SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
TABLE S1. Origin of plant material of Disa and Brownleea examined. Order of taxa and species
follows Bytebier et al. (2008). Abbreviations for geographical regions follow Brummitt (2001).
Herbarium codes: BOL = Bolus Herbarium, University of Cape Town, South Africa, NU = Bews
Herbarium, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. s.n. = no collection number available.
Taxon
Brownleea
Brownleea galpinii ssp.
major
Brownleea macroceras
Brownleea parviflora
Disa
Disa caulescens
Disa filicornis
Disa racemosa
Disa tripetaloides
Disa uniflora
Disa uniflora
Atromaculiferae
Disa glandulosa
Disa vaginata
Disa vaginata
Phlebidia
Disa longicornu
Pardoglossa
Disa rosea
Ovalifoliae
Disa ovalifolia
Schizodium
Disa flexuosa
Disa obliqua ssp.
obliqua
Disa satyrioides
Vaginaria
Disa fasciata
Coryphaea
Disa rungweensis
Disa sagittalis
Disa triloba
Disella
Disa bodkinii
Disa elegans
Disa elegans
Disa obtusa ssp.
hottentotica
Disa uncinata
Origin
Collector, collection number,
herbarium, accession number
NAT, Bushman's Nek
Hobbhahn, 005, BOL
CPP-EC, Naude's Nek
Hobbhahn, 006, NU 0037314
Unknown, s.n., NU 0037322
CPP-WC, Bain's Kloof
Hobbhahn, 007, BOL
Linder, s.n., BOL 312
Hobbhahn, s.n., BOL 2726
Linder, 1750, BOL 538
Hobbhahn, s.n., BOL 2713
Hobbhahn, 033, NU 0037293
CPP-WC, Cape Point
CPP-WC, Table Mountain
CPP-WC, Grootwinterhoek
Wilderness Area
CPP-WC, Table Mountain
CPP-WC, Table Mountain
CPP-WC, Table Mountain
Hobbhahn, 008, BOL
Bruyns, 1238, BOL 392
Hobbhahn, 032, NU 0037294
CPP-WC, Table Mountain
Hobbhahn, 009, NU 0037307
CPP-WC, Table Mountain
Linder, s.n., BOL 427
Linder, 5871, BOL 2289; Burger,
s.n., BOL 2100
CPP-WC, Villiersdorp
CPP-WC, Table Mountain
Hobbhahn, 010, BOL
Hobbhahn, 035, NU 0037295
Linder, s.n., BOL 1432
CPP-WC, Hottentots Holland
Nature Reserve
Hobbhahn, 028, NU 0037301;
036, NU 0037290
TVL-MP, Long Tom Pass
SD Johnson, s.n., NU 0037312
Unknown, s.n., NU 0037299
Esterhuysen, 34157, BOL 1378
CPP-WC, Grootwinterhoek
CPP-WC, Hottentots Holland
Nature Reserve
Bruyns, 1544, BOL 203
Oliver, s.n., BOL 320
Hobbhahn, 012, NU 0037309
Hobbhahn, 013, BOL
Linder, 1689, BOL 551
Monadenia
Disa atrorubens
Disa bolusiana
Disa bracteata
Disa bracteata
Disa brevicornis
Disa comosa
Disa comosa
Disa cylindrica
Disa cylindrica
Disa ophrydea
Disa ophrydea
Disa rufescens
Disa sabulosa
Reticulibractea
Disa harveiana ssp.
longicalcarata
Disa karooica
Repandra
Disa cornuta
Disa tysonii
Disa tysonii
Trichochila
Disa graminifolia
Disa hians
Disa salteri
Disa salteri
Disa tenuis
Stenocarpa
Disa aristata
Disa cephalotes ssp.
cephalotes
Disa gladioliflora ssp.
gladioliflora
Disa nivea
Disa saxicola
Disa stricta
Disa vigilans
Emarginatae
Disa nervosa
Disa patula var.
transvaalensis
Disa stachyoides
Spirales
Disa brachyceras
Disa tenella ssp. tenella
Aconitoideae
CPP-WC, Swartberg Nature
Reserve
CPP-WC, Villiersdorp
NAT, Mount Gilboa, Midlands
CPP-WC, Middelburg Pass
CPP-WC, Table Mountain
CPP-WC, Hottentots Holland
Nature Reserve
CPP-WC, Hottentots Holland
Nature Reserve
CPP-WC, Hottentots Holland
Nature Reserve
CPP-WC, Betty's Bay
Linder, 1129, BOL 918
Bytebier, 2572, NU
Chesselet, 13, BOL 2035
Hobbhahn, 011, BOL
Hobbhahn, 029, NU 0037298
Hobbhahn, 023, NU 0037313
Hobbhahn, 022, NU 0037310
Kurzweil, 904, BOL 1568
Hobbhahn, 024, BOL
Kurzweil, 923, BOL 1336
Hobbhahn, 037, NU 0037248
Hobbhahn, 025, BOL
Hobbhahn, 014, NU 0037306
CPP-WC, Dasklip Pass
Hobbhahn, s.n., BOL 2728
CPP-NC, Leliefontein
Hobbhahn, 015, NU 0037302
CPP-WC, Cape Point
CPP-EC, Bastervoetpad
Hobbhahn, 034, NU 0037291
Hobbhahn, 016, BOL
Linder, 806, BOL 516
CPP-WC, Safraansrivier
Linder, 1763, BOL 819
Linder, 1731, BOL 849
Langley, s.n., BOL; Langley, s.n.
BOL 2541
Hobbhahn, 017, BOL
Linder, s.n., BOL 394
NAT, Witsieshoek
Davidson, 3270, BOL 406
Van der Niet, s.n., NU 0037297
CPP-EC, Tierkop, Langeberg
Hobbhahn, s.n., BOL 2729
CPP-EC, Bastervoetpad
Hobbhahn, 018, BOL
Unknown, s.n., NU 0037311
Unknown, s.n., NU 0037316
Bellstedt, 827, NU
TVL-MP, Mokobulaan
NAT, Hella Hella
NAT, Mount Gilboa, Midlands
Hobbhahn, s.n., BOL 2730
Hobbhahn, s.n., BOL 2721
NAT, Mount Gilboa, Midlands
Hobbhahn, s.n., BOL 2724
CPP-WC, Shaw’s Pass
CPP-WC, Mamre Road Station
Bytebier, 2607, NU
Linder, 1124, BOL 520
Disa aconitoides ssp.
aconitoides
Disa aconitoides ssp.
aconitoides
Disa similis
Micranthae
Disa chrysostachya
Disa chrysostachya
Disa cooperi
Disa crassicornis
Disa erubescens ssp.
erubescens
Disa fragrans ssp.
fragrans
Disa galpinii
Disa hircicornis
Disa polygonoides
Disa rhodantha
Disa sanguinea
Disa sanguinea
Disa sankeyi
Linder, 1920, BOL 211
NAT, Howick
Unknown, 49, NU
Unknown, 165, NU 0037318
NAT, Mount Gilboa, Midlands
CPP-EC, Coldstream
NAT, Himeville Nature Reserve
CPP-EC, Bastervoedpad
MLW, Mt. Mlanje
Hobbhahn, s.n., BOL 2723
Hobbhahn, 020, NU 0037296
Hobbhahn, 021, NU 0037305
Hobbhahn, 030, NU 0037304
Kurzweil, 1404, BOL 1920
NAT, Witsieshoek
Hobbhahn, s.n., BOL 2727
CPP-EC, Naude's Nek
NAT, Table Mountain
NAT, Vernon Crookes Nature
Reserve
TVL-MP, Graskop
Hobbhahn, 026, BOL
Unknown, 160, NU 0037319
Hobbhahn, 027, BOL
NAT, Sani Pass
NAT, Bushman's Nek
Disa scullyi
Disa thodei
Disa versicolor
Disa woodii
CPP-EC, Bastervoetpad
CPP-EC, Naude’s Nek
NAT, Mount Gilboa, Midlands
Disa zuluensis
TVL-MP, Dullstroom district
SD Johnson, s.n., NU 0037303
Unknown, s.n., NU 0037315
McMurtry, s.n., NU 0037320
Cozien & Van der Niet, s.n., NU
0037308
Hobbhahn, s.n., BOL 2714
Hobbhahn, 031, NU 0037300
Hobbhahn, s.n., BOL 2725
Unknown, s.n., NU 0037321;
NU 003717
SD Johnson, s.n., NU 0037292
TABLE S2. Mean (‒ standard error) stomata and spur characteristics of Disa species with uncertain
nectar status that were examined by scanning electron microscopy, but excluded from analysis.
Order of taxa and species follows Bytebier et al. (2008). Sample sizes for number of stomata are
given as (NSpecimens), those for stomata size and spur-wall thickness as (NMeasurement, NSpecimens).
Taxon
Ovalifoliae
Disa ovalifolia
Schizodium
Disa satyrioides
Coryphaea
Disa triloba
Monadenia
Disa atrorubens
Spirales
Disa brachyceras
Stenocarpa
Disa aristata
Aconitoideae
Disa similis
Micranthae
Disa sanguinea
Number of stomata
Stoma area (mm2)
Spur wall thickness
(cell layers)
0 (3)
-
7 ± 0.8 (5, 2)
0 (1)
-
0 (1)
-
4 ± 0.3 (4, 1)
32 (1)
1.76 ± 0.085 (5, 2)
7 ± 0.3 (3, 1)
0 (2)
-
5 ± 0 (2, 1)
0 (1)
-
7 ± 0.3 (4, 1)
0 (1)
-
7 ± 0.4 (4, 1)
0 (3)
-
6 ± 0.3 (3, 1)
TABLE S3. Reconstructed states from parsimony analyses of stomata occurrence (n = 60 species) and nectary type (n = 103 species) in Disa. For
each tree that contains a given node, the state that was reconstructed as uniquely best for the node is identified, and the number of trees in which
the uniquely best state occurred is summarized. Reconstruction of stomata occurrence: Optimal state: 0 = stomata absent, 1 = stomata present, = no optimal state. Nectary-type reconstruction: 0 = nectary absent, 1 = stomatal nectary, 2 = secretory epidermis.
Node
2
3
4
7
9
10
13
16
18
19
21
24
25
27
30
Occurrence of stomata
Number of
Number of
trees
Optimal
trees with
containing
state
optimal
node
state
1000
1000
1000
1000
840
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1000
0
0
0
0
0
145
1000
1000
145
1000
1000
145
145
Node
Number of
trees
containing
node
Optimal
state
2
3
4
5
6
9
12
14
16
19
20
21
24
26
28
31
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
998
1000
967
1000
840
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nectary type
Number of
trees with
Node
optimal
state
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
998
1000
967
1000
840
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
127
128
131
132
133
135
139
140
143
144
145
146
149
151
154
155
Number of
trees
containing
node
Optimal
state
Number of
trees with
optimal
state
1000
1000
349
465
1000
1000
999
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
899
1000
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1000
1000
349
465
1000
1000
999
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
899
1000
31
32
34
36
39
41
42
45
47
48
51
54
994
1000
1000
1000
994
1000
1000
232
882
961
1000
999
55
366
56
58
61
62
63
66
69
71
73
75
77
80
465
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
899
349
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
144
146
1000
1000
994
1000
1000
232
882
961
1000
145
145
10
58
465
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
899
12
34
35
38
41
42
43
44
45
49
50
51
53
56
58
60
62
66
67
68
70
73
75
76
79
82
1000
1000
998
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
994
1000
694
995
962
1000
1000
1000
1000
994
1000
232
882
961
1000
1000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
83
999
0
1000
1000
998
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
993
1000
694
995
962
1000
1000
1000
1000
763
1000
232
882
961
1000
1
763
999
156
159
162
165
166
170
171
172
173
175
178
181
183
185
186
189
192
193
196
199
200
203
206
579
940
985
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
891
1000
1000
1000
937
152
189
191
985
724
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
579
940
985
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
891
1000
1000
1000
937
152
189
191
985
724
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
81
568
83
85
88
90
92
93
95
97
100
102
103
105
107
109
112
114
116
118
1000
1000
115
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
946
999
910
1000
1000
1000
1000
997
1000
1000
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
62
3
183
234
234
23
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
946
999
910
1000
1000
1000
1000
997
1000
1000
84
85
87
88
90
93
96
98
99
100
102
104
109
110
111
113
118
119
120
121
124
366
568
1000
1000
698
1000
115
1000
1000
1000
910
1000
1000
1000
1000
997
1000
1000
999
946
1000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
366
568
1000
1000
698
1000
115
1000
1000
1000
910
1000
1000
1000
1000
997
1000
1000
999
946
1000
FIG. S1. Ancestral state reconstruction of the occurrence of stomata in Disa by parsimony. Results
from 1000 chronograms summarized on the maximum-clade credibility chronogram containing 60
species. Species highlighted in yellow produce nectar. Node colours: white = stomata absent, black
= stomata present, grey = equivocal. For support values of all nodes (Fig. S2) see Table S3.
FIG. S2. Node numbers associated with ancestral state reconstruction of stomata occurrence on the
maximum-clade credibility chronogram containing 60 species (Fig. S1), see Table S3 for support
values for each node. Branch lengths are not representative of clade age. Species highlighted in
yellow produce nectar.
FIG. S3. Node numbers associated with ancestral state reconstruction of nectary type by parsimony
on the maximum-clade credibility chronogram containing 103 species (Fig. 5), see Table S3 for
support values for each node. Branch lengths are not representative of clade age. Species
highlighted in yellow produce nectar.
FIG. S4: Frequency distributions of P values obtained from 1000 chronograms used to account for
phylogenetic uncertainty in tests for phylogenetic signal in continuous traits, and in comparisons
using phylogenetic generalized estimating equations (pGEEs). (A-C) Tests for phylogenetic signal
of stomata number (A) and size (B), and spur-wall thickness (C). (D-H) Comparisons between
nectarless and nectar-producing species of stomata number on all examined flower parts (D) and in
spurs only (E), of stoma area on all examined flower parts (F) and in spurs only (G), and of spurwall thickness including (light grey bars) and excluding (dark grey bars) Disa uniflora (H).
(I-J) Comparisons between sections Monadenia and Micranthae of stomata number (I) and size (J),
and of spur-wall thickness (K). (L) Comparison of spur-wall thickness between species with
secretory epidermis and stomatal nectaries. Dotted lines indicate P = 0.05.
FIG. S5: Scanning electron micrographs of spur tissues of the examined Brownleea species. a, b:
Brownleea galpinii, representative epidermis cells of spur (a) and spur tip (b). c, d: B. macroceras,
representative epidermis cells of spur (c) and spur tip (d). Cells in (d) collapsed during critical-point
drying, causing prominent lateral cell walls. e-f: B. parviflora, unicellular trichomes in spur
entrance (e), spur overview (f), representative spur epidermis cells (g).Scale bars: a, b, d, 50 om; c,
100 om; e, g, 75 om, f, 1 mm.
LITERATURE CITED
Brummitt RK. 2001. World geographical scheme for recording plant distributions. International
Working Group on Taxonomic Plant Sciences. 2 ed. Pittsburgh, Hunt Institute for Botanical
Documentation.
Bytebier B, Bellstedt DU, Linder HP. 2008. A new phylogeny-based sectional classification for
the large African orchid genus Disa. Taxon 57: 1233–1251.
Annals of Botany 112: 1303–1319, 2013
doi:10.1093/aob/mct197, available online at www.aob.oxfordjournals.org
The evolution of floral nectaries in Disa (Orchidaceae: Disinae): recapitulation
or diversifying innovation?
Nina Hobbhahn1,2,*, Steven D. Johnson2, Benny Bytebier2, Edward C. Yeung1 and Lawrence D. Harder1
1
Department of Biological Sciences, 2500 University Drive NW, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada and
2
School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X01, Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg 3209, South Africa
* For correspondence. E-mail n.hobbhahn@gmail.com
Received: 11 May 2013 Returned for revision: 10 June 2013 Accepted: 11 July 2013 Published electronically: 29 August 2013
Key words: Disa, Disinae, Orchidaceae, orchid, deceit pollination, modified stoma, nectar, nectary, reward,
rewardless, evolution, functional convergence.
IN T RO DU C T IO N
Convergent adaptation in unrelated lineages can modify phenotypes and genotypes with differing specificity. Most strictly, convergence arises by recapitulation, either because of parallel
changes in the same gene(s) (Conte et al., 2012) or from
changes in genes that regulate the same biochemical pathway
(e.g. Bosch et al., 2008). Less accurate convergence arises by innovation when the same function evolves via the establishment
of alternative but similar physiological and/or morphological
solutions in different lineages. All of these cases involve divergence from ancestral states within lineages, but lineages differ
in the extent of phenotypic diversification. The production of
floral nectar represents an example of functional convergence
within angiosperms, reflecting physiological and morphological innovations within different lineages. Nectar is the most
common floral reward employed by angiosperms to reinforce
visitation by pollinators (e.g. Simpson and Neff, 1983; Proctor
et al., 1996) and its characteristics affect various aspects of pollinator foraging (e.g. Zimmerman and Cook, 1985; Harder and
Thomson, 1989; Fisogni et al., 2011). Despite these shared functions, nectaries vary extensively among species in morphology,
anatomy and location, ranging from non-structural nectaries
lacking histological differentiation (Daumann, 1970; Fahn,
1979) to complex structures with uni- or multicellular hairs,
glands, or stomata (Fahn, 1979; Bernardello, 2007; Nepi,
2007). This nectary diversity, despite common function, probably reflects both repeated independent evolution of nectar
production via different mechanisms and modification of nectaries within nectar-producing lineages (Fahn, 1979; Cronquist,
1988; Lee et al., 2005b). Both innovation and modification of
nectaries are likely facilitated by their relatively simple structure
and the associated simplicity of the genetic regulation of their development, location and functionality (Baum et al., 2001; Lee
et al., 2005a, b). If so, nectary diversity likely reflects adaptive
responses to contrasting morphological opportunities and pollination environments.
The Orchidaceae provide rich opportunities to explore nectary
evolution, as it includes both nectarless and nectar-producing
species, and among the latter the position and type of the sepal
# The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company. All rights reserved.
For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at The Univesity of Calgary on October 24, 2013
† Background and Aims The Orchidaceae have a history of recurring convergent evolution in floral function as nectar
production has evolved repeatedly from an ancestral nectarless state. However, orchids exhibit considerable diversity
in nectary type, position and morphology, indicating that this convergence arose from alternative adaptive solutions.
Using the genus Disa, this study asks whether repeated evolution of floral nectaries involved recapitulation of the
same nectary type or diversifying innovation. Epidermis morphology of closely related nectar-producing and nectarless species is also compared in order to identify histological changes that accompanied the gain or loss of nectar
production.
† Methods The micromorphology of nectaries and positionally equivalent tissues in nectarless species was examined
with light and scanning electron microscopy. This information was subjected to phylogenetic analyses to reconstruct
nectary evolution and compare characteristics of nectar-producing and nectarless species.
† Key Results Two nectary types evolved in Disa. Nectar exudation by modified stomata in floral spurs evolved twice,
whereas exudation by a secretory epidermis evolved six times in different perianth segments. The spur epidermis of
nectarless species exhibited considerable micromorphological variation, including strongly textured surfaces and
non-secreting stomata in some species. Epidermis morphology of nectar-producing species did not differ consistently
from that of rewardless species at the magnifications used in this study, suggesting that transitions from rewardlessness to nectar production are not necessarily accompanied by visible morphological changes but only require subcellular modification.
† Conclusions Independent nectary evolution in Disa involved both repeated recapitulation of secretory epidermis,
which is present in the sister genus Brownleea, and innovation of stomatal nectaries. These contrasting nectary types
and positional diversity within types imply weak genetic, developmental or physiological constraints in ancestral,
nectarless Disa. Such functional convergence generated by morphologically diverse solutions probably also underlies the extensive diversity of nectary types and positions in the Orchidaceae.
1304
Hobbhahn et al. — Nectary evolution in Disa orchids.
nectaries vary extensively (Pais, 1982; Figueiredo and Pais,
1992; Galetto et al., 1997; Stpiczyńska, 1997; Stpiczyńska and
Matusiewicz, 2001; Stpiczyńska et al., 2003, 2005a; Davies
et al., 2005; Davies and Stpiczyńska, 2007; Johnson et al.,
2007; Bell et al., 2009, de Melo et al., 2010; Aguiar et al.,
2012). Lack of floral nectar is apparently ancestral in this
family (Benzing, 1987; Dressler, 1993), so that nectar production
is derived. Furthermore, nectar and hence nectaries have been
gained repeatedly and also subsequently lost in several orchid
lineages (Johnson et al., 1998, 2013; Bateman et al., 2003;
Singer and Koehler, 2004; Chase et al., 2005; Bell et al., 2009;
Pansarin et al., 2012). This history raises the question of
whether nectary evolution within orchid clades involves recapitulation of the same nectary type or diversifying innovation.
Despite the diversity of orchid flowers and the overall research
effort dedicated to this family, few studies have examined orchid
nectaries, and even less is known about the micromorphology of
the floral spurs or labella of nectarless orchids (but see Bell et al.,
2009; Bradshaw et al., 2010; Pansarin et al., 2013). All nectarproducing orchids examined to date have perigonal nectaries,
in which the surface of the secretory epidermis is often enlarged
by unicellular papillae or trichomes (Galetto et al., 1997;
Stpiczyńska, 1997; Stpiczyńska and Matusiewicz, 2001;
Stpiczyńska et al., 2005b; Davies and Stpiczyńska, 2007;
Johnson et al., 2007; Pansarin, 2008; Bell et al., 2009, de Melo
et al., 2010; Aguiar et al., 2012; Pansarin et al., 2012).
Following secretion, nectar either seeps through fissures or
pores in the cuticle (Figueiredo and Pais, 1992; Stpiczyńska,
1997; Stpiczyńska et al., 2005b; Davies and Stpiczyńska,
2007) or accumulates under the cuticle and eventually passes
through without rupturing it (Galetto et al., 1997; Stpiczyńska
and Matusiewicz, 2001; Stpiczyńska et al., 2003, 2005a; de
Melo et al., 2010). Stomatal nectaries were considered absent
in monocotyledons as a whole (Endress, 1995), despite being
common in dicotyledons (Bernardello, 2007; Nepi, 2007),
until Davies et al. (2005) described nectar exudation by modified
stomata on the labellum of Maxillaria anceps (¼ Maxillariella
anceps; Blanco et al., 2007). No other cases of stomatal nectaries
have been reported in orchids.
Comparison of tissue morphology of closely related nectarproducing and nectarless species could provide insight into the
histological changes that accompany the gain or loss of nectar
production, reveal the number of times that nectar and specific
nectary types have evolved, and identify histological processes
underlying the evolution of nectar production in the
Orchidaceae. To this end, we studied nectary structure in Disa,
a large African genus (180 species; Bytebier et al., 2008) in
which nectar production has evolved repeatedly from nectarless
ancestors (Johnson et al., 1998, 2013). We extensively surveyed
the micromorphology of nectaries in nectar-producing species
and positionally equivalent tissues in nectarless species, representing all but one monotypic Disa section recognized by
Bytebier et al. (2008). We identify and characterize morphological nectary types with stereomicroscopy and scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and include numerous nectarless
species for intrageneric comparison. Following Bytebier et al.
(2007) we also include three species of Brownleea, a small
(seven species; Linder, 1981d, 1985), closely related (Douzery
et al., 1999; Bellstedt et al., 2001), nectar-producing (Larsen
et al., 2008) genus for extrageneric comparison. Because Disa
is widely distributed in sub-Saharan Africa, with many rare or
poorly accessible species (Linder, 1981a – c, e, f ), fresh material
could be examined with stereomicroscopy for only a subset of
species. We therefore extended our survey with SEM of preserved material. We combined existing information on nectar
production (Hobbhahn, 2012; Johnson et al., 2013) with stereomicroscopy and SEM results to infer the presence and types of
nectaries in species for which fresh material was not available.
Based on the existing molecular phylogeny of Disa (Bytebier
et al., 2007), we specifically quantify the nature, frequency and
order of the changes associated with the evolution of nectar
production to assess whether the repeated evolution of nectar
production (Johnson et al., 1998, 2013) involved recapitulation,
or innovation that generated different nectary types.
M AT E R I A L S A N D M E T H O D S
Plant material
We examined flowers of 68 Disa species and three Brownleea
species (see Appendix and Supplementary Data Table S1 for
geographical origin of collected material, collector information
and herbarium accession numbers). The presence or absence of
nectar production either had been established in previous
studies (summarized in Johnson et al., 2013) or was established
by repeatedly examining fresh, unpollinated flowers with hand
lenses and probing potentially nectar-producing tissues with
microcapillary tubes or filter-paper wicks. The presence of
sugar in all floral exudates was confirmed with a hand-held refractometer adjusted for small volumes (Delta Refractometer,
range 0 – 50 % sugar w/w, Bellingham & Stanley, Tunbridge
Wells, UK) and, if only traces of nectar were found, highpressure liquid chromatography. For eight of the examined
Disa species fresh material was unavailable and reward status
is uncertain; for completeness, their results are included in
Supplementary Data Table S2, but were not included in the statistical analyses. Results for Brownleea are not included in the
phylogenetic analyses of nectary characteristics and are not
reported in detail, other than to illustrate micromorphological
differences between Disa and a close relative. Depending on
species rarity and material availability, one flower per inflorescence was examined for one to 11 inflorescences per species
(Appendix).
Fresh material of 16 nectar-producing Disa species was examined with high-magnification stereomicroscopes to identify
the floral tissues and cellular structures that exude nectar.
Inflorescences were collected in the field and maintained with
their stems in water-filled containers until stereomicroscopic
examination, usually within 12 h of collection. Nectar production is confined to the floral spur in 14 of the 16 examined
species (except D. longicornu and D. elegans). For these
species, we dissected the spurs longitudinally to examine the
inner epidermis. In most species, we chose buds 1 – 2 days
prior to anthesis, when nectar production had started, but the
limited volume allowed identification of the location and
morphology of the nectar-exuding structures. In species for
which only mature flowers were available (D. chrysostachya,
D. crassicornis, D. zuluensis), we removed nectar from the
spur sections with filter paper and incubated them at room
temperature on moist filter paper in closed Petri dishes for
Hobbhahn et al. — Nectary evolution in Disa orchids.
15– 30 min before examination of resumed nectar production.
Field observations indicated that D. longicornu produces
nectar mostly on the petals, which extend far into the spur, and
to a lesser extent on the inner spur epidermis. By comparison,
in the spurless D. elegans nectar exudes from the petals and
lip. Following sample incubation, we examined both the spur
and petals for D. longicornu and the petals and lip for D. elegans.
We also used SEM to examine preserved flowers of 25 nectarproducing and 31 nectarless Disa species, eight Disa species
with uncertain nectar status and three Brownleea species that
we collected ourselves or obtained from the spirit collections
of the Bolus Herbarium (BOL), University of Cape Town,
South Africa, the Bews Herbarium (NU), University of
KwaZulu-Natal Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, and several
collectors.
Stereomicroscopy
Flowers were examined with a Leica MZ16 stereomicroscope
(magnification ×7.1 to ×112.5; Heerbrugg, Switzerland) with
a KY-F1030 digital camera (JVC, Japan), a Nikon SMZ
1500 Stereoscopic Zoom Microscope (magnification ×7.5
to ×112.5; Tokyo, Japan) with a Nikon DS-5M digital camera
(Tokyo, Japan), or a Wild M400 dissecting microscope (magnification ×12.6 to ×64; Heerbrugg, Switzerland) with a
Zeiss Axiocam digital camera model 412 – 312 (Oberkochen,
Germany). For each flower, we recorded age (bud, estimated
days to anthesis, recently opened, mature flower), nectary location (spur, petal, lip), presence or absence of nectar on freshly dissected and incubated material, presence of stomata, papillae or
trichomes, and whether nectar exudation correlated spatially
with stomata or occurred in irregular patches on the epidermis.
Incubated material was photographed to document our findings
and for comparison with the SEM results.
Scanning electron microscopy
In preparation for SEM examination, all floral material was
dissected in 70 % ethanol to isolate the focal tissue (e.g. spur),
which was then transferred to 100 % ethanol for a 1-min
wash before critical-point drying with liquid CO2 in a
Hitachi HCP-2 critical-point drier (Tokyo, Japan). After
sputter coating with gold– palladium alloy, specimens were
examined with a Hitachi S-570 Scanning Electron Microscope
(Tokyo, Japan), a Philips XI30 Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope (Eindhoven, Holland) or a Zeiss Evo LS15
Scanning Electron Microscope (Oberkochen, Germany) with accelerating voltages of 6 – 9, 10– 12 and 8 – 9 kV, respectively.
We examined the floral spur for all spurred species and the
dorsal sepal for spurless species, except that we examined both
spur and petals for D. longicornu and the petals and lip for
D. elegans. If stomata were present, we counted them while
scanning the entire specimen along grid lines with the SEM.
We used ImageJ software (version 1.43u; Rasband, 1997 –
2009) to measure stomatal dimensions on SEM photographs
using the SEM scale bar as reference. On SEM scans that
showed clearly distinguishable stomata in plan view and had a
scale bar ≤500 mm, we measured both stoma length (l, distance
between the outer guard-cell tips) and width (w, greatest distance
between the outer guard-cell walls perpendicular to the longest
1305
axis). We calculated stomatal area (mm2) as plw/4. When possible, we examined several flowers per species and measured
five to ten stomata per flower. To determine whether nectarproducing tissues were thicker than non-secretory tissues, we
assessed the thickness of spur walls by counting the number of
cell layers in spur sections. Dissection compressed and distorted
tissue, rendering linear measurements inaccurate. We did not
count cell layers near veins to avoid overestimates of tissue thickness. Features like papillae or trichomes in spurs were noted.
Phylogenetic and statistical analyses
Phylogenetic data and character coding. Phylogenetic relationships were inferred from the molecular phylogeny of Disa by
Bytebier et al. (2007, dated in Bytebier et al., 2011), which
included all Disa species for which data were collected. We
used the maximum clade credibility chronogram (rescaled to
reflect median node heights for the contained clades and hereafter referred to as the MCC chronogram) from a sample of
1000 chronograms (extracted by sampling every 10 000th generation from a Markov chain Monte Carlo run in BEAST after excluding the initial 2.5 million generations to guarantee a
conservative burn-in) for analyses. When appropriate, we
repeated our analyses for all 1000 trees in the sample to
account for phylogenetic uncertainty. Two misidentifications
in Bytebier et al. (2007) were corrected: the specimens identified
as D. atrorubens and D. zimbabweensis in Bytebier et al. (2007)
were re-identified as D. comosa and D. rungweensis, respectively. Because D. comosa was already included in the phylogeny,
the erroneous D. atrorubens terminal was deleted from all trees
used here. The D. zimbabweensis terminal was re-named as
D. rungweensis in all trees used here. Our analyses considered
five traits. Binary coding ( presence/absence) was used for the occurrence of stomata. Nectary types were coded as absent (0), stomatal nectary (1) and secretory epidermis (2) (Appendix). In
species for which fresh material was not available, nectary presence and type were inferred by combining existing information
on nectar production (Hobbhahn, 2012; Johnson et al., 2013)
with SEM results. Correspondingly, all nectarless species were
coded as nectary absent. Number of stomata (if present) per
examined flower part, stoma area (mm2) and spur wall thickness
(number of cell layers) were treated as continuous characters.
Taxa for which information was not available were pruned
from the phylogeny before the respective analyses. Given variation in data availability for the different traits, the analyses
considered between 22 (spur wall thicknesses of different
nectary types) and 103 species (nectary type). Despite pruning,
a minimum of nine of the 19 sections of Disa recognized by
Bytebier et al. (2008) are represented in the data, and data on
nectary type are available for representatives of all but the monotypic section Ovalifoliae.
Test for phylogenetic signal. We investigated whether the current
distribution of nectary types and traits among species depends
significantly on phylogenetic relatedness. For discrete traits we
calculated the number of steps required for parsimony reconstruction over the MCC chronogram, and compared it with that
of the same character re-shuffled 1000 times in Mesquite
(version 2.75; Maddison and Maddison, 2011), while keeping
the proportion of states constant. The null hypothesis of a
1306
Hobbhahn et al. — Nectary evolution in Disa orchids.
phylogenetically random distribution is rejected if the observed
state distribution lies outside the 95 % confidence interval of the
randomized state distribution (Bytebier et al., 2011). For continuous traits we calculated the K statistic (Blomberg et al.,
2003) and the probability associated with comparison of the variance of phylogenetically independent contrasts between the
observed and 1000 randomized trait distributions over the phylogeny using the function ‘phylosignal’ in the R (version 2.15; R
Development Core Team, 2010) package ‘picante’ (Kembel
et al., 2010). To account for phylogenetic uncertainty, we estimated K for 1000 chronograms.
Ancestral state reconstruction and test for correlated evolution. To
investigate the evolutionary histories of stomata and nectary type
we estimated ancestral character states by parsimony and
maximum likelihood (ML) using Mesquite (Maddison and
Maddison, 2011). The ML results strongly supported the findings
of the parsimony analyses, and revealed low rates of trait evolution for stomata (Mk1 rate [mean + SE of 1000 chronograms]:
3.8 + 1.3 × 1025; n ¼ 60 species) and nectary type (1.04 +
0.3 × 1025, n ¼ 103 species). Under low rates of trait evolution,
parsimony accurately reconstructs ancestral states, whereas ML
methods suffer from insufficient information for correct parameter estimation (Harvey and Pagel, 1991; Mooers and Schluter,
1999; Pagel, 1999; Huelsenbeck et al., 2003; Pierie et al.,
2012). We therefore report only the results of the parsimony analyses. Parsimony reconstruction identified optimal states for each
internal node of the MCC chronogram and returned the number
of trees in which each state was optimal. This enabled identification of the oldest internal nodes at which transitions between
states occurred. We interpreted these nodes as transitional if
the state identified as optimal in ≥75 % of trees differed from
the state identified as optimal at older nodes. The number of
state transitions under parsimony was summarized over 1000
chronograms.
The occurrence of stomata in both nectar-producing and nectarless species suggested that nectar production may have
evolved in association with the evolution of stomata and that
the presence of floral stomata may be a precondition for nectar
production. We tested these hypotheses with Pagel’s (1994)
correlation test, as implemented in Mesquite (version 2.75;
Maddison and Maddison, 2011), using the MCC chronogram.
The probability that a model of dependent evolution fits the
data significantly better than one of independent evolution was
estimated with likelihood ratio tests involving 1000 Monte
Carlo simulations of model parameters. For each simulation,
ML estimates of model parameters were optimized with 500
iterations.
Phylogenetic generalized estimating equations. We analysed differences in quantitative characteristics with generalized linear
models coupled with generalized estimating equations (GEEs)
that accounted for interdependence among species owing to
phylogenetic relatedness (Paradis and Claude, 2002) as implemented in ‘compar.gee’ in the R package ‘ape’ (version 3.0– 2;
Paradis et al., 2004). This approach was used to compare
stomata number and size (mm2) and spur wall thickness
between nectarless and nectar-producing species, to examine
whether the independent evolution of stomatal nectaries in sections Monadenia and Micranthae (sensu Bytebier et al., 2008)
is reflected in differences in stomata number and/or size, or
spur wall thickness among sections, and whether spurs with a
secretory epidermis differ in wall thickness from those with
stomatal nectaries. Analysis of continuous dependent variables
considered either a normal distribution (in some cases following
log transformation) and identity link function, or a gamma distribution and inverse link function, when appropriate. Analyses
were performed using species averages as within-species variation is beyond the scope of this study. To account for phylogenetic uncertainty, each analysis was repeated for 1000
chronograms.
R E S U LTS
Types and locations of floral nectaries
The Disa species for which we examined fresh material differed
with respect to whether nectar is secreted by modified stomata or
by a morphologically uniform epidermis that lacks trichomes or
stomata (Figs 1 and 2, Appendix).
Stomatal nectaries occurred in sections Monadenia
(D. cylindrica) and Micranthae (D. cooperi, D. chrysostachya,
D. polygonoides, D. rhodantha, D. scullyi and D. thodei). In
these species, a fraction of the stomata did not secrete nectar
during the observation period, and epidermal nectar secretion
was never observed. Clearly defined nectar droplets accumulated
over stomata, whereas the surrounding epidermis remained
dry in buds of D. polygonoides (Fig. 1A, B), D. cylindrica,
D. cooperi (Fig. 1C), D. rhodantha, D. scullyi and D. thodei
and mature flowers of D. chrysostachya (Fig. 1D). These droplets
increased until they collapsed and wetted the surrounding epidermis. Disa brevicornis (section Monadenia), D. crassicornis,
D. versicolor and D. zuluensis (all Micranthae) also had
stomata; however, stereomicroscopic observations were inconclusive concerning their involvement in nectar exudation. Disa
brevicornis and D. versicolor produce minute nectar volumes
(Johnson, 1995; N. Hobbhahn, unpubl. res.), which probably
evaporated before detection and so were not observed. Only
mature flowers picked several days before examination were
available for D. crassicornis and D. zuluensis, and these did
not resume nectar production in the hydration chamber after
nectar removal.
Species with epidermal nectaries belonged to several sections,
namely Disella (D. elegans), Phlebidia (D. longicornu),
Disa (D. uniflora) and Atromaculiferae (D. vaginata and
D. glandulosa). In these species, nectar accumulated in irregular
patches on the epidermis (Fig. 2A, B). Disa elegans, which lacks
a floral spur, exuded copious nectar from a morphologically
uniform epidermis, devoid of papillae, trichomes or stomata,
on the upper (adaxial) and lower (abaxial) surfaces of petals
(Fig. 2A) and lip. Disa longicornu secreted nectar mainly from
the oblong epidermal cells on the inner (abaxial) surface of the
petals (Fig. 2B). The spur epidermis produced only traces of
nectar, primarily above the veins and, to a lesser extent, the surrounding areas. Nectar was exuded primarily on the distal third of
both petals and spur, and was not associated with veins in the
petals. The outer (adaxial) epidermis of the petals appeared not
to exude nectar. Disa uniflora, D. glandulosa and D. vaginata
exuded nectar only from the spur epidermis. The epidermal
cells of D. uniflora resumed nectar production after nectar
removal, swelling noticeably (Fig. 2C) before small, irregular
Hobbhahn et al. — Nectary evolution in Disa orchids.
A
B
C
D
1307
F I G . 1. Nectar exudation by modified stomata in selected Disa species. Clearly defined nectar droplets accumulated above visible stomata in floral spurs of (A, B)
D. polygonoides, (C) D. cooperi and (D) D. chrysostachya. Scale bars: (A) ¼ 0.5 mm; (B) ¼ 200 mm; (C) ¼ 1 mm; (D) ¼ 100 mm.
patches of nectar appeared that eventually coated the entire epidermis (Fig. 2D).
Tissue characteristics
Nectarless species. Nectarless Disa species displayed a variety
of epidermal cell shapes and cuticular patterns. The slightly
convex epidermis cells were oblong to isodiametric and tetrato polygonal, with longitudinal, irregular or radiating cuticular
striations (Fig. 3A– C, F, K, M). Epidermal cells in the spurs of
D. graminifolia, D. hians, D. nervosa (Fig. 3D), D. obtusa
subsp. hottentotica (Fig. 3E), D. patula var. transvaalensis
and D. tripetaloides, and in the hood-shaped dorsal sepal of
D. rosea had short central papillae with thick cuticular striations
that radiated from the papilla tip but largely aligned in folds parallel to the longitudinal cell axis. The hood-shaped dorsal sepal
of D. aconitoides subsp. aconitoides was lined with shortly papillate cells in its distal third; the remainder of the hood was
lined with only slightly convex, polygonal cells with weak
and irregular cuticular striations. In D. obliqua subsp. obliqua
and D. uncinata the spur epidermis consisted of convex,
isodiametric, polygonal cells (Fig. 3F, M), which in the spur entrance extended into papillae and unicellular trichomes, respectively, with longitudinal cuticular striations (Fig. 3G, L, M). Disa
cephalotes subsp. cephalotes had unicellular, club-shaped hairs
with thick cuticular striations in most of its spur (Fig. 3H);
however, the spur tip was often devoid of hairs and lined with
smooth cells. Disa caulescens had convex, oblong, tetragonal
epidermal cells, and those in the distal third of the spur had
short papillae with thick cuticular striations, which increased
in length towards the tip (Fig. 3I, J). The spur epidermis of
D. sagittalis exhibited numerous cuticular blisters that were
evenly distributed over the thickly cuticularized cells and
similar blisters occurred on the epidermis of the petals and exterior of the spur.
Stomata were present in the flowers of 25 % of the nectarless
species (Appendix). They were oriented parallel to the longitudinal spur axis in sections Reticulibractea (Fig. 3A) and
Repandra (Fig. 3B). In D. aconitoides, stomata were oriented
parallel to the longitudinal hood axis and occurred mainly near
the hood tip. The dorsal sepal of both Disa filicornis and
D. racemosa does not extend into spur, but instead has a
1308
Hobbhahn et al. — Nectary evolution in Disa orchids.
A
B
C
D
F I G . 2. Nectar exudation by secretory epidermis in selected Disa species. Irregular nectar patches on a morphologically uniform epidermis of a petal of D. elegans (A)
and the spur of D. longicornu (B) and D. uniflora (C, D). (C) Swollen spur epidermal cells after drying with filter paper and incubation in hydration chamber; (D) spur
epidermis coated in nectar film. Scale bars: (A– C) ¼ 0.5 mm; (D) ¼ 1 mm.
shallow, central fold that is probed by visiting insects and is the
location of all (D. filicornis), or almost all (D. racemosa;
Fig. 3K), floral stomata in these species. Stomata were scattered
throughout the bowl-shaped dorsal sepal of Disa bodkinii, but
were sparse at the sepal base.
Stomatal nectaries. All members of sections Monadenia and
Micranthae examined by SEM had numerous stomata in their
floral spurs. Stomata were generally distributed throughout
floral spurs, but their density often increased towards the tip.
However, in D. brevicornis stomata were clustered along two
ridges that protruded from the roof of the spur (Fig. 4A),
whereas in D. cylindrica they were clustered on a callus on the
base of the spur; in both species the remainder of spurs was
mostly free of stomata. Most stomata were solitary, but paired
stomata occurred occasionally. Stomata were elliptical to circular and generally oriented parallel to the longitudinal spur axis
(Fig. 4A, C, H), except for D. chrysostachya, which had scattered
stomata (Fig. 4D, E). The cuticular ledges of the guard cells
formed an elliptical opening over the stomatal pore, which was
partially occluded by protruding lateral guard-cell walls
(Fig. 4B, C, G). The guard cells were covered with a smooth
cuticle, but in most species were surrounded by a ring of concentric cuticular folds, which may have covered very small subsidiary cells (Fig. 4B, C, G, H), although subsidiary cells were not
clearly distinguishable in the examined species.
Epidermis cells of the predominantly nectar-producing sections Monadenia (Fig. 4A – C) and Micranthae (Fig. 4D – H) differed in shape and cuticular striation. In Monadenia, the
epidermis surrounding stomata consisted of slightly convex,
oblong, tetra- to polygonal cells. The pronounced cuticular striations were predominantly parallel to the longitudinal cell axis
(Fig. 4A– C). In Micranthae, the predominantly polygonal,
convex epidermis cells were more often isodiametric than elongate. Cuticular striations were generally pronounced and oriented
irregularly across the cell surface (D. galpinii, D. sankeyi,
Hobbhahn et al. — Nectary evolution in Disa orchids.
A
B
D
E
H
L
I
C
F
G
J
M
1309
K
N
F I G . 3. Scanning electron micrographs of the spur epidermis of selected nectarless Disa species. (A) Oblong epidermis cells with longitudinal striations and a malformed stoma near the spur tip of D. harveiana subsp. longicalcarata. (B) Mature and immature stoma near the spur tip of D. tysonii. (C) Thick, irregular cuticular
striations characterize the entire spur epidermis of D. stachyoides. (D) Thickly cuticularized, papillate cells line the entire spur of D. nervosa. (E) Papillate epidermis
cells line the entire spur of D. obtusa subsp. hottentotica. (F, G) Cells lining the spur (F) and papillae (G) in spur entrance of D. obliqua subsp. obliqua. (H) Club-shaped
unicellular trichomes of D. cephalotes subsp. cephalotes. (I) Spuroverview of D. caulescens. (J) Close-up of papillae in spur tip. The tips of the frontal two papillae were
damaged during spur sectioning. (K) Scattered stomata in D. racemosa (indicated by arrows). (L– N) D. uncinata. (L) Spur epidermis; (M) overview of spur section
showing field of trichomes in spur entrance; (N): close-up of unicellular trichomes. Scale bars: (A– F, H, J, L, N) ¼ 50 mm; (G, K) ¼ 100 mm; (I, M) ¼ 0.5 mm.
1310
Hobbhahn et al. — Nectary evolution in Disa orchids.
A
B
D
F
C
E
G
H
F I G . 4. Scanning electron micrographs of nectar-exuding tissues in Disa species with stomatal nectaries. (A) Stoma-studded ridge in spur of D. brevicornis.
(B) D. sabulosa. (C) D. rufescens. (D, E) High density of modified stomata in the spur of D. chrysostachya. (F) D. scullyi. (G) D. versicolor. (H) D. crassicornis.
Scale bars: (A, C, F) ¼ 100 mm; (B) ¼ 20 mm; (D) ¼ 500 mm; (E, G, H) ¼ 50 mm.
D. cylindrica and D. scullyi; Fig. 4F), parallel to the longitudinal
cell axis (D. cylindrica, D. woodii and D. versicolor; Fig. 4G), or
radiated from a central papilla (D. crassicornis; Fig. 4H). More
elaborate cuticular patterns consisted of an anticlinal frame of radiating striations surrounding a central field with striations that
were predominantly parallel to the longitudinal cell axis
(D. fragrans and D. cooperi) or irregular (D. cooperi and
D. chrysostachya; Fig. 4E).
Secretory epidermis. As in several other orchid species with secretory epidermis (Figueiredo and Pais, 1992; Stpiczyńska and
Matusiewicz, 2001; Stpiczyńska et al., 2005a; Davies and
Stpiczyńska, 2007; Bell et al., 2009), epidermal nectaries in
Disa were characterized by a morphologically uniform epidermis devoid of stomata (Appendix; Fig. 5), except for some specimens of D. uniflora and D. longicornu, which had a few stomata
(Appendix). The secretory epidermis on petals and lip of
D. elegans consisted uniformly of polygonal, isodiametric,
slightly convex cells with pronounced radiating or parallel cuticular striations (Fig. 5A). The epidermis of the petals and
spur of D. longicornu and the spurs of D. uniflora, D. vaginata,
D. salteri, D. tenuis and D. rungweensis consisted of oblong,
tetra- to polygonal, slightly convex cells with weak cuticular
striations predominantly parallel to the longitudinal cell axis
(Fig. 5B– E, G, I). The spur tips of D. salteri and D. tenuis contained several short papillae with pronounced cuticular striations
(Fig. 5F, J, K), which resembled those observed in other orchids
with a papillose secretory epidermis (Galetto et al., 1997;
Stpiczyńska, 1997; Stpiczyńska and Matusiewicz, 2001;
Stpiczyńska et al., 2005b; Davies and Stpiczyńska, 2007;
Johnson et al., 2007; Bell et al., 2009; de Melo et al., 2010)
and may be involved in nectar resorption (Stpiczyńska, 2003;
Hobbhahn et al. — Nectary evolution in Disa orchids.
A
B
D
E
H
1311
C
F
I
J
G
K
F I G . 5. Scanning electron micrographs of nectar-exuding tissues in Disa species with secretory epidermis. (A) Petal of D. elegans. (B) Petal of D. longicornu. (C) Spur
of D. uniflora. (D) Spur of D. vaginata. (E) Spur cells of D. salteri. (F) Papillae with pronounced cuticular striations in spur tip of D. salteri. (G, H) D. rungweensis.
(G) Spur; (H) detail of cuticular blisters. (I–K) D. tenuis. (I) Spur epidermis; (J) overview of spur section showing field of short papillae; (K) Close-up of bulbous
papillae. Scale bars: (A, D, F, G, I, K) ¼ 50 mm; (B, C, E) ¼ 100 mm; (H) ¼ 10 mm; (J) ¼ 0.5 mm.
TA B L E 1. Phylogenetic signal of nectary-associated traits in Disa. For discrete traits (A), phylogenetic conservatism is indicated if the
number of parsimony steps in the observed state distribution is outside the 95 % confidence interval (LCI, lower confidence interval;
UCI, upper confidence interval) of the randomized state distribution [reported as mean (LCI 2 UCI)] in 1000 trait reshufflings. For
continuous traits (B), P indicates the probability of a given K owing solely to sampling error (random trait distribution over phylogeny).
K is reported as mean + SE and P as the median (1st quartile, 3rd quartile) due to non-normality (see Supplementary Data Fig. S4). n
represents the number of sampled species.
(A) Discrete traits
Stomata
Nectary type
Parsimony steps in observed
state distribution
Parsimony steps in randomized
state distribution
n
10
9
19.7 (15.3, 23.5)
24.1 (22.2, 27.4)
60
103
(B) Continuous traits
Number of stomata (when present)
Stoma size
Spur wall thickness
K
P
n
0.55 + 0.002
0.41 + 0.001
0.30 + 0.001
0.33 (0.23, 0.42)
0.24 (0.20, 0.28)
0.22 (0.15, 0.30)
31
31
48
1312
Hobbhahn et al. — Nectary evolution in Disa orchids.
1000/1000
vaginata
glandulosa
filicornis
tenuifolia
richardiana
vasselotii
atricapilla
bivalvata
uniflora
caulescens
pillansii
venosa
racemosa
aurata
cardinalis
tripetaloides
longicornu
schizodioides
maculata
virginalis
rosea
flexuosa
obliqua subsp. clavigera
obliqua subsp. obliqua
inflexa
bifida
fasciata
rungweensis
sagittalis
bodkinii
elegans
remota
neglecta
uncinata
ocellata
telipogonis
obtusa subsp. picta
obtusa subsp. hottentotica
cylindrica
comosa
bolusiana
rufescens
brevicornis
sabulosa
ophrydea
bracteata
cornuta
hallackii
karooica
draconis
harveiana subsp. longicalcarata
harveiana subsp. harveiana
tenuis
salteri
schlechteriana
spathulata subsp. spathulata
spathulata subsp. tripartita
graminifolia
baurii
purpurascens
lugens subsp. lugens
hians
barbata
multifida
venusta
ferruginea
gladioliflora subsp. gladioliflora
gladioliflora subsp. capricornis
cephalotes subsp. cephalotes
cephalotes subsp. frigida
saxicola
vigilans
amoena
oreophila subsp. oreophila
nivea
montana
pulchra
oreophila subsp. erecta
stricta
tysonii
stachyoides
alticola
nervosa
patula var. transvaalensis
intermedia
tenella subsp. tenella
aconitoides subsp. aconitoides
aconitoides subsp. goetzeana
galpinni
zuluensis
thodei
crassicornis
erubescens subsp. erubescens
hircicornis
cooperi
versicolor
scullyi
rhodantha
fragrans subsp. fragrans
sankeyi
chrysostachya
woodii
polygonoides
1000/1000
763/994
1000/1000
763/1000
1000/1000
1000/1000
1000/1000
20
15
10
Time (mya)
5
0
Atromaculiferae
Disa
Phlebidia
Pardoglossa
Schizodium
Vaginaria
Coryphaea
Disella
Monadenia
Repandra
Reticulibractea
Trichochila
Stenocarpa
Repandra
Emarginatae
Spirales
Aconitoideae
Micranthae
Hobbhahn et al. — Nectary evolution in Disa orchids.
Stpiczyńska et al., 2005b; Nepi and Stpiczyńska, 2007). In some
specimens of D. rungweensis, examination at high magnification
(maximum ×12 800) revealed a nectary cuticula distended into
small, irregular protrusions (Fig. 5G), at the base of which the
cuticula sometimes appeared to have holes (Fig. 5H). Nectar
may flow into the spur lumen through these holes, making
D. rungweensis the only study species with a secretory epidermis
for which a mechanism by which nectar crosses the cuticula suggests itself. In all other Disa species with secretory epidermis, the
mechanism by which nectar passes through the nectary cuticula
remains to be resolved. The absence of collapsed nectary cells
indicates that nectar exudation does not involve cell lysis. The
magnification used in our SEM studies of other species with secretory epidermis (maximum ×1449) did not allow us to exclude
the presence of microscopic pores or fissures in these species.
However, the nectary cuticle can be permeable even in the
absence of such microscopic outlets if nectar accumulating
between the tangential epidermis cell wall and cuticle stretches
the cuticle (e.g. Stpiczyńska et al., 2003; Stpiczyńska et al.,
2005a; de Melo et al., 2010). The distinct swelling of epidermal
cells of D. uniflora observed under the stereomicroscope may
signal this process. The few stomata in D. uniflora spurs and on
the petals of D. longicornu are likely not involved in nectar exudation, given their occurrence in only some specimens and the
active excretion of nectar by epidermal cells in both species.
All examined Brownleea species produce nectar (Larsen et al.,
2008) but lacked floral stomata, so they likely have a secretory
epidermis. The spur of B. galpinii was lined with convex,
oblong, tetragonal cells with very weak cuticular striations
(Supplementary Data Fig. S5A); those in the spur tip were isodiametric and strongly convex (Fig. S5B). The spur epidermis of
B. macroceras consisted of slightly convex, oblong, tetragonal
cells with short papillae and thick cuticular striations parallel
to the longitudinal cell axis (Fig. S5C). Its spur tip was lined
with isodiametric, tetragonal cells with very weak cuticular striations (Fig. S5D). The narrow spur entrance of B. parviflora was
lined with long unicellular trichomes lacking cuticular striations
(Fig. S5E, F), whereas the remainder of the spur epidermis cells
were oblong-tetragonal and had short papillae and pronounced
parallel or radiating cuticular striations (Fig. S5G).
Evolution of nectaries and associated traits
The occurrence of stomata and nectary type, but not stomata
number or size or spur wall thickness, exhibited significant
phylogenetic conservatism (Table 1). Parsimony analysis correctly identified the nectarless root node (Johnson et al., 2013)
as having no nectary (Fig. 6). Stomatal nectaries evolved
between two and four times in the genus (mean estimate, 2.1,
103 species), whereas a secretory epidermis evolved six times.
Stomatal nectaries were lost up to two times (mean estimate,
1313
0.9) in a small nectarless clade consisting of D. comosa and
D. bolusiana, which is embedded in the nectar-producing
section Monadenia. By comparison, secretory epidermis was
never lost after having evolved, and no transitions between
nectary types were evident (Fig. 6). Ancestral state reconstruction for stomata was less conclusive, likely owing to the
smaller sample (60 species). The root node was reconstructed
as equivocal, even when the analysis included Brownleea.
Stomata evolved between 0 and 10 times (mean estimate, 4.8,
1000 chronograms), and were lost times between 0 and 10
times (mean estimate, 4.7; see Supplementary Data Figs S1 –
S3, and Table S3 for node-state reconstructions). Given the lability of stoma occurrence, a model of dependent evolution of floral
stomata and nectar production did not fit the data significantly
better than a model of independent evolution (G4 ¼ 7.65, P .
0.1, n ¼ 60 species), indicating that the traits did not evolve in
a correlated fashion and that the occurrence of stomata did not facilitate transitions to nectar production.
After adjustment for phylogenetic relatedness, nectarproducing and nectarless species whose flowers had stomata did
not differ significantly in either stomata number or area
(Table 2). The examined Disa species had on average 7.0
stomata on the examined flower parts (lower standard error
[LSE] ¼ 4.45, upper standard error [USE] ¼ 12.34) with an
average (+SE) area of 1.46 + 0.001 mm2. However, the spurs
of nectar-producing species consisted of significantly more cell
layers (mean ¼ 7.7 cells, LSE ¼ 0.74, USE ¼ 0.92) than those
of nectarless species (mean ¼ 6.2 cells, LSE ¼ 0.59, USE ¼
0.73; Table 2). This difference resulted from the atypically
robust flowers of the nectar-producing D. uniflora, as exclusion
of this species rendered the difference non-significant (Table 2;
overall mean excluding D. uniflora ¼ 6.5 cell layers, LSE ¼
0.69, USE ¼ 0.57). The stomatal nectaries of the predominantly
nectar-producing sections Monadenia and Micranthae did not
differ significantly in stomata number, stoma area or spur wall
thickness (Table 2). Furthermore, spur wall thickness did not
differ significantly between species with secretory epidermis
and those with stomatal nectaries (Table 2).
DISCUSSION
The repeated evolution of nectar production in Disa involved diversifying evolution of both nectary type and position, although
both nectary types evolved repeatedly in the genus and therefore
provide evidence for some recapitulation. Ancestral absence of
nectaries indicates that both stomatal nectaries and secretory epidermis represent novelties in Disa. The other nectar-producing
genera in the Diseae, Brownleea and Satyrium, secrete nectar
from trichomes or a morphologically uniform spur epidermis
(Brownleea, this study; Satyrium, Johnson et al., 2007; T van
der Niet, Naturalis Biodiversity Institute, Netherlands, and
F I G . 6. Evolution of nectary types in 103 Disa species based on parsimony reconstruction. From an ancestor without nectaries, stomatal nectaries evolved at least
twice (red branches) and nectar-secreting epidermis evolved six times (green branches). Nectar-producing clades are highlighted in yellow. Parsimony reconstruction
of ancestral states over 1000 chronograms are summarized on the maximum-clade credibility chronogram. Empty circles indicate absence of (root) or loss of nectaries,
filled circles mark nodes for which evolution of the respective nectary type is supported as optimal state by parsimony reconstruction in ≥75 % of trees containing the
node (grey sectors represent the proportion of equivocal reconstructions). Support values indicate (number of trees in which state was identified as optimal/number of
trees containing the node). Squares at branch tips indicate presence (filled symbols) or absence (open symbols) of stomata in 60 species examined by scanning electron
microscopy or high-magnification light microscopy. For support values of all nodes see Supplementary Data Table S3. Rectangular brackets delimit Disa sections
according to Bytebier et al. (2008).
1314
Hobbhahn et al. — Nectary evolution in Disa orchids.
TA B L E 2. Comparison of nectary-associated traits between nectarless and nectar-producing Disa species, between sections Monadenia
and Micranthae, and between nectary types. Summary of results of phylogenetic estimating equations (pGEEs) using 1000 chronograms
to account for phylogenetic uncertainty. d.f., degrees of freedom of t-test in pGEE. t and P are reported as medians (1st quartile, 3rd
quartile) due to non-normality (see Supplementary Data Fig. S4 for frequency distribution of P obtained from 1000 chronograms). n
represents the number of sampled species: total species (species in first category of comparison, species in second category).
Comparison
d.f.
t
P
n
Nectarless vs. nectar-producing species
Stomata number (all examined flower parts)
Stomata number in spurs
Stoma area (all examined flower parts)
Stoma area (spurs only)
Spur wall thickness
Spur wall thickness excluding D. uniflora
12.5
10.9
12.5
10.9
17.7
17.5
0.06 (0.03, 0.13)
0.73 (0.66, 0.80)
1.89 (1.77, 2.01)
0.55 (0.48, 0.62)
3.40 (2.88, 3.79)
0.29 (0.17, 0.42)
0.93 (0.89, 0.97)
0.48 (0.45, 0.53)
0.09 (0.07, 0.10)
0.36 (0.32, 0.39)
0.004 (0.0001- 0.009)
0.77 (0.68, 0.87)
31 (12, 19)
28 (7, 19)
31 (12, 19)
28 (7, 19)
48 (26, 22)
47 (26, 21)
Sections Monadenia vs. Micranthae
Stomata number in spurs
Stoma area (spurs only)
Spur wall thickness
Wall thickness of spurs with secretory
epidermis vs. spurs with stomatal nectaries
8.3
8.3
8.2
9.3
0.21 (0.19, 0.24)
0.07 (0.04, 0.10)
2.04 (1.98, 2.10)
0.26 (0.18, 0.34)
0.84 (0.82, 0.85)
0.95 (0.93, 0.97)
0.09 (0.08, 0.09)
0.80 (0.74, 0.86)
19 (8, 11)
19 (8, 11)
18 (8, 10)
22 (6, 18)
N. Hobbhahn, unpublished observations of seven species).
Consequently, the stomatal nectaries of Disa appear to be
uniquely derived within the Diseae, whereas epidermal nectaries
appear to be recapitulated within the tribe. Nectary diversification within Disa implies weak ancestral genetic, developmental
or physiological constraints on nectar production, nectary type
and position (cf. Baum et al., 2001). Even greater nectary diversity in the Orchidaceae (e.g. Galetto et al., 1997; Davies et al.,
2005; Davies and Stpiczyńska, 2007; Johnson et al., 2007; Bell
et al., 2009; de Melo et al., 2010) suggests widespread absence
of such constraints in the family as a whole. Nevertheless, significant phylogenetic conservatism of nectary type, including the
lack of direct transitions between stomatal and epidermal nectaries, indicates that once nectar production evolves, further evolution is restricted to limited modifications of an established
nectary type, or occasionally loss of function.
Nectarless species
Although lack of nectar production is ancestral in Disa
(Hobbhahn, 2012; Johnson et al., 2013), nectarless species
differ extensively in features of their floral epidermis (Figs 2
and 4A– C). This variation is evident in the incidence and form
of three-dimensional epidermal structures, which may help to
retain floral visitors on rewardless flowers by providing tactile
stimuli that require processing and stimulate exploration (cf.
Davies and Stpiczyńska, 2010; Ellis and Johnson, 2010), and
thereby promote pollination.
The role of stomata in the spurs of some nectarless species is
largely puzzling. In D. comosa and D. bolusiana, which are
rare cases of loss of nectar production within a nectar-producing
clade (section Monadenia), floral stomata may be dysfunctional
rudimentary nectaries. In other nectarless species, stomata on
exposed flower parts, such as the spurless dorsal sepal of
D. filicornis, D. racemosa and D. bodkinii, may be involved in
scent emission and/or gas exchange (Effmert et al., 2005; de
Melo et al., 2010). However, most nectarless Disa species do
not produce discernible scent (e.g. Johnson and Steiner, 1997;
Kurzweil et al., 1997; Johnson, 2000; S. D. Johnson, unpubl.
res.). Floral stomata were not associated with green flowers or
flower parts, so they are likely not involved in floral photosynthesis. Furthermore, stomata in spurs probably contribute little
to gas exchange, as 63 % of the examined species lack them.
Whatever their function, the presence of stomata does not strongly predispose to the evolution of stomatal nectaries, as is indicated most clearly by those few specimens of D. uniflora and
D. longicornu that have a few stomata in their spur epidermis,
but secrete nectar from a secretory epidermis.
Stomatal nectaries
Stomatal floral nectaries occur commonly in several angiosperm lineages (Bernardello, 2007; Nepi, 2007). However, they
have been recorded only once previously in the Orchidaceae,
namely in the Epidendroideae (Maxillaria; Davies et al., 2005),
making Disa the first record for the Orchidoideae. Despite the apparent rarity of stomatal nectaries in orchids, the differences in the
shape and cuticular striation of spur epidermal cells between Disa
sections Monadenia and Micranthae indicate multiple independent origins of this nectary type within Disa. Interestingly, not all
stomata secreted nectar in the species examined stereomicroscopically (also cf. Gaffal et al., 1998), suggesting that either some
stomata retain their ancestral, if unknown, function or that they
remain functionless throughout the flower’s lifespan.
As in numerous other species with stomatal nectaries (Davies
et al., 2005; Nepi, 2007; but see Daumann, 1974), the thickly
cuticularized epidermis surrounding the stomata of Disa
flowers appears not to be involved in nectar excretion. A
thickly cuticularized epidermis is also correlated with nectarlessness in several Orchidinae species (Bell et al., 2009). Thick
cuticle may impede nectar excretion by epidermis cells, necessitating excretion through modified stomata.
Secretory epidermis
Nectar excretion by secretory epidermis evolved independently at least six times; five of the six origins were reconstructed
Hobbhahn et al. — Nectary evolution in Disa orchids.
in mostly nectarless sections of Disa, generating diversity of
nectary location and morphology of secretory epidermal cells.
In most Disa species with epidermal nectaries, the secretory
cells occur in the spur formed by the dorsal sepal (outer perianth
whorls) and are morphologically similar among species. The
similarity of the secretory epidermis cells of D. uniflora and
closely related species in section Atromaculifera may represent
a common origin, whereas the papillae in the spur tips of
D. salteri and D. tenuis support an independent origin of
nectar production in these species. Further independent origins
of nectar production are evidenced by the occurrence of nectaries
on the inner perianth whorl ( petals and lip) in D. elegans and on
parts of the inner ( petals) and outer perianth whorl (spurred
dorsal sepal) in D. longicornu. The dissimilarity of the secretory
epidermis cells of D. elegans from those of other species with the
same nectary type further supports an independent origin of
nectar production in this species. Disa elegans is pollinated
mainly by cetoniine beetles (Scarabaeidae; S. D. Johnson,
et al., unpubl. res.), which have short mouthparts and could not
access the nectar if it was concealed in a spur. Easily accessible
nectar secreted on the exposed surfaces of petals and lip draws
nectar-foraging beetles into the flower centre, where reproductive structures are located. Interestingly, nectar exudes from
both surfaces of petals and lip. The nectar exuded on the
adaxial surfaces is more difficult to reach, forcing beetles to
move around on the flower, thereby increasing the likelihood
of pollen removal and deposition. In the long-spurred
D. longicornu, which is probably pollinated by long-tongued
flies, nectar is produced mostly by the long, narrow petals,
which are concealed in the spur. Other rewarding Disa species
pollinated by long-tongued flies (e.g. D. scullyi, D. rhodantha
and D. zuluensis) produce nectar in a spur lacking threedimensional structures, such as trichomes, grooves or ridges,
and their petals do not extend into the spur or exude nectar.
This absence of three-dimensional structures suggests that longtongued flies do not require a tactile stimulus to feed. Therefore,
the unusual position of the nectar-producing structures in
D. longicornu represents an alternative solution to providing
nectar rewards in the spur, which may have been necessitated
by structural or functional constraints on nectar production by
the spur nectary (e.g. poorer vascular supply, reduced functionality or activity of nectary cells).
1315
conditions (e.g. water economy) or because it was subject to
the weakest genetic and developmental constraints remains to
be determined. In the absence of consistent differences in epidermis morphology between rewarding and rewardless species,
examination of the genetic architecture of nectar production
and comparative studies of the development and histology of
nectar-producing and positionally equivalent non-secreting
tissues are required to elucidate the sub-cellular modifications
required for transitions between rewardlessness and nectar production. Regardless of the mechanism, the frequent evolution
of nectar production implies that it evolves readily when it promotes mating with relatively limited resource costs (Harder
and Barrett, 1992; Golubov et al., 1999; Hobbhahn, 2012).
Furthermore, the Disa example clearly illustrates the contribution of functional convergence to phenotypic diversification.
S U P P L E M E N TARY D ATA
Supplementary data are available online at www.aob.oxfordjournals.org and consist of the following. Table S1: origin of
plant material of Disa and Brownleea examined. Table S2:
mean stomata and spur characteristics of Disa species with uncertain nectar status that were examined by scanning electron microscopy but excluded from analysis. Table S3: reconstructed
states from parsimony analyses of stomata occurrence and
nectary type in Disa. Figure S1: ancestral state reconstruction
of the occurrence of stomata in Disa by parsimony. Figure S2:
node numbers associated with ancestral state reconstruction of
stomata occurrence on the maximum-clade credibility chronogram containing 60 species. Figure S3: node numbers associated
with ancestral state reconstruction of nectary type by parsimony
on the maximum-clade credibility chronogram containing 103
species. Figure S4: frequency distributions of P values obtained
from 1000 chronograms used to account for phylogenetic uncertainty in tests for phylogenetic signal in continuous traits, and in
comparisons using phylogenetic generalized estimating equations. Figure S5: scanning electron micrographs of spur tissues
of the examined Brownleea species.
ACK NOW L E D G E ME N T S
Convergence and diversification
The recurring evolution of nectar production in Disa clearly
illustrates convergent functional evolution achieved by both recapitulation and innovation. Recapitulation is suggested by the
repeated evolution of secretory epidermis, which apparently
also occurs in the sister genera Brownleea and Satyrium.
Nevertheless, the morphological and positional diversity of the
secretory epidermis among Disa species suggests that it has
not evolved simply by reactivation of the same developmental
and physiological pathways, and so involves some innovation.
Furthermore, the evolution of stomatal nectaries, especially in
clades that otherwise lack floral stomata, clearly represents morphological innovation. The conditions that favoured one of these
solutions over another are obscure. Importantly, whether a particular nectary type evolved in response to specific ecological
For use of pickled flower material we thank the Bolus Herbarium
of the University of Cape Town, the Bews Herbarium of the
University of KwaZulu-Natal and Timotheüs van der Niet
(Naturalis Biodiversity Institute, Netherlands). We thank the
Centre for Electron Microscopy at the University of KwaZuluNatal, Pietermaritzburg, the Electron Microscope Unit at the
University of Cape Town and Petra Muller from the Zoology
Department, University of Cape Town, for microscope access
and assistance with sample preparation and microscopy. Ruth
Cozien is thanked for help with specimen collection in the field.
Alexandre Antonelli and Michael D. Pirie are thanked for
helpful discussions of phylogenetic analyses. This work was supported by the Alberta Ingenuity Fund (N. H.), the Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council of Canada (L. D. H., E. C. Y.)
and the South African National Science Foundation (S. D. J.,
B. B.).
1316
Hobbhahn et al. — Nectary evolution in Disa orchids.
L I T E R AT U R E CI T E D
Aguiar JMRBV, Pansarin LM, Ackerman JD, Pansarin ER. 2012. Biotic
versus abiotic pollination in Oeceoclades maculata Lindl. (Orchidaceae).
Plant Species Biology 27: 86–95.
Bateman RM, Hollingsworth PM, Preston J, Yi-Bo L, Pridgeon AM, Chase
MW. 2003. Molecular phylogenetics and evolution of Orchidinae and
selected Habenariinae (Orchidaceae). Botanical Journal of the Linnean
Society 142: 1– 40.
Baum SF, Eshed Y, Bowman JL. 2001. The Arabidopsis nectary is an
ABC-independent floral structure. Development 128: 4657–4667.
Bell AK, Roberts DL, Hawkins JA, Rudall PJ, Box MS, Bateman RM. 2009.
Comparative micromorphology of nectariferous and nectarless labellar
spurs in selected clades of subtribe Orchidinae (Orchidaceae). Botanical
Journal of the Linnean Society 160: 369– 387.
Bellstedt DU, Linder HP, Harley EH. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships in Disa
based on non-coding trnL-trnF chloroplast sequences: evidence of numerous repeat regions. American Journal of Botany 88: 2088–2100.
Benzing DH. 1987. Major patterns and processes in orchid evolution: a critical
synthesis. In: Arditti J. ed. Orchid biology. Reviews and perspectives, IV.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 33– 78.
Bernardello G. 2007. A systematic survey of floral nectaries. In: Nicolson SW,
Nepi M, Pacini E. eds. Nectaries and nectar. Dordrecht: Springer, 19–128.
Blanco M, Carnevali G, Whitten M, et al. 2007. Generic realignments in
Maxillariinae (Orchidaceae). Lankesteriana 7: 515–538.
Blomberg SP, Garland TJr, Ives AR. 2003. Testing for phylogenetic signal in
comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution 57: 717–745.
Bosch JA, Heo K, Sliwinski MK, Baum DA. 2008. An exploration of LEAFY
expression in independent evolutionary origins of rosette flowering in
Brassicaceae. American Journal of Botany 95: 286–293.
Bradshaw E, Rudall PJ, Devey DS, Thomas MM, Glover BJ, Bateman RM.
2010. Comparative labellum micromorphology of the sexually deceptive
temperate orchid genus Ophrys: diverse epidermal cell types and multiple
origins of structural colour. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 162:
504–540.
Bytebier B, Bellstedt DU, Linder HP. 2007. A molecular phylogeny for the
large African orchid genus Disa. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
43: 75–90.
Bytebier B, Bellstedt DU, Linder HP. 2008. A new phylogeny-based sectional
classification for the large African orchid genus Disa. Taxon 57:
1233–1251.
Bytebier B, Antonelli A, Bellstedt DU, Linder HP. 2011. Estimating the age of
fire in the Cape flora of South Africa from an orchid phylogeny. Proceedings
of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences 278: 188– 195.
Chase MW, Hanson L, Albert VA, Whitten WM, Williams NH. 2005. Life
history evolution and genome size in subtribe Oncidiinae (Orchidaceae).
Annals of Botany 95: 191–199.
Conte GL, Arnegard ME, Peichel CL, Schluter D. 2012. The probability of
genetic parallelism and convergence in natural populations. Proceedings
of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences 279: 5039–47.
Cronquist A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants.
New York, NY: Botanical Garden.
Daumann E. 1970. Das Blütennektarium der Monocotyledonen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung seiner systematischen und phylogenetischen
Bedeutung. Feddes Repertorium 80: 463 –590.
Daumann E. 1974. Zur Frage nach dem Vorkommen eines Septalnektariums bei
Dicotyledonen. Preslia 46: 97– 109.
Davies KL, Stpiczyńska M. 2007. Micromorphology of the labellum and floral
spur of Cryptocentrum Benth. and Sepalosaccus Schltr. (Maxillariinae:
Orchidaceae). Annals of Botany 100: 797– 805.
Davies KL, Stpiczyńska M. 2010. Structure and distribution of floral trichomes
in Lycaste and Sudamerlycaste (Orchidaceae: Maxillariinae s.l.). Botanical
Journal of the Linnean Society 164: 409– 421.
Davies KL, Stpiczyńska M, Gregg A. 2005. Nectar-secreting floral stomata in
Maxillaria anceps Ames & C. Schweinf. (Orchidaceae). Annals of Botany
96: 217– 227.
Douzery EJP, Pridgeon AM, Kores P, Linder HP, Kurzweil H, Chase MW.
1999. Molecular phylogenetics of Diseae (Orchidaceae): a contribution
from nuclear ribosomal ITS sequences. American Journal of Botany 86:
887–899.
Dressler RL. 1993. Phylogeny and classification of the orchid family. Portland,
OR: Dioscorides Press.
Effmert U, Grosse J, Rose USR, Ehrig F, Kagi R, Piechulla B. 2005. Volatile
composition, emission pattern, and localization of floral scent emission in
Mirabilis jalapa (Nyctaginaceae). American Journal of Botany 92: 2–12.
Ellis AG, Johnson SD. 2010. Floral mimicry enhances pollen export: the evolution of pollination by sexual deceit outside of the Orchidaceae. The
American Naturalist 176: E143– E151.
Endress PK. 1995. Major evolutionary traits of monocot flowers. In: Rudall PJ,
Cribb PJ, Cutler DF, Humphries CJ. eds. Monocotyledons: systematics and
evolution. London: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
Fahn A. 1979. Secretory tissues in plants. New York: Academic Press.
Figueiredo ACS, Pais MS. 1992. Ultrastructural aspects of the nectary spur of
Limodorum abortivum (L) Sw. (Orchidaceae). Annals of Botany 70:
325– 331.
Fisogni A, Cristofolini G, Rossi M, Galloni M. 2011. Pollinator directionality as
a response to nectar gradient: promoting outcrossing while avoiding geitonogamy. Plant Biology 13: 848– 856.
Gaffal KP, Heimler W, El-Gammal S. 1998. The floral nectary of Digitalis
purpurea L., structure and nectar secretion. Annals of Botany 81: 251– 262.
Galetto L, Bernardello G, Rivera G. 1997. Nectar, nectaries, flower visitors,
and breeding system in five terrestrial Orchidaceae from central
Argentina. Journal of Plant Research 110: 393–403.
Golubov J, Eguiarte LE, Mandujano MC, Lopez-Portillo J, Montana C.
1999. Why be a honeyless honey mesquite? Reproduction and mating
system of nectarful and nectarless individuals. American Journal of
Botany 86: 955– 963.
Harder LD, Barrett SCH. 1992. The energy cost of bee pollination for
Pontederia cordata (Pontederiaceae). Functional Ecology 6: 226– 233.
Harder LD, Thomson JD. 1989. Evolutionary options for maximizing pollen
dispersal of animal-pollinated plants. American Naturalist 133: 323– 344.
Harvey PH, Pagel M. 1991. The comparative method in evolutionary biology.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hobbhahn N. 2012. Correlates and consequences of repeated nectar evolution in
the ancestrally rewardless orchid genus Disa. PhD Thesis, University of
Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Huelsenbeck JP, Nielsen R, Bollback JP. 2003. Stochastic mapping of morphological characters. Systematic Biology 52: 131–158.
Johnson SD. 1995. The pollination of Disa versicolor (Orchidaceae) by anthophorid bees in South Africa. Lindleyana 9: 209– 212.
Johnson SD. 2000. Batesian mimicry in the non-rewarding orchid Disa pulchra,
and its consequences for pollinator behaviour. Biological Journal of the
Linnean Society 71: 119– 132.
Johnson SD, Steiner KE. 1997. Long-tongued fly pollination and evolution of
floral spur length in the Disa draconis complex (Orchidaceae). Evolution
51: 45–53.
Johnson SD, Linder HP, Steiner KE. 1998. Phylogeny and radiation of pollination systems in Disa (Orchidaceae). American Journal of Botany 85:
402– 411.
Johnson SD, Ellis A, Dotterl S. 2007. Specialization for pollination by beetles
and wasps: the role of lollipop hairs and fragrance in Satyrium microrrhynchum (Orchidaceae). American Journal of Botany 94: 47–55.
Johnson SD, Hobbhahn N, Bytebier B. 2013. Ancestral deceit and labile evolution of nectar production in the African orchid genus Disa. Biology Letters
9: 20130500.
Kembel SW, Cowan PD, Helmus MR, et al. 2010. Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and ecology. Bioinformatics 26: 1463– 1464.
Kurzweil H, Liltved WR, Linder HP. 1997. Disa introrsa sp. nov.
(Orchidaceae) from the Western Cape of South Africa, with notes on the
phylogeny of Disa sect. Disella. Nordic Journal of Botany 17: 353– 360.
Larsen MW, Peter C, Johnson SD, Olesen JM. 2008. Comparative biology of
pollination systems in the African-Malagasy genus Brownleea
(Brownleeinae: Orchidaceae). Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society
156: 65–78.
Lee JY, Baum SF, Alvarez J, Patel A, Chitwood DH, Bowman JL. 2005a.
Activation of CRABS CLAW in the nectaries and carpels of Arabidopsis.
Plant Cell 17: 25–36.
Lee JY, Baum SF, Oh SH, Jiang CZ, Chen JC, Bowman JL. 2005b.
Recruitment of CRABS CLAW to promote nectary development within
the eudicot clade. Development 132: 5021–5032.
Linder HP. 1981a. Taxonomic studies in the Disinae (Orchidaceae). IV. A revision of Disa Berg. sect. Micranthae Lindl. Bulletin du Jardin Botanique
National de Belgique 51: 255– 346.
Linder HP. 1981b. Taxonomic studies in the Disinae. V. A revision of the genus
Monadenia. Bothalia 13: 339– 363.
Hobbhahn et al. — Nectary evolution in Disa orchids.
Linder HP. 1981c. Taxonomic studies in the Disinae. VI. A revision of the genus
Herschelia. Bothalia 13: 365–388.
Linder HP. 1981d. Taxonomic studies on the Disinae: 1. A revision of the genus
Brownleea Lindl. Journal of South African Botany 47: 13–48.
Linder HP. 1981e. Taxonomic studies on the Disinae: 2. A revision of the genus
Schizodium Lindl. Journal of South African Botany 47: 339– 371.
Linder HP. 1981f. Taxonomic studies on the Disinae. III. A revision of Disa Berg.
excluding sect. Micranthae Lindl. Cape Town: Bolus Herbarium.
Linder HP. 1985. Notes on the orchids of southern tropical Africa I: Brownleea
and Herschelia. Kew Bulletin 40: 125–129.
Maddison WP, Maddison DR. 2011. Mesquite: a modular system for evolutionary analysis. Version 2.75. www.mesquiteproject.org.
de Melo MC, Borba EL, Paiva EAS. 2010. Morphological and histological
characterization of the osmophores and nectaries of four species of
Acianthera (Orchidaceae: Pleurothallidinae). Plant Systematics and
Evolution 286: 141– 151.
Mooers AO, Schluter D. 1999. Reconstructing ancestor states with maximum
likelihood: support for one- and two-rate models. Systematic Biology 48:
623– 633.
Nepi M. 2007. Nectary structure and ultrastructure. In: Nicolson SW, Nepi M,
Pacini E. eds. Nectaries and Nectar. Dordrecht: Springer, 129 –166.
Nepi M, Stpiczyńska M. 2007. Nectar resorption and translocation in Cucurbita
pepo L. and Platanthera chlorantha Custer (Rchb.). Plant Biology 9:
93–100.
Pagel M. 1994. Detecting correlated evolution on phylogenies – a general
method for the comparative analysis of discrete characters. Proceedings of
the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences 255: 37– 45.
Pagel M. 1999. The maximum likelihood approach to reconstructing ancestral
character states of discrete characters on phylogenies. Systematic Biology
48: 612–622.
Pais MSS. 1982. Les nectaires florales d’Epipactis atropurpurea Rafin. Quelques
aspects inframicroscopiques de l’assise nectarifere. Bulletin de la Société
Botanique de France 129: 103–107.
Pansarin ER. 2008. Pollen and nectar as a reward in the basal epidendroid
Psilochilus modestus (Orchidaceae: Triphoreae): a study of floral
morphology, reproductive biology and pollination strategy. Flora 203:
10–10.
Pansarin ER, Salatino A, Pansarin LM, Sazima M. 2012. Pollination systems
in Pogonieae (Orchidaceae: Vanilloideae): a hypothesis of evolution among
reward and rewardless flowers. Flora 207: 849–861.
Pansarin ER, Aguiar JMRBV, Pansarin LM. 2013. Floral biology and histochemical analysis of Vanilla edwallii Hoehne (Orchidaceae:
1317
Vanilloideae): an orchid pollinated by Epicharis (Apidae: Centridini).
Plant Species Biology, in press. doi:10.1111/1442-1984.12014.
Paradis E, Claude J. 2002. Analysis of comparative data using generalized estimating equations. Journal of Theoretical Biology 218: 175–185.
Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K. 2004. APE: Analyses of Phylogenetics and
Evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20: 289–290.
Pierie MD, Humphreys AM, Antonelli A, Galley C, Linder HP. 2012. Model
uncertainty in ancestral area reconstruction: a parsimonious solution? Taxon
61: 652–664.
Proctor M, Yeo P, Lack A. 1996. The natural history of pollination. Portland,
OR: Timber Press.
R Development Core Team. 2010. R: a language and environment for statistical
computing. Version 2.12.1. Vienna, Austria, R Foundation for Statistical
Computing. www.r-project.org.
Rasband WS. 1997–2009. ImageJ. 1.43u ed. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes
of Health.
Simpson BB, Neff JL. 1983. Evolution and diversity of floral rewards. In: Jones
CE, Little RJ. eds. Handbook of experimental pollination biology.
New York: Scientific and Academic Editions.
Singer RB, Koehler S. 2004. Pollinarium morphology and floral rewards in
Brazilian Maxillariinae (Orchidaceae). Annals of Botany 93: 39– 51.
Stpiczyńska M. 1997. The structure of nectary of Platanthera bifolia L
Orchidaceae. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae 66: 5– 11.
Stpiczyńska M. 2003. Nectar resorption in the spur of Platanthera chlorantha
Custer (Rchb.) Orchidaceae – structural and microautoradiographic study.
Plant Systematics and Evolution 238: 119–126.
Stpiczyńska M, Matusiewicz J. 2001. Anatomy and ultrastructure of spur
nectary of Gymnadenia conopsea (L.) (Orchidaceae). Acta Societatis
Botanicorum Poloniae 70: 267– 272.
Stpiczyńska M, Davies KL, Gregg A. 2003. Nectary structure and nectar secretion in Maxillaria coccinea (Jacq.) LO Williams ex Hodge (Orchidaceae).
Annals of Botany 93: 87–95.
Stpiczyńska M, Davies KL, Gregg A. 2005a. Comparative account of nectary
structure in Hexisea imbricata (Lindl.) Rchb.f. (Orchidaceae). Annals of
Botany 95: 749– 756.
Stpiczyńska M, Milanesi C, Faleri C, Cresti M. 2005b. Ultrastructure of the
nectary spur of Platanthera chlorantha (Custer) Rchb. (Orchidaceae)
during successive stages of nectar secretion. Acta Biologica Cracoviensia
Series Botanica 47: 111–119.
Zimmerman M, Cook S. 1985. Pollinator foraging, experimental nectar-robbing
and plant fitness in Impatiens capensis. American Midland Naturalist 113:
84–91.
1318
Hobbhahn et al. — Nectary evolution in Disa orchids.
APPENDIX
Microscopic analysis, incidence of nectar, nectary type and location, number of modified stomata per examined flower part, stoma
size (mm2) and spur wall thickness (cell layers) in the examined species of Disa and Brownleea.
Taxon
Brownleea
B. galpinii subsp. major
B. macroceras
B. parviflora
Disa
D. caulescens
D. filicornis
D. racemosa
D. tripetaloides
D. uniflora
Atromaculiferae
D. glandulosa
D. vaginata
Phlebidia
D. longicornu
Pardoglossa
D. rosea
Schizodium
D. flexuosa
D. obliqua subsp. obliqua
Vaginaria
D. fasciata
Coryphaea
D. sagittalis
D. rungweensis
Disella
D. bodkinii
D. elegans
D. obtusa subsp. hottentotica
D. uncinata
Monadenia
D. bolusiana
D. bracteata
D. brevicornis
D. comosa
D. cylindrica
D. ophrydea
D. rufescens
D. sabulosa
Reticulibractea
D. harveiana subsp. longicalcarata
D. karooica
Repandra
D. cornuta
D. tysonii
Trichochila
D. graminifolia
D. hians
D. salteri
D. tenuis
Stenocarpa
D. cephalotes subsp. cephalotes
D. gladioliflora subsp. gladioliflora
D. nivea
D. saxicola
D. stricta
D. vigilans
Emarginatae
D. nervosa
D. patula var. transvaalensis
D. stachyoides
Analysis
Nectar
Nectary type and location
Number of stomata
Stoma size (mm2)
Spur wall thickness
(cell layers)
SEM
SEM
SEM
1
1
1
S
S
S
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2)
–
–
–
–
–
–
SEM
SEM
SEM
SEM
SM, SEM
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2, S
0 (6)
10.5 + 1.5 (2)*
90 + 52 (2)*
0 (2)
3.9 + 2.4 (11)
–
0.83 + 0.045 (9, 1)
1.49 + 0.055 (25, 1)
–
2.78 + 0.404 (7, 3)
6 + 0.2 (17, 2)
6 + 0.5 (2, 1)
10 + 0.5 (2, 1)
8 + 0.4 (10, 2)
13 + 0.6 (17, 3)
SM, SEM
SM, SEM
1
1
2, S
2, S
0 (3)
0 (2)
–
–
–
6 + 0.3 (11, 2)
SM, SEM
1
2, P, (S)
0.3 + 0.2 (7)
1.69 + 0.495 (2, 2)
8 + 0.4 (12, 2)
SEM
0
0
0 (2)
–
5 + 0 (2, 1)
SEM
SEM
0
0
0
0
0 (2)
0 (4)
–
–
6 + 0.2 (5, 1)
5 + 0.2 (20, 3)
SEM
0
0
0 (1)
–
6 + 0.3 (3, 1)
SEM
SEM
0
1
0
2, 0
0.7 + 0 (4)
0 (3)
0.64 (1, 4)
–
5 + 0.3 (11, 4)
6 + 0.2 (14, 3)
SEM
SM, SEM
SEM
SEM
0
1
0
0
0
2, P, L
0
0
233.5 + 4.5 (2)*
0 (3)
0 (4)
0 (2)
1.61 + 0.107 (7, 2)
–
–
–
–
–
5 + 0.2 (6, 2)
5 + 0.6 (3, 1)
SEM
SEM
SM, SEM
SEM
SM, SEM
SEM
SEM
SEM
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1, S
1, S
0
1, S
1, S
1, S
1, S
44.5 + 0.5 (2)
31 + 6.1 (6)
77 (1)
30.5 + 0.5 (2)
39.3 + 11.9 (3)
11.5 + 3.5 (2)
26 + 1 (2)
30 + 2 (2)
1.24 + 0.078 (6, 1)
1.17 + 0.065 (7, 3)
1.14 + 0.069 (5, 1)
1.7 + 0.154 (9, 1)
1.31 + 0.164 (5, 2)
0.94 + 0.064 (4, 1)
1.92 + 0.142 (7, 2)
1.73 + 0.148 (5, 2)
6 + 0.3 (7, 1)
4 + 0.2 (10, 2)
6 + 0.2 (7, 1)
7 + 0.4 (6, 1)
5 + 0.2 (13, 2)
5 + 0.4 (14, 2)
7 + 0.7 (7, 1)
6 + 0.2 (9, 2)
SEM
SEM
0
0
0
0
8 + 2.5 (3)
2.5 + 0.5 (2)
1.73 + 0.126 (7, 1)
2 + 0.327 (3, 2)
9 + 0.4 (15, 2)
8 + 0.3 (9, 1)
SEM
SEM
0
0
0
0
59 (1)
69.7 + 29 (3)
1.1 + 0.102 (7, 1)
0.97 + 0.059 (36, 2)
–
8 + 0.3 (15, 3)
SEM
SEM
SEM
SEM
0
0
1
1
0
0
2, S
2, S
0 (1)
0 (2)
0 (3)
0 (1)
–
–
–
–
7 + 0.7 (5, 1)
6 + 0.3 (7, 1)
5 + 0.3 (16, 3)
6 + 0.4 (5, 1)
SEM
SEM
SEM
SEM
SEM
SEM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 (1)
0 (2)
0 (1)
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (1)
–
–
–
–
–
–
5 + 0.2 (5, 1)
6 + 0.3 (11, 2)
7 + 0.6 (5, 1)
6 + 0.3 (8, 1)
4 + 0.2 (7, 1)
7 + 0.5 (4, 1)
SEM
SEM
SEM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 (1)
2 (1)
0 (1)
–
0.9 + 0.161 (5, 1)
–
7 + 0.3 (3, 1)
7 + 0.4 (7, 1)
6 + 0.3 (4, 1)
Continued
Hobbhahn et al. — Nectary evolution in Disa orchids.
1319
AP P E N D I X Continued
Taxon
Spirales
D. tenella subsp. tenella
Aconitoideae
D. aconitoides subsp. aconitoides
Micranthae
D. chrysostachya
D. cooperi
D. crassicornis
D. erubescens subsp. erubescens
D. fragrans subsp. fragrans
D. galpinii
D. hircicornis
D. polygonoides
D. rhodantha
D. sankeyi
D. scullyi
D. thodei
D. versicolor
D. woodii
D. zuluensis
Analysis
Nectar
Nectary type and location
Number of stomata
Stoma size (mm2)
Spur wall thickness
(cell layers)
SEM
0
0
0 (2)
–
7 + 0.3 (9, 2)
SEM
0
0
3 + 3 (2)
1.11 + 0.183 (3, 2)
4 (1, 1)
SM, SEM
SM, SEM
SM, SEM
SEM
SEM
SEM
SEM
SM
SM
SEM
SM, SEM
SM
SM, SEM
SEM
SM
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1, S
1, S
1, S
1, S
1, S
1, S
1, S
1, S
1, S
1, S
1, S
1, S
1, S
1, S
1, S
718.6 + 62.3 (11)
300.5 + 19.5 (2)
107 (1)
7 (1)
41 + 1.2 (3)
96 (1)
32 + 7 (2)
+ (5)
+ (3)
31.5 + 5.5 (2)
354 (1)
+ (2)
11 + 2.7 (4)
14.3 + 1.2 (3)
+ (2)
1.38 + 0.042 (45, 5)
2.14 + 0.185 (13, 2)
2.21 + 0.114 (15, 3)
0.64 + 0.134 (3, 1)
1.55 + 0.072 (19, 2)
1.21 + 0.063 (7, 1)
1.74 + 0.134 (9, 1)
–
–
0.94 + 0.05 (15, 3)
1.1 + 0.066 (20, 1)
–
1.01 + 0.167 (4, 1)
0.65 + 0.047 (8, 2)
–
–
9 + 0.4 (13, 2)
10 + 0.4 (9, 1)
9 + 0.9 (8, 1)
6 + 0.2 (7, 3)
8 + 0.5 (10, 1)
8 + 0.6 (4, 1)
–
–
9 + 0.6 (17, 3)
9 + 0.5 (7, 1)
–
8 + 0.5 (11, 2)
5 + 0.2 (9, 3)
–
Nectar column: 1, nectar-producing; 0, nectarless. Nectary type: 0, no nectary; 1, modified stomata; 2, secretory epidermis. Nectary location: S, spur; P, petals,
L, lip. Values are means + standard error. Sample sizes for number of stomata are given as (nspecimens), those for stomata size and spur-wall thickness as
(nmeasurement, nspecimens).
* Spur absent; + stomata present, no count available; SM, stereomicroscopy.