科罗拉多州东部大草原单子叶和双子叶物种的脉序成本比较。

IF 3.6 3区 生物学 Q1 PLANT SCIENCES
Planta Pub Date : 2024-05-18 DOI:10.1007/s00425-024-04434-x
Sarah Tepler Drobnitch, J A Kray, Sean M Gleason, Troy W Ocheltree
{"title":"科罗拉多州东部大草原单子叶和双子叶物种的脉序成本比较。","authors":"Sarah Tepler Drobnitch, J A Kray, Sean M Gleason, Troy W Ocheltree","doi":"10.1007/s00425-024-04434-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Main conclusion: </strong>Leaf vein network cost (total vein surface area per leaf volume) for major veins and vascular bundles did not differ between monocot and dicot species in 21 species from the eastern Colorado steppe. Dicots possessed significantly larger minor vein networks than monocots. Across the tree of life, there is evidence that dendritic vascular transport networks are optimized, balancing maximum speed and integrity of resource delivery with minimal resource investment in transport and infrastructure. Monocot venation, however, is not dendritic, and remains parallel down to the smallest vein orders with no space-filling capillary networks. Given this departure from the \"optimized\" dendritic network, one would assume that monocots are operating at a significant energetic disadvantage. In this study, we investigate whether monocot venation networks bear significantly greater carbon/construction costs per leaf volume than co-occurring dicots in the same ecosystem, and if so, what physiological or ecological advantage the monocot life form possesses to compensate for this deficit. Given that venation networks could also be optimized for leaf mechanical support or provide herbivory defense, we measured the vascular system of both monocot and dicots at three scales to distinguish between leaf investment in mechanical support (macroscopic vein), total transport and capacitance (vascular bundle), or exclusively water transport (xylem) for both parallel and dendritic venation networks. We observed that vein network cost (total vein surface area per leaf volume) for major veins and vascular bundles was not significantly different between monocot species and dicot species. Dicots, however, possess significantly larger minor vein networks than monocots. The 19 species subjected to gas-exchange measurement in the field displayed a broad range of A<sub>max</sub> and but demonstrated no significant relationships with any metric of vascular network size in major or minor vein classes. Given that monocots do not seem to display any leaf hydraulic disadvantage relative to dicots, it remains an important research question why parallel venation (truly parallel, down to the smallest vessels) has not arisen more than once in the history of plant evolution.</p>","PeriodicalId":20177,"journal":{"name":"Planta","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative venation costs of monocotyledon and dicotyledon species in the eastern Colorado steppe.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Tepler Drobnitch, J A Kray, Sean M Gleason, Troy W Ocheltree\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00425-024-04434-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Main conclusion: </strong>Leaf vein network cost (total vein surface area per leaf volume) for major veins and vascular bundles did not differ between monocot and dicot species in 21 species from the eastern Colorado steppe. Dicots possessed significantly larger minor vein networks than monocots. Across the tree of life, there is evidence that dendritic vascular transport networks are optimized, balancing maximum speed and integrity of resource delivery with minimal resource investment in transport and infrastructure. Monocot venation, however, is not dendritic, and remains parallel down to the smallest vein orders with no space-filling capillary networks. Given this departure from the \\\"optimized\\\" dendritic network, one would assume that monocots are operating at a significant energetic disadvantage. In this study, we investigate whether monocot venation networks bear significantly greater carbon/construction costs per leaf volume than co-occurring dicots in the same ecosystem, and if so, what physiological or ecological advantage the monocot life form possesses to compensate for this deficit. Given that venation networks could also be optimized for leaf mechanical support or provide herbivory defense, we measured the vascular system of both monocot and dicots at three scales to distinguish between leaf investment in mechanical support (macroscopic vein), total transport and capacitance (vascular bundle), or exclusively water transport (xylem) for both parallel and dendritic venation networks. We observed that vein network cost (total vein surface area per leaf volume) for major veins and vascular bundles was not significantly different between monocot species and dicot species. Dicots, however, possess significantly larger minor vein networks than monocots. The 19 species subjected to gas-exchange measurement in the field displayed a broad range of A<sub>max</sub> and but demonstrated no significant relationships with any metric of vascular network size in major or minor vein classes. Given that monocots do not seem to display any leaf hydraulic disadvantage relative to dicots, it remains an important research question why parallel venation (truly parallel, down to the smallest vessels) has not arisen more than once in the history of plant evolution.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20177,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Planta\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Planta\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-024-04434-x\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PLANT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Planta","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-024-04434-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PLANT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

主要结论在科罗拉多东部大草原的 21 个物种中,单子叶植物和双子叶植物的主要叶脉和维管束的叶脉网络成本(单位叶片体积的总叶脉表面积)没有差异。双子叶植物的次脉络明显大于单子叶植物。有证据表明,在整个生命树中,树枝状维管运输网络是最优化的,它在资源输送的最大速度和完整性与对运输和基础设施的最小资源投资之间实现了平衡。然而,单子叶植物的脉管并不是树枝状的,而是平行的,直到最小的脉序,没有填充空间的毛细管网络。鉴于这种偏离 "优化 "树枝状网络的情况,人们会认为单子叶植物在能量方面处于明显的劣势。在这项研究中,我们调查了单子叶植物脉络网络单位叶片体积的碳/构建成本是否明显高于同一生态系统中的双子叶植物,如果是,单子叶植物生命形式具有哪些生理或生态优势来弥补这种不足。鉴于脉络网络也可以优化叶片的机械支持或提供草食性防御,我们在三个尺度上测量了单子叶植物和双子叶植物的维管系统,以区分平行脉络网络和树枝状脉络网络的叶片在机械支持(宏观脉络)、总运输和电容(维管束)或仅水运输(木质部)方面的投资。我们观察到,单子叶植物和双子叶植物的主脉和维管束的脉络成本(单位叶片体积的总脉络表面积)没有显著差异。但是,双子叶植物的次脉网明显大于单子叶植物。在田间进行气体交换测量的 19 个物种显示了广泛的 Amax 范围,但与主脉或小脉维管束网络大小的任何指标都没有明显的关系。鉴于单子叶植物与双子叶植物相比似乎并没有显示出任何叶片水力方面的劣势,在植物进化史上为什么没有出现不止一次的平行脉络(真正的平行,直至最小的血管),这仍然是一个重要的研究问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparative venation costs of monocotyledon and dicotyledon species in the eastern Colorado steppe.

Comparative venation costs of monocotyledon and dicotyledon species in the eastern Colorado steppe.

Main conclusion: Leaf vein network cost (total vein surface area per leaf volume) for major veins and vascular bundles did not differ between monocot and dicot species in 21 species from the eastern Colorado steppe. Dicots possessed significantly larger minor vein networks than monocots. Across the tree of life, there is evidence that dendritic vascular transport networks are optimized, balancing maximum speed and integrity of resource delivery with minimal resource investment in transport and infrastructure. Monocot venation, however, is not dendritic, and remains parallel down to the smallest vein orders with no space-filling capillary networks. Given this departure from the "optimized" dendritic network, one would assume that monocots are operating at a significant energetic disadvantage. In this study, we investigate whether monocot venation networks bear significantly greater carbon/construction costs per leaf volume than co-occurring dicots in the same ecosystem, and if so, what physiological or ecological advantage the monocot life form possesses to compensate for this deficit. Given that venation networks could also be optimized for leaf mechanical support or provide herbivory defense, we measured the vascular system of both monocot and dicots at three scales to distinguish between leaf investment in mechanical support (macroscopic vein), total transport and capacitance (vascular bundle), or exclusively water transport (xylem) for both parallel and dendritic venation networks. We observed that vein network cost (total vein surface area per leaf volume) for major veins and vascular bundles was not significantly different between monocot species and dicot species. Dicots, however, possess significantly larger minor vein networks than monocots. The 19 species subjected to gas-exchange measurement in the field displayed a broad range of Amax and but demonstrated no significant relationships with any metric of vascular network size in major or minor vein classes. Given that monocots do not seem to display any leaf hydraulic disadvantage relative to dicots, it remains an important research question why parallel venation (truly parallel, down to the smallest vessels) has not arisen more than once in the history of plant evolution.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Planta
Planta 生物-植物科学
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
2.30%
发文量
217
审稿时长
2.3 months
期刊介绍: Planta publishes timely and substantial articles on all aspects of plant biology. We welcome original research papers on any plant species. Areas of interest include biochemistry, bioenergy, biotechnology, cell biology, development, ecological and environmental physiology, growth, metabolism, morphogenesis, molecular biology, new methods, physiology, plant-microbe interactions, structural biology, and systems biology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信