ArticleAnnals of botany2021
Morpho-anatomical affinities and evolutionary relationships of three paleoendemic podocarp genera based on seed cone traits.
Article in Annals of botany, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Reproductive biology of the "Brazilian pine" (Araucaria angustifolia-Araucariaceae): the pollen tube growth and the seed cone development.Plant reproduction · 2024Article
- Detailed Seed Cone Morpho-Anatomy Provides New Insights into Seed Cone Origin and Evolution of Podocarpaceae; Podocarpoid and Dacrydioid Clades.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Diversity, Distribution, Systematics and Conservation Status of Podocarpaceae.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Detailed seed cone morpho-anatomy of the Prumnopityoid clade: an insight into the origin and evolution of Podocarpaceae seed cones.Annals of botany · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThe three relict genera Pherosphaera, Microcachrys and Saxegothaea in Podocarpaceae produce quite distinct seed cone types in comparison with other genera and do not form a clade along with Acmopyle. The detailed seed cone morpho-anatomy of these three relict genera and affinities with other podocarps are poorly known. This study aims to understand the seed cone morpho-anatomy and affinities among these three disjunct relict genera and with other podocarps.
methodsWe comparatively analysed the seed cone morpho-anatomical traits of the three podocarps genera and used ancestral state reconstruction to understand the evolution of these traits. KEY
resultsWe described the seed cone morpho-anatomical structures of the three relict genera in detail. The three genera produce aggregated multiovulate cones. Both Microcachrys and Saxegothaea have an asymmetrical free cup-like epimatium. Both species of Pherosphaera lack an epimatium. The ancestral state reconstruction implies that the presence of an epimatium is an ancestral trait in podocarps and is independently lost in Pherosphaera and Phyllocladus. The seed cones are fleshy in Microcachrys and non-fleshy in Saxegothaea and Pherosphaera. The seed cone macrofossils of both extinct and living podocarps also show the presence of an epimatium and fleshiness in podocarps.
conclusionsAltogether, the morpho-anatomy suggests that Pherosphaera, Microcachrys and Saxegothaea present affinities with each other and other podocarps, but the reconstruction of the ancestral seed cone in Podcarpaceae is quite complex due to multiple convergent evolutions of several structures. These structures (e.g. epimatium, aril and receptaculum) are of low taxonomic value but of great evolutionary and ecological significance, and are responsive adaptations to ever-changing environmental conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.