Abstract
This study presents the first comparative analysis of the leaf secretory structures across Asteraceae. In this work, the leaf secretory structures of more than 500 species of 35 of the 40 tribes and 11 of the 13 subfamilies of Asteraceae are described and compared to evaluate their diversity at the tribe level and to identify evolutionary patterns. Leaf secretory structures are present in 28 of the 35 analyzed tribes and correspond to canals (recorded in 17 tribes), secretory cavities (1 tribe), hydathodes (19 tribes), laticifers (4 tribes) and glandular trichomes (24 tribes). Canals are mostly associated with vascular bundles and predominate in Asteroideae, while cavities were only present within Tageteae. Hydathodes occur in leaves without divisions and with well-developed teeth. Laticifers were observed only in the tribes of Cichorioideae. Seven glandular trichome morphotypes were differentiated by their cellular composition and shape. These observations together with the available information showed that secretory structures are found in 80% of the Asteraceae tribes. Four of the 40 tribes did not present any type of secretory structure. Our study reveals that almost all of the tribes possess one to three types of secretory structures, and are absent in some early-diverging clades. Character evolution analyses show that glandular trichomes are plesiomorphic in Asteraceae. This study found that secretory structures prevail in late-diverging lineages and were taxonomically informative at different levels. Our comparative study of the secretory structures in Asteraceae is essential for the standardization of its terminology and will provide a frame of reference for future studies.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
In plants, secretions account for the isolation or elimination of all types of substances not stored for their remobilization or incorporation into other metabolic processes; these substances are generally products of secondary metabolism or substances not modified by the action of cell metabolism (Fahn 1979). These compounds can be retained in subcellular compartments or released from the cells without compromising their integrity (Fahn 1982; Beck 2010). Individual cells or multicellular structures that are responsible for carrying out secretory functions are called secretory structures, and their classification has represented a great challenge because of their physiological, anatomical or topographic (its location on the plant body) aspects (Fahn 1979; Mauseth 1988). However, the topographic criterion, e.g., internal or external secretory structures, seems to be the most widely used by many authors. The first corresponds to secretory cells (also named secretory idioblasts), cavities, canals, and laticifers, while the latter includes glandular trichomes, papillae, colleters, nectaries, hydathodes, and the stigmatic tissue of the gynoecium (Esau 1977; Dickison 2000; Evert 2006; Beck 2010). Secretory structures can be found in all plant organs, although their major diversity is concentrated in the leaves (Fahn 1979).
The study of secretory structures has focused on highly diverse angiosperm families, such as Apiaceae, Fabaceae, Lamiaceae, Malvaceae, Rosaceae, Rutaceae, and Solanaceae, in which a large number of phytochemicals have been identified (Moerman et al. 1999; Evans 2009; Gras et al. 2021). These compounds are not only relevant from a pharmacological perspective but also very important in the field of chemical ecology. Because Asteraceae is the most diverse family within angiosperms and has a large number of medicinal species that have been the subject of numerous phytochemical studies (Pérez-Castorena et al. 2000, 2001; Arciniegas et al. 2011, 2018; Heinrich et al. 2012; Cilia-López et al. 2021), this family is an interesting case study for studying the diversity of secretory structures. Most of the published studies are focused on the general leaf anatomy or the epidermal appendages in some punctual genera of certain tribes of the Asteraceae, such as Anthemideae (Dere & Aytas Akcin 2017), Cardueae (Ozcan et al. 2015), Heliantheae (Bombo et al. 2012; Silva et al. 2015; Bezerra et al. 2018), Madieae (Carlquist 1958; Carlquist 1959a, b, c), Senecioneae (Rojas-Leal et al. 2017), Tageteae (García-Sánchez et al. 2012) and Vernonieae (Redonda-Martínez et al. 2012, 2016). Past works that investigated leaf anatomy and epidermal appendages were not focused on secretory structures; therefore, the descriptions are often vague or unspecific and use different terms to refer to similar structures.
Several studies have comprised and compared the different tribes of Asteraceae, including the work of Lersten & Curtis (1985), who analyzed the presence of hydathodes in 88 species of 80 genera in 10 tribes; and Castro et al. (1997), who analyzed the leaf secretory structures in 72 species of 21 genera in 6 tribes. In 2009, Robinson presented a revision of the most important microcharacters of the family, while in 2019, Liesenfeld et al. analyzed the leaf trichomes of 34 species of 24 genera in 11 tribes. However, if we consider that Asteraceae includes approximately 40 tribes in 13 subfamilies (Panero & Crozier 2016), a descriptive comparative study that analyzes most of the tribes within the family based on the most recent phylogenetic hypothesis is essential. Comparative studies allow us to establish homology hypotheses (De Pinna 1991) and are fundamental for developing a reference scheme in highly diverse taxa, such as Asteraceae. In this work, the leaf secretory structures occurring in members of 35 of the 40 recognized tribes are compared and described. This sampling included 11 of the 13 subfamilies of Asteraceae. Our aim was to recognize the diversity along the family, identify which secretory structures are found in each tribe, determine the variations of each structure, and discern the evolutionary patterns of the main types of secretory structures in the family.
Material and Methods
Taxonomic Sample
A total of 542 species from 35 tribes and 11 subfamilies of Asteraceae were selected, representing 87.5% of the tribes and 84% of the subfamilies according to Panero & Crozier (2016; ESM 1). For each species, at least one individual was selected from field collections or specimens deposited in the National Herbarium of Mexico, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (MEXU) and in the University of Texas at Austin Herbarium (TEX). One to two leaves per individual were sampled. The selection criteria were fully developed leaves without apparent damage and leaves not associated with inflorescences.
Microtechnique
The middle third of the leaf blade (including the intercostal area from the middle vein to the margin) of the fresh samples was fixed with FAA (37% formaldehyde, glacial acetic acid, 95% ethanol, and distilled water, Ruzin 1999). The samples obtained from the herbarium specimens were previously rehydrated in boiling water and subsequently treated with a 20% NaOH solution to restore both the shape and size of the cells. An entire leaf or part of it (depending on the size of the leaf) was removed from the herbarium specimens and processed using the leaf clearing technique (Martínez-Cabrera et al. 2007). All samples were dehydrated with ethanol (10–100%) in a Leica TP1020 automatic changer (Leica, Wetzlar, Germany), with the samples maintained at each concentration for 24 h. The tissues were infiltrated and embedded with Paraplast®, and 12–16 μm sections were made in the transverse and paradermal planes with a rotary microtome (Leica RM2125RT, Leica, Wetzlar, Germany). The sections were stained with safranin-fast green (Johansen 1940) and mounted with synthetic resin. Photographs of secretory structures were taken with an EvolutionTM LC color digital camera coupled to an Olympus Bx51 microscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan). The terms used to describe secretory structures are based on Fahn (1979), Mauseth (1988), Castro et al. (1997), Evert (2006) and Funk et al. (2009). According to the microscopic observations and information from the literature, a synthesis of the types of secretory structures in each of the Asteraceae tribes was carried out.
Phylogenetic Analyses
The chloroplast DNA matrix generated by Rivera et al. (2020), including eleven molecular markers (atpB, matK, ndhD, ndhF, ndhI, rbcL, ndhJ, ndhK, ndhC, trnL-trnF, 23 S-trnA) was used. Because not all the species included in the original molecular matrix were analyzed in this study, taxa for which no anatomical information was available were eliminated. To represent the four tribes included in Cichorioideae, sequences of matK, ndhF, and trnL-trnF of Sinclairia ismaelis (Funk et al. 2012; JN837476.1, JN837373.1, JN837283.1) from GenBank (Sayers et al. 2020) were incorporated into the matrix. Thus, the reduced matrix with 171 species of most of the tribes of Asteraceae and its sister groups (members of Calyceraceae and Goodeniaceae) was aligned using the default parameters in MAFFT v.7 (Katoh et al. 2002).
Phylogenetic analysis was carried out through Bayesian inference using MrBayes 3.2.7a (Ronquist & Huelsenbeck 2003). The nucleotide substitution model for the plastid dataset was selected using jModelTest2 (Darriba et al. 2012) with eleven substitution schemes, and the model fit was evaluated using the Akaike information criterion to select the best model. Analyses were performed using two runs with four Markov Monte Carlo chains of 10,000,000 generations, saving one tree every 1000 generations, starting with a random tree. The burn-in was set after the first 25% of the generations, and the remaining trees were summarized in a majority-rule consensus tree. Both model selection and phylogenetic inference were carried out at the CIPRES Science Gateway (Miller et al. 2010).
Ancestral Character States Reconstruction and Character Evolution
A tree sample was compiled from the two t.files obtained from the MrBayes run using R v.4.0 (R Core Team 2020) through RStudio v.1.1.383 (RStudio Team 2020). First, trees from all runs were concatenated, with 10% of each of the trees in each file discarded. Then, 200 trees were randomly sampled from this concatenated tree file. An ancestral character state reconstruction analysis was performed in BayesTraits V3 (Meade & Pagel 2017) using the tree sample and the presence or absence of the five main types of secretory structures. The reversible-jump Markov chain Monte Carlo (rj-MCMC) approach was used to integrate the model uncertainty. Each rj-MCMC analysis was run with an exponential hyperprior (mean on a uniform interval from 0 to 10). The chain was run for 500,000 generations, and the first 10% were discarded as burn-in. The mean values of all the posterior probabilities found were illustrated as pie chart diagrams on the majority-rule consensus tree using the package Phytools v.0.7–47 (Revell 2012) of R v.4.0 (R Core Team 2020) through RStudio v.1.1.383 (RStudio Team 2020).
Results
Secretory structures are present in 28 of the 35 analyzed tribes and correspond to canals, cavities, hydathodes, laticifers and glandular trichomes (Fig. 1). Although at least one type of secretory structure is present in most tribes, seven of the analyzed tribes do not present such structures: Barnadesieae, Chaenactideae, Corymbieae, Hecastocleideae, Hyalideae, Pertyeae and Stifftieae. It is important to emphasize that the simultaneous presence of glandular trichomes, hydathodes, and canals is common along the family and occurs in 11 tribes (Table 1; Fig. 1). Each of the secretory structures observed is described below.
Canals
Canals consist of intercellular spaces that are highly variable in size. Seen in paradermal sections, canals usually form a long duct (Fig. 2a, b), although in some cases, they can be solitarily short intercellular spaces that can be developed very close to each other, thus giving them the appearance of a single structure, as occurs in many species of Coreopsideae and Eupatorieae and some taxa of Astereae and Heliantheae (Fig. 2c, d). In either case, canals are always circular in transverse sections and delimited by the parenchymatous unistratified sheath with slightly thickened primary walls. Toward the canal lumen, there is a unistratified secretory epithelium that consists of small cells with thinned walls and evident nuclei, sometimes with reddish contents. In most cases, canals are associated with vascular bundles located on the xylem (Fig. 2e), phloem (Fig. 2f) or both vascular tissues (Fig. 2g). Canals can also be located laterally to the vascular bundles (Fig. 2h), mainly in representatives of Astereae and Coreopsideae. In all cases, canals are separated from the vascular tissue by the vascular bundle sheath. In some taxa of Astereae, Eupatorieae, Mutisieae, and Senecioneae, the canals are not associated with the vascular bundles. In the midrib, one to several canals are observed either toward the adaxial (Fig. 2i) or abaxial surface (Fig. 2j) or surrounding the vascular bundles (Fig. 2k). In most taxa, canals do not preserve their contents; however, in some cases, they preserve yellow contents with a crystallized appearance (Fig. 2l). Such canals were present in 280 species and 17 of the analyzed tribes (Fig. 3).
Cavities
Cavities are distinguished as large elliptical to rounded intercellular spaces in paradermal sections (Fig. 2m). They are always solitary and externally delimited by the cavity sheath, which includes several strata of nonsecretory cells with thickened walls that surround the secretory region and by more than one layer of epithelial cells surrounding the cavity lumen (Fig. 2n). Given their size, they are evident to the naked eye, and in almost all taxa, they partially conserve their contents. Cavities were only present in the species analyzed from the tribe Tageteae.
Hydathodes
In the studied species, hydathodes are generally present in leaves with well-developed teeth; however, it is also possible to find hydathodes in leaf blades with entire margins or even in strongly divided leaf blades. In all cases, hydathodes are irrigated by a vein (primary, secondary or higher order) that divides into xylem strands upon reaching the tooth. The surrounding mesophyll of these strands differentiates into an epithem with large intercellular spaces (Fig. 4a, b). In the hydathode, one or more guttation pores are observed in the epidermis. They were found in 141 species and 19 tribes (Fig. 5).
Laticifers
In paradermal sections, highly branched elongated cells are observed (Fig. 4c). Laticifers fuse with each other, forming articulated laticifers; however, they are not very evident because in most species, they lose their contents with histological processing. Some taxa partially retain grayish (Fig. 4d) or reddish (Fig. 4e) contents, both of granular consistency. In all the analyzed species, laticifers are associated with vascular bundles and are more visible toward the abaxial surface of the midrib, where they can be solitary or in groups (Fig. 4f). Laticifers were only observed in species of the tribes Arctotideae, Cichorieae, Liabeae, and Vernonieae.
Glandular Trichomes
Glandular trichomes in Asteraceae share the presence of thin cuticles and cell walls, large nuclei toward the apical cells of the trichome, and generally reddish cellular contents. Here, we recognize seven morphotypes: (1) vesicular, (2) stipitate, (3) peltate, (4) uniseriate, (5) globoid, (6) capitate, and (7) spatulate. Glandular trichomes can only be found on the abaxial surface (88 species) or on the adaxial surface of the leaf blade (3 species), although the predominant condition is on both surfaces (155 species). In all cases, glandular trichomes derive from epidermal cells and are mostly multicellular at the base, body, and apex; however, the greatest variation is observed in the apical cells. Glandular trichomes occurred in 25 tribes and 247 of the analyzed species, representing 45.2% of the studied taxa (Fig. 6). Each of the morphotypes is described below.
Vesicular
In frontal view, the vesicular morphotype of glandular trichomes has both a base and short biseriate body (rarely triseriate) and the apex is bicellular (Montanoa pteropoda, Fig. 7a) and may or may not present an evident subcuticular space, as occurs in Parthenium bipinnatifidum. Vesicular glandular trichomes can sometimes be confused with uniseriate trichomes in lateral view because their position with respect to the section plane can change (Fig. 7b). Vesicular glandular trichomes can be found sunken in a depression of the epidermis or superficially. They were the predominant morphotype of glandular trichomes and occurs in 167 species and 20 of the studied tribes (Fig. 6).
Stipitate
The stipitate morphotype of glandular trichomes has a multicellular foot, the body is generally elongated, uniseriate or biseriate, and the apex can be bicellular or multicellular. At least 4 subtypes of stipitate glandular trichomes are recognized, and they differentiated by the shape of the apex and division planes of apical cells. Subtype 1 is characterized by having a conical apex with divisions in multiple planes, as in Ageratina adenophora (Fig. 7c). Subtype 2 is characterized by a biseriate apex that becomes wider toward its most distal part, as in Brickellia secundiflora (Fig. 7d). Subtype 3 is characterized by a globose apex with divisions in multiple planes, as in Piqueria pilosa (Fig. 7e). Subtype 4 characterized by a bicellular apex, as observed in Pseudognaphalium viscosum (Fig. 7f). Stipitate glandular trichomes were observed in 15 species corresponding to 5 tribes (Fig. 6).
Peltate
The peltate morphotype of glandular trichomes are sunken in a depression of the epidermis; in surface view, they have a shield shape, while in the cross section of the leaf (longitudinal view of the trichome), they are obconic, and three different subtypes are recognized. Subtype 1 has a multicellular base and body, and the apex is not well differentiated from the body and lacks a particular cellular organization; in longitudinal sections, the terminal cells form a convex structure as observed in Haplopappus deserticola, Hazardia berberidis, and Isocoma veneta. (Fig. 7g, j). Subtype 2 is formed by a unicellular base and body and presents an apex that is well differentiated from the body with approximately 10 cells radially arranged, only found in Erigeron longipes (Fig. 7h, k). Subtype 3 is structurally similar to Subtype 1 but differs in the terminal cell form, which is flattened in longitudinal section, only in Lophopappus tarapacanus (Fig. 7i, l). Peltate glandular trichomes were only found in four species of Astereae and a single species of Mutisieae.
Uniseriate
The uniseriate morphotype of glandular trichomes have a row of cells of variable number. Seven subtypes of uniseriate glandular trichomes were recognized according to the shape of the apical cell. In Subtype 1, the cells of the body are rectangular, equal in size, and the apical cell has the same shape as the rest of the trichome cells, but its distal region is rounded, as in Chromolaena collina (Fig. 8a). In Subtype 2, the cells of the body are more or less rounded and become larger toward the apex, ending with a flagelliform appendage derived from the cell wall, as in species of Baccharis and Gutierrezia argyrocarpa (Fig. 8b). In Subtype 3, the cells of the body are rectangular while the apical region was conical with acute distal region, as in Chromolepis heterophylla (Fig. 8c). In Subtype 4, the cells of the body are depressed while the apical cells were quadrangular and smaller in size, as exemplified in Dolichlasium lagascae (Fig. 8d). In Subtype 5, the cells of the body are rounded and have the same size while the apical cells are narrower, elongated, and sharp at its distal end, as in Flourensia resinosa (Fig. 8e). In Subtype 6, the cells are small and develop in an invagination of the epidermis, and they are clavate with depressed cells, except the apical cells, which are rounded, as in Gundlachia corymbosa (Fig. 8f). In Subtype 7, the cells are quadrangular at the base of the trichome and depressed toward the apex, and the apical cells are conical and rounded, as observed in Cosmos bipinnatus (Fig. 8g). Uniseriate trichomes were observed in 136 species and distributed in 15 tribes (Fig. 6).
Capitate
The capitate morphotype of glandular trichomes present a uniseriate body and spherical apex. Three subtypes of capitate trichomes are differentiated by body length and apex characters. Subtype 1 has a unicellular base and body and a unicellular or bicellular and spherical apex, as observed in Heterothalamus alienus (Astereae, Fig. 8 h). Subtype 2 has a unicellular base and a unicellular and elongated body that widens abruptly in the region near the spherical apical cell (Fig. 8i), as observed in Arctotheca prostrata (Arctotideae). Subtype 3 has a unicellular base, a uniseriate body, and a large (2 times larger than the rest) and bicellular apex, as observed in Campovassouria cruciate (Eupatorieae, Fig. 8j). Capitate trichomes were present in only three species of Arctotideae, Astereae and Eupatorieae (Fig. 6).
Globoid
The globoid morphotype of glandular trichomes are constituted by a bicellular foot, bicellular body and an apical pyramidal cell; in some cases, they are bicellular (Fig. 8k). They occur in three species of Coreopsideae and Inuleae.
Spatulate
The spatulate morphotype of glandular trichomes are distinguished by being thin at the base and widening toward the apex; they have depressed cells that can show multiple divisions, but the distal portion is always rounded, as in Archibaccharis schiedeana (Fig. 8l). They were present in six species of the tribes Astereae, Calenduleae, Eupatorieae, Millerieae and Wunderlichieae.
The synthesis of the secretory structures in Asteraceae based on our results and the information available in the literature is given in Table 1; Fig. 9. The integration of both sources of information reveals that almost all of the tribes possess one to three types of secretory structures, although these structures predominate in the subfamily Asteroideae and are absent in some early-diverging clades. Character evolution analyses for the main five secretory structures show that glandular trichomes are the plesiomorphic secretory structure in the family (Fig. 10) recorded in the early-diverging clades, and their presence is inferred in the basal nodes of the trees. Although glandular trichomes have originated in several lineages, their occurrence appears as an ancestral state with high probability in all reconstructed nodes. Canals and hydathodes appear in three different lineages within Asteraceae: Mutisioideae, Carduoideae (Cardueae) and Asteroideae, and they predominate in Asteroideae (the most recent and diverse subfamily). Compared with trichomes, the presence of canals or hydathodes is not a common ancestral state among the three lineages in any of the reconstructed nodes. Cavities and laticifers are revealed as apomorphies within Tageteae and Cichorioideae, respectively.
Discussion
Asteraceae is the largest family among angiosperms, and it includes 23,113 to 23,600 species (Panero & Funk 2008, 2009; Villaseñor 2018). This diversity is reflected not only in its morphological variability but also in the anatomical complexity of its organs, particularly the leaves. In this study, five secretory structures occurring in the leaves were identified, which are informative at different taxonomic levels. Similarly, some tribes without secretory structures were recognized, which correspond mostly to early-diverging tribes. At the same time, some evolutionary patterns were recognized, and certain anatomical considerations of secretory structures were performed.
Systematic Value of Leaf Secretory Structures in Asteraceae and Their Evolutionary Patterns
The observations made in 542 species of Asteraceae distributed in 35 of the 40 tribes currently recognized by Panero & Crozier (2016) along with data from the literature review (Table 1) revealed that secretory structures are present in 80% of the tribes in Asteraceae. The representatives of these tribes have one to three types of secretory structures, with the greatest diversity of them in the tribes of the subfamily Asteroideae. Four of the 40 tribes did not show any type of secretory structures: Barnadesieae, Hecastocleideae, Hyalideae and Stifftieae. Information on the secretory structures was not available for the Callilepis clade (Panero & Crozier 2016) or the tribes Dicomae, Gymnarrheneae and Oldenburgieae; therefore, future studies should be focused on these taxa (Fig. 9).
The tribes of Asteraceae that did not present secretory structures belong to early-diverging subfamilies: Barnadesioideae, Hecastocleidoideae, Stifftioideae, and Wunderlichioideae (Rivera et al. 2020). An interesting aspect is that secondary metabolites of medicinal interest have been reported for some of their members, such as Barnadesia, Hyalis and Stifftia (Bohm & Stuessy 1995; Ybarra et al. 1997; Machado et al. 2012; Marques et al. 2012). Therefore, these compounds must be synthesized in secretory idioblasts in some regions of the mesophyll. These secretory cells could be evolutionarily important to the development of more specialized and complex structures.
Secretory structures are considered important mechanisms to avoid herbivory. However, this defensive activity in early-diverging Asteraceae lineages is oriented to the development of both mechanical and chemical barriers. For the former, there are thicker cuticles, a higher density of eglandular trichomes, and a higher proportion of sclerenchyma in their leaves (Terrazas et al. unpublished data). In this sense, the evolutionary pattern of secretory structures in Asteraceae indicates that the early-diverging lineages did not present secretory structures, whereas most of the members of the later-diverging tribes generate a high diversity of secretory structures (Fig. 10).
Glandular trichomes constitute the most diverse secretory structure in the family. These epidermal appendages (together with the hydathodes) occur in some members of some earliest-diverging clades, and they appeared and disappeared multiple times in the evolution of the tribes. However, their presence becomes more frequent toward the lately diverging lineages of the subfamily Asteroideae, which exhibit the maximum diversity. Although the morphotypes of glandular trichomes and their subtypes were not diagnostic of any of the tribes, they are an important character sources for recognizing species inside several groups (Krak & Mráz 2008; Hayat et al. 2009; Rojas-Leal et al. 2017; Vitali 2017); i.e., Subtypes 3 and 4 of stipitate trichomes are diagnostic of Piqueria pilosa and Pseudognaphalium viscosum, respectively. Trichomes are solitary in almost all the studied taxa except in the Baccharis species, which are grouped and generally found in a depression on the epidermis (Budel et al. 2004, 2018; Hadad et al. 2013). Compared with the rest of the morphotypes, stipitate trichomes show greater complexity, and they were previously reported for Stevia (Gutiérrez et al. 2016), many genera of the tribe Cichorieae such as Stephanomeria, Prenanthes, Dubyaea, and Hieracium (Krak & Mráz 2008), and Vernonia gossypina and V. ramaswamii (Narayana 1979). Even though reported trichomes did not correspond to any of the subtypes of stipitate trichomes described in this work, the seven main morphotypes proposed have characteristics that make them sufficiently robust to classify the trichomes reported as stipitate trichomes. Thus, even if another different subtype exists in other Asteraceae groups, it will be possible to group it in this category.
Canals were observed in 280 species of Asteraceae studied distributed in 17 tribes and predominated in the tribes of Asteroideae (Fig. 10). Their position with respect to vascular bundle tissues is considered to be taxonomically informative because it allows the identification of groups of species in some genera, as previously reported for Aldama (Bombo et al. 2012; Oliveira et al. 2013; Souza da Silva et al. 2014; Filartiga et al. 2016). In Erigeron galeotti and E. janivultus there are canals above the xylem of the vascular bundles of the leaf blade, whereas E. karwinskianus, E. longipes and E. pubescens have canals below the phloem of the vascular bundles. The presence of contents in the canal lumen could be important for recognizing supraspecific taxa, as observed in many species of Coreopsideae. Likewise glandular trichomes, canals are present in some of the early-diverging clades but prevail in the most diversified tribes in the family.
Hydathodes appeared in several species of different tribes and were prevalent in several tribes of Asteroideae, such as Eupatorieae, Heliantheae, and Senecioneae, although they also appeared in some early-diverging tribes, such as Mutisieae. The results of this study contributed to broadening the knowledge of the number of taxa with hydathodes for the family, now identified in 142 analyzed species distributed in 19 tribes. Lersten & Curtis (1985) mentioned the presence of hydathodes in eight of the tribes of the subfamily Asteroideae; therefore, this work expands the presence of hyathodes to twice the number of tribes, pointing out they are more common than previously considered. Hydathodes are almost never reported due to their structural simplicity, making them difficult to identify by routine anatomical analyses (because more than a single microtechnique is needed to describe them, e.g., leaf clearings); therefore, the margin of the leaf blade is not often described in detail and the presence of guttation under field conditions is rarely reported. Hydathodes are commonly present in taxa with leaves without divisions and toothed margins, but not in Cardueae, where they are absent because of the massive sclerification of the veins and the presence of a spine at the apex of the margin teeth, as occurs in Cirsium species. However, they are also present in several taxa with leaves whose leaf blades are strongly divided or whose leaves are not divided but have entire margins.
According to Loockerman et al. (2003), cavities correspond to a synapomorphy for the tribe Tageteae. However, these secretory structures were present only in the analyzed species of the subtribe Tagetineae, as reported in previous studies (Simon et al. 2002; Fonseca et al. 2006; Milan et al. 2006; García-Sánchez et al. 2012; Oliveira et al. 2015; Lusa et al. 2016; Ferraro & Scremin-Dias 2017; Lizárraga et al. 2017; Lusa et al. 2017; Páez et al. 2019; Younis et al. 2020); therefore, the cavities are taxonomically informative at the subtribe level.
Laticifers have only been mentioned in previous studies for the tribe Cichorieae (Fahn 1979, 1982; Evert 2006); however, the observations in this work confirm also their occurrence in Arctotideae, Liabeae and Vernonieae, as previously reported (Metcalfe 1967; Lewinsohn 1991; Karis et al. 2006; Gutiérrez & Lujan Luna 2013). These tribes belong to the subfamily Cichorioideae; therefore, although laticifers are not informative in recognizing tribes, they are informative at the subfamily level. Laticifers are commonly found toward the abaxial surface of the leaves and especially evident at the midrib, as in Scorzonera (Cichorieae; Makbul et al. 2011, 2016). It is possible that laticifers develop differentially in the organs of certain taxa, i.e., Melo-de-Pinna & Menezes (2003) reported laticifers in the adventitious roots of eleven species of Richterago (Mutisieae) but not in their leaves. In this work, laticifers were not observed in the leaves of R. amplexifolia and R. angustifolia. Laticifers in Asteraceae must be further studied to determine their role in the systematics of the family, such as in other angiosperm families, e.g., Sapindaceae (Medina et al. 2021).
Anatomical Considerations
In this work, five secretory structures in the vegetative leaves of the analyzed species of Asteraceae were reported: glandular trichomes, canals, cavities, hydathodes and laticifers. The number of types is greater than that of Fahn (1979), who identified four types without considering the cavities. However, it is less than that of Castro et al. (1997), who reported the presence of extrafloral nectaries and glandular appendages in addition to the secretory structures found in this work. Extrafloral nectaries and glandular appendages are only found in leaves associated with reproductive structures, such as inflorescences and involucre bracts, as Carlquist (1959a, b) and O’Dowd & Catchpole (1983) previously reported. A more exhaustive review of secretory structures can provide a new standardization of the terminology and expand the knowledge of the taxa in which these structures occur. The number of taxa with secretory structures reported in previous works, added to those here studied increased substantially their knowledge in the Asteraceae (Table 1; Fig. 10).
In taxonomic studies, trichomes viewed on the surface represents a widespread identification method; however, in this work, the transverse and paradermal sections as well as the cleared leaves allowed us to summarize the diversity of glandular trichomes in seven morphotypes according to the fine details of the cellular organization in its three regions (base, body, and apex). Performing only observations of trichomes at the surface view and their associated inferences could lead to misinterpretation by assigning the same name to glandular trichomes, which differ in their cellular conformation.
Vesicular glandular trichomes outstand as the most common morphotype in the family (present in 167 species) and have been previously reported for several genera of different tribes, such as Aldama (Bombo et al. 2012; Oliveira et al. 2013; Souza da Silva et al. 2014; Filartiga et al. 2016), Dimerostemma (Silva et al. 2015), Flourensia (Delbón et al. 2007, 2012), Helianthus (Aschenbrenner et al. 2013), Richterago (Melo-de-Pinna 2004), Sigesbeckia (Aguilera et al. 2004) and Vernonia (Narayana 1979; Redonda-Martínez et al. 2012; Oliveira et al. 2015; Lusa et al. 2016). However, this morphotype has frequently been described in different ways, and its variations lead to the consideration of more than one type of glandular trichome because the cells of the apex can collapse; similarly, the subcuticular storage space may or may not be visible. The position of the trichome with respect to the section plane also influences the way it is described since these structures may appear biseriate in frontal view or uniseriate in lateral view.
In general, uniseriate trichomes are thought to have no secretory function; nevertheless, uniseriate trichomes share characteristics with the rest of the morphotypes, particularly the presence of reddish contents in their cells; however, confirming whether a uniseriate trichome is glandular requires histochemical tests (Aschenbrenner et al. 2013; Muravnik et al. 2016). These epidermal appendages are structurally very similar to each other, and the greatest variation is found in the shape of the apical cell, as previously reported (Robinson 2009; Rojas-Leal et al. 2017). In most cases, more than one type of trichome, e.g., eglandular or glandular, can be found in the leaves of Asteraceae (Redonda-Martínez et al. 2016; Liesenfeld et al. 2019). The most common pattern is Subtype I uniseriate glandular trichomes and vesicular glandular trichomes on the same leaf.
The presence of peltate glandular trichomes was reported by Favi et al. (2008) in Vernonia galamensis ssp. galamensis; according to our observations, the glandular trichomes reported by these authors actually correspond to vesicular trichomes. Peltate trichomes were only observed in the analyzed species of Erigeron, Isocoma, Haplopappus, and Hazardia, all of them members of the Astereae tribe, thus representing the first confirmed report for Asteraceae. This diversity suggests the need to perform additional anatomical studies in combination with other techniques oriented to surface observations, in order they provide an even clearer picture of the diversity of glandular trichomes in the family.
In many cases, determining what type of internal secretory structure gives rise to certain secretions can be complicated; in general, any whitish liquid is reported as latex; however, exudates can originate in laticifers, canals or cavities (Pickard 2007). In Asteraceae, the predominant inner secretory structures are canals, which have generally been described as elongated intercellular spaces that are delimited by epithelial cells; however, none of the definitions indicates their length (Mauseth 1988; Evert 2006; Beck 2010). Canals have great variability in length, from less than 100 μm to more than 800 μm. For example, in most taxa of Astereae, Coreopsideae, and Eupatorieae, there are short (< 100 μm) to very long (> 500 μm) canals in the same leaf, as in Bidens odorata and Conyza bonariensis. In some species of Cosmos and Dahlia, the short canals are more or less spherical to elliptical in paradermal sections and tend to develop very close to each other, giving the appearance of being a single structure, although they always remain independent, as previously reported for Solidago canadensis (Lersten & Curtis 1989). Regardless of the size, the canals in Asteraceae always show a unistratified canal sheath derived from the vascular bundle sheath, as well as epithelium made up of a single stratum of secretory cells, which is consistent with the most widely used descriptions of canals (Mauseth 1988; Evert 2006).
Although secretory cavities, such as canals, are also intercellular spaces delimited by epithelial cells, Fahn (1979) and Mauseth (1988) mentioned that this type of secretory structure is characterized by the presence of a multistratified secretory epithelium and sheath. Crang et al. (2018) highlighted other differences between canals and cavities are that the latter are generally larger, more or less spherical and isolated from each other, as occurs in Myrtaceae and Rutaceae. Structural similarities between canals and secretory cavities could lead to misinterpretation, although the characteristics of the sheath wall and secretory epithelium are consistent across taxa. For this reason, it is recommended to take them into account when making observations; in the same way, it is advisable to section the leaves in the paradermal plane in addition to the transverse plane and perform observations in cleared leaves if possible.
Laticifers in Asteraceae have been underexamined, being those of Taraxacum (Cichorieae; Castelblanque et al. 2016) the most studied. This is mainly because their structural characteristics do not allow them to be easily identified, as occurs in other families of angiosperms, such as Apocynaceae or Euphorbiaceae (Hagel et al. 2008). In Asteraceae, they are generally inconspicuous because they rarely retain their cellular contents. When the latex is preserved, it can be grayish with a granular appearance, as in Sonchus oleraceus (Cichorieae), while in other cases, it is reddish with an oily appearance, as in Dillandia subumbellata (Liabeae). Such traits could provide clues about the chemical composition of the latex they produce, as has been reported in other plant families with laticifers (Bauer et al. 2014).
Rios et al. (2020) mentioned that the extrafloral nectaries and hydathodes found on leaf teeth in eudicots can be very similar in appearance. However, they emphasize that the main differences between both types of secretory structures are the presence of an epithem (absent in the extrafloral nectaries) and the vascular bundles that irrigate the leaf teeth in their terminal portion, which are formed only by xylem strands in the case of hydathodes, while in the case of nectaries, the vascular strands are formed by xylem and phloem. In the analyzed Asteraceae species, the characteristics observed in the secretory structures found in the leaf teeth were consistent with those reported by Rios et al. (2020); therefore, it was confirmed that they correspond to hydathodes, while extrafloral nectaries do not exist in the family.
Idioblasts are individual cells with secretory activity (Fahn 1979; 1982; 1988; 2000), which is why many authors consider them a category within secretory structures; however, there are several attributes that together indicate their considerable differences. First is the fact that secretory idioblasts are unicellular, whereas the rest of the categories of secretory structures are multicellular and structurally complex. These secretory cells do not have a particular morphology distinguishing them from other adjacent cells (with the exception of size in some cases), which makes their identification difficult, and specific histological techniques, such as histochemical tests, are necessary for their recognition (Fahn 1979). Another important characteristic of idioblasts is its capacity of containing a great variety of compounds of different chemical nature (e.g., tannins, starch, oils, or compounds derived from calcium; Esau 1977; Crang et al. 2018). Their secretory activity in some cases can be affected by environmental conditions (Steyn et al. 2002; Solovchenko 2010) and can originate from any parenchymatic tissue, such as the epidermis or mesophyll (Beck 2010). For these reasons, we recommend using the term “secretory systems” (Mauseth 1988) to refer to any cell or groups of cells that have secretory activity (endogenous or exogenous). Under this terminology, we treat secretory idioblasts and secretory structures as two different types of secretory systems. Secretory idioblasts have been observed in many Asteraceae taxa, and these structures should be analyzed in detail in future publications.
Conclusions
Asteraceae shows great morphological variability that is reflected in its anatomical diversity, particularly in its secretory structures. In this work, we found secretory structures in most tribes in the family but predominated in the late-diverging lineages, whereas they were absent or scarce in the early-diverging lineages. Secretory structures allow for the recognition of taxa at different levels, and a comparative study of secretory structures in Asteraceae is essential for standardizing its terminology and thus providing a framework for future studies. The detailed descriptions presented in this work will allow us to test hypotheses through phylogenetic comparative methods and determine the evolutionary role of secretory structures in Asteraceae diversification.
References
Aguilera, D. B., Meira, R. M. S. A., & Ferreira, F. A. (2004). Anatomia e histoquímica dos órgãos vegetativos de Siegesbeckia orientalis (Asteraceae). Planta Daninha 22: 483–489. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582004000400001
Arciniegas, A., Pérez-Castorena, A. L., Meléndez-Aguirre, M., Guillermo Ávila, J., García-Bores, A. M., Villaseñor, J. L., Romo de Vivar, A. (2018). Chemical composition and antimicrobial activity of Ageratina deltoidea. Chemistry and Biodiversity 15(3): e1700529. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cbdv.201700529
Arciniegas, A., Polindara, L. A., Pérez-Castorena, A. L., García, A. M., Ávila, G., Villaseñor, J. L., & Romo de Vivar, A. (2011). Chemical composition and biological activity of Laennecia schiedeana. Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung. C, Journal of biosciences 66(3–4): 115–22. https://doi.org/10.1515/znc-2011-3-404.
Aschenbrenner, A. K., Horakh, S., & Spring, O. (2013). Linear glandular trichomes of Helianthus (Asteraceae): morphology, localization, metabolite activity and occurrence. AoB PLANTS 5: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plt028
Bauer, G., Gorb, S. N., Klein, M. C., Nellesen, A., von Tapavicza, M., & Speck, T. (2014). Comparative study on plant latex particles and latex coagulation in Ficus benjamina, Campanula glomerata and three Euphorbia species. PLoS ONE 9(11): e113336. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113336
Beck, C. B. 2010. An introduction to plant structure and development. Plant anatomy for the twenty-first century. Cambridge University Press.
Bezerra, L. D. A., Mangabeira, P. A. O., de Oliveira, R. A., Costa, L. C. D. B., & Da Cunha, M. (2018). Leaf blade structure of Verbesina macrophylla (Cass.) F. S. Blake (Asteraceae): ontogeny, duct secretion mechanism and essential oil composition. Plant Biology (Stuttg) 20: 433–443. https://doi.org/10.1111/plb.12700
Bohm, B. A., & Stuessy, T. F. (1995). Flavonoid chemistry of Barnadesioideae (Asteraceae). Systematic Botany 20(1): 22–27. https://doi.org/10.2307/2419629
Bombo, A. B., Santos De Oliveira, T., Da Silva Santos De Oliveira, A., Garcia Rehder, V. L., Galvão Magenta, M. A., & Appezzato-Da-Glória, B. (2012). Anatomy and essential oils from aerial organs in three species of Aldama (Asteraceae-Heliantheae) that have a difficult delimitation. Australian Journal of Botany 60: 632–642. https://doi.org/10.1071/BT12160
Budel, J. M., Duarte, M. R., Santos, C. A. M., & Farago, P. V. (2004). Morfoanatomia foliar e caulinar de Baccharis dracunculifolia DC., Asteraceae. Acta Farmacéutica Bonaerense 23: 477–483.
Budel, J. M., Raman, V., Monteiro, L. M., Almeida, V. P., Bobek, V. B., Heiden, G., Takeda, I. J. M., & Khan, I. A. (2018). Foliar anatomy and microscopy of six Brazilian species of Baccharis (Asteraceae). Microscopy Research and Technique 81(8): 832–842. https://doi.org/10.1002/jemt.23045
Carlquist, S. (1958). Structure and ontogeny of glandular trichomes of Madinae (Compositae). American Journal of Botany 45(2): 675–682. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1537-2197.1958.tb12221.x
Carlquist, S. (1959a). The leaf of Calycadenia and its glandular appendages. American Journal of Botany 46(2): 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1537-2197.1959.tb06985.x
Carlquist, S. (1959b). Glandular structures of Holocarpha and their ontogeny. American Journal of Botany 46(4): 300–308. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1537-2197.1959.tb07016.x
Carlquist, S. (1959c). Studies on Madinae: anatomy, cytology and evolutionary relationships. Aliso 4: 171–236.
Castelblanque, L., Balaguer, B., Martí, C., Rodríguez, J. J., Orozco, M., & Vera, P. (2016). Novel insights into the organization of laticifer cells: A cell comprising a unified whole system. Plant Physiology 172: 1032–1044. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.16.00954
Castro, M. M., Leitão-Filho, H. F., & Rossi Monteiro, W. (1997). Utilização de estruturas secretoras na identificação dos gêneros de Asteraceae de uma vegetação de cerrado. Revista Brasileira de Botânica 20: 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-84041997000200007
Cilia-López, V. G., Cariño-Cortés, R., & Zurita-Salinas, L. R. (2021). Ethnopharmacology of the Asteraceae family in Mexico. Botanical Sciences 99(3): 455–486. https://doi.org/10.17129/botsci.2715
Crang, R., Lyons-Sobaski, S., & Wise, R. (2018). Plant anatomy: A concept-based approach to the structure of seed plants. Springer International Publishing AG.
Darriba, D., Taboada, G. L., Doallo, R., & Posada, David. (2012). jModelTest 2: more models, new heuristics and parallel computing. Nature Methods 9(8): 772. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2109
De Pinna, M. C. C. (1991). Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistic paradigm. Cladistics 7(4): 367–394. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.1991.tb00045.x
Delbón, N., Cosa, M., & Dottori, N. (2007). Anatomía de órganos vegetativos en Flourensia campestris y F. oolepis (Asteraceae), con especial referencia a las estructuras secretoras. Arnaldoa 14: 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-33062012000100002
Delbón, N., Cosa, M., & Bernardello, G. (2012). Exomorfología y anatomía de órganos vegetativos aéreos en especies de Flourensia DC. (Asteraceae) con importancia fitoquímica. Acta Botanica Brasilica 26: 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-33062012000100002
Dere, S. & Aytas Akcin, T. (2017). Anatomical and micromorphological properties of some Tanacetum L. (Asteraceae) taxa from Turkey and their systematic implications. Acta Botanica Croatica 76: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1515/botcro-2017-0005
Dickison, W. C. (2000). Integrative plant anatomy. Academic Press.
Esau, K. (1977). Anatomy of seed plants. John Wiley & Sons.
Evans, W. C. (2009). Trease and Evans pharmacognosy. Saunders/Elsevier.
Evert, R. F. (2006). Esau’s plant anatomy: meristems, cells, and tissues of the plant body. Their structure, function and development. John Wiley & Sons.
Fahn, A. (1979). Secretory tissues in plants. Academic Press Inc.
Fahn, A. (1982). Plant anatomy. Pergamon Press.
Fahn, A. (1988). Secretory tissues in vascular plants. New Phytologist 108: 229–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1988.tb04159.x
Fahn, A. (2000). Structure and function of secretory cells. Advances in Botanical Research 31: 37–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2296(00)31006-0
Favi, F., Cantrell, C. L., Mebrahtu, T., & Kraemer, M. E. (2008). Leaf peltate glandular trichomes of Vernonia galamensis ssp. galamensis var. aethiopica Gilbert: development, ultrastructure, and chemical composition. International Journal of Plant Sciences 169: 605–614. https://doi.org/10.1086/533598
Ferraro, A., & Scremin-Dias, E. (2017). Structural features of species of Asteraceae that arouse discussions about adaptation to seasonally dry environments of the Neotropics. Acta Botanica Brasilica 32(1): 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-33062017abb0246
Filartiga, A. L., Bombo, A. B., Garcia, V. L., & Appezzato-da-Glória, B. (2016). Leaf and stem anatomy and essential oil composition of four Brazilian Aldama species (Asteraceae) and their taxonomic significance. Brazilian Journal of Botany 40: 503–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40415-016-0350-3
Fonseca, M. C. M., Meira, R. M. S. A., & Casali, V. W. D. (2006). Anatomia dos órgãos vegetativos e histolocalização de compostos fenólicos e lipídicos em Porophyllum ruderale (Asteraceae). Planta Daninha 24(4): 707–713. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582006000400011
Funk, V. A., Susanna, A., Stuessy, T. F., & Bayer, Y. R. J. (2009). Systematics, evolution and biogeography of the Compositae. International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT).
Funk, V. A., Kelloff, C., & Chan, R. (2012). Phylogeny and biogeography of the tribe Liabeae (Compositae subfamily Cichorioideae). Taxon 61(2): 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.612013
García-Sánchez, F., López-Villafranco, M. E., Aguilar-Rodríguez, S., & Aguilar-Contreras, A. (2012). Etnobotánica y morfo-anatomía comparada de tres especies de Tagetes que se utilizan en Nicolás Romero, Estado de México. Botanical Sciences 90: 221–232. https://doi.org/10.17129/botsci.388
Gras, A., Hidalgo, O., D’Ambrosio, U., Parada, M., Garnatje, T., & Vallès, J. (2021). The role of botanical families in medicinal ethnobotany: a phylogenetic perspective. Plants 10(1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10010163
Gutiérrez, D. G., & Luján Luna, M. (2013). A comparative study of latex-producing tissues in genera of Liabeae (Asteraceae). Flora 208: 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2012.11.001
Gutiérrez, D. G., Muñoz-Schick, M., Grossi, M. A., Rodríguez Cravero, J. F., Morales, V., & Moreira-Muñoz, A. (2016). The genus Stevia (Eupatorieae, Asteraceae) in Chile: a taxonomical and morphological analysis. Phytotaxa 282(1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.282.1.1
Hadad, M., Gattuso, S., Gattuso, M., Feresin, G., & Tapia, A. (2013). Anatomical studies of Baccharis grisebachii Hieron. (Asteraceae). Used in folk medicine of San Juan province, Argentina. Dominguezia 29: 41–47.
Hagel, J. M., Yeung, E. C., & Facchini, P. J. (2008). Got milk? The secret life of laticifers. Trends in Plant Science 13: 631–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2008.09.005
Hayat, M. Q., Ashraf, M., Khan, M. A., Yasmin, G., Shaheen, N., & Jabeen, S. (2009). Diversity of foliar trichomes and their systematic implications in the genus Artemisia (Asteraceae). International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 11(5): 542–546.
Heinrich, M., Barnes, J., Gibbons, S., & Williamson, E. M. (2012). Fundamentals of pharmacognosy and phytotherapy. Elsevier.
Johansen, D. A. (1940). Plant microtechnique. McGraw-Hill.
Karis, P. O. (2006). Morphological data indicates two major clades of the subtribe Gorteriinae (Asteraceae-Arctotideae). Cladistics 22: 199–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2006.00109.x
Katoh, K., Misawa K., Kuma K., & Miyata, T. (2002). MAFFT: A novel method for rapid multiple sequence alignment based on fast Fourier transform. Nucleic Acids Research 30(14): 3059–3066. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkf436
Krak, K., & Mráz, P. (2008). Trichomes in the tribe Lactuceae (Asteraceae) - taxonomic implications. Biologia 63: 616–630. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-008-0106-z
Lersten, N. R., & Curtis, J. D. (1985). Distribution and anatomy of hydathodes in Asteraceae. Botanical Gazette 146(1): 106–114. https://doi.org/10.1086/337504
Lersten, N. R., & Curtis, J. D. (1989). Foliar oil reservoir anatomy and distribution in Solidago canadensis (Asteraceae, tribe Astereae). Nordic Journal of Botany 9(3): 281–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-1051.1989.tb01003.x
Lewinsohn, T. M. (1991). The geographical distribution of plant latex. Chemoecology 2: 64–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01240668
Liesenfeld, V., Gentz, P., de Freitas, E. M., & Martins, S. (2019). Morphological diversity of foliar trichomes in Asteraceae from Sandfields of the Pampa biome, Rio Grande do Sul State, Brazil. Hoehnea 46(3): e752018. https://doi.org/10.1590/2236-8906-75/2018
Lizárraga, E., Mercado, M. I., Gálvez, C., Ruiz, A. I., Ponessa, G. I., & Catalán, C. A. N. (2017). Morpho anatomical characterization and essential oils of Tagetes terniflora and Tagetes minuta (Asteraceae) growing in Tucumán (Argentina). Boletín de la Sociedad Argentina de Botánica 52(1): 55–68.
Loockerman, D. J., Turner, B. L., & Jansen, R. K. (2003). Phylogenetic relationships within the Tageteae (Asteraceae) based on nuclear ribosomal ITS and chloroplast ndhF gene sequences. Systematic Botany 28(1): 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1043/0363-6445-28.1.191
Lusa, M. G., Da Costa, F. B., & Appezzato-da-Glória, B. (2016). Histolocalization of chemotaxonomic markers in Brazilian Vernonieae (Asteraceae). Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 182(3): 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/boj.12481
Lusa, M. G., Loeuille, B. F. P., Ciccarelli, D., & Appezzato-da-Glória, B. (2017). Evolution of stem and leaf structural diversity: a case study in Lychnophorinae (Asteraceae). The Botanical Review 84: 203–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12229-017-9191-4
Machado, R. R. P., Marques, A. M., Valente Júnior, W., Coimbra, E. S., Duarte, R. S., Soares, G. L. G., & Kaplan, M. A. C. (2012). Evaluation of in vitro antileishmanial and antimycobacterial activities of Stifftia chrysantha J.C. Mikan extracts. Revista Fitos 7(4): 252–258.
Makbul, S., Coskuncelebi, K., Türkmen, Z., & Beyazoglu, O. (2011). Comparison of foliar anatomy of Scorzonera L. (Asteraceae) taxa from North East Anatolia. Pakistan Journal of Botany 43(1): 135–155.
Makbul, S., Coskuncelebi, K., Okur, S., & Gültepe, M. (2016). Contribution to the taxonomy of Turkish Scorzonera (Asteraceae) taxa based on vegetative anatomy. Nordic Journal of Botany 34(6): 670–684. https://doi.org/10.1111/njb.01159
Marques, A. M., Lima, M. C., Araújo Filho, H. C., Esteves, R. L., & Kaplan, M. A. C. (2012). Evaluation of the volatile components and the seasonal variation of the methyl salicylate from Stifftia chrysantha Mikan by HS-SPME/GC-MS. Boletín Latinoamericano y del Caribe de Plantas Medicinales y Aromáticas 11(5): 413–419.
Martínez-Cabrera, D., Terrazas, T., & Ochoterena, H. (2007). Leaf architecture of Hamelieae (Rubiaceae). Feddes Repertorium 118(7): 286–310. https://doi.org/10.1002/fedr.200711140
Mauseth, J. D. (1988). Plant anatomy. Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company.
Meade, A., & Pagel, M. (2017). BayesTraits v.3.0 (Reading Evolutionary Biology Group).
Medina, M. C., Sousa-Baena, M. S., Prado, E., Acevedo-Rodríguez, P., Dias, P., & Demarco, D. (2021). Laticifers in Sapindaceae: structure, evolution and phylogenetic importance. Frontiers in Plant Science 11: e612985. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.612985
Melo-de-Pinna, G. F. A. (2004). Anatomia foliar de Richterago Kuntze (Mutisieae, Asteraceae). Acta Botanica Brasilica 18(3): 591–600. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-33062004000300017
Melo-de-Pinna, G. F. A. & Menezes, N. L. (2003). Meristematic endodermis and secretory structures in adventitious roots of Richterago Kuntze (Mutisieae-Asteraceae). Brazilian Journal of Botany 26(1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-84042003000100002
Metcalfe, C. R. (1967). Distribution of latex in the plant kingdom. Economic Botany 21: 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02897859
Milan, P., Hissae Hayashi, A., & Appezzato-da-Glória, B. (2006). Comparative leaf Morphology and anatomy of three Asteraceae species. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology 49(1): 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-89132006000100016
Miller, M. A., Pfeiffer, W., & Schwartz, T. (2010). Creating the CIPRES Science Gateway for inference of large phylogenetic trees. Proceedings of the Gateway Computing Environments Workshop (GCE). 1–8.
Moerman, D. E., Pemberton, R. W., Kiefer, D., & Berlin, B. (1999). A comparative analysis of five medicinal floras. Journal of Ethnobiology 19(1): 49–67.
Muravnik, L. E., Kostina, O. V., & Shavarda, A. L. (2016). Glandular trichomes of Tussilago farfara (Senecioneae, Asteraceae). Planta 244: 737–752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-016-2539-x
Narayana, B. M. (1979). Taxonomic value of trichomes in Vernonia Schreb. (Asteraceae). Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences 88: 347–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03046107
O’Dowd, D. J., & Catchpole, E.A. (1983). Ants and extrafloral nectaries: no evidence for plant protection in Helichrysum spp. - ant interactions. Oecologia 59(2): 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00378837
Oliveira, T., Bombo, A. B., & Appezzato-da-Glória, B. (2013). Anatomy of vegetative organs with an emphasis on the secretory structures of two species of Aldama (Asteraceae–Heliantheae). Botany 91(6): 335–342. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjb-2012-0271
Oliveira, T., Vasconcelos Filho, S. C., Bastos, A. V. S., Vasconcelos, J. M., & Rodrigues, A. A. (2015). Anatomical and histochemical analysis of vegetative organs of Vernonia ferruginea Less. (Asteraceae). African Journal of Biotechnology 14(38): 2734–2739. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJB2015.14934
Ozcan, M., Demirala, M., & Kahriman, A. (2015). Leaf anatomical notes on Cirsium Miller (Asteraceae, Carduoideae) from Turkey. Plant Systematics and Evolution 301: 1995–2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00606-015-1209-y
Páez, V. A., Albornoz, P. L., Lizárraga, E., Sobrero, M. T., & Chaila, S. (2019). Anatomía foliar y caulinar, y caracterización fitoquímica foliar de Flaveria bidentis y F. haumanii (Asteraceae) de Santiago del Estero, Argentina. Acta Botanica Mexicana 126: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.21829/abm126.2019.1409
Panero, J. L., & Crozier, B. S. (2016). Macroevolutionary dynamics in the early diversification of Asteraceae. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 99: 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2016.03.007
Panero, J. L. & Funk, V. A. (2008). The value of sampling anomalous taxa in phylogenetic studies: major clades of the Asteraceae revealed. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 47: 757–782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2008.02.011
Pérez-Castorena, A. L., Arciniegas, A., Martínez, F., Villaseñor, J. L., & Romo de Vivar, A. (2000). Pyrrolizidine alkaloids from four Senecio species. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 28(3): 279–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-1978(99)00057-5
Pérez-Castorena, A. L., Arciniegas, A., Martínez, F., Marquez, C., Villaseñor, J. L., & Romo de Vivar, A. (2001). Chemical constituents of Packera coahuilensis and Packera bellidifolia. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 29(2): 203–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-1978(00)00043-0
Pickard, W. F. (2007). Laticifers and secretory ducts: two other tube systems in plants. New Phytologist 177(4): 877–888. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02323.x
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
Redonda-Martínez, R., Villaseñor, J. L., & Terrazas, T. (2012). Trichome diversity in the Vernonieae (Asteraceae) of Mexico I: Vernonanthura and Vernonia (Vernoniinae). Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 139(3): 235–247. https://doi.org/10.3159/TORREY-D-11-00069.1
Redonda-Martínez, R., Villaseñor, J. L., & Terrazas, T. (2016). Trichome diversity in the subtribe Leiboldiinae (Vernonieae, Asteraceae). Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 143(3): 298–310. https://doi.org/10.3159/TORREY-D-14-00062.1
Revell, L. J. (2012). Phytools: An R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3(2): 217–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00169.x
Rios, A. B. M., Oliveira Menino, G. C., & Casagrande Dalvi, V. (2020). Leaf teeth in eudicots: what can anatomy elucidate? Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 193: 504–522. https://doi.org/10.1093/botlinnean/boaa028
Rivera, P., Villaseñor, J. L., Terrazas, T., & Panero, J. L. (2020). The importance of the Mexican taxa of Asteraceae in the family phylogeny. Journal of Systematics and Evolution 0(0): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/jse.12681
Robinson, H. (2009). An introduction to micro-characters of Compositae. In V. A. Funk, A. Susanna, T. F. Stuessy, & Y. R. J. Bayer (Eds.), Systematics, evolution and biogeography of the Compositae (pp. 89–99). International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT).
Rojas-Leal, A., Villaseñor, J. L., & Terrazas, T. (2017). Tricomas foliares en Senecio sección Mulgediifolii (Senecioneae, Asteraceae). Acta Botanica Mexicana 119: 69–78. https://doi.org/10.21829/abm119.2017.1232
Ronquist, F., & Huelsenbeck, J. P. (2003). MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19(12): 1572–1574. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btg180
RStudio Team. (2020). RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA. http://www.rstudio.com/
Ruzin, S. E. (1999). Plant microtechnique and microscopy. Oxford University Press.
Sayers, E. W., Cavanaugh, M., Clark, K., Ostell, J., Pruitt, K. D., & Karsch-Mizrachi, I. (2020). GenBank. Nucleic Acids Research 48(D1): D84–D86. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkz956
Silva, T. M., Vilhalva, D. A. A., Moraes, M. G., & Figueiredo-Ribeiro, R. C. L. (2015). Anatomy and fructan distribution in vegetative organs of Dimerostemma vestitum (Asteraceae) from the campos rupestres. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 87(2): 797–812. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201520140214
Simon, P.M., Katinas, L., & Arambarri, A. M. (2002). Secretory structures in Tagetes minuta (Asteraceae, Helenieae). Boletín de la Sociedad Argentina de Botánica 37(3–4): 181–191.
Solovchenko, A. (2010). Photoprotection in plants: optical screening-based mechanisms. Springer-Verlag.
Souza da Silva, E. M., Hissae Hayashi, A., & Appezzato-da-Glória, B. (2014). Anatomy of vegetative organs in Aldama tenuifolia and A. kunthiana (Asteraceae: Heliantheae). Brazilian Journal of Botany 37: 505–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40415-014-0101-2
Steyn, W. J., Wand, S. J. E., Holcroft, D. M., & Jacobs, G. (2002). Anthocyanins in vegetative tissues: a proposed unified function in photoprotection. New Phytologist 155: 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2002.00482.x
Villaseñor, J. L. (2018). Diversidad y distribución de la familia Asteraceae en México. Botanical Sciences 96: 332–358. https://doi.org/10.17129/botsci.1872
Vitali, M. (2017). Anatomia foliar del género Smallanthus (Asteraceae, Millerieae). Boletín de la Sociedad Argentina de Botánica 52(3): 463–472. https://doi.org/10.31055/1851.2372.v52.n3.18027
Ybarra, M. I., Borkosky, S. A., Catalán, C. A. N., Cerda-García-Rojas, C. M., & Nathan, P. J. (1997). Diterpenes from Hyalis argentea. Phytochemistry 44(3): 479–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9422(96)00517-1
Younis, S., Shaheen, S., Zaib, M., Harun, N., Khalid, S., Hussain, K., Hanif. U., & Khan. F. (2020). Scanning electron microscopic screening of 20 medicinally important Asteroideae taxa. Microscopy Research and Technique 83(8): 988–1006. https://doi.org/10.1002/jemt.23492
Acknowledgements
This paper is part of Daniel M. Martínez-Quezada’s (DMMQ) dissertation and is presented as a partial requirement for the Ph.D. degree from the Postgraduate Program in Biological Sciences at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. This work was supported by the National Autonomous University of Mexico - Support Program for Research and Technological Innovation Projects (PAPIIT IN213916, IN209519) to JLV, as well as by the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACyT) for the scholarship granted to DMMQ for his graduate studies (736,800). Comments on the manuscript by Dr. Rosario Redonda-Martínez are appreciated. To Dr. José Luis Panero for facilitating the consultation and allowing us to remove samples of material deposited at the herbarium of the University of Texas at Austin. To George Yatskievych and Amalia Díaz for their assistance during sampling of herbarium specimens at TEX, as well as Julio César Montero-Rojas for artwork. We appreciate the comments of two anonymous reviewers that allowed us to improve the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic Supplementary Material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Martínez-Quezada, D.M., Rivera, P., Rojas-Leal, A. et al. Leaf Secretory Structures in Asteraceae: A Synthesis of Their Diversity and Evolution. Bot. Rev. 89, 59–90 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12229-022-09276-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12229-022-09276-4