4.6 Article

Cone size is related to branching architecture in conifers

Journal

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
Volume 203, Issue 4, Pages 1119-1127

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nph.12864

Keywords

allometry; conifer; Corner's rules; pollen cone; seed cone

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis - National Science Foundation
  2. US Department of Homeland Security
  3. US Department of Agriculture through NSF [EF-0832858, DBI-1300426]
  4. University of Tennessee, Knoxville
  5. Div Of Biological Infrastructure
  6. Direct For Biological Sciences [1300426] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The relationship between branch diameter and leaf size has been widely used to understand how vegetative resources are allocated in plants. Branching architecture influences reproductive allocation as well, but fewer studies have explored this relationship at broad phylogenetic or ecological scales. In this study, we tested whether pollen-producing and seed-producing cone size scales with branch diameter in conifers, a diverse and globally distributed lineage of nonflowering seed plants. Branch diameter and cone size were analyzed using multiple regression models and evolutionary models of trait evolution for a data set of 293 extant conifer species within an explicit phylogenetic framework. Branch diameter is a strong predictor of cone size across conifer species, particularly for pollen cones and dry seed cones. However, these relationships are complex in detail because leaf morphology and seed dispersal biology influence the specific ways in which they are expressed. The ubiquity and strength of these scaling relationships across conifers suggest that reproductive and vegetative morphologies are coupled in the group, and it is therefore difficult to disentangle the evolution of cone size from the evolution of branching architecture.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available