Distribution and structural aspects of extrafloral nectaries in Cedrela fissilis (Meliaceae)

Paiva, Élder Antônio Sousa; Buono, Rafael Andrade; Delgado, Marina Neves

doi:10.1016/j.flora.2006.11.001

Cited by 28 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 34 publications

(51 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The thick lipid layer compels nectar release to the external environment (Fahn, 1979b), as it has already been observed in other secretory structures (Leitão et al, 2005 andPaiva et al, 2007). In Calolisianthus the nectar is released to the environment through the channel encircled by secretory cells, as it occurs in nectaries with stomata whose pores are the possible site of secretion ( Horner et al, 2003).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Distribution, structural and ecological aspects of the unusual leaf nectaries of Calolisianthus species (Gentianaceae)

Delgado

Silva

Báo

et al. 2011

Flora - Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of Plants

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nectaries in leaves of Gentianaceae have been poorly studied. The present study aims to describe the distribution, anatomy, and ecological aspects of extrafloral nectaries (EFNs) of three Calolisianthus species and in particular the ultrastructure of EFNs in Calolisianthus speciosus during leaf development, discussing its unusual structure. Leaves of Calolisianthus species were fixed and processed by the usual methods for studies using light, scanning microscopy and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Ion chromatography was used to analyze the nectar exudates of C. speciosus. The distribution patterns of nectar secretion units were analysed by ANOVA and t-tests. Two EFNs that can be seen macroscopically were observed at the bases of C. speciosus and C. pendulus leaves. Such large nectaries are absent there in C. amplissimus. Another similarly large EFN is observed at the apex of each leaf in all species. The EFNs at the base of the young leaves in C. speciosus are visited by ants during the rainy season. EFNs are formed by several nectar secretory units (nectarioles) that are present throughout the leaves. Each nectariole is formed by rosette cells with a central channel from which the nectar is released. Channels of old C. speciosus and C. pendulus EFNs were obstructed by fungi. TEM of EFNs in young leaves showed cytoplasms with secretion, small vacuoles, mitochondria, cell wall ingrowth, and plasmodesmata. TEM of EFNs in old leaves demonstrated dictyosomes, plastids, mitochondria, segments of endoplasmatic reticulum, and lipid droplets. The nectar contains sucrose, glucose and fructose.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…Some nectaries are formed by secretory parenchyma and nectar release occurs via stomata (Fahn, 1979a). In others, the nectar is released by cuticle rupture (Paiva et al, 2007). Furthermore, EFNs may also be nonvascularized or vascularized (Elias, 1983).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distribution, structural and ecological aspects of the unusual leaf nectaries of Calolisianthus species (Gentianaceae)

Delgado

Silva

Báo

et al. 2011

Flora - Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of Plants

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some of these glands can be injured and lose functionality, and having a greater number can act as a compensatory mechanism (Subramanian & Inamdar 1985 location and abundance of glands on the leaf blade favor ant patrolling across the entire leaf in search of nectar, and favoring organ protection against attack by herbivorous insects (Bentley 1977;Paiva & Machado 2006). In addition, the small volume of secretion of each leaf gland in B. muricata would also be compensated by the abundance of glands on the leaf, favoring the continued the production of secretion necessary to attract and reward ants (Paiva et al 2007), and thus ensuring the protection of young leaves and buds. These glands are cup-shaped with a short peduncle, a discoidal apical portion and a slightly concave secretory surface, which characterize them as "high type" according to the classification of Elias (1983).…”

Section: Lays Araújo Nery Milene Faria Vieira and Marília Contin Venmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Extrafloral nectaries may be vascularized by xylem and phloem (Fahn 1979;Elias 1983), as in B. muricata and other species of Malpighiaceae (Machado et al 2008;Possobom et al 2010;Araújo & Meira 2016), but they may also possess only one type of vascular tissue or no vascular tissues at all (Fahn 1979;Paiva et al 2007). The amount of vascular tissue in nectaries is considered proportional to their size (Carlquist 1969) and to the volume of secretion produced (Paiva et al 2007).…”

Section: Lays Araújo Nery Milene Faria Vieira and Marília Contin Venmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The amount of vascular tissue in nectaries is considered proportional to their size (Carlquist 1969) and to the volume of secretion produced (Paiva et al 2007). In the case of B. muricata, the reduced size of the EFNs may be the only factor explaination the small volume of secretion produced, since the proportion of vascular tissue in relation to the size of the EFNs is large.…”

Section: Lays Araújo Nery Milene Faria Vieira and Marília Contin Venmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Leaf glands of Banisteriopsis muricata (Malpighiaceae): distribution, secretion composition, anatomy and relationship to visitors

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Leaf glands are common structures in Malpighiaceae and exhibit great morphological diversity, yet information on their anatomy, secretion and type of visitors remains scarce. Th e aim of this study was to describe the distribution, anatomical development and chemical and functional properties of leaf glands of Banisteriopsis muricata (Malpighiaceae). Leaves at diff erent stages of development were collected and processed according to standard techniques for light and scanning electron microscopy. Secretion composition was determined by histochemical tests and test-strips, while gland funciton was determined by fi eld observation of interactions with visitors. Leaf glands were located on the petiole and on the abaxial base of the leaf blade. Th e gland secretion was found to be a protein-rich nectar that was foraged upon by ants (Solenopsis); it was found accumulated in subcuticular spaces without pores or stomata for its release. Leaf glands were found to develop from protoderm and ground meristem, and consisted of typical secretory epidermis, nectariferous parenchyma and vascularized subnectariferous parenchyma. Th erefore, it can be concluded that the distribution, chemical nature of secretion and anatomy of leaf glands of B. muricata characterize them as EFNs, while foraging by ants indicate a mutualistic relationship that possibly protects the plant against herbivores.

show abstract

True nectar or stigmatic secretion? Structural evidence elucidates an old controversy regarding nectaries in Anthurium

Paiva

Ballego-Campos

Gibernau

2021

American J of Botany

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Floral rewards are essential in understanding floral function and evolution of the relationships between flowers and pollinators. Whether sugars are present in stigmatic exudates in Anthurium and whether it has floral nectaries have remained controversial because of the scarcity of structural studies. To solve these questions, we investigated the floral anatomy of A. andraeanum to elucidate whether (1) tepals are secretory organs, (2) tepals possess a structurally recognizable nectary, and (3) tepalar secretion differs from stigmatic secretion. METHODS: Floral structure was assessed through light and electron microscopy of samples of immature, pistillate, and staminate flowers. The dynamics of the starch reserve was investigated using histochemical tests, and the sugar content in the floral exudates was assessed using thin-layer chromatography. RESULTS: Sugar analysis did not detect sucrose, glucose, or fructose in stigmatic secretions, but confirmed their presence in tepalar secretions. Stigmatic secretion was produced by secretory stigmatic papillae; tepalar exudates were produced by nonvascularized nectaries in the apex of tepals. These nectaries were characterized by modified stomata and cells with cytoplasm rich in organelles, and a high content of calcium oxalate crystals. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed for the first time nectaries on tepals and true nectar secretion for A. andraeanum. Stigmatic secretion appears to be a distinct substance, and its often-reported sugar content seems to be a result of sample contamination. Nectar and stigmatic secretions have been often mistaken in other Anthurium species and deserve a revision for this genus.

show abstract

Distribution and structural aspects of extrafloral nectaries in Cedrela fissilis (Meliaceae)

Cited by 28 publications

References 34 publications

Distribution, structural and ecological aspects of the unusual leaf nectaries of Calolisianthus species (Gentianaceae)

Distribution, structural and ecological aspects of the unusual leaf nectaries of Calolisianthus species (Gentianaceae)

Leaf glands of Banisteriopsis muricata (Malpighiaceae): distribution, secretion composition, anatomy and relationship to visitors

True nectar or stigmatic secretion? Structural evidence elucidates an old controversy regarding nectaries in Anthurium

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About