Sources of character conflict in a clade of water striders (Heteroptera: Gerridae)

Incongruence among trees reconstructed with different data may stem from historical (gene tree‐species tree conflict) or process (character change biases) phenomena. Regardless of the source, incongruent data, as determined with “global” measures of homoplasy, have often been excluded from parsimony analysis of the combined data. Recent studies suggest that these homoplasy measures do not predict the contribution of each character to overall tree structure. Branch support measures identify, on a character to node basis, sources of support and conflict resulting from a simultaneous analysis of the data. We implement these branch support measures to identify sources of character conflict in a clade of water striders consisting of Gerris Fabricius, Aquarius Schellenberg, and Limnoporus Stål species. Separate analyses of morphology, mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I (COI), large mitochondrial ribosomal subunit (16SrRNA), and elongation factor‐1α (EF‐1α) data resulted in cladograms that varied in resolution and topological concordance. Simultaneous analysis of the data resulted in two trees that were unresolved for one node in a strict consensus. The topology agreed with current classification except for the placements of Aquarius chilensis and the Aquarius remigis species group closer to Gerris than to congeneric species. Branch support measures indicated that support derived from each data set varied among nodes, but COI had an overall negative effect on branch support. However, Spearman rank correlation of partitioned branch support values indicated no negative associations of branch support between any data sets and a positive association between EF‐1α and 16SrRNA. Thus incongruence among data sets was not drastic and the gene‐tree versus species tree phenomenon was not implicated. Biases in character change were a more likely reason for incongruence, although saturation curves and incongruence length difference for COI indicated little potential for homoplasy. However, a posteriori inspection of COI nucleotide change with reference to the simultaneous analysis tree revealed AT and codon biases. These biases were not associated with branch support measures. Therefore, it is difficult to predict incongruence or identify its cause. Exclusion of data is ill advised because every character is potentially parsimony informative.