The evolution of floral nectaries in Disa (Orchidaceae: Disinae): recapitulation or diversifying innovation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Orchidaceae have a history of recurring convergent evolution in floral function as nectar production has evolved repeatedly from an ancestral nectarless state. However, orchids exhibit considerable diversity in nectary type, position and morphology, indicating that this convergence arose from alternative adaptive solutions. Using the genus Disa, this study asks whether repeated evolution of floral nectaries involved recapitulation of the same nectary type or diversifying innovation. Epidermis morphology of closely related nectar-producing and nectarless species is also compared in order to identify histological changes that accompanied the gain or loss of nectar production. METHODS: The micromorphology of nectaries and positionally equivalent tissues in nectarless species was examined with light and scanning electron microscopy. This information was subjected to phylogenetic analyses to reconstruct nectary evolution and compare characteristics of nectar-producing and nectarless species. KEY RESULTS: Two nectary types evolved in Disa. Nectar exudation by modified stomata in floral spurs evolved twice, whereas exudation by a secretory epidermis evolved six times in different perianth segments. The spur epidermis of nectarless species exhibited considerable micromorphological variation, including strongly textured surfaces and non-secreting stomata in some species. Epidermis morphology of nectar-producing species did not differ consistently from that of rewardless species at the magnifications used in this study, suggesting that transitions from rewardlessness to nectar production are not necessarily accompanied by visible morphological changes but only require sub-cellular modification. CONCLUSIONS: Independent nectary evolution in Disa involved both repeated recapitulation of secretory epidermis, which is present in the sister genus Brownleea, and innovation of stomatal nectaries. These contrasting nectary types and positional diversity within types imply weak genetic, developmental or physiological constraints in ancestral, nectarless Disa. Such functional convergence generated by morphologically diverse solutions probably also underlies the extensive diversity of nectary types and positions in the Orchidaceae.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".