Development and structure of the pericarp of Lannea discolor (Sonder) Engl.(Anacardiaceae)

Development and structure of the pericarp of Lannea discolor (Sonder) Engl.(Anacardiaceae). The exocarp develops from the outer epidermis and subepidermal, parenchymatous cell layers of the ovary wall. A parenchymatous zone with secretory cavities more or less delimits the exocarp internally. The inner part of the parenchymatous mesocarp is tanniniferous. The parenchymatous transition zone between mesocarp and sclercnchymatous endocarp or sderocarp, contains vascular tissue. The inner endocarp and operculum develop from the inner epidermis and subepidermal parenchyma of the ovary wall, while the outer endocarp develops from the parenchymatous zone with procambium strandS. Comparing the pericarp of L.discolor with those of Sclerocarya birrea subsp. caffra and Rhus lancea , the close affinity with Sclerocarya birrea subsp. caffra is evident.     

Physiological and anatomical changes during the early ontogeny of the heteroblastic bromeliad, Vriesea sanguinolenta, do not concur with the morphological change from atmospheric to tank form

Two distinct morphological forms characterize the ontogeny of many epiphytic bromeliads. Smaller plants exhibit an atmospheric habit, while larger plants form water‐impounding tanks. The study of the functional significance of heteroblasty in epiphytes is severely hampered by considerable size‐related variation in morphological, anatomical and physiological parameters. To overcome this problem, plants of varying size of both atmospheric and tank form were included in the present study with Vriesea sanguinolenta. The results show that virtually all morphological, anatomical and physiological characteristics vary during ontogeny, but changes were rarely directly related to the step change in gross morphology. Changes were either: (1) gradual from smallest atmospheric to small tank (e.g. leaf divergence angles, reduction in photosystem II efficiency during drought, speed of recovery after drought); (2) there was no change between atmospheric and small tank, but a gradual or step change within the tank form (stomatal density, relationship of leaf N and specific leaf area); or (3) developmental patterns were more complicated with decreases and increases during ontogeny (photosynthetic capacity, carbon isotope ratios, abscisic acid levels during drought). Although the comparisons between ontogenetic phases were always confounded by size differences, a hypothetical small tank plant is expected to suffer higher water loss than a real atmospheric, whereas a hypothetical, large atmospheric plant would show reduced access to resources, such as nutrients, in comparison with the real tank. The present results are consistent with the notion of heteroblasty as an adaptation of early ontogenetic stages to drought, but highlight that size‐related variation greatly modifies any difference directly associated with the step change from atmospheric to tank.