Am. J. Bot. Subscribe to E-TOCs
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Etnier, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Villani, P. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Etnier, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Villani, P. J.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Etnier, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Villani, P. J.
(American Journal of Botany. 2007;94:1067-1072.)
© 2007 Botanical Society of America, Inc.

Anatomy and Morphology

Differences in mechanical and structural properties of surface and aerial petioles of the aquatic plant Nymphaea odorata subsp. tuberosa (Nymphaeaceae)1

Shelley A. Etnier2,3 and Philip J. Villani3

Department of Biological Sciences, Butler University, Indianapolis, Indiana 46208 USA

ABSTRACT

Lily pads (Nymphaea odorata) exhibit heterophylly where a single plant may have leaves that are submerged, floating, or above (aerial) the surface of the water. Lily pads are placed in a unique situation because each leaf form is exposed to a distinctly different set of mechanical demands. While surface petioles may be loaded in tension under conditions of wind or waves, aerial petioles are loaded in compression because they must support the weight of the lamina. Using standard techniques, we compared the mechanical and morphological properties of both surface and aerial leaf petioles. Structural stiffness (EI) and the second moment of area (I) were higher in aerial petioles, although we detected no differences in other mechanical values (elastic modulus [E], extension ratio, and breaking strength). Morphologically, aerial petioles had a thicker rind, with increased collenchyma tissue and sclereid cell frequency. Aerial petioles also had a larger cross-sectional area and were more elliptical. Thus, subtle changes in the distribution of materials, rather than differences in their makeup, differentiate petiole forms. We suggest that the growth of aerial petioles may be an adaptive response to shading, allowing aerial leaves to rise above a crowded water surface.

Key Words: amphibious • biomechanics • heterophylly • Indiana • lily pad • Nymphaeaceae • petiole • plasticity






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2007 by the Botanical Society of America, Inc.