HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Search for Related Content

What effect will the rising temperatures along the Antarctic Peninsula have on the growth of the two species of flowering plants there? Xiong, Mueller, and Day assess this by examining the response of these species to contrasting temperature regimes. Although they found these species have little ability to acclimate photosynthetically to warmer temperatures, their vegetative growth was much greater at warmer temperatures due to their greater allocation to leaf-area production and respiratory acclimation. (see p. 700)

Apical control?

Is apical control an old, outmoded concept or a useful framework for understanding the development of plants? Wilson considers this concept as it applies to the architecture of woody plants through regulation of branch angle, branch thickening, and bending movements. Creative experiments and better descriptions of the phenomena involved in this complex system are still needed. (see p. 601)

Gene action on plant form

A central question for botanists is how morphogenesis can meaningfully be controlled by the action of genes. Two papers in this issue offer insight on the nature of the relationship between gene action and plant form. Hay et al. bring genetic analyses, biomechanics, and physiology closer together in their study of a leaf mutation in Zea mays. They use mechanical engineering theory to show the causal links among the pleiotropic effects of this Rolled (Rld) leaf mutant. Shu et al. correlate the different inflorescence architectures of Arabidopsis and its relative violet cress (Jonopsidium acaule) with differences in the regulation of the LEAFY gene between the two genera. Although other genes may be involved, their work suggests that changes in the regulation of LEAFY played a role in inflorescence evolution. (see p. 625 and 634)

This Article Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Search for Related Content