Vegetative morphology and trait correlations in 54 species of Commelinaceae

Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society

Volumn 158, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 257-268

  Burns, Jean H ^a,c   Munguia, Pablo ^a,b   Nomann, Benjamin E ^a   Braun, Sarah J ^a   Terhorst, Casey P ^a   Miller, Thomas E ^a  

^a FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^c WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Comparative study; Constraint; Leaf size; Morphospace; Phyllotaxis; Phylogeny; Plant architecture; Shape

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; LEAF MORPHOLOGY; MONOCOTYLEDON; PHYLOGENY; PLANT ARCHITECTURE; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; RELATEDNESS; SHAPE; VARIANCE ANALYSIS;

COMMELINACEAE;

EID: 52649112093     PISSN: 00244074     EISSN: 10958339     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2008.00909.x     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Ackerly DD, Donoghue MJ. 1998. Leaf size, sapling allometry, and Corner's rules: phylogeny and correlated evolution in maples (Acer). American Naturalist 152:767 791.
2. Ackerly DD, Reich PB. 1999. Convergence and correlations among leaf size and function in seed plants: a comparative test using independent contrast. American Journal of Botany 86:1271 1281.
3. Adams DC. 2004. Character displacement via aggressive interference in Appalachian salamanders. Ecology 85:2664 2670.
4. Berg RL. 1960. The ecological significance of correlation pleiades. Evolution 14:171 180.
5. Bock WJ. 1959. Preadaptation and multiple evolutionary pathways. Evolution 13:194 211.
6. Bragg JG, Westoby M. 2002. Leaf size and foraging for light in a sclerophyll woodland. Functional Ecology 16:633 639.
7. Cavender-Bares J, Ackerly DD, Baum DA, Bazzaz FA. 2004. Phylogenetic overdispersion in Floridian oak communities. American Naturalist 163:823 843.
8. Evans TM, Faden RB, Simpson MG, Sytsma KJ. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships in the Commelinaceae: I. A cladistic analysis of morphological data. Systematic Botany 25:668 691.
9. Evans TM, Sytsma KJ, Faden RB, Givnish TJ. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships in the Commelinaceae: II. A cladistic analysis of rbcL sequences and morphology. Systematic Botany 28:270 292.
10. Faden RB. 1988. Vegetative and reproductive features of forest and non-forest genera of African Commelinaceae. Monographs in Systematics from the Missouri Botanical Garden 25:521 526.
11. Faden RB. 2000. Commelinaceae R. Brown: spiderwort family. In:Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. Flora of North America. New York:Oxford University Press, 170 197.
12. Faden RB, Evans TM. 1999. Reproductive characters, habitat and phylogeny in African Commelinaceae. In:Timberlake J, Kativu S, eds. African plants: biodiversity, taxonomy and uses. Kew, Richmond:Royal Botanic Gardens, 23 38.
13. Faden RB, Hunt DR. 1991. The classification of the Commelinaceae. Taxon 40:19 31.
14. Falster DS, Westoby M. 2003. Leaf size and angle vary widely across species: what consequences for light interception? New Phytologist 158:509 525.
15. Gittleman JL, Luh H-K. 1992. On comparing comparative methods. Annual Reviews in Ecology and Systematics 23:383 404.
16. Givnish TJ. 1987. Comparative studies of leaf form: assessing the relative roles of selective pressures and phylogenetic constraints. New Phytologist 106:131 160.
17. Givnish TJ, Vermeij GJ. 1976. Sizes and shapes of liane leaves. American Naturalist 110:743 778.
18. Harvey PH, Pagel MD. 1991. The comparative methods in evolutionary biology. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
19. Holliday JA, Steppan SJ. 2004. Evolution of hypercarnivory: the effect of specialization on morphological and taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology 30:108 128.
20. Hunt DR. 1980. Sections and series in Tradescantia: American Commelinaceae. IX. Kew Bulletin 35:437 442.
21. Karr JR, James FC. 1975. Ecomorphological configurations and convergent evolution. In:Cody ML, Diamond JM, eds. Ecology and evolution of communities. Cambridge, MA:Belknap Press, 258 291.
22. Marks OM, Lechowicz MJ. 2006. Alternative designs and the evolution of functional diversity. The American Naturalist 167:55 66.
23. Martins EP. 2000. Adaptation and the comparative method. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15:296 299.
24. McDonald PG, Fonseca CR, McCoverton J, Westoby M. 2003. Leaf-size divergence along rainfall and soil-nutrient gradients: is the method of size reduction common among clades? Functional Ecology 17:50 57.
25. Meade C, Parnell J. 2003. Multivariate analysis of leaf shape patterns in Asian species of the Uvaria group (Annonaceae). Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 143:231 242.
26. Niklas KJ. 1988. The role of phyllotactic pattern as a 'developmental constraint' on the interception of light by leaf surfaces. Evolution 42:1 16.
27. Niklas KJ. 1993. The allometry of plant reproductive biomass and stem diameter. American Journal of Botany 80:461 467.
28. Niklas KJ. 1994. The allometry of safety-factors for plant height. American Journal of Botany 81:345 351.
29. Niklas KJ. 2004. Computer models of early land plant evolution. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 32:47 66.
30. Pearcy RW, Valladares F, Wright SJ, de Paulis EL. 2004. A functional analysis of the crown architecture of tropical forest Psychotria species: do species vary in light capture efficiency and consequently in carbon gain and growth? Oecologia 139:163 177.
31. Poorter L, Bongers L, Bongers F. 2006. Architecture of 54 moist-forest tree species: traits, trade-offs, and functional groups. Ecology 87:1289 1301.
32. Rasband WS. 1997-2005. ImageJ. Bethesda, MD: US National Institutes of Health. Available at http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij [accessed on 1 June 2005 DM, Michelson A. 1965. Theoretical morphology of the coiled shell. Science 147:1294 1295.
33. Reich PB, Tjoelker MG, Machado J-L, Oleksyn J. 2006. Universal scaling of respiratory metabolism, size and nitrogen in plants. Nature 439:457 461.
34. SAS Institute. 1999-2000. Version 8.01. Cary, NC:SAS Institute.
35. Schluter D. 1996. Adaptive radiation along genetic lines of least resistance. Evolution 50:1766 1774.
36. Shinozaki K, Yoda K, Hozumi K, Kira T. 1964. A quantitative analysis of plant form - the pipe model theory. I. Basic analyses. Japanese Journal of Ecology 14:97 105.
37. Westoby M, Falster DS, Moles AT, Vesk PA, Wright IJ. 2002. Plant ecological strategies: some leading dimensions of variation between species. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33:125 159.
38. Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M, Ackerly DD, Baruch Z, Bongers F, Cavender-Bares J, Chapin T, Cornelissen JHC, Diemer M, Flexas J, Garnier E, Groom PK, Gulias J, Hikosaka K, Lamont BB, Lee T, Lee W, Lusk C, Midgley JJ, Navas M-L, Niinemets U, Oleksyn J, Osada N, Poorter H, Poot P, Prior L, Pyankov VI, Roumet C, Thomas SC, Tjoelker MG, Veneklass EJ, Villar R. 2004. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428:821 827.