Evolutionary history of plants

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Further information: Evolutionary history of life

A Late Silurian sporangium, artificially coloured. Green: A spore tetrad. Blue: A spore bearing a trilete mark –
the Y-shaped scar. The spores are about 30-35 μm across
Phylogenetic plant tree, showing the major cladesand traditional groups. Monophyletic groups are in black
and paraphyletics in blue. Diagram according tosymbiogenetic origin of plant cells,[1] and phylogeny ofalgae,
[2]
 bryophytes,[3] vascular plants,[4] andflowering plants.[5]

The evolution of plants has resulted in widely varying levels of complexity, from the earliest algal
mats, through bryophytes, lycopods, and ferns, to the complexgymnosperms and angiosperms of
today. While many of the groups which appeared earlier continue to thrive, as exemplified by algal
dominance in marine environments, more recently derived groups have also displaced previously
ecologically dominant ones, e.g. the ascendance of flowering plants over gymnosperms in terrestrial
environments.[6]:498
Evidence for the appearance of the first land plants occurs in the Ordovician, around 450 million
years ago, in the form of fossil spores.[7] Land plants began to diversify in theLate Silurian, from
around 430 million years ago, and the results of their diversification are displayed in remarkable
detail in an early Devonian fossil assemblage from theRhynie chert. This chert preserved early
plants in cellular detail, petrified in volcanic springs. [8]
By the middle of the Devonian, most of the features recognised in plants today are present, including
roots and leaves. Late Devonian free-sporing plants such asArchaeopteris had secondary vascular
tissue that produced wood and had formed forests of tall trees. Also by late Devonian, Elkinsia, an
early seed fern, had evolved seeds.[9]Evolutionary innovation continued into the Carboniferous and is
still ongoing today. Most plant groups were relatively unscathed by the Permo-Triassic extinction
event, although the structures of communities changed. This may have set the scene for the
appearance of the flowering plants in the Triassic (~200 million years ago), and their later
diversification in the Cretaceous and Paleogene. The latest major group of plants to evolve were the
grasses, which became important in the mid-Paleogene, from around40 million years ago. The
grasses, as well as many other groups, evolved new mechanisms of metabolism to survive the low
CO2 and warm, dry conditions of the tropics over the last 10 million years.

Contents
  [hide] 

 1Colonization of land
 2Evolution of life cycles
 3Evolution of morphology
o 3.1Xylem
o 3.2Leaves
 3.2.1Factors influencing leaf architectures
o 3.3Tree form
o 3.4Roots
 3.4.1Arbuscular mycorrhizae
o 3.5Seeds
o 3.6Flowers
 3.6.1Origins of the flower
 3.6.2Evolution of the MADS-box family
o 3.7Factors influencing floral diversity
 3.7.1Flowering time
 3.7.2Theories of flower evolution
 4Evolution of photosynthetic pathways
o 4.1Concentrating carbon
o 4.2Evolutionary record
 o 4.3When is C4 an advantage?
 5Evolution of transcriptional regulation
 6Evolution of secondary metabolism
 7Mechanisms and players in evolution of plant form
 8Coevolution of Plants and Fungal Parasites
 9See also
 10References

Colonization of land[edit]
Life timeline

view • discuss • edit
-4500 —
–
-4000 —
–
-3500 —
–
-3000 —
–
-2500 —
–
-2000 —
–
-1500 —
–
-1000 —
–
-500 —
–
0 —
water
Simple life
photosynthesis
Eukaryotes
Multicellular organisms
Land life
Dinosaurs    
Mammals
Flowers
 
←
Earliest Earth
←
Earliest water
←
Earliest life
(-4100)
←
Meteorite bombardment
←
Earliest oxygen
←
Atmospheric oxygen
←
Oxygen Crisis
←
Earliest sexual reproduction
←
Cambrian explosion
←
Earliest humans
P
h
a
n
r
z
c

P
r
o
t
e
r
o
z
o
i
c

A
r
c
h
e
a
n
H
a
d
e
a
n
Axis scale: millions of years.
also see {{Human timeline}} and {{Nature timeline}}

Land plants evolved from a group of green algae, perhaps as early as 510 million years ago;[10] some
molecular estimates place their origin even earlier, as much as 630 million years ago.[11] Their closest
living relatives are the charophytes, specifically Charales; assuming that the Charales' habit has
changed little since the divergence of lineages, this means that the land plants evolved from a
branched, filamentous alga dwelling in shallow fresh water, [12] perhaps at the edge of seasonally
desiccating pools.[10] The alga would have had a haplontic life cycle: it would only very briefly have
had paired chromosomes (the diploid condition) when the egg and sperm first fused to form
a zygote; this would have immediately divided by meiosis to produce cells with half the number of
unpaired chromosomes (thehaploid condition). Co-operative interactions with fungi may have helped
early plants adapt to the stresses of the terrestrial realm. [13]
The Devonian marks the beginning of extensive land colonization by plants, which – through their effects on
erosion and sedimentation – brought about significant climatic change.

Cladogram of plant evolution

Plants were not the first photosynthesisers on land; weathering rates suggest that photosynthetic
organisms were already living on the land 1,200 million years ago,[10] and microbial fossils have been
found in freshwater lake deposits from1,000 million years ago,[14] but the carbon isotope
record suggests that they were too scarce to impact the atmospheric composition until
around 850 million years ago.[15] These organisms, although phylogenetically diverse, [16] were
probably small and simple, forming little more than an "algal scum". [10]
The first evidence of plants on land comes from spores of mid-Ordovician age (early Llanvirn,
~470 million years ago).[17][18][19]These spores, known as cryptospores, were produced either singly
(monads), in pairs (dyads) or groups of four (tetrads), and their microstructure resembles that of
modern liverwort spores, suggesting they share an equivalent grade of organisation. [20]Their walls
contain sporopollenin – further evidence of an embryophytic affinity.[21] It could be that atmospheric
'poisoning' prevented eukaryotes from colonising the land prior to this, [22] or it could simply have
taken a great time for the necessary complexity to evolve. [23]
Trilete spores similar to those of vascular plants appear soon afterwards, in Upper Ordovician rocks.
[24]
 Depending exactly when the tetrad splits, each of the four spores may bear a "trilete mark", a Y-
shape, reflecting the points at which each cell squashed up against its neighbours. [17] However, this
requires that the spore walls be sturdy and resistant at an early stage. This resistance is closely
associated with having a desiccation-resistant outer wall—a trait only of use when spores must
survive out of water. Indeed, even those embryophytes that have returned to the water lack a
resistant wall, thus don't bear trilete marks.[17]A close examination of algal spores shows that none
have trilete spores, either because their walls are not resistant enough, or in those rare cases where
it is, the spores disperse before they are squashed enough to develop the mark, or don't fit into a
tetrahedral tetrad.[17]
The earliest megafossils of land plants were thalloid organisms, which dwelt in fluvial wetlands and
are found to have covered most of an early Silurian flood plain. They could only survive when the
land was waterlogged.[25] There were also microbial mats.[26]
Once plants had reached the land, there were two approaches to dealing with desiccation. The
bryophytes avoid it or give in to it, restricting their ranges to moist settings, or drying out and putting
their metabolism "on hold" until more water arrives. Tracheophytes resist desiccation: They all bear
a waterproof outer cuticle layer wherever they are exposed to air (as do some bryophytes), to reduce
water loss, but—since a total covering would cut them off from CO 2 in the atmosphere—they rapidly
evolved stomata,[clarification needed] small openings to allow, and control the rate of, gas exchange.
Tracheophytes also developed vascular tissue to aid in the movement of water within the organisms
(see below), and moved away from a gametophyte dominated life cycle (see below). Vascular tissue
also facilitated upright growth without the support of water and paved the way for the evolution of
larger plants on land.
The establishment of a land-based flora caused increased accumulation of oxygen in the
atmosphere, as the plants produced oxygen as a waste product. When this concentration rose
above 13%, wildfires became possible. This is first recorded in the early Silurian fossil record by
charcoalified plant fossils.[27] Apart from a controversial gap in the Late Devonian, charcoal is present
ever since.
Charcoalification is an important taphonomic mode. Wildfire drives off the volatile compounds,
leaving only a shell of pure carbon. This is not a viable food source for herbivores or detritovores, so
is prone to preservation; it is also robust, so can withstand pressure and display exquisite,
sometimes sub-cellular, detail.

Evolution of life cycles[edit]

Further information: Alternation of generations

Angiosperm life cycle

All multicellular plants have a life cycle comprising two generations or phases. One is termed
the gametophyte, has a single set of chromosomes (denoted 1N), and produces gametes (sperm
and eggs). The other is termed the sporophyte, has paired chromosomes (denoted 2N), and
produces spores. The gametophyte and sporophyte may appear identical – homomorphy – or may
be very different – heteromorphy.
The pattern in plant evolution has been a shift from homomorphy to heteromorphy. The algal
ancestors of land plants were almost certainly haplobiontic, being haploid for all their life cycles, with
a unicellular zygote providing the 2N stage. All land plants (i.e. embryophytes) are diplobiontic – that
is, both the haploid and diploid stages are multicellular. [6] Two trends are
apparent: bryophytes (liverworts, mosses and hornworts) have developed the gametophyte, with the
sporophyte becoming almost entirely dependent on it; vascular plants have developed the
sporophyte, with the gametophyte being particularly reduced in the seed plants.
It has been proposed that the basis for the emergence of the diploid phase of the life cycle as the
dominant phase, is that diploidy allows masking of the expression of deleterious mutations
through genetic complementation.[28][29] Thus if one of the parental genomes in the diploid cells
contains mutations leading to defects in one or moregene products, these deficiencies could be
compensated for by the other parental genome (which nevertheless may have its own defects in
other genes). As the diploid phase was becoming predominant, the masking effect likely
allowed genome size, and hence information content, to increase without the constraint of having to
improve accuracy of replication. The opportunity to increase information content at low cost is
advantageous because it permits new adaptations to be encoded. This view has been challenged,
with evidence showing that selection is no more effective in the haploid than in the diploid phases of
the lifecycle of mosses and angiosperms.[30]
There are two competing theories to explain the appearance of a diplobiontic lifecycle.
The interpolation theory (also known as the antithetic or intercalary theory) [31] holds that the
sporophyte phase was a fundamentally new invention, caused by the mitotic division of a freshly
germinated zygote, continuing until meiosis produces spores. This theory implies that the first
sporophytes bore a very different morphology to the gametophyte they depended on. [31] This seems
to fit well with what is known of the bryophytes, in which a vegetative thalloid gametophyte is
parasitised by simple sporophytes, which often comprise no more than a sporangium on a stalk.
Increasing complexity of the ancestrally simple sporophyte, including the eventual acquisition of
photosynthetic cells, would free it from its dependence on a gametophyte, as seen in some
hornworts (Anthoceros), and eventually result in the sporophyte developing organs and vascular
tissue, and becoming the dominant phase, as in the tracheophytes (vascular plants). [6] This theory
may be supported by observations that smaller Cooksonia individuals must have been supported by
a gametophyte generation. The observed appearance of larger axial sizes, with room for
photosynthetic tissue and thus self-sustainability, provides a possible route for the development of a
self-sufficient sporophyte phase.[31]
The alternative hypothesis is termed the transformation theory (or homologous theory). This posits
that the sporophyte appeared suddenly by a delay in the occurrence of meiosis after the zygote
germinated. Since the same genetic material would be employed, the haploid and diploid phases
would look the same. This explains the behaviour of some algae, which produce alternating phases
of identical sporophytes and gametophytes. Subsequent adaption to the desiccating land
environment, which makes sexual reproduction difficult, would result in the simplification of the
sexually active gametophyte, and elaboration of the sporophyte phase to better disperse the
waterproof spores.[6] The tissue of sporophytes and gametophytes preserved in the Rhynie chert is of
similar complexity, which is taken to support this hypothesis. [31][32][33]

Evolution of morphology[edit]
Xylem[edit]
Further information: Xylem
To photosynthesise, plants must absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. However, this comes at a price:
while stomata are open to allow CO2 to enter, water can evaporate.[34] Water is lost much faster than
CO2 is absorbed, so plants need to replace it, and have developed systems to transport water from
the moist soil to the site of photosynthesis.[34] Early plants sucked water between the walls of their
cells, then evolved the ability to control water loss (and CO2 acquisition) through the use of a
waterproof cuticle perforated by stomata. Specialised water transport tissues soon evolved in the
form of hydroids, tracheids, then secondary xylem, followed by an endodermis and ultimately
vessels.[34]
The high CO2 levels of Silurian-Devonian times, when plants were first colonising land, meant that
the need for water was relatively low. As CO2 was withdrawn from the atmosphere by plants, more
water was lost in its capture, and more elegant transport mechanisms evolved. [34] As water transport
mechanisms, and waterproof cuticles, evolved, plants could survive without being continually
covered by a film of water. This transition from poikilohydry to homoiohydry opened up new potential
for colonisation.[34] Plants then needed a robust internal structure that contained long narrow
channels for transporting water from the soil to all the different parts of the above-soil plant,
especially to the parts where photosynthesis occurred.
During the Silurian, CO2 was readily available, so little water needed to be expended to acquire it. By
the end of the Carboniferous, when CO2 levels had lowered to something approaching today's,
around 17 times more water was lost per unit of CO2 uptake.[34] However, even in these "easy" early
days, water was at a premium, and had to be transported to parts of the plant from the wet soil to
avoid desiccation. This early water transport took advantage of the cohesion-tension mechanism
inherent in water. Water has a tendency to diffuse to areas that are drier, and this process is
accelerated when water can be wicked along a fabric with small spaces. In small passages, such as
that between the plant cell walls (or in tracheids), a column of water behaves like rubber – when
molecules evaporate from one end, they literally pull the molecules behind them along the channels.
Therefore, transpiration alone provided the driving force for water transport in early plants.
[34]
 However, without dedicated transport vessels, the cohesion-tension mechanism cannot transport
water more than about 2 cm, severely limiting the size of the earliest plants. [34] This process demands
a steady supply of water from one end, to maintain the chains; to avoid exhausing it, plants
developed a waterproof cuticle. Early cuticle may not have had pores but did not cover the entire
plant surface, so that gas exchange could continue. [34] However, dehydration at times was inevitable;
early plants cope with this by having a lot of water stored between their cell walls, and when it comes
to it sticking out the tough times by putting life "on hold" until more water is supplied. [34]

A banded tube from the Late Silurian/Early Devonian. The bands are difficult to see on this specimen, as an
opaque carbonaceous coating conceals much of the tube. Bands are just visible in places on the left half of the
image. Scale bar: 20 μm

To be free from the constraints of small size and constant moisture that the parenchymatic transport
system inflicted, plants needed a more efficient water transport system. During the early Silurian,
they developed specialized cells, which were lignified (or bore similar chemical compounds)[34] to
avoid implosion; this process coincided with cell death, allowing their innards to be emptied and
water to be passed through them. [34] These wider, dead, empty cells were a million times more
conductive than the inter-cell method, giving the potential for transport over longer distances, and
higher CO2 diffusion rates.
The earliest macrofossils to bear water-transport tubes are Silurian plants placed in the
genus Cooksonia.[35] The early Devonian pretracheophytes Aglaophyton andHorneophyton have
structures very similar to the hydroids of modern mosses.
Plants continued to innovate new ways of reducing the resistance to flow within their cells, thereby
increasing the efficiency of their water transport. Thickened bands on the walls of tubes are apparent
from the early Silurian onwards[36] are adaptations to ease the flow of water.[37] Banded tubes, as well
as tubes with pitted ornamentation on their walls, were lignified [38] and, when they form single celled
conduits, are referred to as tracheids. These, the "next generation" of transport cell design, have a
more rigid structure than hydroids, preventing their collapse at higher levels of water tension.
  Tracheids may have a single evolutionary origin, possibly within the hornworts, [39] uniting all
[34]

tracheophytes (but they may have evolved more than once). [34]
Water transport requires regulation, and dynamic control is provided by stomata.[6]:521 By adjusting the
amount of gas exchange, they can restrict the amount of water lost through transpiration. This is an
important role where water supply is not constant, and indeed stomata appear to have evolved
before tracheids, being present in the non-vascular hornworts. [34]
An endodermis probably evolved during the Silu-Devonian, but the first fossil evidence for such a
structure is Carboniferous.[34] This structure in the roots covers the water transport tissue and
regulates ion exchange (and prevents unwanted pathogens etc. from entering the water transport
system). The endodermis can also provide an upwards pressure, forcing water out of the roots when
transpiration is not enough of a driver.
Once plants had evolved this level of controlled water transport, they were truly homoiohydric, able
to extract water from their environment through root-like organs rather than relying on a film of
surface moisture, enabling them to grow to much greater size.[34] As a result of their independence
from their surroundings, they lost their ability to survive desiccation – a costly trait to retain.[34]
During the Devonian, maximum xylem diameter increased with time, with the minimum diameter
remaining pretty constant.[37] By the Middle Devonian, the tracheid diameter of some plant
lineages[40] had plateaued.[37] Wider tracheids allow water to be transported faster, but the overall
transport rate depends also on the overall cross-sectional area of the xylem bundle itself. [37] The
increase in vascular bundle thickness further seems to correlate with the width of plant axes, and
plant height; it is also closely related to the appearance of leaves [37] and increased stomatal density,
both of which would increase the demand for water. [34]
While wider tracheids with robust walls make it possible to achieve higher water transport pressures,
this increases the problem of cavitation. [34] Cavitation occurs when a bubble of air forms within a
vessel, breaking the bonds between chains of water molecules and preventing them from pulling
more water up with their cohesive tension. A tracheid, once cavitated, cannot have its embolism
removed and return to service (except in a few advanced angiosperms [verification needed] that have
developed a mechanism of doing so). Therefore, it is well worth plants' while to avoid cavitation
occurring. For this reason, pits in tracheid walls have very small diameters, to prevent air entering
and allowing bubbles to nucleate.[34] Freeze-thaw cycles are a major cause of cavitation.[34] Damage
to a tracheid's wall almost inevitably leads to air leaking in and cavitation, hence the importance of
many tracheids working in parallel.[34]
Ultimately, however, some cavitation incidents will occur, so plants have evolved a range of
mechanisms to contain the damage.[34] Small pits link adjacent conduits to allow fluid to flow between
them, but not air – although ironically these pits, which prevent the spread of embolisms, are also a
major cause of them.[34] These pitted surfaces further reduce the flow of water through the xylem by
as much as 30%.[34] Conifers, by the Jurassic, developed an ingenious improvement, [41] using valve-
like structures to isolate cavitated elements. These torus-margo [42] structures have a blob floating in
the middle of a donut; when one side depressurises the blob is sucked into the torus and blocks
further flow.[34] Other plants simply accept cavitation; for instance, oaks grow a ring of wide vessels at
the start of each spring, none of which survive the winter frosts. Maples use root pressure each
spring to force sap upwards from the roots, squeezing out any air bubbles.
Growing to height also employed another trait of tracheids – the support offered by their lignified
walls. Defunct tracheids were retained to form a strong, woody stem, produced in most instances by
a secondary xylem. However, in early plants, tracheids were too mechanically vulnerable, and
retained a central position, with a layer of tough sclerenchyma on the outer rim of the stems.[34] Even
when tracheids do take a structural role, they are supported by sclerenchymatic tissue.
Tracheids end with walls, which impose a great deal of resistance on flow; [37] vessel members have
perforated end walls, and are arranged in series to operate as if they were one continuous vessel.
  The function of end walls, which were the default state in the Devonian, was probably to
[37]

avoid embolisms. An embolism is where an air bubble is created in a tracheid. This may happen as
a result of freezing, or by gases dissolving out of solution. Once an embolism is formed, it usually
cannot be removed (but see later); the affected cell cannot pull water up, and is rendered useless.
End walls excluded, the tracheids of prevascular plants were able to operate under the same
hydraulic conductivity as those of the first vascular plant, Cooksonia.[37]
The size of tracheids is limited as they comprise a single cell; this limits their length, which in turn
limits their maximum useful diameter to 80 μm.[34] Conductivity grows with the fourth power of
diameter, so increased diameter has huge rewards; vessel elements, consisting of a number of
cells, joined at their ends, overcame this limit and allowed larger tubes to form, reaching diameters
of up to 500 μm, and lengths of up to 10 m.[34]
Vessels first evolved during the dry, low CO2 periods of the Late Permian, in the horsetails, ferns
and Selaginellales independently, and later appeared in the mid Cretaceous in angiosperms and
gnetophytes.[34]Vessels allow the same cross-sectional area of wood to transport around a hundred
times more water than tracheids![34] This allowed plants to fill more of their stems with
structural fibres, and also opened a new niche to vines, which could transport water without being as
thick as the tree they grew on.[34] Despite these advantages, tracheid-based wood is a lot lighter, thus
cheaper to make, as vessels need to be much more reinforced to avoid cavitation. [34]
Leaves[edit]

The lycopod Isoetes bearsmicrophylls (leaves with a single vascular trace).

The branching pattern of megaphyll veins may belie their origin as webbed, dichotomising branches.

Leaf lamina. The leaf architecture probably arose multiple times in the plant lineage

Leaves today are, in almost all instances, an adaptation to increase the amount of sunlight that can
be captured for photosynthesis. Leaves certainly evolved more than once, and probably originated
as spiny outgrowths to protect early plants from herbivory.[citation needed]
Leaves are the primary photosynthetic organs of a plant. Based on their structure, they are classified
into two types: microphylls, which lack complex venation patterns, andmegaphylls, which are large
and have complex venation. It has been proposed that these structures arose independently.
[43]
 Megaphylls, according to Walter Zimmerman's telome theory, [44] have evolved from plants that
showed a three-dimensional branching architecture, through three transformations—overtopping,
which led to the lateral position typical of leaves, plantation, which involved formation of a planar
architecture, webbing or fusion, which united the planar branches, thus leading to the formation of
a proper leaf lamina. All three steps happened multiple times in the evolution of today's leaves. [45]
It is widely believed that the telome theory is well supported by fossil evidence. However, Wolfgang
Hagemann questioned it for morphological and ecological reasons and proposed an alternative
theory.[46][47] Whereas according to the telome theory the most primitive land plants have a three-
dimensional branching system of radially symmetrical axes (telomes), according to Hagemann's
alternative the opposite is proposed: the most primitive land plants that gave rise to vascular plants
were flat, thalloid, leaf-like, without axes, somewhat like a liverwort or fern prothallus. Axes such as
stems and roots evolved later as new organs. Rolf Sattler proposed an overarching process-oriented
view that leaves some limited room for both the telome theory and Hagemann's alternative and in
addition takes into consideration the whole continuum between dorsiventral (flat) and radial
(cylindrical) structures that can be found in fossil and living land plants. [48][49] This view is supported by
research in molecular genetics. Thus, James (2009) [50]concluded that "it is now widely accepted
that... radiality [characteristic of axes such as stems] and dorsiventrality [characteristic of leaves] are
but extremes of a continuous spectrum. In fact, it is simply the timing of the KNOX gene expression!"
From the point of view of the telome theory, it has been proposed that before the evolution of leaves,
plants had the photosynthetic apparatus on the stems. Today's megaphyll leaves probably became
commonplace some 360mya, about 40my after the simple leafless plants had colonized the land in
the Early Devonian. This spread has been linked to the fall in the atmospheric carbon
dioxide concentrations in the Late Paleozoic era associated with a rise in density of stomata on leaf
surface. This must have allowed for bettertranspiration rates and gas exchange. Large leaves with
less stomata would have gotten heated up in the sun's heat, but an increased stomatal density
allowed for a better-cooled leaf, thus making its spread feasible. [51][52]
The rhyniophytes of the Rhynie chert consisted of nothing more than slender, unornamented axes.
The early to middle Devonian trimerophytes may be considered leafy. This group of vascular plants
are recognisable by their masses of terminal sporangia, which adorn the ends of axes which may
bifurcate or trifurcate.[6] Some organisms, such asPsilophyton, bore enations. These are small, spiny
outgrowths of the stem, lacking their own vascular supply.
Around the same time, the zosterophyllophytes were becoming important. This group is
recognisable by their kidney-shaped sporangia, which grew on short lateral branches close to the
main axes. They sometimes branched in a distinctive H-shape. [6] The majority of this group bore
pronounced spines on their axes. However, none of these had a vascular trace, and the first
evidence of vascularised enations occurs in the Rhynie genus Asteroxylon. The spines
of Asteroxylon had a primitive vascular supply – at the very least, leaf traces could be seen
departing from the central protostele towards each individual "leaf". A fossil clubmoss known
as Baragwanathia had already appeared in the fossil record about 20 million years earlier, in the
Late Silurian.[53] In this organism, these leaf traces continue into the leaf to form their mid-vein. [54] One
theory, the "enation theory", holds that the leaves developed by outgrowths of the protostele
connecting with existing enations, but it is also possible that microphylls evolved by a branching axis
forming "webbing".[6]
Asteroxylon[55] and Baragwanathia are widely regarded as primitive lycopods.[6] The lycopods are
still extant today, familiar as the quillwort Isoetes and the club mosses. Lycopods bear
distinctive microphylls – leaves with a single vascular trace. Microphylls could grow to some size –
the Lepidodendrales boasted microphylls over a meter in length – but almost all just bear the one
vascular bundle. (An exception is the rare branching in someSelaginella) species.
The more familiar leaves, megaphylls, are thought to have separate origins – indeed, they appeared
four times independently, in the ferns, horsetails, progymnosperms, and seed plants. [56] They appear
to have originated from dichotomising branches, which first overlapped (or "overtopped") one
another, and eventually developed "webbing" and evolved into gradually more leaf-like structures.
[54]
 So megaphylls, by this "teleome theory", are composed of a group of webbed branches [54] – hence
the "leaf gap" left where the leaf's vascular bundle leaves that of the main branch resembles two
axes splitting.[54] In each of the four groups to evolve megaphylls, their leaves first evolved during the
Late Devonian to Early Carboniferous, diversifying rapidly until the designs settled down in the mid
Carboniferous.[56]
The cessation of further diversification can be attributed to developmental constraints, [56] but why did
it take so long for leaves to evolve in the first place? Plants had been on the land for at least
50 million years before megaphylls became significant. However, small, rare mesophylls are known
from the early Devonian genusEophyllophyton – so development could not have been a barrier to
their appearance.[57] The best explanation so far incorporates observations that atmospheric CO 2 was
declining rapidly during this time – falling by around 90% during the Devonian. [58] This corresponded
with an increase in stomatal density by 100 times. Stomata allow water to evaporate from leaves,
which causes them to curve. It appears that the low stomatal density in the early Devonian meant
that evaporation was limited, and leaves would overheat if they grew to any size. The stomatal
density could not increase, as the primitive steles and limited root systems would not be able to
supply water quickly enough to match the rate of transpiration. [59]
Clearly, leaves are not always beneficial, as illustrated by the frequent occurrence of secondary loss
of leaves, famously exemplified by cacti and the "whisk fern" Psilotum.
Secondary evolution can also disguise the true evolutionary origin of some leaves. Some genera of
ferns display complex leaves which are attached to the pseudostele by an outgrowth of the vascular
bundle, leaving no leaf gap.[54] Further, horsetail (Equisetum) leaves bear only a single vein, and
appear to be microphyllous; however, both the fossil record and molecular evidence indicate that
their forbears bore leaves with complex venation, and the current state is a result of secondary
simplification.[60]
Deciduous trees deal with another disadvantage to having leaves. The popular belief that plants
shed their leaves when the days get too short is misguided; evergreens prospered in the Arctic
circle during the most recent greenhouse earth.[61] The generally accepted reason for shedding
leaves during winter is to cope with the weather – the force of wind and weight of snow are much
more comfortably weathered without leaves to increase surface area. Seasonal leaf loss has
evolved independently several times and is exhibited in the ginkgoales, some pinophyta and certain
angiosperms.[62] Leaf loss may also have arisen as a response to pressure from insects; it may have
been less costly to lose leaves entirely during the winter or dry season than to continue investing
resources in their repair.[63]
Factors influencing leaf architectures[edit]
Various physical and physiological forces like light intensity, humidity, temperature, wind speeds etc.
are thought to have influenced evolution of leaf shape and size. It is observed that high trees rarely
have large leaves, owing to the obstruction they generate for winds. This obstruction can eventually
lead to the tearing of leaves, if they are large. Similarly, trees that grow in temperate or taiga regions
have pointed leaves, presumably to prevent nucleation of ice onto the leaf surface and reduce water
loss due to transpiration. Herbivory, not only by large mammals, but also small insects has been
implicated as a driving force in leaf evolution, an example being plants of the genus Aciphylla, that
are commonly found in New Zealand. The now extinct Moas fed upon these plants, and it is seen
that the leaves have spines on their laminas, which probably functioned to discourage the moas from
feeding on them. Other members of Aciphylla, which did not co-exist with the moas, do not have
these spines.[64]
At the genetic level, developmental studies have shown that repression of the KNOX genes is
required for initiation of the leaf primordium. This is brought about by ARP genes, which
encode transcription factors. Genes of this type have been found in many plants studied till now, and
the mechanism i.e. repression of KNOX genes in leaf primordia, seems to be quite conserved.
Interestingly, expression of KNOX genes in leaves produces complex leaves. It is speculated that
the ARP function arose quite early in vascular plant evolution, because members of the primitive
group Lycophytes also have a functionally similar gene [65] Other players that have a conserved role
in defining leaf primordia are the phytohormone auxin, gibberelin and cytokinin.
The diversity of leaves

One interesting feature of a plant is its phyllotaxy. The arrangement of leaves on the plant body is
such that the plant can maximally harvest light under the given constraints, and hence, one might
expect the trait to be genetically robust. However, it may not be so. In maize, a mutation in only one
gene called ABPHYL (ABnormal PHYLlotaxy) was enough to change the phyllotaxy of the leaves. It
implies that sometimes, mutational adjustment of a single locus on the genome is enough to
generate diversity. The abphyl gene was later on shown to encode a cytokinin response regulator
protein.[66]
Once the leaf primordial cells are established from the SAM cells, the new axes for leaf growth are
defined, one important (and more studied) among them being the abaxial-adaxial (lower-upper
surface) axes. The genes involved in defining this, and the other axes seem to be more or less
conserved among higher plants. Proteins of the HD-ZIPIII family have been implicated in defining the
adaxial identity. These proteins deviate some cells in the leaf primordium from the
default abaxial state, and make them adaxial. It is believed that, in early plants with leaves, the
leaves just had one type of surface — the abaxial one. This is the underside of today's leaves. The
definition of the adaxial identity occurred some 200 million years after the abaxial identity was
established.[67] One can thus imagine the early leaves as an intermediate stage in evolution of today's
leaves, having just arisen from spiny stem-like outgrowths of their leafless ancestors, covered
with stomata all over, and not optimized as much for light harvesting.
How the wide variety of plant leaf morphology is generated is a subject of intense research. Some
common themes have emerged. One of the most significant is the involvement of KNOX genes in
generating compound leaves, as in the tomato (see above). But, this again is not universal. For
example, the pea uses a different mechanism for doing the same thing. [68][69] Mutations in genes
affecting leaf curvature can also change leaf form, by changing the leaf from flat, to a crinkly shape,
[70]
 like the shape of cabbage leaves. There also exist different morphogen gradients in a developing
leaf which define the leaf's axis. Changes in these morphogen gradients may also affect the leaf
form. Another very important class of regulators of leaf development are the microRNAs, whose role
in this process has just begun to be documented. The coming years should see a rapid development
in comparative studies on leaf development, with many EST sequences involved in the process
coming online.
Tree form[edit]

The trunk of early tree fernPsaronius, showing internal structure. The top of the plant would have been to the
left of the image

External mold of Lepidodendrontrunk showing leaf scars from the Upper Carboniferous of Ohio

The early Devonian landscape was devoid of vegetation taller than waist height. Without the
evolution of a robust vascular system, taller heights could not be attained. There was, however, a
constant evolutionary pressure to attain greater height. The most obvious advantage is the
harvesting of more sunlight for photosynthesis – by overshadowing competitors – but a further
advantage is present in spore distribution, as spores (and, later, seeds) can be blown greater
distances if they start higher. This may be demonstrated by Prototaxites, thought to be a Palaeozoic
fungus reaching eight metres in height.[71]
To attain arborescence, early plants had to develop woody tissue that provided support and water
transport. The stele of plants undergoing "secondary growth" is surrounded by the vascular
cambium, a ring of cells which produces more xylem (on the inside) and phloem (on the outside).
Since xylem cells comprise dead, lignified tissue, subsequent rings of xylem are added to those
already present, forming wood.
The first plants to develop this secondary growth, and a woody habit, were apparently the ferns, and
as early as the Middle Devonian one species, Wattieza, had already reached heights of 8 m and a
tree-like habit.[72]
Other clades did not take long to develop a tree-like stature; the Late Devonian Archaeopteris,
a precursor to gymnosperms which evolved from the trimerophytes,[73] reached 30 m in height. These
progymnosperms were the first plants to develop true wood, grown from a bifacial cambium, of
which the first appearance is in the Middle DevonianRellimia.[74] True wood is only thought to have
evolved once, giving rise to the concept of a "lignophyte" clade.
These Archaeopteris forests were soon supplemented by lycopods, in the form of lepidodendrales,
which topped 50m in height and 2m across at the base. These lycopods rose to dominate Late
Devonian and Carboniferous coal deposits.[75] Lepidodendrales differ from modern trees in exhibiting
determinate growth: after building up a reserve of nutrients at a lower height, the plants would "bolt"
to a genetically determined height, branch at that level, spread their spores and die. [76] They
consisted of "cheap" wood to allow their rapid growth, with at least half of their stems comprising a
pith-filled cavity.[6] Their wood was also generated by a unifacial vascular cambium – it did not
produce new phloem, meaning that the trunks could not grow wider over time. [verification needed]
The horsetail Calamites was next on the scene, appearing in the Carboniferous. Unlike the modern
horsetail Equisetum, Calamites had a unifacial vascular cambium, allowing them to develop wood
and grow to heights in excess of 10 m. They also branched multiple times.
While the form of early trees was similar to that of today's, the groups containing all modern trees
had yet to evolve.
The dominant groups today are the gymnosperms, which include the coniferous trees, and the
angiosperms, which contain all fruiting and
flowering trees. It was long thought that the
angiosperms arose from within the
gymnosperms, but recent molecular evidence
suggests that their living representatives form
two distinct groups.[77][78][79] The molecular data
has yet to be fully reconciled with morphological
data,[80][81][82] but it is becoming accepted that the
morphological support for paraphyly is not
especially strong.[83] This would lead to the
conclusion that both groups arose from within
the pteridosperms, probably as early as
the Permian.[83]
The angiosperms and their ancestors played a
very small role until they diversified during the
Cretaceous. They started out as small, damp-
loving organisms in the understory, and have
been diversifying ever since the mid[verification needed]-
Cretaceous, to become the dominant member of
non-boreal forests today.
The roots (bottom image) of Lepidodendrales
Roots[edit]
(Stigmaria) are thought to be functionally
Roots are important to plants for two main equivalent to the stems (top), as the similar
reasons: Firstly, they provide anchorage to the appearance of "leaf scars" and "root scars" on
substrate; more importantly, they provide a these specimens from different species
source of water and nutrients from the soil. demonstrates.
Roots allowed plants to grow taller and faster.
The onset of roots also had effects on a global scale. By disturbing the soil, and promoting its
acidification (by taking up nutrients such as nitrate and phosphate [verification needed]), they enabled it to
weather more deeply, promoting the draw-down of CO2[84] with huge implications for climate.[85] These
effects may have been so profound they led to a mass extinction.[86]
But, how and when did roots evolve in the first place? While there are traces of root-like impressions
in fossil soils in the Late Silurian, [87] body fossils show the earliest plants to be devoid of roots. Many
had tendrils that sprawled along or beneath the ground, with upright axes or thalli dotted here and
there, and some even had non-photosynthetic subterranean branches which lacked stomata. The
distinction between root and specialised branch is developmental; true roots follow a different
developmental trajectory to stems. Further, roots differ in their branching pattern, and in possession
of a root cap.[10] So while Siluro-Devonian plants such as Rhynia and Horneophyton possessed the
physiological equivalent of roots,[citation needed] roots – defined as organs differentiated from stems – did
not arrive until later.[10] Unfortunately, roots are rarely preserved in the fossil record, and our
understanding of their evolutionary origin is sparse.[10]
Rhizoids – small structures performing the same role as roots, usually a cell in diameter – probably
evolved very early, perhaps even before plants colonised the land; they are recognised in
the Characeae, an algal sister group to land plants. [10] That said, rhizoids probably evolved more than
once; the rhizines of lichens, for example, perform a similar role. Even some animals
(Lamellibrachia) have root-like structures.[10]
More advanced structures are common in the Rhynie chert, and many other fossils of comparable
early Devonian age bear structures that look like, and acted like, roots. [10] The rhyniophytes bore fine
rhizoids, and the trimerophytes and herbaceous lycopods of the chert bore root-like structure
penetrating a few centimetres into the soil.[88] However, none of these fossils display all the features
borne by modern roots.[10] Roots and root-like structures became increasingly more common and
deeper penetrating during the Devonian, with lycopod trees forming roots around 20 cm long during
the Eifelian and Givetian. These were joined by progymnosperms, which rooted up to about a metre
deep, during the ensuing Frasnian stage. [88] True gymnosperms and zygopterid ferns also formed
shallow rooting systems during the Famennian.[88]
The rhizophores of the lycopods provide a slightly different approach to rooting. They were
equivalent to stems, with organs equivalent to leaves performing the role of rootlets. [10] A similar
construction is observed in the extant lycopod Isoetes, and this appears to be evidence that roots
evolved independently at least twice, in the lycophytes and other plants, [10] a proposition supported
by studies showing that roots are initiated and their growth promoted by different mechanisms in
lycophytes and euphyllophytes.[89]
A vascular system is indispensable to rooted plants, as non-photosynthesising roots need a supply
of sugars, and a vascular system is required to transport water and nutrients from the roots to the
rest of the plant.[12] These plants are little more advanced than their Silurian forbears, without a
dedicated root system; however, the flat-lying axes can be clearly seen to have growths similar to
the rhizoids of bryophytes today.[90]
By the Middle to Late Devonian, most groups of plants had independently developed a rooting
system of some nature.[90] As roots became larger, they could support larger trees, and the soil was
weathered to a greater depth.[86] This deeper weathering had effects not only on the aforementioned
drawdown of CO2, but also opened up new habitats for colonisation by fungi and animals. [88]
Roots today have developed to the physical limits. They penetrate many [quantify] metres of soil to tap the
water table.[verification needed] The narrowest roots are a mere 40 μm in diameter, and could not physically
transport water if they were any narrower.[10] The earliest fossil roots recovered, by contrast,
narrowed from 3 mm to under 700 μm in diameter; of course, taphonomy is the ultimate control of
what thickness can be seen.[10]
Arbuscular mycorrhizae[edit]
The efficiency of many plants' roots is increased via a symbiotic relationship with a fungal partner.
The most common are arbuscular mycorrhizae (AM), literally "tree-like fungal roots". These comprise
fungi that invade some root cells, filling the cell membrane with their hyphae. They feed on the
plant's sugars, but return nutrients generated or extracted from the soil (especially phosphate), to
which the plant would otherwise have no access.
This symbiosis appears to have evolved early in plant history. AM are found in all plant groups, and
80% of extant vascular plants,[91] suggesting an early ancestry; a "plant"-fungus symbiosis may even
have been the step that enabled them to colonise the land,. [92] Such fungi increase the productivity
even of simple plants such as liverworts.[93] Indeed, AM are abundant in the Rhynie chert;[94] the
association occurred even before there were true roots to colonise, and some have suggested that
roots evolved to provide a more comfortable habitat for mycorrhizal fungi. [95]
Seeds[edit]

The fossil seed Trigonocarpus

The transitional fossilRuncaria

Early land plants reproduced in the fashion of ferns: spores germinated into small gametophytes,
which produced eggs and/or sperm. These sperm would swim across moist soils to find the female
organs (archegonia) on the same or another gametophyte, where they would fuse with an egg to
produce an embryo, which would germinate into a sporophyte. [88]
Heterosporic plants, as their name suggests, bear spores of two sizes – microspores and
megaspores. These would germinate to form microgametophytes and megagametophytes,
respectively. This system paved the way for ovules and seeds: taken to the extreme, the
megasporangia could bear only a single megaspore tetrad, and to complete the transition to true
ovules, three of the megaspores in the original tetrad could be aborted, leaving one megaspore per
megasporangium.
The transition to ovules continued with this megaspore being "boxed in" to its sporangium while it
germinates. Then, the megagametophyte is contained within a waterproof integument, which forms
the bulk of the seed. The microgametophyte – a pollen grain which has germinated from a
microspore – is employed for dispersal, only releasing its desiccation-prone sperm when it reaches a
receptive megagametophyte.[6]
Lycopods and sphenopsids got a fair way down the path to the seed habit without ever crossing the
threshold. Fossil lycopod megaspores reaching 1 cm in diameter, and surrounded by vegetative
tissue, are known (Lepidocarpon, Achlamydocarpon);– these even germinate into a
megagametophyte in situ. However, they fall short of being ovules, since the nucellus, an inner
spore-covering layer, does not completely enclose the spore. A very small slit (micropyle) remains,
meaning that the megasporangium is still exposed to the atmosphere. This has two consequences –
firstly, it means it is not fully resistant to desiccation, and secondly, sperm do not have to "burrow" to
access the archegonia of the megaspore. [6]
A Middle Devonian precursor to seed plants from Belgium has been identified predating the
earliest seed plants by about 20 million years. Runcaria, small and radially symmetrical, is an
integumented megasporangium surrounded by a cupule. The megasporangium bears an unopened
distal extension protruding above the multilobed integument. It is suspected that the extension was
involved in anemophilous pollination. Runcaria sheds new light on the sequence of character
acquisition leading to the seed. Runcaria has all of the qualities of seed plants except for a solidseed
coat and a system to guide the pollen to the ovule.[96]
The first spermatophytes (literally: "seed plants") – that is, the first plants to bear true seeds – are
called pteridosperms: literally, "seed ferns", so called because their foliage consisted of fern-like
fronds, although they were not closely related to ferns. The oldest fossil evidence of seed plants is of
Late Devonian age, and they appear to have evolved out of an earlier group known as
theprogymnosperms. These early seed plants ranged from trees to small, rambling shrubs; like most
early progymnosperms, they were woody plants with fern-like foliage. They all bore ovules, but no
cones, fruit or similar. While it is difficult to track the early evolution of seeds, the lineage of the seed
ferns may be traced from the simple trimerophytes through homosporous Aneurophytes.[6]
This seed model is shared by basically all gymnosperms (literally: "naked seeds"), most of which
encase their seeds in a woody cone or fleshy aril (the yew, for example), but none of which fully
enclose their seeds. The angiosperms ("vessel seeds") are the only group to fully enclose the seed,
in a carpel.
Fully enclosed seeds opened up a new pathway for plants to follow: that of seed dormancy. The
embryo, completely isolated from the external atmosphere and hence protected from desiccation,
could survive some years of drought before germinating. Gymnosperm seeds from the Late
Carboniferous have been found to contain embryos, suggesting a lengthy gap between fertilisation
and germination.[97] This period is associated with the entry into a greenhouse earth period, with an
associated increase in aridity. This suggests that dormancy arose as a response to drier climatic
conditions, where it became advantageous to wait for a moist period before germinating. [97] This
evolutionary breakthrough appears to have opened a floodgate: previously inhospitable areas, such
as dry mountain slopes, could now be tolerated, and were soon covered by trees. [97]
Seeds offered further advantages to their bearers: they increased the success rate of fertilised
gametophytes, and because a nutrient store could be "packaged" in with the embryo, the seeds
could germinate rapidly in inhospitable environments, reaching a size where it could fend for itself
more quickly.[88] For example, without an endosperm, seedlings growing in arid environments would
not have the reserves to grow roots deep enough to reach the water table before they expired from
dehydration.[88] Likewise, seeds germinating in a gloomy understory require an additional reserve of
energy to quickly grow high enough to capture sufficient light for self-sustenance. [88] A combination of
these advantages gave seed plants the ecological edge over the previously dominant
genus Archaeopteris, thus increasing the biodiversity of early forests. [88]
Despite these advantages, it is common for fertilized ovules to fail to mature as seeds. [98] Also during
seed dormancy (often associated with unpredictable and stressful conditions) DNA damages
accumulate.[99][100][101] Thus DNA damage appears to be a basic problem for survival of seed plants, just
as DNA damages are a major problem for life in general.[102] (Bernstein and Bernstein, 1991).
Flowers[edit]
For a more ecological discussion on the evolution of flowers, see Flower.
The pollen bearing organs of the early "flower" Crossotheca

Flowers are modified leaves possessed only by the angiosperms, which are relatively late to appear
in the fossil record. The group originated and diversified during the Early Cretaceous and became
ecologically significant thereafter.[103] Flower-like structures first appear in the fossil records some
~130 mya, in the Cretaceous.[104] Colourful and/or pungent structures surround the cones of plants
such as cycads and Gnetales, making a strict definition of the term "flower" elusive. [82]
The main function of a flower is reproduction, which, before the evolution of the flower
and angiosperms, was the job of microsporophylls and megasporophylls. A flower can be
considered a powerful evolutionary innovation, because its presence allowed the plant world to
access new means and mechanisms for reproduction.

The evolution of syncarps.

a: sporangia borne at tips of leaf
b: Leaf curls up to protect sporangia
c: leaf curls to form enclosed roll
d: grouping of three rolls into a syncarp

The flowering plants have long been assumed to have evolved from within the gymnosperms;
according to the traditional morphological view, they are closely allied to the Gnetales. However, as
noted above, recent molecular evidence is at odds with this hypothesis, [78][79]and further suggests that
Gnetales are more closely related to some gymnosperm groups than angiosperms, [77] and
that extantgymnosperms form a distinct clade to the angiosperms, [77][78][79] the two clades diverging
some 300 million years ago.[105]
Further information: Gnetophyta §  Classification
The relationship of stem groups to the angiosperms is important in determining the evolution of
flowers. stem groups provide an insight into the state of earlier "forks" on the path to the current
state. Convergence increases the risk of misidentifying stem groups. Since the protection of
the megagametophyte is evolutionarily desirable, probably many separate groups evolved protective
encasements independently. In flowers, this protection takes the form of a carpel, evolved from a
leaf and recruited into a protective role, shielding the ovules. These ovules are further protected by a
double-walled integument.
Penetration of these protective layers needs something more than a free-
floating microgametophyte. Angiosperms have pollen grains comprising just three cells. One cell is
responsible for drilling down through the integuments, and creating a conduit for the two sperm cells
to flow down. The megagametophyte has just seven cells; of these, one fuses with a sperm cell,
forming the nucleus of the egg itself, and another joins with the other sperm, and dedicates itself to
forming a nutrient-rich endosperm. The other cells take auxiliary roles.[clarification needed] This process of
"double fertilisation" is unique and common to all angiosperms.

The inflorescences of theBennettitales are strikingly similar to flowers

In the fossil record, there are three intriguing groups which bore flower-like structures. The first is
the Permian pteridospermGlossopteris, which already bore recurved leaves resembling carpels.
The Mesozoic Caytonia is more flower-like still, with enclosed ovules – but only a single integument.
Further, details of their pollen and stamens set them apart from true flowering plants.
The Bennettitales bore remarkably flower-like organs, protected by whorls of bracts which may have
played a similar role to the petals and sepals of true flowers; however, these flower-like structures
evolved independently, as the Bennettitales are more closely related tocycads and ginkgos than to
the angiosperms.[106]
However, no true flowers are found in any groups save those extant today. Most morphological and
molecular analyses place Amborella, the nymphaeales andAustrobaileyaceae in a basal clade called
"ANA". This clade appear to have diverged in the early Cretaceous, around 130 million years ago –
around the same time as theearliest fossil angiosperm,[107][108] and just after the first angiosperm-like
pollen, 136 million years ago.[83] The magnoliids diverged soon after, and a rapid radiation had
produced eudicots and monocots by 125 million years ago.[83] By the end of the
Cretaceous 66 million years ago, over 50% of today's angiosperm orders had evolved, and the clade
accounted for 70% of global species.[109] It was around this time that flowering trees became
dominant over conifers [6]:498
The features of the basal "ANA" groups suggest that angiosperms originated in dark, damp,
frequently disturbed areas.[110] It appears that the angiosperms remained constrained to such habitats
throughout the Cretaceous – occupying the niche of small herbs early in the successional series.
[109]
 This may have restricted their initial significance, but given them the flexibility that accounted for
the rapidity of their later diversifications in other habitats. [110]
Phylogeny of anthophytes and gymnosperms, from [106]

Cycads Angiosperms
Gymnosperm
Ginkgo Cycads
s
Conifers Bennettitales
Anthophyte
Bennettitales Ginkgo
s
Gnetales Conifers

Angiosperms Gnetales

Traditional view Modern view

Some propose that the Angiosperms arose from an unknown Seed Fern, Pteridophyte, and view
Cycads as living Seed Ferns with both Seed-Bearing and sterile leaves (Cycas revoluta) [111]
Origins of the flower[edit]

A male flower of Amborella trichopoda. Amborellaceae is considered the sister family of all other flowering
plants.

The family Amborellaceae is regarded as being the sister clade to all other living flowering plants.
The complete genome of Amborella trichopoda is still being sequenced as of March 2012. By
comparing its genome with those of all other living flowering plants, it will be possible to work out the
most likely characteristics of the ancestor of A. trichopodaand all other flowering plants, i.e. the
ancestral flowering plant.[112]
It seems that on the level of the organ, the leaf may be the ancestor of the flower, or at least some
floral organs. When some crucial genes involved in flower development aremutated, clusters of leaf-
like structures arise in place of flowers. Thus, sometime in history, the developmental program
leading to formation of a leaf must have been altered to generate a flower. There probably also
exists an overall robust framework within which the floral diversity has been generated. An example
of that is a gene called LEAFY (LFY), which is involved in flower development in Arabidopsis
thaliana. The homologs of this gene are found in angiosperms as diverse
as tomato, snapdragon, pea, maize and evengymnosperms. Expression of Arabidopsis thaliana LFY
in distant plants like poplar and citrus also results in flower-production in these plants. The LFY gene
regulates the expression of some genes belonging to the MADS-box family. These genes, in turn,
act as direct controllers of flower development. [citation needed]
Evolution of the MADS-box family[edit]
The members of the MADS-box family of transcription factors play a very important and
evolutionarily conserved role in flower development. According to the ABC Model of flower
development, three zones — A,B and C — are generated within the developing flower primordium,
by the action of some transcription factors, that are members of the MADS-boxfamily. Among these,
the functions of the B and C domain genes have been evolutionarily more conserved than the A
domain gene. Many of these genes have arisen through gene duplications of ancestral members of
this family. Quite a few of them show redundant functions.
The evolution of the MADS-box family has been extensively studied. These genes are present even
in pteridophytes, but the spread and diversity is many times higher in angiosperms.[113] There appears
to be quite a bit of pattern into how this family has evolved. Consider the evolution of the C-region
gene AGAMOUS (AG). It is expressed in today's flowers in the stamens, and the carpel, which are
reproductive organs. Its ancestor in gymnosperms also has the same expression pattern. Here, it is
expressed in the strobili, an organ that produces pollen or ovules.[114] Similarly, the B-genes' (AP3
and PI) ancestors are expressed only in the male organs in gymnosperms. Their descendants in the
modern angiosperms also are expressed only in the stamens, the male reproductive organ. Thus,
the same, then-existing components were used by the plants in a novel manner to generate the first
flower. This is a recurring pattern in evolution.
Factors influencing floral diversity[edit]
Wikiversity has bloom
time data for Linaria
vulgaris on the Bloom
Clock

There is enormous variation in the developmental programs of plants. For example, grasses
possess unique floral structures. The carpels and stamens are surrounded by scale-
like lodicules and two bracts: the lemma and the palea. Genetic evidence and morphology suggest
that lodicules are homologous to eudicot petals.[115] The palea and lemma may be homologous to
sepals in other groups, or may be unique grass structures. The genetic evidence is not clear.
Variation in floral structure is typically due to slight changes in the MADS-box genes and their
expression pattern.
Another example is that of Linaria vulgaris, which has two kinds of flower symmetries-
radial and bilateral. These symmetries are due to epigenetic changes in just one gene
called CYCLOIDEA.[116]

Large number of petals in rosesis the result of human selection

Arabidopsis thaliana has a gene called AGAMOUS that plays an important role in defining how
many petals and sepals and other organs are generated. Mutations in this gene give rise to the
floral meristem obtaining an indeterminate fate, and many floral organs keep on getting
produced. Roses, carnations and morning glory, for example, that have very dense floral organs.
These flowers have been selected by horticulturists for increased number of petals. Researchers
have found that the morphology of these flowers is because of strong mutations in
the AGAMOUS homolog in these plants, which leads to them making a large number of petals and
sepals.[117] Several studies on diverse plants likepetunia, tomato, Impatiens, maize etc. have
suggested that the enormous diversity of flowers is a result of small changes in genes controlling
their development.[118]
Some of these changes also cause changes in expression patterns of the developmental genes,
resulting in different phenotypes. The Floral Genome Project looked at the ESTdata from various
tissues of many flowering plants. The researchers confirmed that the ABC Model of flower
development is not conserved across all angiosperms. Sometimes expression domains change, as
in the case of many monocots, and also in some basal angiosperms like Amborella. Different models
of flower development like the Fading boundaries model, or the Overlapping-boundaries
model which propose non-rigid domains of expression, may explain these architectures. [119] There is a
possibility that from the basal to the modern angiosperms, the domains of floral architecture have
gotten more and more fixed through evolution.
Flowering time[edit]
Another floral feature that has been a subject of natural selection is flowering time. Some plants
flower early in their life cycle, others require a period of vernalization before flowering. This outcome
is based on factors like temperature, light intensity, presence of pollinators and other environmental
signals: genes like CONSTANS (CO), Flowering Locus C (FLC) and FRIGIDA regulate integration of
environmental signals into the pathway for flower development. Variations in these loci have been
associated with flowering time variations between plants. For example, Arabidopsis
thaliana ecotypes that grow in the cold, temperate regions require prolonged vernalization before
they flower, while the tropical varieties, and the most common lab strains, don't. This variation is due
to mutations in the FLC and FRIGIDA genes, rendering them non-functional.[120]
Quite a few players in this process are conserved across all the plants studied. Sometimes though,
despite genetic conservation, the mechanism of action turns out to be different. For example, rice is
a short-day plant, while Arabidopsis thaliana is a long-day plant. Now, in both plants, the
proteins CO and FLOWERING LOCUS T (FT) are present. But, in Arabidopsis
thaliana, CO enhances FT production, while in rice, the COhomolog represses FT production,
resulting in completely opposite downstream effects. [121]
Theories of flower evolution[edit]
There are many theories that propose how flowers evolved. Some of them are described below.
The Anthophyte Theory was based on the observation that a gymnospermic group Gnetales has a
flower-like ovule. It has partially developed vessels as found in the angiosperms, and
the megasporangium is covered by three envelopes, like the ovary structure of angiosperm flowers.
However, many other lines of evidence show that Gnetales is not related to angiosperms. [106]
Further information: anthophyta
The Mostly Male Theory has a more genetic basis. Proponents of this theory point out that the
gymnosperms have two very similar copies of the gene LFY, while angiosperms just have
one. Molecular clock analysis has shown that the other LFY paralog was lost in angiosperms around
the same time as flower fossils become abundant, suggesting that this event might have led to floral
evolution.[122] According to this theory, loss of one of the LFY paralog led to flowers that were more
male, with the ovules being expressed ectopically. These ovules initially performed the function of
attracting pollinators, but sometime later, may have been integrated into the core flower.

Evolution of photosynthetic pathways[edit]

The C4 carbon concentrating mechanism

Main article: Evolution of photosynthesis

The C4 metabolic pathway is a valuable recent evolutionary innovation in plants, involving a complex
set of adaptive changes to physiology and gene expressionpatterns.[123]
Photosynthesis is not quite as simple as adding water to CO2 to produce sugars and oxygen. A
complex chemical pathway is involved, facilitated along the way by a range of enzymes and co-
enzymes. The enzyme RuBisCO is responsible for "fixing" CO2 – that is, it attaches it to a carbon-
based molecule to form a sugar, which can be used by the plant, releasing an oxygen molecule
along the way. However, the enzyme is notoriously inefficient, and just as effectively will also fix
oxygen instead of CO2 in a process called photorespiration. This is energetically costly as the plant
has to use energy to turn the products of photorespiration back into a form that can react with CO 2.
Concentrating carbon[edit]
C4 plants evolved carbon concentrating mechanisms. These work by increasing the concentration of
CO2 around RuBisCO, thereby facilitating photosynthesis and decreasing photorespiration. The
process of concentrating CO2 around RuBisCO requires more energy than allowing gases to diffuse,
but under certain conditions – i.e. warm temperatures (>25 °C), low CO2 concentrations, or high
oxygen concentrations – pays off in terms of the decreased loss of sugars through photorespiration.
One type of C4 metabolism employs a so-called Kranz anatomy. This transports CO2 through an
outer mesophyll layer, via a range of organic molecules, to the central bundle sheath cells, where
the CO2 is released. In this way, CO2 is concentrated near the site of RuBisCO operation. Because
RuBisCO is operating in an environment with much more CO2 than it otherwise would be, it performs
more efficiently.
A second mechanism, CAM photosynthesis, temporally separates photosynthesis from the action of
RuBisCO. RuBisCO only operates during the day, when stomata are sealed and CO 2 is provided by
the breakdown of the chemical malate. More CO2 is then harvested from the atmosphere when
stomata open, during the cool, moist nights, reducing water loss.
Evolutionary record[edit]
These two pathways, with the same effect on RuBisCO, evolved a number of times independently –
indeed, C4 alone arose 62 times in 18 different plant families. A number of 'pre-adaptations' seem to
have paved the way for C4, leading to its clustering in certain clades: it has most frequently been
innovated in plants that already had features such as extensive vascular bundle sheath tissue.
[124]
 Many potential evolutionary pathways resulting in the C4 phenotype are possible and have been
characterised using Bayesian inference,[123] confirming that non-photosynthetic adaptations often
provide evolutionary stepping stones for the further evolution of C 4.
The C4 construction is most famously used by a subset of grasses, while CAM is employed by many
succulents and cacti. The trait appears to have emerged during the Oligocene,
around25 to 32 million years ago;[125] however, they did not become ecologically significant until
the Miocene, 6 to 7 million years ago.[126] Remarkably, some charcoalified fossils preserve tissue
organised into the Kranz anatomy, with intact bundle sheath cells, [127] allowing the presence
C4 metabolism to be identified without doubt at this time. Isotopic markers are used to deduce their
distribution and significance. C3 plants preferentially use the lighter of two isotopes of carbon in the
atmosphere, 12C, which is more readily involved in the chemical pathways involved in its fixation.
Because C4 metabolism involves a further chemical step, this effect is accentuated. Plant material
can be analysed to deduce the ratio of the heavier 13C to 12C. This ratio is denoted δ13C. C3 plants are
on average around 14‰ (parts per thousand) lighter than the atmospheric ratio, while C 4 plants are
about 28‰ lighter. The δ13C of CAM plants depends on the percentage of carbon fixed at night
relative to what is fixed in the day, being closer to C3 plants if they fix most carbon in the day and
closer to C4 plants if they fix all their carbon at night.[128]
It's troublesome procuring original fossil material in sufficient quantity to analyse the grass itself, but
fortunately there is a good proxy: horses. Horses were globally widespread in the period of interest,
and browsed almost exclusively on grasses. There's an old phrase in isotope palæontology, "you are
what you eat (plus a little bit)" – this refers to the fact that organisms reflect the isotopic composition
of whatever they eat, plus a small adjustment factor. There is a good record of horse teeth
throughout the globe, and their δ13C has been measured. The record shows a sharp negative
inflection around 6 to 7 million years ago, during the Messinian, and this is interpreted as the rise of
C4 plants on a global scale.[126]
When is C4 an advantage?[edit]
While C4 enhances the efficiency of RuBisCO, the concentration of carbon is highly energy intensive.
This means that C4 plants only have an advantage over C3 organisms in certain conditions: namely,
high temperatures and low rainfall. C4 plants also need high levels of sunlight to thrive. [129] Models
suggest that, without wildfires removing shade-casting trees and shrubs, there would be no space
for C4 plants.[130] But, wildfires have occurred for 400 million years – why did C4 take so long to arise,
and then appear independently so many times? The Carboniferous (~300 million years ago) had
notoriously high oxygen levels – almost enough to allow spontaneous combustion[131] – and very low
CO2, but there is no C4 isotopic signature to be found. And there doesn't seem to be a sudden trigger
for the Miocene rise.
During the Miocene, the atmosphere and climate were relatively stable. If anything, CO 2 increased
gradually from 14 to 9 million years ago before settling down to concentrations similar to the
Holocene.[132] This suggests that it did not have a key role in invoking C4 evolution.[125] Grasses
themselves (the group which would give rise to the most occurrences of C 4) had probably been
around for 60 million years or more, so had had plenty of time to evolve C4,[133][134] which, in any case,
is present in a diverse range of groups and thus evolved independently. There is a strong signal of
climate change in South Asia;[125] increasing aridity – hence increasing fire frequency and intensity –
may have led to an increase in the importance of grasslands. [135] However, this is difficult to reconcile
with the North American record.[125] It is possible that the signal is entirely biological, forced by the
fire- (and elephant?)-[136] driven acceleration of grass evolution – which, both by increasing
weathering and incorporating more carbon into sediments, reduced atmospheric CO 2 levels.
[136]
 Finally, there is evidence that the onset of C4 from 9 to 7 million years ago is a biased signal,
which only holds true for North America, from where most samples originate; emerging evidence
suggests that grasslands evolved to a dominant state at least 15Ma earlier in South America.

Evolution of transcriptional regulation[edit]

Transcription factors and transcriptional regulatory networks play key roles in plant development and
stress responses, as well as their evolution. During plant landing, many novel transcription factor
families emerged and are preferentially wired into the networks of multicellular development,
reproduction, and organ development, contributing to more complex morphogenesis of land plants.
[137]

Evolution of secondary metabolism[edit]

Structure of Azadirachtin, a terpenoid produced by the Neem plant, which helps ward off microbes and insects.
Many secondary metabolites have complex structures

Secondary metabolites are essentially low molecular weight compounds, sometimes having complex

structures. They function in processes as diverse as immunity, anti-
herbivory, pollinator attraction, communication between plants, maintaining symbiotic associations
with soil flora, enhancing the rate of fertilization etc., and hence are significant from the evo-devo
perspective. The structural and functional diversity of these secondary metabolites across the plant
kingdom is vast; it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of enzymes might be involved in this
process in the entire of the plant kingdom, with about 15–25% of the genome coding for these
enzymes, and every species having its unique arsenal of secondary metabolites. [138] Many of these
metabolites are of enormous medical significance to humans.
What is the purpose of having so many secondary metabolites being produced, with a significant
chunk of the metabolome devoted to this activity? It is hypothesized that most of these chemicals
help in generating immunity and, in consequence, the diversity of these metabolites is a result of a
constant war between plants and their parasites. There is evidence that this may be true in many
cases. The big question here is the reproductive cost involved in maintaining such an impressive
inventory. Various models have been suggested that probe into this aspect of the question, but a
consensus on the extent of the cost is lacking. [139] We still cannot predict whether a plant with more
secondary metabolites would be better off than other plants in its vicinity.
Secondary metabolite production seems to have arisen quite early during evolution. In plants, they
seem to have spread out using mechanisms including gene duplications, evolution of novel genes
etc. Furthermore, studies have shown that diversity in some of these compounds may be positively
selected for.
Although the role of novel gene evolution in the evolution of secondary metabolism cannot be
denied, there are several examples where new metabolites have been formed by small changes in
the reaction. For example, cyanogen glycosides have been proposed to have evolved multiple times
in different plant lineages. There are several such instances of convergent evolution. For example,
enzymes for synthesis of limonene – a terpene – are more similar between angiosperms and
gymnosperms than to their own terpene synthesis enzymes. This suggests independent evolution of
the limonene biosynthetic pathway in these two lineages. [140]

Mechanisms and players in evolution of plant form[edit]

The stem-loop secondary structureof a pre-microRNA from Brassica oleracea

While environmental factors are significantly responsible for evolutionary change, they act merely as
agents for natural selection. Change is inherently brought about via phenomena at the genetic level
- mutations, chromosomal rearrangements and epigenetic changes. While the general types
of mutations hold true across the living world, in plants, some other mechanisms have been
implicated as highly significant.
Genome doubling is a relatively common occurrence in plant evolution and results in polyploidy,
which is consequently a common feature in plants. It is believed that at least half (and probably all)
plants have seen genome doubling in their history. Genome doubling entails gene duplication, thus
generating functional redundancy in most genes. The duplicated genes may attain new function,
either by changes in expression pattern or changes in activity. Polyploidy and gene duplication are
believed to be among the most powerful forces in evolution of plant form; though it is not known
why genome doubling is such a frequent process in plants. One probable reason is the production of
large amounts of secondary metabolites in plant cells. Some of them might interfere in the normal
process of chromosomal segregation, causing genome duplication.
Left: teosinte, Right:maize, middle: maize-teosinte hybrid

In recent times, plants have been shown to possess significant microRNA families, which are
conserved across many plant lineages. In comparison to animals, while the number of plant miRNA
families are lesser than animals, the size of each family is much larger. The miRNA genes are also
much more spread out in the genome than those in animals, where they are more clustered. It has
been proposed that these miRNA families have expanded by duplications of chromosomal regions.
[141]
 Many miRNA genes involved in regulation of plant development have been found to be quite
conserved between plants studied.
Domestication of plants like maize, rice, barley, wheat etc. has also been a significant driving force in
their evolution. Some studies have tried to look at the origins of the maize plant and it turns out that
maize is a domesticated derivative of a wild plant from Mexico called teosinte. Teosinte belongs to
the genus Zea, just as maize, but bears very small inflorescence, 5-10 hard cobs and a highly
branched and spread out stem.

Cauliflower – Brassica oleracea var. botrytis

Interestingly, crosses between a particular teosinte variety and maize yields fertile offspring that are
intermediate in phenotype between maize and teosinte.QTL analysis has also revealed some loci
that, when mutated in maize, yield a teosinte-like stem or teosinte-like cobs. Molecular clock analysis
of these genes estimates their origins to some 9,000 years ago, well in accordance with other
records of maize domestication. It is believed that a small group of farmers must have selected
some maize-like natural mutant of teosinte some 9,000 years ago in Mexico, and subjected it to
continuous selection to yield the familiar maize plant of today. [142]
Another interesting case is that of cauliflower. The edible cauliflower is a domesticated version of the
wild plant Brassica oleracea, which does not possess the dense undifferentiatedinflorescence, called
the curd, that cauliflower possesses.

Wikispecies has
information related
to: Brassicaceae

Cauliflower possesses a single mutation in a gene called CAL, controlling meristem differentiation

into inflorescence. This causes the cells at the floral meristem to gain an undifferentiated identity
and, instead of growing into a flower, they grow into a lump of undifferentiated cells.[143] This mutation
has been selected through domestication since at least the Greek empire.

Coevolution of Plants and Fungal Parasites[edit]

An additional contributing factor in some plants leading to evolutionary change is the force due to
coevolution with fungal parasites. In an environment with a fungal parasite, which is common in
nature, the plants must make adaptation in an attempt to evade the harmful effects of the parasite. [144]
Whenever a parasitic fungus is siphoning limited resources away from a plant, there is selective
pressure for a phenotype that is better able to prevent parasitic attack from fungi. At the same time,
fungi that are better equipped to evade the defenses of the plant will have greater fitness level. The
combination of these two factors leads to an endless cycle of evolutionary change in the host-
pathogen system.[145]
Because each species in the relationship is influenced by a constantly changing symbiont,
evolutionary change usually occurs at a faster pace than if the other species was not present. This is
true of most instances of coevolution. This makes the ability of a population to quickly evolve vital to
its survival. Also, if the pathogenic species is too successful and threatens the survival and
reproductive success of the host plants, the pathogenic fungi risk losing their nutrient source for
future generations. These factors create a dynamic that shapes the evolutionary changes in both
species generation after generation.[145]
Genes that code for defense mechanisms in plants must keep changing to keep up with the parasite
that constantly works to evade the defenses. Genes that code for attachment mechanisms are the
most dynamic and are directly related to the evading ability of the fungi. [146] The greater the changes
in these genes, the more change in the attachment mechanism. After selective forces on the
resulting phenotypes, evolutionary change that promotes evasion of host defenses occurs.
Fungi not only evolve to avoid the defenses of the plants, but they also attempt to prevent the plant
from enacting the mechanisms to improve its defenses. Anything the fungi can do to slow the
evolution process of the host plants will improve the fitness of future generations because the plant
will not be able to keep up with the evolutionary changes of the parasite. One of the main processes
by which plants quickly evolve in response to the environment is sexual reproduction. Without sexual
reproduction, advantageous traits could not be spread through the plant population as quickly
allowing the fungi to gain a competitive advantage. For this reason, the sexual reproductive organs
of plants are targets for attacks by fungi. Studies have shown that many different current types of
obligate parasitic plant fungi have developed mechanisms to disable or otherwise affect the sexual
reproduction of the plants. If successful, the sexual reproduction process slows for the plant, thus
slowing down evolutionary change or in extreme cases, the fungi can render the plant sterile
creating an advantage for the pathogens. It is unknown exactly how this adaptive trait developed in
fungi, but it is clear that the relationship to the plant forced the development of the process. [147]
Some researchers are also studying how a range of factors affect the rate of evolutionary change
and the outcomes of change in different environments. For example, as with most evolution,
increases in heritability in a population allow for a greater evolutionary response in the presence of
selective pressure. For traits specific to the plant-fungi coevolution, researchers have studied how
the virulence of the invading pathogen affects the coevolution. Studies involving Mycosphaerella
graminicola have consistently showed that virulence of a pathogen does not have a significant
impact on the evolutionary track of the host plant. [148]
There can be other factors in that can affect the process of coevolution. For example, in small
populations, selection is a relatively weaker force on the population due to genetic drift. Genetic drift
increases the likelihood of having fixed alleles which decreases the genetic variance in the
population. Therefore, if there is only a small population of plants in an area with the ability to
reproduce together, genetic drift may counteract the effects of selection putting the plant in a
disadvantageous position to fungi which can evolve at a normal rate. The variance in both the host
and pathogen population is a major determinant of evolutionary success compared to the other
species. The greater the genetic variance, the faster the species can evolve to counteract the other
organism’s avoidance or defensive mechanisms.[149]
Due to the process of pollination for plants, the effective population size is normally larger than for
fungi because pollinators can link isolated populations in a way that the fungus is not able. This
means positive traits that evolve in non-adjacent but close areas can be passed to nearby areas.
Fungi must individually evolve to evade host defenses in each area. This is obviously a clear
competitive advantage for the host plants. Sexual reproduction with a broad, high variance
population leads to fast evolutionary change and higher reproductive success of offspring. [150]
Environment and climate patterns also play a role in evolutionary outcomes. Studies with oak trees
and an obligate fungal parasite at different altitudes clearly show this distinction. For the same
species, different altitudinal positions had drastically different rates of evolution and changes in the
response to the pathogens due to the organism also in a selective environment due to their
surroundings.[151]
Coevolution is a process that is related to the red queen hypothesis. Both the host plant and
parasitic fungi have to continue to survive to stay in their ecological niche. If one of the two species
in the relationship evolves at a significantly faster rate than the other, the slower species will be at a
competitive disadvantage and risk the loss of nutrients. Because the two species in the system are
so closely linked, they respond to external environment factors together and each species affects the
evolutionary outcome of the other. In other words, each species exerts selective pressure on the
other. Population size is also a major factor in the outcome because differences in gene flow and
genetic drift could cause evolutionary changes that do not match the direction of selection expected
by forces due to the other organism. Coevolution is an important phenomenon necessary for
understanding the vital relationship between plants and their fungal parasites.

See also[edit]

 Plants portal
Plants

 Flora
 Plant
General evolution

 Evolutionary history of life

 Timeline of plant evolution
Study of plants

 Cryptospores
 Paleobotany
 Plant evolutionary developmental biology
Plant interactions

 Evolution of herbivory
 Plant defense against herbivory
References[edit]
1. Jump up^ T. Cavalier Smith 2007, Evolution and relationships of
algae major branches of the tree of life. from: Unravelling the algae, by
Brodie & Lewis. CRC Press
2. Jump up^ Tereza Ševčíková et al 2015. Updating algal evolutionary
relationships through plastid genome sequencing. Scientific Reports 5,
Article number: 10134 (2015) doi:10.1038/srep10134
3. Jump up^ Theodor Cole & Hartmut Hilger 2013 Bryophyte Phylogeny
4. Jump up^ Theodor Cole & Hartmut Hilger 2013 Trachaeophyte
Phylogeny
5. Jump up^ Theodor Cole & Hartmut Hilger 2015 Angiosperm
Phylogeny, Flowering Plant Systematics. Freie Universität Berlin
6. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Stewart, W.N.; Rothwell, G.W.
(1993).Paleobotany and the evolution of plants  (2 ed.). Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 0-521-23315-1.
7. Jump up^ Wellman, Charles H.; Osterloff, Peter L.; Mohiuddin, Uzma
(2003). "Fragments of the earliest land plants". Nature  425: 282–
285.doi:10.1038/nature01884. PMID 13679913.
8. Jump up^ Barton, Nicholas  (2007). Evolution. pp.  273–
274.ISBN 9780199226320. Retrieved September 30, 2012.
9. Jump up^ Rothwell, G. W.; Scheckler, S. E.; Gillespie, W. H. (1989).
"Elkinsiagen. nov., a Late Devonian gymnosperm with cupulate
ovules".Botanical Gazette 150 (2): 170–189. doi:10.1086/337763.
10. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Raven, J.A.; Edwards, D. (2001).  "Roots:
evolutionary origins and biogeochemical significance".  Journal of
Experimental Botany 52 (90001): 381–
401.doi:10.1093/jexbot/52.suppl_1.381. PMID 11326045.
11. Jump up^ Clarke, J. T.; Warnock, R. C. M.; Donoghue, P. C. J.
(2011). "Establishing a time-scale for plant evolution". New
Phytologist 192 (1): 266–301. doi:10.1111/j.1469-
8137.2011.03794.x.  PMID  21729086.
12. ^ Jump up to:a b P. Kenrick, P.R. Crane (1997) (1997). The origin and early
diversification of land plants. A cladistic study. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington & London. Washington: Smithsonian Inst.
Press.ISBN  1-56098-729-4.
13. Jump up^ Heckman, D. S.; Geiser, D. M.; Eidell, B. R.; Stauffer, R.
L.; Kardos, N. L.; Hedges, S. B. (Aug 2001). "Molecular evidence for
the early colonization of land by fungi and
plants". Science  293  (5532): 1129–
1133.  doi:10.1126/science.1061457. ISSN 0036-8075.PMID 1149858
9.
14. Jump up^ Battison, Leila; Brasier, Martin D. (August
2009). "Exceptional Preservation of Early Terrestrial Communities in
Lacustrine Phosphate One Billion Years Ago"  (PDF). In Smith, Martin
R.; O'Brien, Lorna J.; Caron, Jean-Bernard. Abstract
Volume. International Conference on the Cambrian Explosion (Walcott
2009). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: The Burgess Shale Consortium
(published 31 July 2009). ISBN 978-0-9812885-1-2.
15. Jump up^ Knauth, L. P.; Kennedy, M. J. (2009). "The late
Precambrian greening of the Earth". Nature  460: 728–
32.  Bibcode:2009Natur.460..728K.doi:10.1038/nature08213.  PMID  19
587681.
16. Jump up^ Battistuzzi, F. U.; Feijao, A.; Hedges, S. B. (2004).  "A
genomic timescale of prokaryote evolution: insights into the origin of
methanogenesis, phototrophy, and the colonization of land". BMC
Evolutionary Biology 4: 44.  doi:10.1186/1471-2148-4-
44.PMC  533871.  PMID  15535883.
17. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Gray, J.; Chaloner, W. G.; Westoll, T. S. (1985). "The
Microfossil Record of Early Land Plants: Advances in Understanding
of Early Terrestrialization, 1970-1984".  Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society B  309  (1138): 167–
195.Bibcode:1985RSPTB.309..167G. doi:10.1098/rstb.1985.0077.JS
TOR 2396358.
18. Jump up^ Wellman, C. H.; Gray, J. (2000).  "The microfossil record of
early land plants".  Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences 355 (1398): 717–
732.  doi:10.1098/rstb.2000.0612.PMC 1692785. PMID 10905606.
19. Jump up^ Rubinstein, C. V.; Gerrienne, P.; De La Puente, G. S.;
Astini, R. A.; Steemans, P. (2010). "Early Middle Ordovician evidence
for land plants in Argentina (eastern Gondwana)".  New
Phytologist 188 (2): 365–369.doi:10.1111/j.1469-
8137.2010.03433.x.  PMID  20731783.
20. Jump up^ Wellman, C. H.; Osterloff, P. L.; Mohiuddin, U. (2003).
"Fragments of the earliest land plants".  Nature 425 (6955): 282–
285.Bibcode:2003Natur.425..282W.  doi:10.1038/nature01884.PMID 1
3679913.
21. Jump up^ Steemans, P.; Lepota K.; Marshallb, C.P.; Le Hérisséc, A.;
Javauxa, E.J. (2010).  "FTIR characterisation of the chemical
composition of Silurian miospores (cryptospores and trilete spores)
from Gotland, Sweden". Review of Palaeobotany and
Palynology 162 (4): 577–590.doi:10.1016/j.revpalbo.2010.07.006.
22. Jump up^ Kump, L. R.; Pavlov, A.; Arthur, M. A. (2005). "Massive
release of hydrogen sulfide to the surface ocean and atmosphere
during intervals of oceanic anoxia". Geology  33  (5):
397.Bibcode:2005Geo....33..397K. doi:10.1130/G21295.1.
23. Jump up^ Butterfield, N. J. (2009). "Oxygen, animals and oceanic
ventilation: An alternative view".  Geobiology  7 (1): 1–
7. doi:10.1111/j.1472-4669.2009.00188.x.  PMID  19200141.
24. Jump up^ Steemans, P.; Herisse, L.; Melvin, J.; Miller, A.; Paris, F.;
Verniers, J.; Wellman, H. (Apr 2009). "Origin and Radiation of the
Earliest Vascular Land Plants".  Science 324 (5925): 353–
353.Bibcode:2009Sci...324..353S.  doi:10.1126/science.1169659.ISSN 
0036-8075.  PMID  19372423.
25. Jump up^ Tomescu, A. M. F. (2006). "Wetlands before
tracheophytes: Thalloid terrestrial communities of the Early Silurian
Passage Creek biota (Virginia)"  (PDF). Wetlands Through
Time.doi:10.1130/2006.2399(02) (inactive 2015-04-
06).ISBN 9780813723990. Retrieved 2014-05-28.
26. Jump up^ Tomescu, A. M. F.; Honegger, R.; Rothwell, G. W. (2008).
"Earliest fossil record of bacterial–cyanobacterial mat consortia: the
early Silurian Passage Creek biota (440 Ma, Virginia,
USA)".  Geobiology  6(2): 120–124.  doi:10.1111/j.1472-
4669.2007.00143.x.PMID 18380874.
27. Jump up^ Scott, C.; Glasspool, J. (Jul 2006). "The diversification of
Paleozoic fire systems and fluctuations in atmospheric oxygen
concentration"(Free full text).  Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America  103  (29): 10861–
 10865.Bibcode:2006PNAS..10310861S.  doi:10.1073/pnas.060409010
3.ISSN  0027-8424. PMC  1544139.  PMID  16832054.
28. Jump up^ Bernstein, H; Byers, GS; Michod, RE (1981). "Evolution of
sexual reproduction: Importance of DNA repair, complementation, and
variation". The American Naturalist  117  (4): 537–
549.doi:10.1086/283734.
29. Jump up^ Michod, RE; Gayley, TW (1992). "Masking of mutations
and the evolution of sex".  The American Naturalist 139 (4): 706–
734.doi:10.1086/285354.
30. Jump up^ Szövényi, Péter; Ricca, Mariana; Hock, Zsófia; Shaw,
Jonathan A.; Shimizu, Kentaro K. & Wagner, Andreas (2013).
"Selection is no more efficient in haploid than in diploid life stages of
an angiosperm and a moss". Molecular Biology and Evolution  30:
1929–39.doi:10.1093/molbev/mst095. PMID 23686659.
31. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Boyce, C. K. (2008). "How green was  Cooksonia? The
importance of size in understanding the early evolution of physiology
in the vascular plant lineage".  Paleobiology 34 (2): 179–
194.doi:10.1666/0094-8373(2008)034[0179:HGWCTI]2.0.CO;2.ISSN 
0094-8373.
32. Jump up^ Kerp, H., Trewin, N. H. & Hass, H. (2004). "New
gametophytes from the Early Devonian Rhynie chert". Transactions of
the Royal Society of Edinburgh 94: 411–
428.  doi:10.1017/s026359330000078x.
33. Jump up^ Taylor, T. N., Kerp, H. & Hass, H. (2005).  "Life history
biology of early land plants: deciphering the gametophyte
phase".  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America  102(16): 5892–
5897.  Bibcode:2005PNAS..102.5892T.doi:10.1073/pnas.0501985102. 
PMC  556298.  PMID  15809414.
34. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ahSperry, J. S.
(2003). "Evolution of Water Transport and Xylem
Structure". International Journal of Plant Sciences 164 (3): S115–
S127.doi:10.1086/368398. JSTOR 3691719.
35. Jump up^ Edwards, D.; Davies, K.L.; Axe, L. (1992). "A vascular
conducting strand in the early land
plant  Cooksonia". Nature  357  (6380): 683–
685.Bibcode:1992Natur.357..683E.  doi:10.1038/357683a0.
36. Jump up^ Niklas, K. J.; Smocovitis, V. (1983). "Evidence for a
Conducting Strand in Early Silurian (Llandoverian) Plants: Implications
for the Evolution of the Land Plants".  Paleobiology 9  (2): 126–
137.doi:10.2307/2400461. JSTOR 2400461.
37. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h Niklas, K. J. (1985). "The Evolution of Tracheid
Diameter in Early Vascular Plants and Its Implications on the
Hydraulic Conductance of the Primary Xylem
Strand".  Evolution 39 (5): 1110–
1122.  doi:10.2307/2408738.  JSTOR  2408738.
38. Jump up^ Niklas, K.; Pratt, L. (1980). "Evidence for lignin-like
constituents in Early Silurian (Llandoverian) plant
fossils".  Science 209 (4454): 396–
397.  Bibcode:1980Sci...209..396N.doi:10.1126/science.209.4454.396. 
PMID 17747811.
39. Jump up^ Qiu, Y.L.; Li, L.; Wang, B.; Chen, Z.; Knoop, V.; Groth-
malonek, M.; Dombrovska, O.; Lee, J.; Kent, L.; Rest, J.; et al.
(2006).  "The deepest divergences in land plants inferred from
phylogenomic evidence".Proceedings of the National Academy of
 Sciences 103 (42): 15511–
6.Bibcode:2006PNAS..10315511Q. doi:10.1073/pnas.0603335103.P
MC  1622854.  PMID  17030812.
40. Jump up^ Zosterophyllophytes
41. Jump up^ Pittermann J.; Sperry J.S.; Hacke U.G.; Wheeler J.K.;
Sikkema E.H. (December 2005). "Torus-Margo Pits Help Conifers
Compete with Angiosperms".  Science Magazine  310  (5756):
1924.doi:10.1126/science.1120479.
42. Jump up^ Why Christmas trees are not extinct
43. Jump up^ Crane and Kenrick; Kenrick, Paul (1997). "Diverted
development of reproductive organs: A source of morphological
innovation in land plants". Plant System. And Evol.  206  (1): 161–
174.doi:10.1007/BF00987946.
44. Jump up^ Zimmermann, W. (1959).  Die Phylogenie der Pflanzen (2
ed.). Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag.
45. Jump up^ Piazza P; et al. (2005).  "Evolution of leaf developmental
mechanisms". New Phytol.  167  (3): 693–710.  doi:10.1111/j.1469-
8137.2005.01466.x.  PMID  16101907.
46. Jump up^ Hagemann, W. 1976. Sind Farne Kormophyten? Eine
Alternative zur Telomtheorie. Plant Systematics and Evolution 124:
251-277.
47. Jump up^ Hagemann, W. 1999. Towards an organismic concept of
land plants: the marginal blastozone and the development of the
vegetation body of selected frondose gametophytes of liverworts and
ferns. Planr Systematics and Evolution 216: 81-133.
48. Jump up^ Sattler, R. 1992. Process morphology: structural dynamics
in development and evolution. Canadian Journal of Botany 70: 708-
714.
49. Jump up^ Sattler, R. 1998. On the origin of symmetry, branching and
phyllotaxis in land plants. In: R.V. Jean and D. Barabé (eds) Symmetry
in Plants. World Scientific, Singapore, pp. 775-793.
50. Jump up^ James, P.J. 2009. 'Tree and Leaf': A different angle. The
Linnean 25, p. 17.
51. Jump up^ Beerling D.; et al. (2001). "Evolution of leaf-form in land
plants linked to atmospheric CO2 decline in the Late Palaeozoic
era". Nature  410(6826): 352–
354.  doi:10.1038/35066546.  PMID  11268207.
52. Jump up^ A perspective on the CO2 theory of early leaf evolution
53. Jump up^ Rickards, R.B. (2000). "The age of the earliest club
mosses: the Silurian Baragwanathia flora in Victoria,
Australia"  (abstract).Geological Magazine 137 (2): 207–
209.doi:10.1017/S0016756800003800. Retrieved 2007-10-25.
54. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Kaplan, D.R. (2001). "The Science of Plant
Morphology: Definition, History, and Role in Modern
Biology". American Journal of Botany  88  (10): 1711–
1741.  doi:10.2307/3558347.JSTOR 3558347. PMID 21669604.
55. Jump up^ Taylor, T.N.; Hass, H.; Kerp, H.; Krings, M.; Hanlin, R.T.
(2005)."Perithecial ascomycetes from the 400 million year old Rhynie
chert: an example of ancestral
polymorphism"  (abstract).  Mycologia  97  (1): 269–
285.  doi:10.3852/mycologia.97.1.269. PMID 16389979.
Retrieved2008-04-07.
56. ^ Jump up to:      Boyce, C.K.; Knoll, A.H. (2002). "Evolution of
a b c

developmental potential and the multiple independent origins of leaves

in Paleozoic vascular plants". Paleobiology  28  (1): 70–
100.  doi:10.1666/0094-8373(2002)028<0070:EODPAT>2.0.CO;2. ISS
N 0094-8373.
57. Jump up^ Hao, S.; Beck, C.B.; Deming, W. (2003). "Structure of the
Earliest Leaves: Adaptations to High Concentrations of Atmospheric
CO2".International Journal of Plant Sciences  164  (1): 71–
75.doi:10.1086/344557.
58. Jump up^ Berner, R.A.; Kothavala, Z. (2001).  "Geocarb III: A Revised
Model of Atmospheric CO2  over Phanerozoic
Time"  (abstract).  American Journal of Science  301  (2): 182–
204.  doi:10.2475/ajs.301.2.182. Retrieved2008-04-07.
59. Jump up^ Beerling, D.J.; Osborne, C.P.; Chaloner, W.G. (2001).
"Evolution of leaf-form in land plants linked to atmospheric CO2
decline in the Late Palaeozoic era".  Nature 410 (6826): 287–
394.doi:10.1038/35066546. PMID 11268207.
60. Jump up^ Taylor, T.N.; Taylor, E.L. (1993). "The biology and
evolution of fossil plants".
61. Jump up^ Shellito, C.J.; Sloan, L.C. (2006). "Reconstructing a lost
Eocene paradise: Part I. Simulating the change in global floral
distribution at the initial Eocene thermal maximum". Global and
Planetary Change50  (1–2): 1–
17.  Bibcode:2006GPC....50....1S.doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2005.08.001
. Retrieved 2008-04-08.
62. Jump up^ Aerts, R. (1995). "The advantages of being
evergreen".  Trends in Ecology & Evolution  10  (10): 402–
407.  doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(00)89156-9.
63. Jump up^ Labandeira, C.C.; Dilcher, D.L.; Davis, D.R.; Wagner, D.L.
(1994)."Ninety-seven million years of angiosperm-insect association:
paleobiological insights into the meaning of coevolution".Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 91 (25): 12278–
12282. Bibcode:1994PNAS...9112278L.doi:10.1073/pnas.91.25.1227
8. PMC  45420.  PMID  11607501.
64. Jump up^ Brown V; et al. (1991). "Herbivory and the Evolution of
Leaf Size and Shape". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B 333 (1267): 265–272.  doi:10.1098/rstb.1991.0076.
65. Jump up^ Harrison C. J.; et al. (2005). "Independent recruitment of a
conserved developmental mechanism during leaf
evolution". Nature  434  (7032): 509–
514.  Bibcode:2005Natur.434..509H.doi:10.1038/nature03410.  PMID 
15791256.
66. Jump up^ Jackson D.; Hake S. (1999). "Control of Phyllotaxy in
Maize by the ABPHYL1 Gene". Development  126  (2): 315–
323.  PMID  9847245.
67. Jump up^ Cronk Q. (2001). "Plant evolution and development in a
post-genomic context". Nature Reviews Genetics  2 (8): 607–
619.doi:10.1038/35084556. PMID 11483985.
68. Jump up^ Tattersall; et al. (2005).  "The Mutant crispa Reveals
Multiple Roles for PHANTASTICA in Pea Compound Leaf
Development".  Plant Cell17 (4): 1046–
1060.  doi:10.1105/tpc.104.029447. PMC  1087985.PMID 15749758.
69. Jump up^ Bharathan and Sinha; Sinha, NR (Dec 2001). "The
Regulation of Compound Leaf Development".  Plant Physiol.  127  (4):
1533–1538.doi:10.1104/pp.010867.  PMC 1540187. PMID 11743098.
70. Jump up^ Nath U; et al. (2003). "Genetic Control of Surface
Curvature".Science 299 (5611): 1404–
1407.  doi:10.1126/science.1079354.PMID  12610308.
71. Jump up^ Boyce, K.C.; Hotton, C.L.; Fogel, M.L.; Cody, G.D.; Hazen,
R.M.; Knoll, A.H.; Hueber, F.M. (May 2007).  "Devonian landscape
heterogeneity recorded by a giant fungus"  (PDF). Geology  35  (5):
399–402. Bibcode:2007Geo....35..399B. doi:10.1130/G23384A.1.
72. Jump up^ Stein, W.E.; Mannolini, F.; Hernick, L.V.; Landing, E.;
Berry, C.M. (2007). "Giant cladoxylopsid trees resolve the enigma of
the Earth's earliest forest stumps at Gilboa". Nature  446  (7138): 904–
7.Bibcode:2007Natur.446..904S. doi:10.1038/nature05705.PMID  174
43185.
73. Jump up^ Retallack, G.J.; Catt, J.A.; Chaloner, W.G. (1985). "Fossil
Soils as Grounds for Interpreting the Advent of Large Plants and
Animals on Land [and Discussion]". Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B 309 (1138): 105–
142.  Bibcode:1985RSPTB.309..105R.doi:10.1098/rstb.1985.0074.  JS
TOR 2396355.
74. Jump up^ Dannenhoffer, J.M.; Bonamo, P.M. (1989). "Rellimia
thomsonii from the Givetian of New York: Secondary Growth in Three
Orders of Branching". American Journal of Botany  76  (9): 1312–
1325.doi:10.2307/2444557. JSTOR 2444557.
75. Jump up^ Davis, P; Kenrick, P. (2004). Fossil Plants. Smithsonian
Books, Washington D.C.  ISBN  1-58834-156-9.
76. Jump up^ Donoghue, M.J. (2005). "Key innovations, convergence,
and success: macroevolutionary lessons from plant
phylogeny"  (abstract).Paleobiology  31  (2): 77–93.  doi:10.1666/0094-
8373(2005)031[0077:KICASM]2.0.CO;2.  ISSN  0094-8373.
Retrieved 2008-04-07.
77. ^ Jump up to:a b c Bowe, L.M.; Coat, G.; Depamphilis, C.W.
(2000).  "Phylogeny of seed plants based on all three genomic
compartments: Extant gymnosperms are monophyletic and Gnetales'
closest relatives are conifers".  Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences  97  (8): 4092–
7. Bibcode:2000PNAS...97.4092B.doi:10.1073/pnas.97.8.4092. PMC 
18159. PMID 10760278.
78. ^ Jump up to:a b c Chaw, S.M.; Parkinson, C.L.; Cheng, Y.; Vincent, T.M.;
Palmer, J.D. (2000).  "Seed plant phylogeny inferred from all three
plant genomes: Monophyly of extant gymnosperms and origin of
Gnetales from conifers".  Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 97(8): 4086–
91.  Bibcode:2000PNAS...97.4086C.doi:10.1073/pnas.97.8.4086.  PM
C 18157. PMID 10760277.
79. ^ Jump up to:a b c Soltis, D.E.; Soltis, P.S.;  Zanis, M.J.  (2002). "Phylogeny
of seed plants based on evidence from eight
genes"  (abstract). American Journal of Botany  89  (10): 1670–
81.  doi:10.3732/ajb.89.10.1670.PMID 21665594. Retrieved  2008-04-
08.
80. Jump up^ Friis, E.M.; Pedersen, K.R.; Crane, P.R. (2006).
"Cretaceous angiosperm flowers: Innovation and evolution in plant
reproduction".Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,
 Palaeoecology  232  (2–4): 251–
293.  doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2005.07.006.
81. Jump up^ Hilton, J.; Bateman, R.M. (2006). "Pteridosperms are the
backbone of seed-plant phylogeny". The Journal of the Torrey
Botanical Society 133(1): 119–168.  doi:10.3159/1095-
5674(2006)133[119:PATBOS]2.0.CO;2. ISSN 1095-5674.
82. ^ Jump up to:a b Bateman, R.M.; Hilton, J.; Rudall, P.J. (2006).
"Morphological and molecular phylogenetic context of the
angiosperms: contrasting the 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' approaches
used to infer the likely characteristics of the first flowers". Journal of
Experimental Botany 57(13): 3471–
503.  doi:10.1093/jxb/erl128. PMID 17056677.
83. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Frohlich, M.W.; Chase, M.W. (2007). "After a dozen
years of progress the origin of angiosperms is still a great
mystery".  Nature 450(7173): 1184–
9. Bibcode:2007Natur.450.1184F.doi:10.1038/nature06393. PMID 18
097399.
84. Jump up^ Mora, C.I.; Driese, S.G.; Colarusso, L.A. (1996). "Middle to
Late Paleozoic Atmospheric CO2 Levels from Soil Carbonate and
Organic Matter". Science  271  (5252): 1105–
1107.Bibcode:1996Sci...271.1105M.doi:10.1126/science.271.5252.11
05.
85. Jump up^ Berner, R.A. (1994). "GEOCARB II: A revised model of
atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time". Am. J. Sci.  294  (1): 56–
91.doi:10.2475/ajs.294.1.56.
86. ^ Jump up to:a b Algeo, T.J.; Berner, R.A.; Maynard, J.B.; Scheckler, S.E.;
Archives, G.S.A.T. (1995).  "Late Devonian Oceanic Anoxic Events
and Biotic Crises: "Rooted" in the Evolution of Vascular Land
Plants?".GSA Today  5 (3).
87. Jump up^ Retallack, G. J. (1986). Wright, V. P., ed. Paleosols: their
Recognition and Interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell.
88. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i Algeo, T.J.; Scheckler, S.E. (1998). "Terrestrial-
marine teleconnections in the Devonian: links between the evolution of
land plants, weathering processes, and marine anoxic
events".  Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
B 353 (1365): 113–130.doi:10.1098/rstb.1998.0195.
89. Jump up^ Coudert, Yoan; Anne Dievart; Gaetan Droc; Pascal Gantet
(2012). "ASL/LBD Phylogeny Suggests that Genetic Mechanisms of
Root Initiation Downstream of Auxin Are Distinct in Lycophytes and
Euphyllophytes". Molecular Biology and Evolution  30  (3): 569–
72.doi:10.1093/molbev/mss250.  ISSN  0737-4038. PMID 23112232.
90. ^ Jump up to:a b Kenrick, P.; Crane, P.R. (1997). "The origin and early
evolution of plants on land".  Nature 389 (6646): 33–
39.Bibcode:1997Natur.389...33K. doi:10.1038/37918.
91. Jump up^ Schüßler, A.; et al. (2001).  "A new fungal phylum,
theGlomeromycota: phylogeny and evolution". Mycol. Res. 105 (12):
1416.  doi:10.1017/S0953756201005196.
92. Jump up^ Simon, L.; Bousquet, J.; Lévesque, R. C.; Lalonde, M.
(1993). "Origin and diversification of endomycorrhizal fungi and
coincidence with vascular land plants". Nature  363  (6424): 67–
69.Bibcode:1993Natur.363...67S. doi:10.1038/363067a0.
93. Jump up^ Brundrett, M. C.; Franks, P. J.; Rees, M.; Bidartondo, M. I.;
Leake, J. R.; Beerling, D. J. (2002). "Coevolution of roots and
 mycorrhizas of land plants".  New Phytologist 154 (8):
275.Bibcode:2010NatCo...1E.103H.  doi:10.1038/ncomms1105.
94. Jump up^ Remy, W.; Taylor, T. N.; Hass, H.; Kerp, H. (1994). "Four
Hundred-Million-Year-Old Vesicular Arbuscular
Mycorrhizae". Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 91 (25): 11841–
11843.Bibcode:1994PNAS...9111841R. doi:10.1073/pnas.91.25.1184
1.PMC 45331. PMID 11607500.
95. Jump up^ Brundrett, M. C. (2002). "Coevolution of roots and
mycorrhizas of land plants".  New Phytologist 154 (2): 275–
304.  doi:10.1046/j.1469-8137.2002.00397.x.
96. Jump up^ "Science Magazine". Runcaria, a Middle Devonian Seed
Plant Precursor. American Association for the Advancement of
Science. 2011. Retrieved March 22, 2011.
97. ^ Jump up to:a b c Mapes, G.; Rothwell, G.W.; Haworth, M.T. (1989).
"Evolution of seed dormancy". Nature  337  (6208): 645–
646.Bibcode:1989Natur.337..645M. doi:10.1038/337645a0.
98. Jump up^ Bawa, KS; Webb, CJ (1984). "Flower, fruit and seed
abortion in tropical forest trees. Implications for the evolution of
paternal and maternal reproductive patterns". American Journal of
Botany  71  (5): 736–751.  doi:10.2307/2443371.
99. Jump up^ Cheah KS, Osborne DJ (April 1978). "DNA lesions occur
with loss of viability in embryos of ageing rye
seed".  Nature 272 (5654): 593–
9.Bibcode:1978Natur.272..593C. doi:10.1038/272593a0.PMID  19213
149.
100. Jump up^ Koppen G, Verschaeve L (2001). "The alkaline single-
cell gel electrophoresis/comet assay: a way to study DNA repair in
radicle cells of germinating Vicia faba". Folia Biol. (Praha) 47 (2): 50–
4.PMID  11321247.
101. Jump up^ Bray CM, West CE (December 2005). "DNA repair
mechanisms in plants: crucial sensors and effectors for the
maintenance of genome integrity". New Phytol.  168  (3): 511–
28.  doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01548.x. PMID 16313635.
102. Jump up^ Bernstein C, Bernstein H. (1991) Aging, Sex, and DNA
Repair. Academic Press, San Diego. ISBN 0120928604 ISBN 978-
0120928606
103. Jump up^ Feild, T. S.; Brodribb, T. J.; Iglesias, A.; Chatelet, D. S.;
Baresch, A.; Upchurch, G. R.; Gomez, B.; Mohr, B. A. R.; Coiffard, C.;
Kvacek, J.; Jaramillo, C. (2011). "Fossil evidence for Cretaceous
escalation in angiosperm leaf vein evolution".  Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 108 (20): 8363–
8366.  doi:10.1073/pnas.1014456108.
104. Jump up^ Lawton-Rauh A.; Alvarez-Buylla, ER; Purugganan, MD
(2000). "Molecular evolution of flower development".  Trends in
Ecology and Evolution  15  (4): 144–149.  doi:10.1016/S0169-
5347(99)01816-9.PMID  10717683.
105. Jump up^ Nam, J.; Depamphilis, CW; Ma, H; Nei, M
(2003).  "Antiquity and Evolution of the MADS-Box Gene Family
Controlling Flower Development in Plants". Mol. Biol. Evol. 20 (9):
1435–1447.doi:10.1093/molbev/msg152. PMID 12777513.
106. ^ Jump up to:a b c Crepet, W. L. (2000).  "Progress in understanding
angiosperm history, success, and relationships: Darwin's abominably
"perplexing phenomenon"".  Proceedings of the National Academy of
 Sciences 97(24): 12939–
41.  doi:10.1073/pnas.97.24.12939.  PMC 34068.PMID  11087846.
107. Jump up^ Sun, G.; Ji, Q.; Dilcher, D.L.; Zheng, S.; Nixon, K.C.;
Wang, X. (2002). "Archaefructaceae, a New Basal Angiosperm
Family".  Science296  (5569): 899–
904.  Bibcode:2002Sci...296..899S.doi:10.1126/science.1069439. PMI
D 11988572.
108. Jump up^ In fact, Archaeofructus probably didn't bear true flowers:
see
 Friis, E.M.; Doyle, J.A.; Endress, P.K.; Leng, Q. (2003).
"Archaefructus--angiosperm precursor or specialized early
angiosperm?". Trends in Plant Science 8  (8): 369–
373.doi:10.1016/S1360-1385(03)00161-4.  PMID  12927969.
109. ^ Jump up to:a b Wing, S.L.; Boucher, L.D. (1998). "Ecological Aspects
Of The Cretaceous Flowering Plant Radiation". Annual Review of
Earth and Planetary Sciences 26 (1): 379–
421.Bibcode:1998AREPS..26..379W.doi:10.1146/annurev.earth.26.1.
379.
110. ^ Jump up to:a b Feild, T.S.; Arens, N.C.; Doyle, J.A.; Dawson, T.E.;
Donoghue, M.J. (2004). "Dark and disturbed: a new image of early
angiosperm ecology"  (abstract).  Paleobiology 30 (1): 82–
107.  doi:10.1666/0094-8373(2004)030<0082:DADANI>2.0.CO;2. ISS
N 0094-8373. Retrieved  2008-04-08.
111. Jump up^ Hilton J. and R.M. Bateman 2006. Pteridosperms are the
backbone of seed plant phylogeny. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 133(1):119-
168.
112. Jump up^ Zuccolo, A.; et al. (2011). "A physical map for
the  Amborella trichopoda genome sheds light on the evolution of
angiosperm genome structure". Genome Biology 12 (5):
R48. doi:10.1186/gb-2011-12-5-r48.
113. Jump up^ Medarg NG, Yanofsky M (March 2001).  "Function and
evolution of the plant MADS-box gene family".  Nature Reviews
Genetics  2 (3): 186–195. doi:10.1038/35056041.
114. Jump up^ Jager; et al. (2003).  "MADS-Box Genes in Ginkgo biloba
and the Evolution of the AGAMOUS Family". Mol. Biol. And
Evol.  20  (5): 842–854.  doi:10.1093/molbev/msg089.  PMID  12679535.
115. Jump up^ Translational Biology: From Arabidopsis Flowers to
Grass Inflorescence Architecture. Beth E. Thompson* and Sarah
Hake, 2009, Plant Physiology 149:38-45.
116. Jump up^ Lawton-Rauh A.; et al. (2000). "Molecular evolution of
flower development".  Trends in Ecol. And Evol.  15  (4): 144–
149.doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(99)01816-9.  PMID  10717683.
117. Jump up^ Kitahara K, Matsumoto S (2000). "Rose MADS-box
genes 'MASAKO C1 and D1' homologous to class C floral identity
genes".  Plant Science 151 (2): 121–134. doi:10.1016/S0168-
9452(99)00206-X.PMID 10808068.
118. Jump up^ Kater M; et al. (1998).  "Multiple AGAMOUS Homologs
from Cucumber and Petunia Differ in Their Ability to Induce
Reproductive Organ Fate".  Plant Cell  10  (2): 171–
182.doi:10.1105/tpc.10.2.171.  PMC 143982. PMID 9490741.
119. Jump up^ Soltis D; et al. (2007). "The floral genome: an
evolutionary history of gene duplication and shifting patterns of gene
expression". Trends in Plant Sci. 12 (8): 358–
367.  doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2007.06.012.
120. Jump up^ Putterhill; et al. (2004).  "It's time to flower: the genetic
control of flowering time". BioEssays 26 (4): 353–
363.doi:10.1002/bies.20021. PMID 15057934.
121. Jump up^ Blazquez; et al. (2001).  "Flowering on time: genes that
regulate the floral transition". EMBO Reports  2 (12): 1078–
1082.doi:10.1093/embo-reports/kve254. PMC  1084172.PMID 117430
19.
122. Jump up^ Lawton-Rauh A.; et al. (2000). "The Mostly Male Theory
of Flower Evolutionary Origins: from Genes to
Fossils". Sys.Botany (American Society of Plant Taxonomists)  25  (2):
155–170.doi:10.2307/2666635.  JSTOR  2666635.
123. ^ Jump up to:a b Williams BP, Johnston IG, Covshoff S, Hibberd JM
(September 2013). "Phenotypic landscape inference reveals multiple
evolutionary paths to C₄ photosynthesis".  eLife 2:
e00961.doi:10.7554/eLife.00961.  PMID  24082995.
124. Jump up^ Christin, P. -A.; Osborne, C. P.; Chatelet, D. S.;
Columbus, J. T.; Besnard, G.; Hodkinson, T. R.; Garrison, L. M.;
Vorontsova, M. S.; Edwards, E. J. (2012). "Anatomical enablers and
the evolution of C4 photosynthesis in grasses".  Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 110 (4): 1381–
1386.  Bibcode:2013PNAS..110.1381C.doi:10.1073/pnas.1216777110
.
125. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Osborne, C.P.;  Beerling, D.J.  (2006). "Review.
Nature's green revolution: the remarkable evolutionary rise of
C4  plants"  (PDF).Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
B 361 (1465): 173–
194.  doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1737. PMC  1626541.PMID 16553316.
Retrieved 2008-02-11.
126. ^ Jump up to:a b Retallack, G. J. (1 August 1997). "Neogene Expansion
of the North American Prairie". PALAIOS 12 (4): 380–
390.doi:10.2307/3515337. ISSN 0883-1351.  JSTOR  3515337.
127. Jump up^ Thomasson, J.R.; Nelson, M.E.; Zakrzewski, R.J. (1986).
"A Fossil Grass (Gramineae: Chloridoideae) from the Miocene with
Kranz Anatomy". Science  233  (4766): 876–
878.Bibcode:1986Sci...233..876T.  doi:10.1126/science.233.4766.876.
PMID 17752216.
128. Jump up^ O'Leary, Marion (May 1988). "Carbon Isotopes in
Photosynthesis".BioScience 38 (5): 328–
336.  doi:10.2307/1310735.JSTOR 1310735.
129. Jump up^ Osborne, P.; Freckleton, P. (Feb 2009). "Ecological
selection pressures for C4 photosynthesis in the
grasses".  Proceedings. Biological sciences / the Royal
Society 276 (1663): 1753–
1760.doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.1762.  ISSN  0962-8452. PMC  267448
7.PMID  19324795.
130. Jump up^ Bond, W.J.; Woodward, F.I.; Midgley, G.F. (2005). "The
global distribution of ecosystems in a world without fire".  New
Phytologist 165(2): 525–538.  doi:10.1111/j.1469-
8137.2004.01252.x.PMID 15720663.
131. Jump up^ Above 35% atmospheric oxygen, the spread of fire is
unstoppable. Many models have predicted higher values and had to
be revised, because there was not a total extinction of plant life.
132. Jump up^ Pagani, M.; Zachos, J.C.; Freeman, K.H.; Tipple, B.;
Bohaty, S. (2005). "Marked Decline in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Concentrations During the Paleogene". Science  309  (5734): 600–
 603.Bibcode:2005Sci...309..600P.  doi:10.1126/science.1110063.PMI
D 15961630.
133. Jump up^ Piperno, D.R.; Sues, H.D. (2005). "Dinosaurs Dined on
Grass".Science 310 (5751): 1126–
8. doi:10.1126/science.1121020.PMID 16293745.
134. Jump up^ Prasad, V.; Stroemberg, C.A.E.; Alimohammadian, H.;
Sahni, A. (2005). "Dinosaur Coprolites and the Early Evolution of
Grasses and Grazers".  Science 310 (5751): 1177–
1180.Bibcode:2005Sci...310.1177P. doi:10.1126/science.1118806.PM
ID  16293759.
135. Jump up^ Keeley, J.E.; Rundel, P.W. (2005). "Fire and the
Miocene expansion of C4 grasslands".  Ecology Letters 8  (7): 683–
690.  doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00767.x.
136. ^ Jump up to:a b Retallack, G.J. (2001). "Cenozoic Expansion of
Grasslands and Climatic Cooling". The Journal of Geology 109 (4):
407–426.Bibcode:2001JG....109..407R.  doi:10.1086/320791.
137. Jump up^ Jin JP; et al. (July 2015). "An Arabidopsis transcriptional
regulatory map reveals distinct functional and evolutionary features of
novel transcription factors".  Molecular Biology and
Evolution  32  (7).doi:10.1093/molbev/msv058.
138. Jump up^ Pichersky E.; Gang D. (2000).  "Genetics and
biochemistry of secondary metabolites in plants: an evolutionary
perspective".  Trends in Plant Sci  5 (10): 439–
445.  doi:10.1016/S1360-1385(00)01741-6.
139. Jump up^ Nina Theis; Manuel Lerdau (2003).  "The evolution of
function in plant secondary metabolites".  Int. J.Plant. Sci  164  (S3):
S93–S102.doi:10.1086/374190.
140. Jump up^ Bohlmann J.; et al. (1998). "Plant terpenoid synthases:
molecular and phylogenetic analysis". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
U.S.A. 95 (8): 4126–
4133.  Bibcode:1998PNAS...95.4126B.doi:10.1073/pnas.95.8.4126.  P
MC  22453.  PMID  9539701.
141. Jump up^ Li A, Mao L (2007). "Evolution of plant microRNA gene
families".  Cell Research  17  (3): 212–
218.  doi:10.1038/sj.cr.7310113.PMID 17130846.
142. Jump up^ Doebley J.F. (2004).  "The genetics of maize
evolution". Annu. Rev. Genet. 38 (1): 37–
59.  doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.38.072902.092425.PMID 15568971.
143. Jump up^ Purugannan; et al. (2000).  "Variation and Selection at
the CAULIFLOWER Floral Homeotic Gene Accompanying the
Evolution of Domesticated Brassica olerace". Genetics  155  (2): 855–
862.PMC  1461124.  PMID  10835404.
144. Jump up^ Capelle, J.; Neema, C. (Nov 2005). "Local adaptation
and population structure at a micro-geographical scale of a fungal
parasite on its host plant".  Journal of Evolutionary Biology  18  (6):
1445–1454.doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2005.00951.x.
145. ^ Jump up to:a b Burdon, J.J.; Thrall, P.H. (2009). "Co-evolution of plants
and their pathogen in natural habitats".  Science 324 (5928): 755–
756.Bibcode:2009Sci...324..755B.  doi:10.1126/science.1171663.
146. Jump up^ Sahai, A.S.; Manocha, M.S. (1992). "Chitinases of fungi
and plants: their involvement in morphogenesis and host-parasite
interaction".FEMS Microbiology Reviews 11 (4): 317–
338.  doi:10.1111/j.1574-6976.1993.tb00004.x.
 147. Jump up^ Clay, Keith (1991). "Parasitic castration of plants by
fungi".  Trends in Ecology&Evolution  6 (5): 162–
166.  doi:10.1016/0169-5347(91)90058-6.
148. Jump up^ Zhan, J.; Mundt, C.C.; Hoffer, M.E.; McDonald, B.A.
(2002). "Local adaptation and effect of host genotype on the rate of
pathogen evolution: an experimental test in a plant
pathosystem".  Journal of Evolutionary Biology  15  (4): 634–
647.  doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2002.00428.x.
149. Jump up^ Capelle, J.; Neema, C. (2005). "Local adaptation and
population structure at a micro-geographical scale of fungal parasite
on its host plant". Journal of Evolutionary Biology 18 (6): 1445–
1454.doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2005.00951.x.
150. Jump up^ Delmotte, F.; Bucheli, E.; Shykoff, J.A. (1999). "Host and
parasite population structure in a natural plant-pathogen
system".  Heredity 82: 300–308. doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6884850.
151. Jump up^ Desprez-Loustau, M.-L.; Vitasse, Y.; Delzon, S.;
Capdevielle, X.; Marcais, B.; Kremer, A. (2010). "Are plant pathogen
populations adapted for encounter with their host? A case study of
phenological synchrony between oak and an obligate fungal parasite
along an altitudinal gradient".  Journal of Evolutionary Biology  23  (1):
87–97.doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01881.x.

[show]

Botany

[show]

Evolutionary biology
Categories: 
 Evolution of plants
 Plant sexuality
Navigation menu
 Not logged in

 Talk

 Contributions

 Create account

 Log in
 Article
 Talk
 Read
 Edit
 View history
Go

 Main page
 Contents
 Featured content
 Current events
 Random article
 Donate to Wikipedia
 Wikipedia store
Interaction
 Help
 About Wikipedia
 Community portal
 Recent changes
 Contact page
Tools
 What links here
 Related changes
 Upload file
 Special pages
 Permanent link
 Page information
 Wikidata item
 Cite this page
Print/export
 Create a book
 Download as PDF
 Printable version
In other projects
 Wikimedia Commons
Languages
 Català
 Dansk
 Español
 Français
 한국어
 日本語
 Português
 Русский
 සිංහල
 Svenska
 Tiếng Việt
Edit links
 This page was last modified on 15 July 2016, at 06:10.
 Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional
terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit
organization.

 Privacy policy

 About Wikipedia

 Disclaimers

 Contact Wikipedia

 Developers

 Cookie statement

 Mobile view