Diverse mangroves deviate from other angiosperms in their genome size, leaf cell size and cell packing density relationships.
Environmental factors
cell size
genome size
stomata
stomatal density
vein density
Journal
Annals of botany
ISSN: 1095-8290
Titre abrégé: Ann Bot
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0372347
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 03 2023
08 03 2023
Historique:
received:
11
08
2022
accepted:
12
12
2022
pmc-release:
14
12
2023
pubmed:
15
12
2022
medline:
10
3
2023
entrez:
14
12
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
While genome size limits the minimum sizes and maximum numbers of cells that can be packed into a given leaf volume, mature cell sizes can be substantially larger than their meristematic precursors and vary in response to abiotic conditions. Mangroves are iconic examples of how abiotic conditions can influence the evolution of plant phenotypes. Here, we examined the coordination between genome size, leaf cell sizes, cell packing densities and leaf size in 13 mangrove species across four sites in China. Four of these species occurred at more than one site, allowing us to test the effect of climate on leaf anatomy. We found that genome sizes of mangroves were very small compared to other angiosperms, but, like other angiosperms, mangrove cells were always larger than the minimum size defined by genome size. Increasing mean annual temperature of a growth site led to higher packing densities of veins (Dv) and stomata (Ds) and smaller epidermal cells but had no effect on stomatal size. In contrast to other angiosperms, mangroves exhibited (1) a negative relationship between guard cell size and genome size; (2) epidermal cells that were smaller than stomata; and (3) coordination between Dv and Ds that was not mediated by epidermal cell size. Furthermore, mangrove epidermal cell sizes and packing densities covaried with leaf size. While mangroves exhibited coordination between veins and stomata and attained a maximum theoretical stomatal conductance similar to that of other angiosperms, the tissue-level tradeoffs underlying these similar relationships across species and environments were markedly different, perhaps indicative of the unique structural and physiological adaptations of mangroves to their stressful environments.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
While genome size limits the minimum sizes and maximum numbers of cells that can be packed into a given leaf volume, mature cell sizes can be substantially larger than their meristematic precursors and vary in response to abiotic conditions. Mangroves are iconic examples of how abiotic conditions can influence the evolution of plant phenotypes.
METHODS
Here, we examined the coordination between genome size, leaf cell sizes, cell packing densities and leaf size in 13 mangrove species across four sites in China. Four of these species occurred at more than one site, allowing us to test the effect of climate on leaf anatomy.
RESULTS
We found that genome sizes of mangroves were very small compared to other angiosperms, but, like other angiosperms, mangrove cells were always larger than the minimum size defined by genome size. Increasing mean annual temperature of a growth site led to higher packing densities of veins (Dv) and stomata (Ds) and smaller epidermal cells but had no effect on stomatal size. In contrast to other angiosperms, mangroves exhibited (1) a negative relationship between guard cell size and genome size; (2) epidermal cells that were smaller than stomata; and (3) coordination between Dv and Ds that was not mediated by epidermal cell size. Furthermore, mangrove epidermal cell sizes and packing densities covaried with leaf size.
CONCLUSIONS
While mangroves exhibited coordination between veins and stomata and attained a maximum theoretical stomatal conductance similar to that of other angiosperms, the tissue-level tradeoffs underlying these similar relationships across species and environments were markedly different, perhaps indicative of the unique structural and physiological adaptations of mangroves to their stressful environments.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36516425
pii: 6902007
doi: 10.1093/aob/mcac151
pmc: PMC9992938
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
347-360Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
Plant Cell Environ. 2014 Jan;37(1):124-31
pubmed: 23682831
Bioinformatics. 2010 Jun 1;26(11):1463-4
pubmed: 20395285
Plant Physiol. 2007 Aug;144(4):1890-8
pubmed: 17556506
Mitochondrial DNA B Resour. 2021 Jun 23;6(7):2071-2073
pubmed: 34222659
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2012 Feb 19;367(1588):556-64
pubmed: 22232767
Ann Bot. 2020 Jul 24;126(2):323-330
pubmed: 32474609
Ecology. 2006 Feb;87(2):483-91
pubmed: 16637372
Nat Protoc. 2007;2(9):2233-44
pubmed: 17853881
J Cell Sci. 1978 Dec;34:247-78
pubmed: 372199
New Phytol. 2021 Aug;231(4):1401-1414
pubmed: 33983649
BMC Bioinformatics. 2017 Nov 29;18(1):529
pubmed: 29187165
Biol Lett. 2008 Jun 23;4(3):302-6
pubmed: 18407890
New Phytol. 2018 Jan;217(1):428-438
pubmed: 28960318
AoB Plants. 2014 Mar 28;6:
pubmed: 24876296
New Phytol. 2014 Oct;204(1):116-126
pubmed: 24725225
Plant Cell Environ. 2012 Aug;35(8):1407-18
pubmed: 22339445
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Jun 26;109(26):10403-8
pubmed: 22689947
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1964 Jul;52(1):119-25
pubmed: 16591185
Elife. 2018 Feb 27;7:
pubmed: 29482719
Proc Biol Sci. 2009 May 22;276(1663):1771-6
pubmed: 19324775
Ann Bot. 2016 Nov;118(6):1127-1138
pubmed: 27578763
Bioinformatics. 2019 Feb 1;35(3):526-528
pubmed: 30016406
Mitochondrial DNA B Resour. 2021 Jun 23;6(7):2076-2078
pubmed: 34222660
New Phytol. 2019 Jan;221(1):540-552
pubmed: 30281798
AoB Plants. 2020 Sep 11;12(5):plaa047
pubmed: 33376587
New Phytol. 2016 Jan;209(1):94-103
pubmed: 26230251
Ecology. 2017 May;98(5):1239-1255
pubmed: 28122124
Ann Bot. 2022 Jan 8;129(1):15-28
pubmed: 34508635
Proc Biol Sci. 2021 Feb 24;288(1945):20203145
pubmed: 33622134
Ecol Evol. 2015 Dec 29;6(1):267-78
pubmed: 26811791
Ann Bot. 2015 Feb;115(3):385-95
pubmed: 25157072
Nat Commun. 2012;3:1221
pubmed: 23187621
New Phytol. 2016 Jun;210(4):1219-28
pubmed: 26991124
Syst Biol. 2020 May 1;69(3):602-611
pubmed: 31804691
New Phytol. 2015 Aug;207(3):659-68
pubmed: 25809298
PLoS Biol. 2018 Jan 11;16(1):e2003706
pubmed: 29324757
Plant Cell Environ. 2019 Aug;42(8):2437-2447
pubmed: 30953380
Hortic Res. 2020 May 2;7(1):75
pubmed: 32377365
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jun 23;106(25):10343-7
pubmed: 19506250
Am J Bot. 2013 Aug;100(8):1483-93
pubmed: 23935111
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2012 Feb 19;367(1588):537-46
pubmed: 22232765
New Phytol. 2008;179(4):975-986
pubmed: 18564303
New Phytol. 2013 Jul;199(2):559-570
pubmed: 23647069
Ecol Lett. 2010 Feb;13(2):175-83
pubmed: 19968696
Tree Physiol. 2017 Mar 1;37(3):389-401
pubmed: 28100712
Plant Physiol. 2022 Aug 1;189(4):2159-2174
pubmed: 35640109
Front Plant Sci. 2020 Feb 05;10:1735
pubmed: 32117333
Nat Commun. 2012 May 15;3:837
pubmed: 22588299
Proc Biol Sci. 2012 Mar 7;279(1730):867-75
pubmed: 21881135
PLoS One. 2017 Sep 27;12(9):e0185648
pubmed: 28953931
New Phytol. 2015 Jan;205(2):608-17
pubmed: 25266914
Nat Ecol Evol. 2022 Jun;6(6):738-749
pubmed: 35484219
Geobiology. 2009 Mar;7(2):237-64
pubmed: 19260972
Am J Bot. 2018 Mar;105(3):302-314
pubmed: 29746720