4.4 Article

Anatomy of leaf abscission in the Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii, Caprifoliaceae): a scanning electron microscopy study

期刊

PROTOPLASMA
卷 247, 期 1-2, 页码 111-116

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00709-010-0159-z

关键词

Abaxial gap; Amur honeysuckle; Anatomy; Leaf abscission; Lonicera maackii; Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)

资金

  1. Chinese Academy of Sciences Laboratory [O5S0671204]
  2. National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [164375]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lonicera maackii (Rupr.) Maxim. (Amur honeysuckle) is native to Asia and an important ornamental in China. However, the anatomy of leaf abscission (shedding) in L. maackii had not been studied previously. Such work is needed not only because knowledge of the leaf abscission process is important for a horticultural species like L. maackii but also because leaf abscission is probably the least understood abscission process, as it occurs so rapidly. Therefore, our objective was to use scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to examine the progression of leaf abscission in L. maackii at the cellular level. L. maackii branches with leaves were regularly collected in Beijing, China over the 2-month period in which leaves abscise, and examined with SEM. We found that, unlike in model species, the cortex is involved in abscission, forming an abaxial gap. We discovered that there is no discrete abscission zone prior to the onset of abscission and that no cell divisions precede abscission. An abscission zone did become evident well after the abscission process had begun, but its cells were enlarged, not constricted as in typical abscission zones. In the abaxial gap, intact cells separated at their middle lamella, but in the abscission zone, cell separation involved the entire wall, which is not typical. We did observe expected mechanical fission of vascular tissues. While the leaf abscission process we observed in L. maackii has similarities with model systems, aspects deviate from the expected.

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