Mechanical Pressure, Not Genes, Makes Ovulate Parts Leaf-Like in <i>Cycas</i>
- 1 State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Nanjing, China
- 2 Fairylake Botanical Garden, Shenzhen & Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen, China
Abstract
The so-called “megasporophylls” of Ginkgoales, Coniferales, and Gnetales have been proven metamorphosed shoots , making “megasporophyll” of Cycas the last one resembling a leaf. Why and how it is so in Cycas (the most ancient seed plant dated back to the Palaeozoic) become key questions because their answers are hinged with the fates of several hypotheses in botany. Here , we performed a controlled developmental experiment on the ovulate parts (megasporophylls) in a single strobilus of Cycas sexseminifera . By removing the neighboring ones, two of the ovulate parts were left isolated spatially from others, in contrast to others left intact. A half-year-long continuous observation indicates that the isolated ovulate parts change their ovule arrangement from initial pinnate into helical pattern, while the intact ones in the same strobilus remain pinnate as usual. Since all ovulate parts are in the same strobilus and controlled by the same genome in this case and the only difference is lack of pressure from neighbors for the isolated ones, the changes in ovule orientation and ovulate part morphology can only be attributed to the lack of mechanical pressure among the ovulate parts. Therefore , we conclude that mechanical pressure, not genes, controls the morphology of ovulate parts and contributes to the leaf-like ovulate part morphology in Cycas . This conclusion cautions previous superficial interpretations of plant morphology.
- J. W. V. Goethe, “Versuch die Metamorphose der Pflanzen zu Erklären,” Carl Wilhelm Ettinger, Gotha, 1790.
- D. R. Kaplan, “The Science of Plant Morphology: Definition, History, and Role in Modern Biology,” American Journal of Botany, Vol. 88, No. 10, 2001, pp. 1711-1741. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3558347
- R. Classen-Bockhoff, “Plant Morphology: The Historic Concepts of Wilhelm Troll, Walter Zimmermann and Agnes Arber,” Annals of Botany, Vol. 88, No. 6, 2001, pp. 1153-1172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/anbo.2001.1544
- M. C. Dornelas and O. Dornelas, “From Leaf to Flower: Revisiting Goethe’s Concepts on the ‘Metamorphosis’ of Plants,” Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2005, pp. 335-344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1677-04202005000400001
- Z. Zhou, S. Zheng and L. Zhang, “Morphology and Age of Yimaia (Ginkgoales) from Daohugou Village, Ningcheng, Inner Mongolia, China,” Cretaceous Research, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2007, pp. 348-362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2006.05.004
- E. D. Brenner, D. W. Stevenson and R. W. Twigg, “Cycads: Evolutionary Innovations and the Role of Plant-Derived Neurotoxins,” Trends in Plant Science, Vol. 8, No. 2003, pp. 446-452.
- P. Martens, “Les Gnetophytes,” Gebrueder Borntraeger, Berlin, 1971.
- R. Florin, “The Morphology of Trichopitys heteromorpha Saporta, a Seed Plant of Palaeozoic Age, and the Evolution of the Female Flowers in the Ginkgoinae,” Acta Horti Bergiani, Vol. 15, No. 5, 1949, pp. 79-109.
- S. Zheng and Z. Zhou, “A New Mesozoic Ginkgo from Western Liaoning, China and Its Evolutionary Significance,” Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, Vol. 131, No. 1-2, 2004, pp. 91-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.revpalbo.2004.03.002
- Z. Zhou and S. Zheng, “The Missing Link in Ginkgo Evolution,” Nature, Vol. 423, No. 6942, 2003, pp. 821822. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/423821a
- F. J. F. Shaw, “A Contribution to the Anatomy of Ginkgo biloba,” New Phytologist, Vol. 7, No. 4-5, 1908, pp. 85-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1908.tb06074.x
- G. W. Rothwell and R. A. Stockey, “Evolution and Phylogeny of Gnetophytes: Evidence from the Anatomically Preserved Seed Cone Protoephedrites eamesii gen. et sp. nov. and the Seeds of Several Bennettitalean Species,” International Journal of Plant Sciences, Vol. 174, No. 3, 2013, pp. 511-529.
- A. J. Eames, “The Relationships of Ephedrales,” Phytomorphology, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1952, pp. 79-100.