Dataset Information

Gymnosperm Resprouting-A Review.

ABSTRACT: Gymnosperms are generally regarded as poor resprouters, especially when compared to angiosperms and particularly following major disturbance. However, is it this clear-cut? This review investigates two main aspects of gymnosperm resprouting: (i) various papers have provided exceptions to the above generalization-how frequent are these exceptions and are there any taxonomic trends?; and (ii) assuming gymnosperms are poor resprouters are there any anatomical or physiological reasons why this is the case? Five of six non-coniferous gymnosperm genera and 24 of 80 conifer genera had at least one species with a well-developed resprouting capability. This was a wider range than would be expected from the usual observation 'gymnosperms are poor resprouters'. All conifer families had at least three resprouting genera, except the monospecific Sciadopityaceae. Apart from the aboveground stem, buds were also recorded arising from more specialised structures (e.g., lignotubers, tubers, burls and underground stems). In some larger genera it appeared that only a relatively small proportion of species were resprouters and often only when young. The poor resprouting performance of mature plants may stem from a high proportion of apparently 'blank' leaf axils. Axillary meristems have been recorded in a wide range of conifer species, but they often did not form an apical dome, leaf primordia or vascular connections. Buds or meristems that did form often abscised at an early stage. While this review has confirmed that conifers do not resprout to the same degree as angiosperms, it was found that a wide diversity of gymnosperm genera can recover vegetatively after substantial disturbance. Further structural studies are needed, especially of: (i) apparently blank leaf axils and the initial development of axillary meristems; (ii) specialised regeneration structures; and (iii) why high variability can occur in the resprouting capacity within species of a single genus and within genera of the same family.

SUBMITTER: Burrows GE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8705048 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and aimsGymnosperms are either wind-pollinated (anemophilous) or both wind- and insect-pollinated (ambophilous). Regardless of pollination mode, ovular secretions play a key role in pollen capture, germination and growth; they are likely also involved in pollinator reward. Little is known about the broad-scale diversity of ovular secretions across gymnosperms, and how these may relate to various reproductive functions. This study analyses the sugar and amino acid profiles of ovular secretions across a range of ambophilous (cycads and Gnetales) and anemophilous gymnosperms (conifers) to place them in an evolutionary context of their possible functions during reproduction.MethodsOvular secretions from 13 species representing all five main lineages of extant gymnosperms were sampled. High-performance liquid chromatography techniques were used to measure sugar and amino acid content. Multivariate statistics were applied to assess whether there are significant differences in the chemical profiles of anemophilous and ambophilous species. Data were compared with published chemical profiles of angiosperm nectar. Chemical profiles were placed in the context of phylogenetic relationships.Key resultsTotal sugar concentrations were significantly higher in ovular secretions of ambophilous species than wind-pollinated taxa such as Pinaceae and Cupressophyta. Ambophilous species had lower amounts of total amino acids, and a higher proportion of non-protein amino acids compared with anemophilous lineages, and were also comparable to angiosperm nectar. Results suggest that early gymnosperms likely had ovular secretion profiles that were a mosaic of those associated with modern anemophilous and ambophilous species. Ginkgo, thought to be anemophilous, had a profile typical of ambophilous taxa, suggesting that insect pollination either exists in Gingko, but is undocumented, or that its ancestral populations were insect-pollinated.ConclusionsChemical profiles of ovular secretions of ambophilous gymnosperms show a clear signal of pollinator-driven selection, including higher levels of carbohydrates than anemophilous taxa, lower levels of amino acids, and the presence of specific amino acids, such as β-alanine, that are known to influence insect feeding behaviour and physiology.

Dataset Information

Gymnosperm Resprouting-A Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets