4.1 Article

Contrasting architectural and reproductive parameters in Mimosa maguirei in response to holoparasitism by Pilostyles blanchetii

期刊

FOLIA GEOBOTANICA
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12224-023-09424-7

关键词

Campo rupestre; Endoparasite; Plant-plant interaction; Rupestrian grasslands; Serra do Cipo

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed the effects of the holoparasitic species Pilostyles blanchetii on Mimosa maguirei. The holoparasite negatively affected the height of M. maguirei, but had a positive effect on the number of branches and leaves, possibly indicating resource manipulation. In terms of reproductive performance, parasitized individuals showed a reduction in the number of fruits and seeds. Overall, this study highlights significant changes in host plant architecture and reproductive performance caused by the holoparasitic plant.
Parasitic plant species, such as holoparasites, develop exclusively within the tissues of their hosts, are devoid of photosynthetic capability, and cause changes in their hosts. In this study, we analyse the effects of the holoparasitic species Pilostyles blanchetii on Mimosa maguirei. We assessed the effects of the holoparasite on the architecture and development of the host plant through the height, the number of branches and the number of leaves. The influence of the holoparasite on the reproductive performance of the host was tested by evaluating the number of fruits and seeds produced by M. maguirei. The holoparasite Pilostyles blanchetii negatively affected the height of M. maguirei; however, there was a positive effect on the number of branches and leaves of the host, perhaps indicating resource manipulation by the holoparasite. In relation to reproductive performance, there was a reduction in the number of fruits and seeds in parasitized individuals. Overall, this study indicates strong changes in host plant architecture and particularly a reduction in the reproductive performance of parasitized plant individuals.

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

4.1
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