4.5 Article

Interspecific and intraspecific variation in seed size and germination requirements of Sarracenia (Sarraceniaceae)

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
卷 88, 期 3, 页码 429-437

出版社

BOTANICAL SOC AMER INC
DOI: 10.2307/2657107

关键词

dormancy; germination; latitude; morphophysiological dormancy; Sarracenia; Sarraceniaceae; seed size

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Seed size and germination requirements of eight (of nine) Sarracenia species, and 13 populations of S. purpurea were studied. All species except for S. purpurea are restricted to the southeastern United States, whereas S. purpurea ranges across Canada, southward dong the eastern United States into Maryland and Virginia (S, purpurea sap. purpurea), and from New Jersey southward into northern Florida and the coast of the Gulf of Mexico (S. purpurea ssp. venosa). I tested the hypotheses that dormancy-breaking requirements vary predictably among species across a latitudinal gradient. I also sought to determine whether seed size and germination requirements were useful characters for resolving systematic and phylogenetic questions within this genus. Seed size Varied significantly among species, but variability in seed size within S, purpurea exceeded the variability in seed size observed across all eight species studied. Seeds of all species are morphophysiologically dormant upon dispersal. Length of required cool, moist pretreatment varied among species, and germination in higher latitude populations is enhanced with longer pretreatment. In contrast, variability in germination requirements of subspecies, varieties, and populations of the geographically wide-ranging S, purpurea was not related clearly to geographic location (latitude or elevation). Germination requirements do not map onto a proposed phylogeny of Sarracenia, but observed differences in germination requirements of S. purpurea ssp. venosa var. burkii relative to other populations of S. purpurea support the recent proposal to elevate this variety to species status.

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