Occurrence of preanthesis cleistogamy in Richardia brasiliensis suggests it may be more common in Rubiaceae than realised

References

• Ægisdóttir HH, Thórhallsdóttir TE. 2006. Breeding system evolution in the Arctic: a comparative study of campanula uniflora in Greenland and Iceland. Arctic Antarctic Alpine Res. 38(3):305–312. doi: 10.1657/1523-0430(2006)38[305:BSEITA]2.0.CO;2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrett SCH. 2008. Major evolutionary transitions in flowering plant reproduction: an overview. Int J Plant Sci. 169(1):1–5. doi: 10.1086/522511.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrett SCH, Richardson BJ. 1986. Genetic attributes of invading species. In: Groves R, and Burdon J, editors. Ecology of biological invasions: an Australian perspective. Canberra, Australia: Australian Academy of Science; pp. 21–33.
   Google Scholar
• Bawa KS, Opler PA. 1975. Dioecism in tropical forest trees. Evolution. 29(1):167–179. doi: 10.2307/2407150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bawa KS, Opler PA. 1977. Spatial relationships between staminate and pistillate plants of dioecious tropical forest trees. Evolution. 31(1):64–68. doi: 10.2307/2407545.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bremekamp CE. 1966. Remarks on the position, the delimitation and the subdivision of the Rubiaceae. Acta Bot Neerl. 15(1):1–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1438-8677.1966.tb00207.x.
   Google Scholar
• Burkart R, Bárbaro N, Sánchez R, Gómez D. 1999. Eco-regiones de la Argentina. Administración de Parques Nacionales. Secretaría de Recursos Naturales y Desarrollo Sustentable. Presidencia de la Nación WWF. 2017. ECOREGIONS. http://www.worldwildlife.org/biomes.
   Google Scholar
• Cabrera A, Willink A. 1973. Biografía de América Latina. Washington: Secretaría General de la Organización de los Estados Americanos.
   Google Scholar
• Castro CCD, Oliveira PEA. 2001. Reproductive biology of the protandrous Ferdinandusa speciosa Pohl (Rubiaceae) in southeastern Brazil. Braz J Bot. 24(2):167–172. doi: 10.1590/S0100-84042001000200006.
   Google Scholar
• Cavalli-Molina S, Motta VEP, Schiengold M, Winge H. 1989. Identical isozyme patterns in sib plants of Relbunium hypocarpium (Rubiaceae). Rev Brasil Genet. 12:361–368.
   Google Scholar
• Church SA. 2003. Molecular phylogenetics of Houstonia (Rubiaceae): descending aneuploidy and breeding system evolution in the radiation of the lineage across North America. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 27(2):223–238. doi: 10.1016/S1055-7903(02)00446-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole TCH. 2021. Rubiaceae Phylogeny Poster. “RUBIACEAEPHYLOGENYPOS TER. Accessed August 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Consolaro H, Silva EBD, Oliveira PE. 2005. Variação floral e biologia reprodutiva de Manettia cordifolia Mart. (Rubiaceae). Braz J Bot. 28(1):85–94. doi: 10.1590/S0100-84042005000100008.
   Google Scholar
• Cruden W. 1977. Pollen-ovule ratios: a conservative indicator of breeding systems in flowering plants. Evolution. 31(1):32–46. doi: 10.2307/2407542.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cruz RM, Martins CF. 2015. Pollinators of Richardia grandiflora (Rubiaceae): an important ruderal species for bees. Neotrop Entomol. 44(1):21–29. doi: 10.1007/s13744-014-0252-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Culley TM, Klooster MR. 2007. The cleistogamous breeding system: a review of its frequency, evolution, and ecology in Angiosperms. Bot Rev. 73(1):1–30. doi: 10.1663/0006-8101(2007)73[1:TCBSAR]2.0.CO;2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Freitas LB, Cavalli-Molina S, Winge H. 1995. Sources of genetic variability in a neotropical cleistogamous species, Relbunium hypocarpium. Rubiaceae Rev Brasil Genet. 18:289–289.
   Google Scholar
• Del-Claro K, Guillermo-Ferreira R, Zardini H, Almeida EM, Torezan-Silingardi HM. 2013. Ants visiting the post-floral secretions of pericarpial nectaries in Palicourea rigida (Rubiaceae) provide protection against leaf herbivores but not against seed parasites. Sociobiology. 60(3):217–221. doi: 10.13102/sociobiology.v60i3.217-221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delprete PG, Jardim JG. 2012. Systematics, taxonomy and floristics of Brazilian Rubiaceae: an overview about the current status and future challenges. Rodriguésia. 63(1):101–128. doi: 10.1590/S2175-78602012000100009.
   Google Scholar
• Delprete PG, Smith NP. 2004. Rubiaceae. In: Smith N, Mori S, Hennderson A, Heald S Stevenson D, editors Flowering plant families of the American tropics. New York (NY): Princeton University Press, New York Botanical Garden Press; pp. 328–333.
   Google Scholar
• Dessein S 2003. Systematic studies in the Spermacoceae (Rubiaceae). Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Leuven, Belgium: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
   Google Scholar
• Frankel R, Galun E. 1977. Pollination mechanisms, reproduction and plant breeding. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Ganders FR. 1979. The biology of heterostyly. N Z J Bot. 17:607–635. doi: 10.1080/0028825X.1979.10432574.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbs PE. 1990. Self-incompatibility in flowering plants: a neotropical perspective. Rev Brasil Bot. 13:125–136.
   Google Scholar
• Gray AJ. 1986. Do invading species have definable genetic characteristics?. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B. Vol. 314. pp. 655–674.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harlan JR. 1945. Cleistogamy and chasmogamy in Bromus carinatus Hook. & Arn. Amer J Bot. 32(2):66–72. doi: 10.1002/j.1537-2197.1945.tb05088.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hickman JC. 1974. Pollination by ants: a low–energy system. Science. 184(4143):1290–1292. doi: 10.1126/science.184.4143.1290.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holdsworth M. 1966. The cleistogamy of Viola cunninghammi. Trans Royal Soc New Zealand Bot. 3:169–174.
   Google Scholar
• Imbert FM, Richards JH. 1993. Protandry, incompatibility, and secondary pollen presentation in Cephalanthus occidentalis (Rubiaceae). Amer J Bot. 80(4):395–404. doi: 10.1002/j.1537-2197.1993.tb13818.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaimes I, Ramírez N. 1998. Autoincompatibilidad, autogamia y agamospermia en angiospermas tropicales. Acta Biol Venez. 18:59–80.
   Google Scholar
• Jones E. 2012. Floral morphology and development in Houstonia procumbens (Rubiaceae), a uniquely distylous, cleistogamous species. Florida, USA: The Florida State University; p. 105.
   Google Scholar
• Kaspari M. 2003. Introducción a la ecología de las hormigas. In: Fernández F, editor. Introducción a las Hormigas de la región Neotropical. Bogotá: Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt; pp. 97–112.
   Google Scholar
• Kearns CA, Inouye DW. 1993. Techniques for pollination biologists. Goettingen: University Press of Colorado.
   Google Scholar
• Langer RHM, Wilson D. 1965. Environmental control of cleistogamy in prairie grass (Bromus unioloides HBK). New Phytol. 64(1):80–85. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1965.tb05377.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levin DA. 1972. Plant density, cleistogamy, and self-fertilization in natural populations of Lithospermum caroliniense. Am J Bot. 59(1):71–77. doi: 10.1002/j.1537-2197.1972.tb10063.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis WH, Oliver RL. 1974. Revision of Richardia (Rubiaceae). Brittonia. 26(3):271–301. doi: 10.2307/2805730.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lloyd DG. 1979. Some reproductive factors affecting the selection of self-fertilization in plants. Am Nat. 113(1):67–79. doi: 10.1086/283365.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lord EM. 1981. Cleistogamy: a tool for the study of floral morphogenesis, function and evolution. Bot Rev. 47(4):421–449. doi: 10.1007/BF02860538.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mariath JEA 1990. Ontogenia, embriologia e biologia floral de Relbunium hypcarpium (Rubieae – Rubiaceae). PhD thesis, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP.
   Google Scholar
• Martin FW. 1959. Staining and observing pollen tubes in the style by means of fluorescence. Stain Technol. 34(3):125–128. doi: 10.3109/10520295909114663.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell-Olds T, Waller DM. 1985. Relative performance of selfed and outcrossed progeny in Impatiens capensis. Evolution. 39(3):533–544. doi: 10.2307/2408651.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson LA, Rabakonandrianina E, Pettersson B, Ranaivo J. 1990. Ixoroid secondary pollen presentation and pollination by small moths in the Malagasy treelet Ixora platythyrsa (Rubiaceae). Pl Syst Evol. 170(3–4):161–175. doi: 10.1007/BF00937701.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nowak MD, Davis AP, Anthony F, Yoder AD. 2011. Expression trans-specific polymorphism of self-incompatibility RNases in Coffea (Rubiaceae). PloS One. 6(6):e21019. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pacheco JA, Mackay WP. 2013. The systematics and biology of the New World thief ants of the genus Solenopsis. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Lewiston (NY): The Edwin Mellen Press.
   Google Scholar
• Puff C. 1982. The delimitation of the tribe Anthospermeae and its affinities to the Paederieae (Rubiaceae). Bot J Linn Soc. 84(4):355–377. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.1982.tb00369.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radford AE, Dickson WC, Massey JR, Bell CR. 1974. Vascular plant systematics. New York (NY): Harper and Row Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Ritzerow H. 1908. Über Bau und Befruchtung kleistogamer Blüten. Flora. 98(2):163–212. doi: 10.1016/S0367-1615(17)32223-1.
   Google Scholar
• Robbrecht E. 1988. Tropical woody Rubiaceae. Opera Bot Belg. 1:599–602.
   Google Scholar
• Rodríguez-Pontes M. 2009. Seed formation and pollination system in Cuscuta obtusiflora: first record of preanthesis cleistogamy in parasitic plants and some functional inferences. Flora Morphol Distrib Funct Ecol Plants. 204(3):228–237. doi: 10.1016/j.flora.2008.02.005.
   Google Scholar
• Santos JC, Del-Claro K. 2001. Interactions between ants, herbivores and extrafloral nectaries in Tocoyena formosa (Cham. & Schlechtd.) K. Schum. (Rubiaceae) in Cerrado vegetation. Revista Brasileira de Zoociências. 3(1):77–92.
   Google Scholar
• Sanz-Veiga PA, Ré Jorge L, Benitez-Vieyra S, Amorim FW. 2017. Pericarpial nectary-visiting ants do not provide fruit protection against pre-dispersal seed predators regardless of ant species composition and resource availability. PloS One. 12(12):e0188445. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188445.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma V, Sumbali G. 2013. An overview of the symbiotic interaction between ants, fungi and other living organisms in ant-hill soils. Int J Environ Sci. 4(3):432–443.
   Google Scholar
• SMN: servicio meteorológico nacional. 2023. Argentina; [accessed 2023 Aug 10]. https://www.smn.gob.ar/
   Google Scholar
• Stevens PF, Davis H. 2001. Angiosperm phylogeny website. Missouri Botanical Garden. http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb/welcome.html.
   Google Scholar
• Terrell EE. 1996. Revision of Houstonia (Rubiaceae-Hedyotideae). Syst Bot Monogr. 1–118.
   Google Scholar
• Uphof JCT. 1938. Cleistogamic flowers. Bot Rev. 4(1):21–49. doi: 10.1007/BF02869833.
   Google Scholar
• Valdés B, Talavera S, Fernández-Galiano E. 1987. Flora Vascular de Andalucía Occidental 1–3. Barcelona: Ketres Editora S.A.
   Google Scholar
• Verdcourt B. 1958. Remarks on the classification of the Rubiaceae. Bulletin du Jardin botanique de l’État a Bruxelles. 28(3):209–290. doi: 10.2307/3667090.
   Google Scholar
• Waller DM. 1984. Differences in fitness between seedlings derived from cleistogamous and chasmogamous flowers in Impatiens capensis. Evolution. 38(2):427–440. doi: 10.2307/2408501.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeo PF. 1993. Descriptions of secondary pollen presentation. In: Yeo PF, editor Secondary pollen presentation. Vienna: Springer; pp. 7–214.
   Google Scholar
• Zeisler M. 1938. Über die Abgrenzung der eigentlichen Narbenfläche mit Hilfe von Reaktionen. Beih Bot Zentralbl. 58:308–318.
   Google Scholar
• Zunino GE, Kowalewski MM. 2008. Primate Research and Conservation in Northern Argentina: The Field Station Corrientes (Estación Biológica de Usos Múltiples –EBCo). Trop Conserv Sci. 1(2):140–150. doi: 10.1177/194008290800100206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar