Clonal growth and dispersal potential of Leiothrix flagellaris Ruhland (Eriocaulaceae) in the rocky grasslands of Southeastern Brazil

Leiothrix flagellaris is a small clonal plant that grows in sandy/rocky, nutrient poor soils in the rocky grasslands ("campos rupestres") of southeastern Brazil. In the rainy season most of their flower heads differentiate into small rosettes, produced by pseudovivipary, and connected to the mother-plant by flexible, elongated stalks that can reach up to 90cm. Most of these rosettes remain suspended over rocks or over the sparse herbaceous surrounding vegetation, while a few arch low enough to come into contact with the surrounding soil and take root. These suspended rosettes can reach diameters comparable to currently rooted and reproductively active rosettes produced during previous reproductive periods. As the rooted rosettes grow up, their potential to generate and disperse new pseudoviviparous rosettes increase rapidly. This unusual guerrilla strategy of L. flagellaris seems to congregate a suit of traits that promote a fast increase in photosynthetic area and improve recruitment, thereby helping to circumvent dispersal and establishment failures in its severe environment.

Vegetative propagation strategies of four rupestrian species of Leiothrix (Eriocaulaceae)

Leiothrix is endemic of South America and includes 37 species, 25 of which occur in the state of Minas Gerais. Nineteen of those occur in the "Serra do Cipó", a mountain chain, located in the southern portion of the Espinhaço mountain range. This study examines vegetative propagation strategies of four species of Leiothrix, endemic to the Minas Gerais portion of the Espinhaço mountain range. For each species we established permanent plots, where we marked 30 to 51 rosettes or clones, and then took morphological and phenological measurements. Leiothrix crassifolia (Bong.) Ruhland and L. curvifolia var. lanuginosa (Bong.) Ruhland are rhizomatous, forming compact clones. Leiothrix vivipara (Bong.) Ruhland does not produce rhizomes, but is pseudoviviparous, i.e., produces numerous ramets originating from inflorescences. These ramets are formed precociously, and the flower heads do not touch the ground. In Leiothrix spiralis (Bong.) Ruhland both of these strategies are seen: it is both rhizomatous and pseudoviviparous. In this species, the ramets are formed late, only after the flower head has touched the ground. One of the typical conditions of the rupestrian grasslands is soil water shortage in some periods of the year and nutrient scarcity all year round. These conditions might have created an ideal ecological scenario for the evolution of both pseudovivipary and rhizomatous clonal growth in Leiothrix.

Mechanisms and function of flower and inflorescence reversion

Flower and inflorescence reversion involve a switch from floral development back to vegetative development, thus rendering flowering a phase in an ongoing growth pattern rather than a terminal act of the meristem. Although it can be considered an unusual event, reversion raises questions about the nature and function of flowering. It is linked to environmental conditions and is most often a response to conditions opposite to those that induce flowering. Research on molecular genetic mechanisms underlying plant development over the last 15 years has pinpointed some of the key genes involved in the transition to flowering and flower development. Such investigations have also uncovered mutations which reduce floral maintenance or alter the balance between vegetative and floral features of the plant. How this information contributes to an understanding of floral reversion is assessed here. One issue that arises is whether floral commitment (defined as the ability to continue flowering when inductive conditions no longer exist) is a developmental switch affecting the whole plant or is a mechanism which assigns autonomy to individual meristems. A related question is whether floral or vegetative development is the underlying default pathway of the plant. This review begins by considering how studies of flowering in Arabidopsis thaliana have aided understanding of mechanisms of floral maintenance. Arabidopsis has not been found to revert to leaf production in any of the conditions or genetic backgrounds analysed to date. A clear-cut reversion to leaf production has, however, been described in Impatiens balsamina. It is proposed that a single gene controls whether Impatiens reverts or can maintain flowering when inductive conditions are removed, and it is inferred that this gene functions to control the synthesis or transport of a leaf-generated signal. But it is also argued that the susceptibility of Impatiens to reversion is a consequence of the meristem-based mechanisms controlling development of the flower in this species. Thus, in Impatiens, a leaf-derived signal is critical for completion of flowering and can be considered to be the basis of a plant-wide floral commitment that is achieved without accompanying meristem autonomy. The evidence, derived from in vitro and other studies, that similar mechanisms operate in other species is assessed. It is concluded that most species (including Arabidopsis) are less prone to reversion because signals from the leaf are less ephemeral, and the pathways driving flower development have a high level of redundancy that generates meristem autonomy even when leaf-derived signals are weak. This gives stability to the flowering process, even where its initiation is dependent on environmental cues. On this interpretation, Impatiens reversion appears as an anomaly resulting from an unusual combination of leaf signalling and meristem regulation. Nevertheless, it is shown that the ability to revert can serve a function in the life history strategy (perenniality) or reproductive habit (pseudovivipary) of many plants. In these instances reversion has been assimilated into regular plant development and plays a crucial role there.

Adaptive divergence and speciation among sexual and pseudoviviparous populations of Festuca

Pseudovivipary is an environmentally induced flowering abnormality in which vegetative shoots replace seminiferous (sexual) inflorescences. Pseudovivipary is usually retained in transplantation experiments, indicating that the trait is not solely induced by the growing environment. Pseudovivipary is the defining characteristic of Festuca vivipara, and arguably the only feature separating this species from its closest seminiferous relative, Festuca ovina. We performed phylogenetic and population genetic analysis on sympatric F. ovina and F. vivipara samples to establish whether pseudovivipary is an adaptive trait that accurately defines the separation of genetically distinct Festuca species. Chloroplast and nuclear marker-based analyses revealed that variation at a geographical level can exceed that between F. vivipara and F. ovina. We deduced that F. vivipara is a recent species that frequently arises independently within F. ovina populations and has not accumulated significant genetic differentiation from its progenitor. We inferred local gene flow between the species. We identified one amplified fragment length polymorphism marker that may be linked to a pseudovivipary-related region of the genome, and several other markers provide evidence of regional local adaptation in Festuca populations. We conclude that F. vivipara can only be appropriately recognized as a morphologically and ecologically distinct species; it lacks genetic differentiation from its relatives. This is the first report of a ‘failure in normal flowering development’ that repeatedly appears to be adaptive, such that the trait responsible for species recognition constantly reappears on a local basis.