4.1 Article

Nectary structure of Labiatae in relation to their nectar secretion and characteristics in a Mediterranean shrub community - Does flowering time matter?

期刊

PLANT SYSTEMATICS AND EVOLUTION
卷 225, 期 1-4, 页码 103-118

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/BF00985461

关键词

Ballota, Lamium, Phlomis, Prasium, Salvia, Satureja, Stachys, Teucrium, Thymus; modified stomata, nectarostomata, nectar composition, flower size; Mediterranean shrub community, phrygana

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We studied the interrelation between nectary structure (13 parameters), nectar characteristics (yield, chemical composition), and flower size of 11 Labiatae species in a Mediterranean shrub community near Athens, Greece. We also explored whether the above attributes are affected by the Mediterranean summer drought constraints. Our findings show that among all nectary parameters studied, nectary size and stomatal opening are the most important in (positively) shaping nectar secretion, nectary size being the most meaningful. Nectary structure is correlated to quantity of the nectar secreted, not its quality. Wide Rowers bear wide nectaries with large stomatal openings, whereas deep flowers are not related to any nectary size. Corolla size (both length and width) and nectary stomatal opening decrease with flowering time. This applies also to nectary size, nectar volume and sugar content of the perennials (9 species). Ail above cases of time dependence show that there is a constraint effect of Mediterranean climate on floral and nectary structure, reflected also as a decrease in nectar secretion. Nectary structure in Labiatae is largely shaped by both phylogenetic and climate constraints. On the other hand, although nectar is largely influenced by nectary structure, it is to a large extent ecologically biased, implying that, in addition to phylogeny, there are many other ecological parameters interfering in its secretion such as time within the season, life history, and light requirements.

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