And now something different…

It has been a while since I blabbered about the cotyledons of Claytonia, but I want to let you all in on something I find VERY interesting…IMG_1521… so maybe we should start with a survey, to see what you think. How many cotyledons do you think Claytonia have? Keep in mind, they are dicots.

Claytonia saxosa seedlings2013-12-01 12.10.10If you guessed that Claytonia have 2 cotyledons, you’re right… but you’re not the only one that is right. Technically, those of you that guessed Claytonia have only 1 cotyledon are also correct — that’s right, there is in fact a group of dicots with only 1 cotyledon (probably several, but that question exceeds the scope of this blog post). Claytonia Section Claytonia, otherwise known as the tuberous perennials, lack a second cotyledon present in other species of Claytonia (and all of their closest relatives). To me, this is just another reason why you should believe that Claytonia is the whackiest group of plants this side of the Mississippi River. 😉

IMGP9244So who cares, there has been a loss of one of the cotyledons in this group of plants. One time only evolution, and now these plants simply can’t recover that lost cotyledon — I’m over it… right? WRONG! There is something fishy going on here, and it has to do with a certain caudicose perennial I have mentioned before: Claytonia megarhiza (pictured below).

IMG_4012IMG_4025You can see from the second image (the photo immediately above) that Claytonia megarhiza clearly has two cotyledons, not one like the tuberous, perennial Claytonia species I mentioned before. Thus, you’d expect that this species is more closely related to those other Claytonia that have two cotyledons, right? Well…

Print Trees PreviewAbove is a preliminary phylogenetic tree that I presented at the Botanical Society of America Meeting this year in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. This tree has been developed from ~500 single nucleotide polymorphisms isolated from the nuclear genome of all of the samples included (using ddRADseq). You can see from the tree that the caudicose perennial C. megarhiza (indicated by [morphologically similar, but anatomically quite different] cartoon carrots ) clearly has a close association with the tuberous, perennial Claytonia, albeit the exact area in the tree where they will stabilize is still yet to be determined. Without question, Claytonia megarhiza is nested somewhere in this clade of otherwise tuberous, perennial Claytonia.

So how did C. megarhiza find itself with 2 cotyledons while all of its closest relatives (including those diverging away from the lot much earlier in evolutionary history) have only 1? If you have the answer… I would love to hear it from ya! From my perspective, it is a question that is ‘to be determined’ but I am hopeful that my dissertation will change things. 😉

Advertisements

Oops, that took embarassingly long: UPDATE on what’s new with western Claytonia

IMG_0850First off (technically second, after the eye candy above), I need to announce that my research on Claytonia (Montiaceae) has been recently funded [yay!] by the National Science Foundation. You can see the abstract here for #DEB1502085:

http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1502085

Second (yes, I know, technically third), we should play my favorite game: compare the above eye candy with the below ridiculously beautiful [spring] beauty… SAME? or different. 😉

IMG_2978Now before you answer to yourself, consider that the Claytonia in the above two pictures are considered in the current taxonomy to be the same as the plants in the below picture, all being C. lanceolata [for now]. IMG_2834Check out the variation in those leaves!!! Who cares about the flowers, right? No way…IMG_0865IMG_7563IMG_2825The three photos immediately above correspond respectively with the same three putative taxa [let’s call them operational taxonomic units] in the first three pictures of this blog post. So? SAME or different? Feel free to vote at the bottom, and I welcome any feedback or discussion — I can’t say it all in 140 characters or less.

Third [ok, let’s stop with the sequential nonsense], I took an epic trip across California, Nevada and Oregon during the spring months of 2015 as part of #DEB1502085. While on this trip, I photographed new, mind-boggling [taxonomically speaking], tuberous Claytonia. Almost immediately after that, I took another most epic trip across California, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado (with guest appearances in Arizona and Wyoming) with ‘Los Caryophylleros’. Let’s just say, I can’t wait to get my new morphological and molecular data (RADSeq X 2) up to speed…

Lastly [HA! I win!], I’ll finish this [short] commentary with what has been the most difficult collection of photos I’ve ever had to select from for the purpose of sharing, then I need to finish preparing for presentations at BOTANY and the Caryophyllales meetings…

IMG_1648IMG_1815IMG_2120IMG_2266IMG_2280IMG_2297IMG_2585IMG_2598IMG_2696IMG_2821IMG_2944IMG_2985IMG_3223IMG_3256IMG_3520IMG_3578IMG_3582IMG_3665IMG_3728IMG_3756What a wild ride!!!

Hybridization — are generalist pollinators the key to success?

I’ve been on a bit of a rant lately concerning hybridization in plant species complexes, which recently resulted in my last post suggesting hybridization could be a potential ‘solution’ to the problem of an ever-changing climate. I want to dig a little deeper now and ask the questions — can generalist pollinators have anything to do with the maintenance of a generalized floral form in Claytonia? If so, can this indirectly act as a selective force for increased hybridization among distantly (and closely) related species? If you have seen the ‘face shots’ from a recent ‘Spring Beauty Pageant‘ than you know what I’m talking about. Maybe you’ve even suggested to a friend, because Claytonia grow like weeds where you are from, that you believe there to be little variation in floral form among species in the genus. I’d agree with you, to a certain extent… but then again, maybe there is so much intra-population variation in floral morphology (coloration, petal shape) that we are blind to see the true pattern of differentiation in floral form among closely related taxa. I’ve touched upon the subject of within-population variation of the flowers of one member of the C. “peirsonii” complex from the southern Sierra Nevada, but now I want to expand on this subject with photographs taken within a single population of C. lanceolata sensu lato on the Great Continental Divide in Montana. As you can easily tell from the first picture below, in which all of the white spots are Claytonia flowers, it is not difficult to conduct this sort of ‘experiment’ yourself. In other words, it is easy to get a lot of face-on photographs of Claytonia flowers because they occur in extremely dense populations. This spring, try to see how much your favorite Claytonia varies in its floral form — you may be surprised at what you find!IMG_8497IMG_8570IMG_8449IMG_8582 IMG_8453IMG_8458IMG_8477IMG_8478IMG_8531IMG_8547IMG_8516     Keep in mind that all of the above pictures are of plants that occur in a single population of C. lanceolata sensu lato on the Great Continental Divide in Montana. As evidenced by the last photograph, even merosity can go haywire from time to time. If I showed you just that last picture, you might even confuse the plants for Lewisia. That is a lot of variation! Are these hybrid plants of C. lanceolata (which has retuse petal apices) crossed with another species in the area with entire petals? Good question! Let me get back to you on that one…

All I know is that multiple Claytonia species can occur in sympatry, and intermediate forms can be found in those areas. This is especially true of the annual species of Claytonia. I haven’t observed putative hybrids among the annuals (i.e., the miner’s lettuces) and tuberous perennials (i.e., C. lanceolata species complex), although I have observed them sharing pollinators in southern California. Pictured below are soft-wing flower beetles (Melyridae) visiting both C. rubra (section Limnia, first picture below) and C. “peirsonii (section Claytonia, second picture below) at the same location on the same day in the southern Sierra Nevada, California. You might remember from one of my very first posts: these pollen eaters are quite effective pollinators.

IMG_5457 IMG_5402Too many questions for a single dissertation to address, but I’ll see what I can do! 😉

Yukon — too much good stuff!

Buh5XpHCAAQssob

Cheers from the Ogilvie Mountains!

Hey, all — I have returned from the Yukon Territory and I want to share with you at least SOME of the highlights regarding my fieldwork there. Ingrid Jordon-Thaden and I summarized most of it in our recent post on Experiment.com (click here to see the lab note), but I wasn’t able share all of the pictures that I wanted to share there — my administrative privileges on Claytonia.org allow me to expand a bit here 😉

So what did I see, exactly? Oh gosh, I collected a fair amount of Silene, a few Androsace septentrionalis seeds and vouchers, at least a few Boechera, and I even grabbed an endemic Claytonia to make the trip VERY worthwhile. Claytonia ogilviensis (two pictures below) was my main target, so I was very glad that we were able to collect it. I found at least one population, but I also got the opportunity to sample from some recent herbarium specimens where C. ogilviensis has been collected outside of the range from which it was originally described, each with a slightly different morphology (and geology) to boot — I am VERY excited to see how this all fits into the phylogeny I am developing (with help from collaborators) for Claytonia Section Claytonia.

IMG_9166

Tuber from putatively old individual of Claytonia ogilviensis in the Ogilvie Mountains, Yukon Territory, Canada.

IMG_9158

Basal leaf (left center) and remnants of flowering stem (right center) of Claytonia ogilviensis in the Ogilvie Mountains, Yukon Territory, Canada.

Based on my recent observations in the field, and from scanning herbarium specimens collected all across western North America, I can tell why many people have suggested that Claytonia ogilviensis (pictured above) may be closely related to C. umbellata (pictured below). It doesn’t help that I am not EXACTLY sure about who the REAL C. umbellata is, considering I collected four distinct genotypes (each with their own distinct morphologies) all within about 20 air miles of the vaguely described type locality. To make matters worse (read about it here), my collaborator has found another distinct lineage of C. umbellata in eastern Oregon that is nearly identical (genetically) to the Ogilvie Mountains endemic (C. ogilviensis) that I just collected… Claytonia is a tough cookie to crack!

IMG_4677

Tuber from individual of Claytonia umbellata in the Diamond Mountains, Nevada.

IMG_4680

Basal leaf of Claytonia umbellata from the Diamond Mountains, Nevada.

IMG_5228

Basal and cauline leaves of Claytonia umbellata from the Pine Nut Mountains, Nevada.

Aside from collecting the narrow endemic Claytonia ogilviensis in the Yukon Territory, I also found an interesting population currently treated as C. tuberosa (pictured below) in the area of Keno Hill. In my most recent nrITS phylogeny, it appears that these plants may be more closely related to samples of C. multiscapa from the Rocky Mountains than they are to other samples of C. tuberosa collected just to the west in Alaska — I don’t yet have chloroplast data to support this relationship (the Idaho area C. multiscapa sequences are from GenBank).

IMG_9058

Face-view of flower of Claytonia tuberosa s.l. from the top of Keno Hill, Yukon Territory, Canada.

IMG_9035

Claytonia tuberosa s.l. photographed on top of Keno Hill, Yukon Territory, Canada.

Lastly, I got to see and collect a VERY beautiful Claytonia in the Kluane National Park, a member (and my first sample) of Section Rhizomatosae Claytonia sarmentosa (photographed below). This rhizomatous perennial seems to really prefer talus slopes, not unlike C. ogilviensis, C. umbellata, and the C. “peirsonii” complex.

IMG_9239

Face-view of flower of Claytonia sarmentosa from the Kluane Ranges, Yukon Territory, Canada.

IMG_9236

Claytonia sarmentosa photographed on the King’s Throne Trail, Kluane Ranges, Yukon Territory, Canada.

It was a great trip, but I’m glad to be home — with school about to start, and another spring season just around the corner, it is time to REALLY get some work done!!!

Up Next = Molecular lab + Herbarium work.

Floral morphology in Claytonia: How much variation is ‘normal’ for a species?

Ok, so you may remember this recent post, where I asked for interested people to send me pictures of as many flowers as they could photograph…

The premise is simple: How much variation is considered the ‘normal’ or ‘typical’ amount of variation for a species? How much is typical in terms of petal shape, size, and color for individuals in a given population of tuberous perennial Claytonia?! My collaborators and I have noticed quite a bit of variation among populations of different species, but what may be even more interesting is the amount of variation within populations. It might bend your brain the next time you kneel down and take a look around at the tuberous perennial Claytonia blooming in your area (right now!!!)… Better yet, take a picture of 50-100 different flowers from directly facing the flowers (trying to center the gynoecium in the flower as best as possible). Compare all your photos, or send them my way. We’ll get to the bottom of this!

Enter stage left as ‘proof of concept’, a member of the C. “peirsonii” complex from the southern Sierra Nevada — all of the below pictures are from different flowering individuals within a single population, taken on the same day within about 45 minutesIMG_5421 IMG_5418  IMG_5404Note the visitors above: an ichneumonoid wasp (likely a parasitoid braconid) on the left, and a soft-winged flower beetle (Melyridae) on the right. We saw these same beetles last year, and I’ve also mentioned them in the ‘who’s pollinating Claytonia?‘ series — special thanks to Dr. Emile Fiesler for help with the identifications!IMG_5432IMG_5398IMG_5382IMG_5387IMG_5324IMG_5331IMG_5396The variation is crazy, right?!

IMG_5340I really need to get a new ‘cutest Claytonia‘ contest going soon…

¡Holy frijoles! You are just too cute, and too close to home…

OK, so I might just have a new favorite Claytonia after my most recent trip into the desert in northwestern Nevada. Let me just tell you something — in the Desert Southwest, spring has sprung! Just like my collaborator at Eastern Washington University (Dr. Robin O’Quinn), I think I am falling in love with the tuberous perennial ‘Great Basin Spring Beauty’ (C. umbellata) — photographed here on March 21st, 2014.

IMG_5178IMG_5195IMG_5134As Stevie Wonder might say, isn’t she lovely?!

It gets better… Also photographed on March 21, 2014, below are some pictures of plants from another population of C. umbellata that occurs on a different substrate in another mountain range nearby in Nevada.

IMG_5221IMG_5227IMG_5230There’s something funny going on here, and I’m going to get to the bottom of it…

Question for readers out there: Who thinks the above plants look similar to the below plants from southern California? Just wonderin’ about evolutionary relationships 😉

cropped-2013-04-01-18-12-02.jpg