Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29659704›Full record

ArticleAnnals of botany2018

Development of the sphagnoid areolation pattern in leaves of Palaeozoic protosphagnalean mosses.

Oleg V Ivanov, Elena V Maslova, Michael S Ignatov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of botany, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The botanical multiverse of Peter Barlow.Communicative & integrative biology · 2019
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Oleg V IvanovLebedev Institute of Physics of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia.
Elena V MaslovaBelgorod State University, Belgorod, Russia.
Michael S IgnatovMoscow State University, Faculty of Biology, Moscow, Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: Protosphagnalean mosses constitute the largest group of extinct mosses of still uncertain affinity. Having the general morphology of the Bryopsida, some have leaves with an areolation pattern characteristic of modern Sphagna. This study describes the structure and variation of these patterns in protosphagnalean mosses and provides a comparison with those of modern Sphagna. Methods: Preparations of fossil mosses showing preserved leaf cell structure were obtained by dissolving rock, photographed, and the resulting images were transformed to graphical format and analysed with Areoana computer software. Key Results: The sphagnoid areolation pattern is identical in its basic structure for both modern Sphagnum and Palaeozoic protosphagnalean mosses. However, in the former group the pattern develops through unequal oblique cell divisions, while in the latter the same pattern is a result of equal cell divisions taking place in a specific order with subsequent uneven cell growth. The protosphagnalean pathway leads to considerable variability in leaf structure. Conclusions: Protosphagnalean mosses had a unique ability to switch the development of leaf areolation between a pathway unique to Sphagnum and another one common to all other mosses. This developmental polyvariancy hinders attempts to classify these mosses, as characters previously considered to be of generic significance can be shown to co-occur in one individual leaf. New understanding of the ontogeny has allowed us to re-evaluate the systematic significance of such diagnostic characters in these Palaeozoic plants, showing that their similarity to Sphagnum is less substantial.

Indexed as

BryophytaFossilsPlant Leaves

Identifiers

PMID29659704
PMCPMC6215045

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.