Relationship between the species-representative phenotype and intraspecific variation in Ranunculaceae floral organ and Asteraceae flower numbers

Understanding the role of floral development in the evolution of angiosperm flowers: clarifications from a historical and physico-dynamic perspective

Flower morphology results from the interaction of an established genetic program, the influence of external forces induced by pollination systems, and physical forces acting before, during and after initiation. Floral ontogeny, as the process of development from a meristem to a fully developed flower, can be approached either from a historical perspective, as a "recapitulation of the phylogeny" mainly explained as a process of genetic mutations through time, or from a physico-dynamic perspective, where time, spatial pressures, and growth processes are determining factors in creating the floral morphospace. The first (historical) perspective clarifies how flower morphology is the result of development over time, where evolutionary changes are only possible using building blocks that are available at a certain stage in the developmental history. Flowers are regulated by genetically determined constraints and development clarifies specific transitions between different floral morphs. These constraints are the result of inherent mutations or are induced by the interaction of flowers with pollinators. The second (physico-dynamic) perspective explains how changes in the physical environment of apical meristems create shifts in ontogeny and this is reflected in the morphospace of flowers. Changes in morphology are mainly induced by shifts in space, caused by the time of initiation (heterochrony), pressure of organs, and alterations of the size of the floral meristem, and these operate independently or in parallel with genetic factors. A number of examples demonstrate this interaction and its importance in the establishment of different floral forms. Both perspectives are complementary and should be considered in the understanding of factors regulating floral development. It is suggested that floral evolution is the result of alternating bursts of physical constraints and genetic stabilization processes following each other in succession. Future research needs to combine these different perspectives in understanding the evolution of floral systems and their diversification.

Spiral phyllotaxis underlies constrained variation in Anemone (Ranunculaceae) tepal arrangement

Stabilization and variation of floral structures are indispensable for plant reproduction and evolution; however, the developmental mechanism regulating their structural robustness is largely unknown. To investigate this mechanism, we examined positional arrangement (aestivation) of excessively produced perianth organs (tepals) of six- and seven-tepaled (lobed) flowers in six Anemone species (Ranunculaceae). We found that the tepal arrangement that occurred in nature varied intraspecifically between spiral and whorled arrangements. Moreover, among the studied species, variation was commonly limited to three types, including whorls, despite five geometrically possible arrangements in six-tepaled flowers and two types among six possibilities in seven-tepaled flowers. A spiral arrangement, on the other hand, was unique to five-tepaled flowers. A spiral phyllotaxis model with stochasticity on initiating excessive primordia accounted for these limited variations in arrangement in cases when the divergence angle between preexisting primordia was less than 144°. Moreover, interspecific differences in the frequency of the observed arrangements were explained by the change of model parameters that represent meristematic growth and differential organ growth. These findings suggest that the phyllotaxis parameters are responsible for not only intraspecific stability but interspecific difference of floral structure. Decreasing arrangements from six-tepaled to seven-tepaled Anemone flowers demonstrate that the stabilization occurs as development proceeds to increase the component (organ) number, in contrast from the intuition that the variation will be larger due to increasing number of possible states (arrangements).

Robust views on plasticity and biodiversity

Background How the diversity of life on our planet originated is not completely understood and many questions are still open. Especially, the role of developmental robustness in evolution is an often neglected topic.

Scope Considering diverse groups of plants and animals, and employing different concepts and approaches, the authors of articles in this Special Issue try to understand better the impact of developmental robustness, phenotypic plasticity and variance on species diversity, evolution and morphological disparity.

Conclusions Several lines of theoretical considerations as well as case studies show that developmental robustness supports rather than prevents the evolution of species diversity, at least under certain circumstances. Among the possible mechanisms is the scenario that developmental robustness facilitates the synorganization of body parts, which may enable the origin of complex novelties; this then may set the ground for species radiation.