4.5 Article

Is there silicon in flowers and what does it tell us?

期刊

ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 13, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.10630

关键词

angiosperms; biogenic silica; evolution; pollination

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The accumulation of silicon in flowers varies among different plant groups, suggesting a potential relationship between silicon accumulation and flower function and pollination strategy.
The emergence of flowers marked an important development in plant evolution. Flowers in many species evolved to attract animal pollinators to increase fertilisation chances. In leaves, silicon (Si) discourages herbivores, for example by wearing down mouthparts. Flowers are essentially modified leaves and hence may also have the capacity to accumulate Si. If Si in flowers discourages animal visitors as it does in leaves, Si accumulation may be disadvantageous for pollination. Whether flowers accumulate Si, and what the implications may be, was not known for many species. We analysed leaves and flowers of different taxa, separated into their different anatomical parts. Flowers mostly have low Si concentrations in all parts (mean +/- SE of BSi in mg g(-1) was 0.22 +/- 0.04 in petals, 0.59 +/- 0.24 in sepals, 0.14 +/- 0.03 in stamens, 0.15 +/- 0.04 in styles and stigmas and 0.37 +/- 0.19 in ovaries for a subset of 56 species). In most cases, less Si was accumulated in flowers than in leaves (mean +/- SE of BSi in mg g(-1) was 1.51 +/- 0.55 in whole flowers vs. 2.97 +/- 0.57 in leaves in 104 species) though intriguing exceptions are found, with some species accumulating more Si in flowers than leaves. The large variation in concentration among flowers across the taxa examined, with a particularly high concentration in grass inflorescences, tantalisingly suggests differences in the use of Si for flowers across plant groups. We conclude that the study of the functions of Si for flowers warrants more attention, with pollination strategy a potential contributing factor.

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

4.5
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