Comparative morphoanatomical analysis of the leaves and stems of Daphne (Thymelaeaceae) species

Marina Ž. Jušković; Perica J. Vasiljević; Ana V. Savić; Dragana D. Jenačković; Branka M. Stevanović

doi:10.1515/biolog-2017-0083

Article

Comparative morphoanatomical analysis of the leaves and stems of Daphne (Thymelaeaceae) species

Marina Ž. Jušković , Perica J. Vasiljević , Ana V. Savić , Dragana D. Jenačković and Branka M. Stevanović

Published/Copyright: July 31, 2017

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Biologia Volume 72 Issue 7

Abstract

A study on the morphological variability and ecological differentiation among the species in the genus Daphne was carried out which included seven species from the Balkan Peninsula: Daphne mezereum, D. laureola, D. alpina, D. oleoides, D. malyana, D. cneorum and D. blagayana. In the Balkan Peninsula, the ranges of the species in this genus overlap, which does not occur anywhere else in Europe. Descriptive statistics were measured for 20 quantitative characters of the leves and stems. A comparative analysis of the morpho-anatomical adaptations of these species shows that: D. cneorum, D. malyana and D. oleoides belong to the adaptive type of xerophytes; D. alpina is a xeromesophyte; D. blagayana and D. laureola are mesoxerophytes; and D. mezereum is a mesophyte. Principal component analysis shows the largest contribution to the formation of the variability between the different species is made by characters that are related to leaf shape (leaf length, distance between the largest leaf width and the leaf top, largest width of the leaf, leaf surface area), followed by surface area of abaxial stomata, stem characters (stem cortex thickness and stem diameter) and leaf anatomy characters (thickness of the palisade tissue, thickness mesophyll, number of palisade layers). These features can use to discriminate among the seven studied species, suggesting that leaves and stems of Daphne can represent a source for taxonomically useful characters. Canonical discriminant analysis and the clustering method based on Mahalanobis distances shows that there is significant morphological differentiation among the species studied. The results show that various combinations of morphological and anatomical features contribute to the adaptive capacity of plants to different degrees. The morpho-anatomical features found in all seven species agree with previous infrageneric taxonomic classifications of this genus.

Key words: Daphne species; adaptive types; morpho-anatomical differentiation; xeromorphic

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Serbian Ministry of Education and Science and Technological Development, Grant No. 173030. We are grateful to Sonja Stojanović (UK) for the final English corrections.

References

Beaumonta A.J., Edwards T.J. & Smithb F.R. 2001. Leaf and bract diversity in Gnidia (Thymelaeaceae): patterns and taxonomic value. Syst. Geogr. Pl. 71: 399–418.10.2307/3668688Search in Google Scholar

Bredenkamp L.C. & Van Wyk E.A. 2000. The epidermis in Passerina (Thymelaeaceae): structure, functionand taxonomic significance. Bothalia 3: 69–86.10.4102/abc.v30i1.2219Search in Google Scholar

Bredenkamp L.C. & Van Wyk E.A. 2001. Leaf anatomy of the genus Passerina (Thymelaeaceae): taxonomic and ecological significance. Bothalia 31: 53–70.10.4102/abc.v31i1.507Search in Google Scholar

Bredenkamp L.C. 1999. Structure of mucilaginous epidermal cell walls in Passerina (Thymelaeaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 129: 223–238.10.1111/j.1095-8339.1999.tb00502.xSearch in Google Scholar

Brickell C.D. & Mathew B. 1978. Daphne, The Genus in the Wild and in Cultivation. The Alpine Garden Society, Lye End Link, St. John’s, Woking GU21 1SW, Surrey, 188 pp.Search in Google Scholar

Dickison W.C. 2000. Integrative Plant Anatomy. Harcourt Academic Press, San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boston, London, Toronto, Sydney, Tokyo.Search in Google Scholar

Fahn A. & Cutler F.D. 1992. Xerophytes. Berlin, Stuttgart, Gebrüder Borntraeger.Search in Google Scholar

Feliner N.G. 1996. Growth-form and intraspecific taxonomy in western Mediterranean Daphne (Thymelaeaceae). Isr. J. Plant Sci. 44: 369–379.10.1080/07929978.1996.10676658Search in Google Scholar

Gratani L. 2014. Plant Phenotypic Plasticity in Response to Environmental Factors. Advances in Botany. “in press” Available: 10.1155/2014/208747Search in Google Scholar

Halda J.J. 1998. Some taxonomic problems in the genus Daphne L. Acta Mus. Richnov. Sect. Nat. 5: 133–160.Search in Google Scholar

Halda J.J. 2001. The genus Daphne. Eva Kucerova – Sen Dobre Publikaca, Prague, Czeck RepublicSearch in Google Scholar

Hamaya T. 1955. A dendrological monograph on the Thymelaeaceae plants of Japan. Bull. Tokyo Univ. Forest 50: 45–96.Search in Google Scholar

Hamaya T. 1959. Dendrological Studies of the Japanese and Some Foreign Genera of the Thymelaeaceae: Anatomical and Phylogenetic Studies. Bull. Tokyo Univ. Forest 55: 1–80.Search in Google Scholar

Hetherington A.M. & Woodward F.I. 2003. The role of stomata in sensing and driving environmental change. Nature 424: 901–908.10.1038/nature01843Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Jakovljević K., Šinžar-Sekulić J., Vukojičić S., Kuzmanović N. & Lakušić D. 2013. Leaf anatomy of Carex humilis (Cyperaceae) from Central and South Eastern Europe. Bot. Serb. 37: 3–11.Search in Google Scholar

Jušković M., Vasiljević P., Ranđelović V., Stevanović V. & Stevanović B. 2010. Comparative analysis of populations of the balkan endemic species Daphne malyana Blečić (Thymeleaceae). Arch. Biol. Sci. 62: 1151–1162.10.2298/ABS1004151JSearch in Google Scholar

Jušković M., Vasiljević P., Savić A., Jenačković D. & Stevanović B. 2016. Comparative morpho-anatomical analyses populations of Daphne cneorum L. (Thymelaeaceae) from Serbia. Biologica Nyssana 7: 1–9.10.1515/biolog-2017-0083Search in Google Scholar

Keissler K. 1898. Die Arten der Gattung, Daphne aus der Section Daphnanthes. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. XXV: 29–124.Search in Google Scholar

Lakušić B., Stevanović B., Jancic R. & Lakušić D. 2010. Habitat-related adaptations in morphology and anatomy of Teucrium (Lamiaceae) species from the Balkan peninsula (Serbia and Montenegro). Flora 205: 633–46.10.1016/j.flora.2010.04.018Search in Google Scholar

Lakušić R. & Pulević B. 1980. Rasprostranjenje i ekologija vrste Daphne malyana Blečić. Glas. Repub. Zav. Zaš. Prir. Prir. Muz. 13: 23–27.Search in Google Scholar

Leigh A., Sevanto S., Close J.D. & Nicotra AB. 2016. The influence of leaf size and shape on leaf thermal dynamics: does theory hold up under natural conditions? Plant Cell Environ. 10.1111/pce.12857.Search in Google Scholar

Luxova M. 1992. Structural properties of the leaf and stem of Daphne arbuscula Celak. Biologia, Bratislava, 47: 3–14.Search in Google Scholar

Metcalfe C.R. & Chalk L. 1950. Anatomy of Dicotiledons. Vol. II, Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.Search in Google Scholar

Pearce D.W., Millard S., Bray D.F. & Rood S.B. 2006. Stomatal characteristics of riparian poplar species in a semi-arid environment. Tree Physiol. 26: 211–218.10.1093/treephys/26.2.211Search in Google Scholar

Pignattti S. 1982. Flora ďItalia 1. Edagricole, Bologna.Search in Google Scholar

Ruzin S.E. 1999. Plant Microtechnique and Microscopy. Oxford University Press, New York, 322 pp.Search in Google Scholar

Schluter U., Muschak M., Berger D. & Altmann T. 2003. Photosynthetic performance of an Arabidopsis mutant with elevated stomatal density (sdd1-1) under different light regimes. J. Exp. Bot. 54(383): 867–874.10.1093/jxb/erg087Search in Google Scholar

Schweingruber F.H., Börner A. & Schulze E.D. 2011. Atlas of Stem Anatomy in Herbs, Shrubs and Trees. Volume I. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.10.1007/978-3-642-11638-4Search in Google Scholar

Selvi F. & Bigazzi M. 2001. Leaf surface and anatomy in Boraginaceae tribe Boragineae with respect to ecology and taxonomy. Flora 196: 269–285.10.1016/S0367-2530(17)30056-7Search in Google Scholar

Stevanović B. & Mitrović M. 1996. Komparativna ekoanatomska analiza vrsta roda Daphne L. na Durmitoru. Priroda nacionalnog parka Durmitor, posebna izdanja br. 8., Geografski fakultet, Beograd.Search in Google Scholar

Stevanović V. & Zlatković B. 2006. Daphne malyana Blečić. In: Vladimirov, V., Tan, K., Stevanović V. (eds). New floristic records in the Balkans: 1. Phytol. Balc. 12(1): 124–125.Search in Google Scholar

Sundberg M.D. 1986. A comparison of stomatal distribution and length in succulent and non-succulent desert plants. Phytomorphology 36: 53–66.Search in Google Scholar

SYSTAT version 12. 2007. Systat Software, Inc., San Jose California USA.Search in Google Scholar

Turner I.M. 1994. Sclerophylly: primarily protective? Funct. Ecol. 8: 669–675.10.2307/2390225Search in Google Scholar

Urbani M. 1991. Lectotypification of the Linnaean name Daphne alpina. Taxon 40(3): 493–495.10.2307/1223233Search in Google Scholar

Webb D.A. & Ferguson I.K. 1968. Daphne L., pp. 256–258. In: Tutin T.G., Heywood V.H., Burges N.A., Moore D.M., Valentine D.H., Walters S.M. & Webb D.A. (eds), Flora Europaea, vol 2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2017-1-5

Accepted: 2017-4-20

Published Online: 2017-7-31

Published in Print: 2017-7-26

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/biolog-2017-0083

Keywords for this article

Daphne species; adaptive types; morpho-anatomical differentiation; xeromorphic