Advance Search
GUO Shui-Liang, CHEN Guo-Qi. Root Meristematic Karyon Size: Possible New Index in the Evaluation of Plant Invasiveness[J]. Plant Science Journal, 2015, 33(1): 53-60. DOI: 10.11913/PSJ.2095-0837.2015.10053
Citation: GUO Shui-Liang, CHEN Guo-Qi. Root Meristematic Karyon Size: Possible New Index in the Evaluation of Plant Invasiveness[J]. Plant Science Journal, 2015, 33(1): 53-60. DOI: 10.11913/PSJ.2095-0837.2015.10053

Root Meristematic Karyon Size: Possible New Index in the Evaluation of Plant Invasiveness

More Information
  • Received Date: May 30, 2014
  • Revised Date: June 19, 2014
  • Available Online: October 31, 2022
  • Published Date: February 27, 2015
  • Many reports have found a statistically negative correlation between DNA C-value and plant invasiveness, with meristematic karyon size playing a key role in this correlation according to previous research. We hypothesized that meristematic karyon size could be applied as an evaluation index of plant invasiveness for at least some taxa. To test this hypothesis, we examined the sizes of karyons, cells, and mitosis rates of five Vicia species with different invasiveness and DNA C-values, and also investigated their seed production, seedling weight/dry seed weight (similar to relative seedling growth rate), and their life spans. Results showed that plants with smaller meristematic karyons were prone to have smaller chromosomes, karyons, cells, and seeds, quicker mitosis, higher relative seedling growth rate, shorter generation time, and produce more and smaller seeds. Furthermore, among the five Vicia species, plants with smaller meristematic karyons exhibited higher invasiveness, which may be explained by two aspects: (1) smaller seeds with much higher seed production; and (2) higher rates of cell division and seedling growth with shorter generation times. The effects of meristematic karyon size on plant invasiveness coincided with that of the DNA C-value. Therefore, for plant invasiveness evaluation models, meristematic karyon size has potential value in invasiveness assessment due to its convenience and lower expense, though more work is needed to determine its application scope and methodology.
  • [1]
    Nielsen JA, Whigham PA, Frew RD, Callaway RM, Dickinson KJM. Invasion essentials: does secondary chemistry plasticity contribute to the invasiveness of Thymus vulgaris L.?[J]. Chemoecology, 2013, 24(1): 15-27.
    [2]
    Gallagher RV, Leishman MR, Miller JT, Hui C, Richardson DM, Suda J, Trávníek P. Invasiveness in introduced Australian acacias: the role of species traits and genome size[J]. Divers Distrib, 2011, 17(5): 884-897.
    [3]
    Chen GQ, Guo SL, Yin LP. Applying DNA C-values to evaluate invasiveness of angiosperms: validity and limitation[J]. Biol Invasions, 2010, 12(5): 1335-1348.
    [4]
    Hodgins KA, Lai Z, Nurkowski K, Huang J, Rieseberg LH. The molecular basis of invasiveness: differences in gene expression of native and introduced common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisii-folia) in stressful and benign environments[J]. Mol Ecol, 2013, 22(9): 2496-2510.
    [5]
    Baker HG. The evolution of weeds[J]. Annu Rev Ecol Syst, 1974, 5:1-24.
    [6]
    Daehler CC. The taxonomic distribution of invasive angiosperm plants: ecological insights and comparison to agricultural weeds[J]. Biol Conserv, 1998, 84(2):167-180.
    [7]
    Williamson M, Fitter AH. The characters of successful invaders[J]. Biol Conserv, 1996, 78(1-2): 163-170
    [8]
    Maillet J, Lopez-Garcia C. What criteria are relevant for predicting the invasive capacity of a new agricultural weed? The case of invasive American species in France[J]. Weed Res, 2000, 40(1): 11-26.
    [9]
    Sutherland S. What makes a weed a weed: life history traits of native and exotic plants in the USA[J]. Oecologia, 2004, 141(1): 24-39.
    [10]
    Bennett MD, Leitch IJ, Hanson L. DNA amounts in two samples of angiosperm weeds[J]. Ann Bot, 1998, 82(sup. A): 121-134.
    [11]
    Rejmanek M. A theory of seed plant invasiveness: The first sketch[J]. Biol Conserv, 1996, 78(1-2): 171-181.
    [12]
    Grotkopp E, Rejmanek M, Sanderson MJ. Evolution of genome size in pines (Pinus) and its life-history correlates: super tree analyses[J]. Evolution, 2004, 58(8): 1705-1729.
    [13]
    Guo SL, Chen GQ, Mao LH. Relationship between DNA C-value and invasiveness in 539 an-giosperm species in China[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2008, 28(8): 3698-3705.
    [14]
    Knight CA, Ackerly DD. Variation in nuclear DNA content across environmental gradients: a quantile regression analysis[J]. Ecol Let, 2002, 5(1): 66-76.
    [15]
    Fu GL, Feng YL. Nulcear DNA C-value of alien invasive and native plants and its relationship with invasiveness[J]. Chin J Ecol, 2007, 26(10): 1590-1594.
    [16]
    Grime JP, Mowforth MA. Variation in genome sizean ecological interpretation[J]. Nature, 1982, 299(5879): 151-153
    [17]
    Bennett MD, Heslop-Harrison JS, Smith JB, Ward JP. DNA density in mitotic and meiotic metaphase chromosomes of plants and animals[J]. J Cell Sci, 1983, 63: 173-179.
    [18]
    Anderson LK, Stack SM, Fox MH, Chuanshan Z. The relation between genome size and synaptonemal complex length in higher plants[J]. Exp Cell Res, 1985, 156(2): 367-377.
    [19]
    Rees H, Cameron FM, Hazarika MH, Jones GH. Nuclear variation between diploid angiosperms[J]. Nature, 1966, 211: 828-830
    [20]
    Acosta MC, Guerra M, Moscone EA. Karyological relationships among some South American species of Solanum (Solanaceae) based on fluorochrome banding and nuclear DNA amount[J]. Plant Sys Evol, 2012, 298(8): 1547-1556.
    [21]
    Andrés-Sánchez S, Temsch EM, Rico E, Martínez-Ortega MM. Genome size in Filago L. (Astera-ceae, Gnaphalieae) and related genera: phylogenetic, evolutionary and ecological implications[J]. Plant Sys Evol, 2013, 299(2): 331-345.
    [22]
    Meng R, Finn C. Determining ploidy level and nuclear DNA content in Rubus by flow cytometry[J]. J Amer Soc Hort Sci, 2002, 127(5): 767-775.
    [23]
    Sugiyama S, Yamaguchi K, Yamada T. Intraspecific phenotypic variation associated with nuclear DNA content in Lolium perenne L.[J]. Euphytica, 2002, 128(2): 145-151.
    [24]
    Dolezel J, Greilhuber J, Lucretti S. Plant genome size estimation by flow cytometry: inter-laboratory comparison[J]. Ann Bot, 1998, 82(sup. A): 17-26.
    [25]
    Holm LG, Pancho JV, Herberger JP. A geogra-phical atlas of world weeds[M]. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1979.
    [26]
    Li YH. Weeds in China[M]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 1998.
    [27]
    Bennett MD, Leitch IJ. Nuclear DNA amounts in angiosperms[J]. Ann Bot, 1995, 76(2): 113-176.
    [28]
    Daehler CC. Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants: Implications for conservation and restoration[J]. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Sys, 2003, 34(1): 183-211.
    [29]
    Funk JL, Vitousek PM. Resource-use efficiency and plant invasion in low-resource systems[J]. Nature, 2007, 446(7139): 1079-1081.
    [30]
    Seastedt T. Plant ecology-Resourceful invaders[J]. Nature, 2007, 446(7139): 985-986.
    [31]
    Caley P, Lonsdale WM, Pheloung PC. Quantifying uncertainty in predictions of invasiveness, with emphasis on weed risk assessment[J]. Boil Invasions, 2006, 8(8) 1595-1604.
    [32]
    Li ZY, Xie Y. Invasive Species in China[M]. Bejing: China Forestry Publishing House, 2002.
    [33]
    Ni LP, Guo SL. Review on relationship between invasiveness of plants and their DNA C-value[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2005, 25(9):2372-2381.
  • Related Articles

    [1]Li Ying, Zhang Yue-Jing, Wang Xin, Pang Hai-Long, Jia Ling-Yun, Feng Han-Qing. Effects of Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain and its infection time and concentration on transient expression of foreign genes based on expression vector of bean yellow dwarf virus[J]. Plant Science Journal, 2021, 39(3): 297-305. DOI: 10.11913/PSJ.2095-0837.2021.30297
    [2]Chen Mu-Ya, Liu Kang, Zhang Hong-Juan, Zhang Yue. Comparison of time series models for predicting net primary productivity dynamic changes of Abies fargesii Franch. on the southern slopes of Taibai Mountain[J]. Plant Science Journal, 2020, 38(3): 323-334. DOI: 10.11913/PSJ.2095-0837.2020.30323
    [3]Shu Huang-Ying, Hao Yuan-Yuan, Cai Qing-Ze, Wang Zhen, Zhu Guo-Peng, Cheng Shan-Han, Zhou Yuan, Wang Zhi-Wei. Recent research progress on the molecular regulation of flowering time in Arabidopsis thaliana[J]. Plant Science Journal, 2017, 35(4): 603-608. DOI: 10.11913/PSJ.2095-0837.2017.40603
    [4]SHA Wei, WANG Huan, SHI Shuai. Effects of Rewatering on the Physio-biochemical Indexes of Racomitrium japonicum in Long-time Drought[J]. Plant Science Journal, 2010, 28(2): 246-249. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1142.2010.20246
    [5]TANG Sai-Chun, WEI Chun-Qiang, , PAN Yu-Mei. Reproductive Adaptability of the Invasive Weed Parthenium hysterophorus L.under Different Nitrogen and Phosphorus Levels[J]. Plant Science Journal, 2010, 28(2): 213-217. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1142.2010.20213
    [6]PAN Li, YE Qi-Gang, HUANG Hong-Wen. Effects of Spore Storage Time and Culture Conditions on the Formation of Gametophyte and Sporophyte of Adiantum reniforme var.sinense[J]. Plant Science Journal, 2007, 25(2): 173-177.
    [7]HONG Lan, SHEN Hao, YANG Qi-He, CAO Hong-Lin, YE Wan-Hui. Studies on Seed Germination and Storage of the Invasive Alien Species Bidens pilosa L.[J]. Plant Science Journal, 2004, 22(5): 433-437.
    [8]ZHAO Wen-Fei, XING Shi-Yan, JIANG Yong-Xu, DU Cheng-Tao. Effects of Storage Time on Germination Percentage and Protective Enzymes Activity of Ginkgo biloba L. Pollen[J]. Plant Science Journal, 2004, 22(3): 259-263.
    [9]ZHANG Wei Yin, LI Ming Guang, WANG Bo Sun, ZAN Qi Jie, WANG Yong Jun. Seed Production Characteristics of an Exotic Weed Mikania micrantha[J]. Plant Science Journal, 2003, 21(2): 143-147.
    [10]Li Hanxia, Ye Zhibiao, Lin Yaoliang. SELECTIVITY OF FERTILIZATION IN VEGETABLE SPECIES OF CRUCIFERAE[J]. Plant Science Journal, 1999, 17(2): 187-190.

Catalog

    Article views (1322) PDF downloads (1433) Cited by()

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return