Elusive but not hypothetical: axillary meristems in Wollemia nobilis

Burrows, Geoffrey E.

doi:10.1093/aob/mcr233

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We appreciate the opportunity, provided by the Chief Editor, to respond hermeneutically to the critique by Burrows (2012) of our paper on branch regeneration in plagiotropic axes of Wollemia nobilis, where we claim that reiterated axes do not necessarily arise from axillary growth centres referred to as 'axillary meristems' (Tomlinson and Huggett, 2011). Our observations did not indicate that these existed in our material prior to manipulative techniques that generated new shoots behind decapitated axes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 85%

Axillary meristems in the Wollemi pine: a response to Geoffrey E. Burrows

Tomlinson

Huggett

2011

Annals of Botany

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 85%

Axillary meristems in the Wollemi pine: a response to Geoffrey E. Burrows

Tomlinson

Huggett

2011

Annals of Botany

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…They suggested that persistent meristems in these axils were hypothetical. They used 60-90 µm thick sections, which was not ideal when searching for structures only 45-75 µm in diameter [65]. In addition, they overlooked information that indicated persistent axillary meristems had already been described and illustrated in leaf axils of first order branches of wollemi pine [61,65].…”

Section: Araucariaceaementioning

confidence: 99%

Gymnosperm Resprouting—A Review

Burrows

2021

Plants

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gymnosperms are generally regarded as poor resprouters, especially when compared to angiosperms and particularly following major disturbance. However, is it this clear-cut? This review investigates two main aspects of gymnosperm resprouting: (i) various papers have provided exceptions to the above generalization—how frequent are these exceptions and are there any taxonomic trends?; and (ii) assuming gymnosperms are poor resprouters are there any anatomical or physiological reasons why this is the case? Five of six non-coniferous gymnosperm genera and 24 of 80 conifer genera had at least one species with a well-developed resprouting capability. This was a wider range than would be expected from the usual observation ‘gymnosperms are poor resprouters’. All conifer families had at least three resprouting genera, except the monospecific Sciadopityaceae. Apart from the aboveground stem, buds were also recorded arising from more specialised structures (e.g., lignotubers, tubers, burls and underground stems). In some larger genera it appeared that only a relatively small proportion of species were resprouters and often only when young. The poor resprouting performance of mature plants may stem from a high proportion of apparently ‘blank’ leaf axils. Axillary meristems have been recorded in a wide range of conifer species, but they often did not form an apical dome, leaf primordia or vascular connections. Buds or meristems that did form often abscised at an early stage. While this review has confirmed that conifers do not resprout to the same degree as angiosperms, it was found that a wide diversity of gymnosperm genera can recover vegetatively after substantial disturbance. Further structural studies are needed, especially of: (i) apparently blank leaf axils and the initial development of axillary meristems; (ii) specialised regeneration structures; and (iii) why high variability can occur in the resprouting capacity within species of a single genus and within genera of the same family.

show abstract

Secondary branching in Wollemia nobilis (Araucariaceae), an unexpected occurrence

Hnatiuk¹

2023

Aust. J. Bot.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context Until now, Wollemia nobilis was thought to differ from all other members of the Araucariaceae in having unbranched primary branches, except following some instances of traumatic damage to the branch apex. This paper reports on the serendipitous discovery of abundant secondary branching on seedling Wollemi pines. Aims I document the occurrence of secondary branches from axillary meristems, along the whole length of annual growth cycles of primary branches. Methods The abundance and location of secondary branching was observed, photographed and documented in over 90 nursery seedlings being grown for sale across two growing seasons. Key results Secondary buds and both secondary and tertiary branches occurred on 1-year-old primary branch segments on numerous seedlings being grown under standard commercial-nursery conditions. Conclusions Wollemia is capable of secondary and tertiary branch development without traumatic injury to the primary or secondary branch apex, thus confirming an earlier report that all or nearly all leaf axils in Wollemia may contain viable axillary meristems. This contradicts previous expectations that secondary branches will not develop without prior apical trauma to primary branches. Implications Secondary branching, as reported here, opens the door to further assessment of the fossil record for specimens that may broaden the concept of Wollemia and possibly its former distribution. The occurrence of these secondary branches should allow a reconsideration of the characters that distinguish the genus from other members of the family. They also broaden the understanding of the evolutionary potential of the species.

show abstract

Elusive but not hypothetical: axillary meristems in Wollemia nobilis

Cited by 5 publications

References 14 publications

Axillary meristems in the Wollemi pine: a response to Geoffrey E. Burrows

Axillary meristems in the Wollemi pine: a response to Geoffrey E. Burrows

Gymnosperm Resprouting—A Review

Secondary branching in Wollemia nobilis (Araucariaceae), an unexpected occurrence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About