4.4 Article

ECOGEOGRAPHIC VARIATION IN THE MORPHOLOGY OF TWO ASIAN WILD RICE SPECIES, ORYZA NIVARA AND ORYZA RUFIPOGON

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PLANT SCIENCES
卷 174, 期 6, 页码 896-909

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/670370

关键词

diagnostic characters; distribution; ecogeographic patterns; Oryza nivara; Oryza rufipogon; taxonomy; variation

资金

  1. T.T. Chang Genetic Resources Center (TTC-GRC) in the International Rice Research Institute
  2. Biosystematics Group of Wageningen University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To search for variation patterns and diagnostic features between Asian wild rice species, several numerical methods were applied to phenotypic data obtained from 116 accessions representing sympatric populations of Oryza nivara and Oryza rufipogon from tropical continental Asia and O. rufipogon populations from insular Southeast Asia and Australasia. Ordination and cluster analyses separate O. rufipogon from O. nivara, indicating the presence of two sympatric morphological species occupying different ecological niches. Oryza nivara and O. rufipogon are morphologically more differentiated in South Asia than in mainland Southeast Asia, implying more recent divergence and/or more interspecific gene flow among sympatric populations in the latter region. Oryza nivara exhibits South and Southeast Asian phenotypes while the Australasian populations of O. rufipogon appear as distinct from the rest of the species. Seedling height, culm number, and diameter; leaf length and width; and anther length were significantly correlated to certain geoclimatic factors and displayed contrasting correlation directions for O. nivara and O. rufipogon, implying that the two species respond differently to geographic and climatic gradients. Diagnostic characters are provided to delineate the species morphologically. The results suggest the strong influence of ecology on species morphology, existence of geographic races within species and morphological divergence between O. nivara and O. rufipogon.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据