Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Roxburgh was right: Aponogeton microphyllus and Aponogeton undulatus are distinct species

  • Published:
Journal of Biosciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aponogeton microphyllus, previously placed under the synonymy of A. undulatus, is recognized here as a distinct species based on morphology, chromosome number, and molecular phylogenetics (nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed (ITS) spacer region). Observations on the type and live specimens revealed morphological differences between the two species. Aponogeton microphyllus flowered regularly and set seeds. Aponogeton undulatus flowered rarely, did not set seeds, but showed formation of young plantlets on the inflorescence axis. Similarly, different chromosome numbers were recorded in Aponogeton microphyllus and the two forms of A. undulatus, viz., AF1 and AF2, which occur in distinct populations. Aponogeton microphyllus exhibited polysomaty with root-tip cells showing 2n=40, 42, and 44 chromosomes. The two forms of A. undulatus, AF1 and AF2, showed 2n=84 and 86 chromosomes, respectively. Based on the ITS data, both species occupied two separate clades. Plastid trnK intron region indicated a close relationship between both species. Our study suggests the need for comprehensive phylogenetic analyses of A. undulatus across its distribution range based on more advanced techniques such as high-throughput sequencing data to understand the A. undulatus species complex and to detect natural hybrids of this species.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackerfield J and Wen J 2003 Evolution of Hedera (the Ivy Genus, Araliaceae): Insights from chloroplast DNA data. Int. J. Plant. Sci. 164 593–602

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bonfield JK and Whitwham A 2010 Gap5—editing the billion-fragment sequence assembly. Bioinformatics 26 1699–1703

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • van Bruggen HWE 1985 Monograph of the genus Aponogeton (Aponogetonaceae). Bioblioth. Bot. 33 1–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen LU, Grimm GW, Wang QF, et al. 2015 A phylogeny and biogeography analysis for the Cape-Pondweed family Aponogetonaceae (Alismatales). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 82 111–117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Darriba D, Taboada GL, Doallo R, et al. 2012 jModelTest 2: more models, new heuristics and parallel computing. Nat. Methods 9 772

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle JJ 1992 Gene trees and species trees: molecular systematics as one character taxonomy. Syst. Biol. 17 144–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle JJ and Doyle JL 1987 A rapid DNA isolation procedure for small quantities of fresh leaf tissue. Phytochem. Bull. 19 11–15

    Google Scholar 

  • de Wit HCD 1958 Aponogeton stachyosporous sp. nov. Meded. Bot. Tuinen Belmonte Arbor. Wageningen. 2 96

  • Dey D, Yadav SR and Devi N 2021 Rediscovery of Aponogeton lakhonensis A. Camus (Aponogetonaceae): a long-lost aquatic plant of India. J. Threat. Taxa 13 19632–19635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukai S, Hasegawa A and Goi M 2002 Polysomaty in Cymbidium. HortScience 37 1088–1091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaikwad SP 2000 Studies on biology of some endemic aquatic monocots. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Botany, Shivaji University, Kolhapur, India

  • Gaikwad SP, Sardesai MM and Yadav SR 1998 Naturliche hybriden (?) zwischen Aponogeton appendiculatus HWE van Bruggen und A. undulatus Roxburgh und ihr Nutzen fur die Aquaristik. Aqua Planta 2 54–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaikwad SP, Yadav SR, Gore RD, et al. 2014 Karyomorphological studies of Aponogeton appendiculatus Bruggen and Aponogeton crispus Thunb. J. Natn. Sci. Foundation Sri Lanka 42 163–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gargiulo GM, Vilardo I, Gemelli F, et al. 2020 Aneusomaty and polysomaty in Cymodocea nodosa (Ucria) Ascherson from Mediterranean Sea (Sicily, Italy). Aquat. Bot. 162 103206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gargiulo GM, Balkkouri BEl, Crisafulli A, et al. 2022 Polysomaty and chromosome number variation in a population of Ceratophyllum demersum L. from Aquila Lake (Aspromonte Mountains, Calabria, Italy). Aquat. Bot. 180 103530

  • Hickey M and King C 2001 The Cambridge illustrated glossary of botanical terms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim S and Donoghue MJ 2008 Incongruence between cpDNA and nrITS trees indicates extensive hybridization within Eupersicaria (Polygonaceae). Am. J. Bot. 95 1122–1135

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Larsson A 2014 AliView: a fast and lightweight alignment viewer and editor for large data sets. Bioinformatics 30 3276–3278

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Les DH and Tippery NP 2013 In time and with water…the systematics of alismatid monocotyledons. in Early events in monocot evolution. Eds. P. Wilkinand S. J Mayo, (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press). pp 118–164

  • Les DH and Philbrick CT 1993 Studies of hybridization and chromosome number variation in aquatic angiosperms: evolutionary implications. Aquat. Bot. 44 181–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Les DH, Crawford DJ, Kimball RT, et al. 2003 Biogeography of discontinuously distributed hydrophytes: A molecular appraisal of intercontinental disjunctions. Int. J. Plant Sci. 164 917–932

  • Les DH, Moody ML and Jacobs SWL 2005 Phylogeny and systematics of Aponogeton (Aponogetonaceae): the Australian species. Syst. Bot. 30 503–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • POWO 2023 Plants of the World Online (http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org)

  • Morales-Briones DF, Liston A and Tank DC 2018 Phylogenomic analyses reveal a deep history of hybridization and polyploidy in the Neotropical genus Lachemilla (Rosaceae). New Phytol. 218 1668–1684

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller MA, Pfeiffer W and Schwartz T 2010 Creating the CIPRES Science Gateway for inference of large phylogenetic trees. 2010 Gateway Computing Environments Workshop (GCE) pp 1–8

  • Rieseberg LH and Soltis DE 1991 Phylogenetic consequences of cytoplasmic gene flow in plants. Evol. Trends Plants 5 65–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice A, Glick L, Abadi S, et al. 2014 The Chromosome Counts Database (CCDB) – a community resource of plant chromosome numbers. New Phytol. 206 19–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ronquist F, Teslenko M, van der Mark P, et al. 2012 MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Syst. Biol. 61 539–542

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roxburgh W 1832 Flora Indica; or, descriptions of Indian Plants 2 (Thacker & Co., Serampore, Calcutta and Allen & Co., Parbury, London) p 211

  • Swofford DL 2003 PAUP* Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods). Version 4 (Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts)

  • Sen S 1973 Polysomaty and its significance in Liliales. Cytologia 38 737–751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stamatakis A 2014 RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30 1312–1313

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Soltis DE and Kuzoff RK 1995 Discordance between nuclear and chloroplast phylogenies in the Heuchera Group (Saxifragaceae). Evolution 49 727–742

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Surveswaran S, Gowda V and Sun M 2018 Using an integrated approach to identify cryptic species, divergence patterns and hybrid species in Asian ladies’ tresses orchids (Spiranthes, Orchidaceae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 124 106–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Than MMM, Pal A and Jha S 2011 Chromosome number and modal karyotype in a polysomatic endangered orchid, Bulbophyllum auricomum Lindl., the Royal Flower of Myanmar Plant Syst. Evol. 294 167–175

  • White TJ, Bruns T, Lee S and Taylor J 1990 Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics; in PCR protocols: A guide to methods and applications (Eds.) MA Innis, DH Gelfand, JJ Sninsky, et al. (Academic Press, San Diego) pp 315–322

  • Yadav SR 2017 A new species of Aponogeton (Aponogetonaceae) from India with critical notes on embryo morphology. Phytotaxa 328 83–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav SR and Gaikwad SP 2003 A revision of the Indian Aponogetonaceae. Bull. Bot. Surv. India. 45 39–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Yadav SR, Patil VS, Gholave AR, et al. 2015 Aponogeton nateshii (Aponogetonaceae): a new species from India. Rheedea 25 9–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Yadav SR 1995 Die hybrid zwishen Aponogeton decaryi Jumelle and Aponogeton satarensis Raghavan, Kulkami and Yadav. Aqua Planta 20 71–80

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the Head, Department of Botany, Shivaji University, Kolhapur, for providing necessary research facilities. Thanks are due to Dr. Susanne S. Renner, Honorary Professor of Biology, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, for going through previous versions of the manuscript and improving its content. SS thanks Pooja Kumari Shukla for help in sequence data analysis. SRY thanks Mr. Pushpendra Katiyar, NBRI, Lucknow, for his help during the field tour. SRY is grateful to University Grants Commission (UGC), New Delhi, for the award of the BSR faculty fellowship. We thank the Director, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, for permitting us to publish the selected images.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Angiosperm Taxonomy Laboratory, Department of Botany, Shivaji University, Kolhapur, 416004, India

    Rupali N Chougule, Shrirang R Yadav & Manoj M Lekhak

  2. Department of Plant Sciences, School of Life Sciences, University of Hyderabad, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, 500046, India

    Siddharthan Surveswaran

  3. Department of Life Sciences, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru, 560029, India

    Arvind George

Authors
  1. Rupali N Chougule
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Siddharthan Surveswaran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arvind George
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shrirang R Yadav
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Manoj M Lekhak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manoj M Lekhak.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Additional information

Corresponding editor: R Geeta

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chougule, R.N., Surveswaran, S., George, A. et al. Roxburgh was right: Aponogeton microphyllus and Aponogeton undulatus are distinct species. J Biosci 48, 53 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12038-023-00366-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12038-023-00366-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation