

81

**

**

*

58

98

61

*

**

66

**

**

*****

*

****

65

96

62 ****

98

98

99

60

97

Oscines

Suboscines

Psittaciformes

Falconidae

Strigiformes

Accipitridae

Cathartidae

Charadriiformes

Musophagiformes

"Gruiformes"

Cuculiformes

Otididae

Apodiformes

Columbiformes

Mesitornithidae

Pteroclididae

Phaethontidae

Galliformes

Anseriformes

Tinamiformes

Passeriformes

Piciformes

Coraciiformes

Trogoniformes

Coliiformes

Struthioniformes

Caprimulgiform

esPelecaniiform

esCiconiiformes

Procellariiformes

GruiformesGruiformes

SphenisciformesGaviiformes

PhoenicopteriformesPodicipediformes

Cariamidae

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

Coracias

Fig. 2. ML analysis of the 19-locus data set (ln = –866017.07). ML bootstrapvalues > 70% from GARLI are indicated on the cladogram by thicker branches andare listed at nodes, with values of 100% designated by asterisks. Diamonds atnodes indicate congruence with MP analysis, and black vertical bars refer toordinal designations (those that are dashed indicate paraphyly). The phylogenetictree was rooted to crocodilian outgroups (not shown). Genera in bold are icertae

sedis. Branch colors represent major clades supported in this study: land birds (green), charadriiforms (yellow), water birds (blue), core gruiforms andcuckoos (gray), apodiforms and caprimulgiforms (brown), galloanserae (orange), and paleognaths (purple). Large capital letters indicate groupsdiscussed in the text and Fig. 1.

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 320 27 JUNE 2008 1765

REPORTS

within Struithioniformes (ostriches and allies;purple, node Q, Fig. 2), (ii) Apodiformes (hum-mingbirds and swifts) are found within Capri-mulgiformes (nightjars and their allies; brown,node L, Fig. 2), and (iii) Piciformes are found with-in Coraciiformes (node C, Fig. 2). Typical Pele-caniformes and Ciconiiformes [sensu (13, 25)]were intermixed in a clade (Fig. 2) that excludesone traditional pelecaniform family: the Phaethon-tidae (tropicbirds). The Gruiformes represented atleast four distinct clades in our tree (Fig. 4), de-pending on the circumscriptions of this order[reviewed in (6)]. Finally, Falconidae and Accipit-ridae (hawks and osprey) formed distinct clades inall analyses, rather than a monophyletic Falconi-formes (Fig. 2) (18).

Several disparate taxa were robustly placed inour analyses. Cariamidae (seriemas) has tradi-tionally been classified as a gruiform, althoughconvergence with Falconiformes was noted (6).We found strong support for placing Cariamidaewithin land birds near other raptorial groups.Leptosomus (cuckoo roller) is generally placedwithin Coraciiformes, though a relationship withFalconiformes has also been suggested (6). Ourdata set placed Leptosomus sister to a clade in-cluding Piciformes, Coraciiformes, and Trogoni-formes (node D, Fig. 2).

Our results suggest resolution of some contro-versial groupings. For example, Cathartidae (NewWorld vultures)—traditionally placed withinFalconiformes—were previously allied with Cic-oniidae (storks) (6). However, our phylogenydemonstrated no affinity with storks [see also(3, 18, 26)] and instead strongly supportedplacement of Cathartidae within the land birds(usually with Accipitridae). We support that Turnix(buttonquail) belongs within the Charadriiformes(3, 4, 27) and that Podicipediformes (grebes) andPhoenicopteriformes (flamingos; node N, Fig. 2)(14) are sister taxa. Finally, we recovered a sisterrelationship between Rhynochetos (kagu) andEurypyga (sunbittern) (node M, Fig. 2) (28): twomonospecific and geographically disparate fam-ilies that grouped outside of the core Gruiiformes.

The previously proposed division of Neoavesinto Coronaves andMetaves is driven by two loci(4) in our analyses (Fig. 1) and may not representthe species tree. Many taxa assigned to Metavesare composed of small numbers of closely relatedextant species, including Mesitornithidae (mesi-tes), Phaethontidae, Pteroclididae (sandgrouse),and Columbiformes (pigeons and doves). The dif-ficulty in placing them may be driven by long,unbreakable branches leading to the tips (Fig. 3).The enigmaticOpisthocomus (hoatzin) still cannotbe confidently placed, but some putative sisterrelationships can be rejected (29).

Modern birds occupy a wide diversity ofniches and exhibit a variety of behaviors. Thebroad structure of our phylogeny suggested di-versification along general ecological divisions,such as water birds, shorebirds, and land birds.However, adaptations to these environments clear-ly arose multiple times (4), because many aquatic

birds were not part of the water bird clade (e.g.,tropicbirds, flamingos, and grebes) and terrestrialbirds were found outside of the land bird clade(e.g., turacos, doves, sandgrouse, and cuckoos).Our phylogeny also indicated several distinctiveniches, such as nocturnal (owls, nightjars, andallies), raptorial (falcons, hawks, eagles, NewWorld vultures, seriema, and owls), or pelagic(tubenosed birds, frigatebirds, and tropicbirds)lifestyles, have evolved multiple times. Further-more, our results reinterpret the evolution ofvarious adaptations (e.g., the diurnal Apodifor-mes evolved from nocturnal/crepuscular Capri-mulgiformes, and flighted Tinamiformes arosewithin the flightless Struthioniformes) and bio-geographic patterns (e.g., the New Caledoniankagu and Neotropical sunbittern are sister taxa).

Given the number of nonmonophyletic groupsin our study, we compared our results withmajor classifications [supporting online mate-rial (SOM) text]. Unexpectedly, roughly thesame percentage (35%) of orders defined bydifferent classifications (13, 25, 30) was notmonophyletic relative to the results of our study(Fig. 4). Some orders, such as Gruiformes and

the broadly encompassing Ciconiiformes [sensu(30)], were particularly problematic. Other tra-ditional orders were not monophyletic be-cause of the exclusion or inclusion of one ora few taxa (e.g., placing Turnix within Cha-radriiformes contradicts all three classifica-tions). Only six orders were defined consistentlyacross taxonomies and monophyletic in ourstudy (Fig. 4). Given our results, conclusionsfrom comparative studies that dependedupon these classifications may need to bere-evaluated in light of this understanding ofavian evolution.

Deciphering the roots of the avian tree oflife has been a lingering problem in evolu-tionary biology. The inclusion of multiple lociwith diverse rates of evolution, particularlythe large proportion of rapidly evolving in-trons, yielded a well-supported phylogenetictree at multiple taxonomic depths. Althoughsome higher-level avian relationships remainunresolved, simulations suggest that addition-al sequence data from rapidly evolving locimay resolve these remaining questions (1). Itis also evident that future classifications will

0.1

Fig. 3. ML phylogram demonstrating the short internodes at the base of Neoaves and highlightingcertain extreme examples of rate variation across avian lineages. Colors are as in Fig. 2. Scale barindicates substitutions per site. Figure S1 shows the phylogram with taxon names.

27 JUNE 2008 VOL 320 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org1766

REPORTS

change dramatically, based on our phyloge-netic study, and that our results will stimulatecomparative studies to address the growingnumber of questions regarding the evolutionof birds.

References and Notes1. J. L. Chojnowski, R. T. Kimball, E. L. Braun, Gene 410, 89

(2008).2. J. Cracraft et al., in Assembling the Tree of Life,

J. Cracraft, M. J. Donoghue, Eds. (Oxford Univ. Press,New York, 2004), pp. 468–489.

3. P. G. P. Ericson et al., Biol. Lett. 2, 543 (2006).4. M. G. Fain, P. Houde, Evolution Int. J. Org. Evolution 58,

2558 (2004).5. J. Harshman, in Reproductive Biology and Phylogeny of

Birds, B. G. M. Jamieson, Ed. (Science Publishers, Enfield,NH, 2007), pp. 1–35.

6. C. G. Sibley, J. E. Ahlquist, Phylogeny and Classificationof Birds: A Study in Molecular Evolution (Yale Univ. Press,New Haven, CT, 1990).

7. A. Feduccia, Science 267, 637 (1995).8. S. Poe, A. L. Chubb, Evolution Int. J. Org. Evolution 58,

404 (2004).9. J. W. Brown, J. S. Rest, J. Garcia-Moreno, M. D. Sorenson,

D. P. Mindell, BMC Biol. 6, 6 (2008).10. A. L. Chubb, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 30, 140 (2004).11. J. Cracraft, J. Clarke, in New Perspectives on the Origin

and Early Evolution of Birds: Proceedings of theInternational Symposium in Honor of John H. Ostrom,J. Gauthier, L. F. Gall, Eds. (Yale Univ. Press, New Haven,CT, 2001), pp. 143–156.

12. J. G. Groth, G. F. Barrowclough, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol.12, 115 (1999).

13. B. C. Livezey, R. L. Zusi, Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 149, 1 (2007).14. M. van Tuinen, D. B. Butvill, J. A. W. Kirsch, S. B. Hedges,

Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 268, 1345 (2001).15. G. Mayr, J. Clarke, Cladistics 19, 527 (2003).16. E. L. Braun, R. T. Kimball, Syst. Biol. 51, 614 (2002).17. D. P. Mindell et al., Syst. Biol. 48, 138 (1999).18. K. E. Slack, F. Delsuc, P. A. Mclenachan, U. Arnason,

D. Penny, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42, 1 (2007).19. F. Delsuc, H. Brinkmann, H. Philippe, Nat. Rev. Genet. 6,

361 (2005).20. E. Jiménez-Guri, H. Philippe, B. Okamura,

P. W. H. Holland, Science 317, 116 (2007).21. W. J. Murphy, P. A. Pevzner, S. J. O’Brien, Trends Genet.

20, 631 (2004).22. Materials and methods are available as supporting

material on Science Online.23. D. M. Hillis, J. J. Bull, Syst. Biol. 42, 182 (1993).24. T. Paton, O. Haddrath, A. J. Baker, Proc. R. Soc. London

Ser. B 269, 839 (2002).25. J. L. Peters et al., Check-list of Birds of the World, J. L.

Peters et al., Eds. (Museum of Comparative Anatomy,Cambridge, MA, 1931 to 1979), vols. I to XV.

26. C. S. Griffiths, Auk 111, 787 (1994).27. T. A. Paton, A. J. Baker, J. G. Groth, G. F. Barrowclough,

Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 29, 268 (2003).28. J. Cracraft, Geobios Memoire Spec. 6, 25 (1982).29. M. D. Sorenson, E. Oneal, J. García-Moreno, D. P.

Mindell, Mol. Biol. Evol. 20, 1484 (2003).30. C. G. Sibley, B. L. Monroe Jr., Distribution and Taxonomy

of Birds of the World (Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT,1990).

31. D. J. Zwickl, thesis, University of Texas at Austin (2006).32. A. Stamatakis, Bioinformatics 22, 2688 (2006).33. This work is a contribution of the Early Bird project,

supported by NSF’s Assembling the Tree of Life program(DEB-0228675, DEB-0228682, DEB-0228688, andDEB-0228617). We thank the American Museum ofNatural History, Australian National Wildlife Collection,Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture (Universityof Washington), Field Museum of Natural History,University of Kansas Natural History Museum andBiodiversity Center, L. Densmore private collection,Louisiana State University Museum of Natural Science,Marjorie Barrick Museum (University of Nevada, LasVegas), Museum of Southwestern Biology (University ofNew Mexico), Museum of Vertebrate Zoology (Universityof California, Berkeley), Museum Victoria, NationalMuseum of Natural History, San Francisco ZoologicalGarden, and Zoological Museum University ofCopenhagen, as well as many different collectors fortissue samples (table S1). We appreciate support fromD. Zwickl and R. Ree for analysis; the DePaulBioinformatics Group, part of the Illinois Bio-grid atDePaul University, for access to their supercomputingfacilities; and J. Bates, D. Levey, P. Makovicky,T. Schulenberg, and P. Soltis for comments. Z. Bear,N. Block, B. Burkley, M. Burns, Z. Burns, S. Coplowitz,R. Flynn, K. Hammons, V. Heimer-Torres, E. Sackett-Hermann,

Fig. 4. Our phylogeny differs from and agrees with previous classifications. We merged well-supported(>70% bootstrap values) monophyletic clades at the tips with the same ordinal designation across allthree classifications (e.g., 24 species called Passerines). Only higher relationships supported by bootstrapvalues >50% are shown. Colors are as in Fig. 2. Color bars to the right of the tree show membership inthree different classifications: Peters’ (25) (left), Sibley and Monroe’s (30) (middle), and Livezey and Zusi’s(13) (right). Black text within the bars indicates monophyletic orders in our phylogeny, whereas white textwithin the bars indicates nonmonophyletic orders. Ordinal name codes: ANS (Anseriformes), APO(Apodiformes), APT (Apterygiformes), ARD (Ardeiformes), BAL (Balaenicipitiformes), BUC (Buceroti-formes), CAP (Caprimulgiformes), CAS (Casuariiformes), CHA (Charadriiformes), CIC (Ciconiiformes), CLM(Columbiformes), COL (Coliiformes), COR (Coraciiformes), CRA (Craciformes), CUC (Cuculiformes), FAL(Falconiformes), GAL (Galliformes), GAV (Gaviiformes), GLB (Galbuliformes), GRU (Gruiformes), MUS(Musophagiformes), OPI (Opisthocomiformes), PAS (Passeriformes), PEL (Pelecaniformes), PIC (Picifor-mes), POD (Podicipediformes), PRO (Procellariiformes), PSI (Psittaciformes), RAL (Ralliformes), RHE(Rheiformes), SPH (Sphenisciformes), STH (Struthioniformes), STR (Strigiformes), TIN (Tinamiformes), TRC(Trochiliformes), TRO (Trogoniformes), TUR (Turniciformes), and UPU (Upupiformes).

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 320 27 JUNE 2008 1767

REPORTS

A. Hudson, S. Hunter-Smith, S. Kearney, L. Kimball,K. Rozofsky, J. Smith, and P. Tester provided assistancein the lab. Sequence accession numbers in GenBank areEU737149 to EU740386, EF521416 to EF521576, andEU302706 to EU302748.

Supporting Online Materialwww.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/320/5884/1763/DC1Materials and MethodsSOM TextFigs. S1 to S3

Tables S1 to S3References

12 March 2008; accepted 29 May 200810.1126/science.1157704

A Significant Upward Shift inPlant Species Optimum ElevationDuring the 20th CenturyJ. Lenoir,1* J. C. Gégout,1 P. A. Marquet,2,3,4 P. de Ruffray,5 H. Brisse6

Spatial fingerprints of climate change on biotic communities are usually associated with changes inthe distribution of species at their latitudinal or altitudinal extremes. By comparing the altitudinaldistribution of 171 forest plant species between 1905 and 1985 and 1986 and 2005 along theentire elevation range (0 to 2600 meters above sea level) in west Europe, we show that climatewarming has resulted in a significant upward shift in species optimum elevation averaging29 meters per decade. The shift is larger for species restricted to mountain habitats and forgrassy species, which are characterized by faster population turnover. Our study shows thatclimate change affects the spatial core of the distributional range of plant species, in additionto their distributional margins, as previously reported.

Recent warming has induced biologicaland ecological responses from animalsand plants throughout the world (1–3).

Consistent responses to global warming or “finger-prints” are apparent in the phenology and distri-bution of species (1–5). For plants, invertebrates,and vertebrates, climate change has strongly in-fluenced distribution and abundance at range mar-gins both in latitude (polar margins) (5–8) and inelevation (upper margins) (5, 9–11), and even indepth for marine fishes (8). Shifts at the upperedge of altitudinal range agree with the hypoth-esis of an upward trend to escape rising temper-atures (12–14). Changes in range limits, however,are just one, albeit important, expression of thelikely consequences of climate change. More sub-tle changes within the ranges of species are alsolikely and, although poorly explored as yet, mighthave important ecological and evolutionary con-sequences. Assuming niche conservatism overevolutionary time (15), we tested for large-scale(across temperate and Mediterranean mountainforests in west Europe), long-term (over the 20thcentury), and multispecies (through an assem-

blage of 171 species) climate-related responses inforest plant altitudinal distributions. We analyzedspecies responses by measuring shifts in the al-titudinal position of species’maximum probabil-ity of presence within their distribution, insteadof focusing on distributional extremes. Addition-ally, we tested for the effect of ecological and lifehistory traits on the magnitude of the response toclimate warming (16). In particular, we testedwhether species restricted to mountain areas

(10–12, 17, 18) and/or fast generation times (19)are particularly sensitive to temperature changes.

We studied species in forest communitiesfound between lowland to the upper subalpinevegetation belt (0 to 2600m above sea level) oversix mountain ranges in west Europe (the WesternAlps, the Northern Pyrenees, the Massif Central,the Western Jura, the Vosges, and the Corsicanrange). Climatic change in France has been char-acterized by increases in average temperature offar greater magnitude than increases in the worldmean annual temperature, of about 0.6°C overthe 20th century (20), reaching up to 0.9°C (21)and even close to 1°C in the alpine region sincethe early 1980s (22). From two large-scale flo-ristic inventories (about 28,000 surveys) (23), weextracted two well-balanced subsamples, includ-ing 3991 surveys each, carried out across thestudied mountain ranges (see fig. S1 for surveyslocation). The first subsample included surveyscarried out before the mid-1980s (1905–1985),and the other one, after 1985 (1986–2005) (seefig. S2 for altitudinal distribution of surveys). Wechose this temporal threshold because the anal-ysis of yearly mean surface temperature anom-alies between 1965 and 2005 shows that in 1986the studied mountain ranges experienced a tem-perature regime shift (Fig. 1A), staying above theaverage baseline conditions. In contrast, analysisof annual precipitation anomalies between 1965

1AgroParisTech, UMR 1092, Laboratoire d'Etude des RessourcesForêt-Bois (LERFoB), 14 rue Girardet, F-54000 Nancy, France.2Center for Advanced Studies in Ecology and Biodiversity(CASEB), Departamento de Ecologia, Pontificia UniversidadCatólica de Chile, Alameda 340 C.P. 6513677, Santiago,Chile. 3Institute of Ecology and Biodiversity (IEB), Casilla653, Santiago, Chile. 4Santa Fe Institute, 1399 Hyde ParkRoad, Santa Fe, NM 87501, USA. 5CNRS, Institut de BiologieMoléculaire des Plantes (IBMP), Université Louis Pasteur, 12Rue du Général Zimmer, F-67084 Strasbourg Cedex, France.6CNRS, UMR 6116, Institut Méditerranéen d'Ecologie et dePaléoécologie (IMEP), Faculté des Sciences de Saint Jérôme,case 461, F-34397 Marseille Cedex 20, France.

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:jonathan.lenoir@agroparistech.fr

Fig. 1. Climatic trends from 1965 to 2006.(A) Yearly mean surface temperature anom-alies (using overall mean temperature asbaseline) and (B) annual precipitation anom-alies (using overall mean annual precipita-tion as baseline) averaged for 73 elevationsites in the French mountains ranging inaltitude from 10 to 2010m above sea level.Solid gray bars refer to positive anomalies,whereas open bars refer to negative ones.The solid curve is the smoothed averagewith use of a 10-year filter. The verticaldotted lines mark the split between the twostudied periods. Data have been gatheredfrom the French National Climatic Network(Météo-France).

27 JUNE 2008 VOL 320 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org1768

REPORTS