Donate online to help support Botany Photo of the Day

Subscribe to BPotD

Type your email address below!

BPotD Around the World!

Locations of visitors to this page

Botany Photo of the Day
In science, beauty. In beauty, science. Daily.

Acer circinatum

Acer circinatum

Updated Oct. 20, 2005 at 1:30am: Welcome to readers of Tangled Bank No. 39! If you don't know what Tangled Bank is, it's a biweekly collection of recent science-based writings and images from weblogs around the world, hosted by a different weblog for each edition – it's a great way to find out about other science weblogs!

Updated Oct. 17, 2005 at 8:05am: Welcome Boing Boing readers! If you're new to the site, you might like to check out a few other photos such as chocolate vine, 'Bright Lights' Swiss chard or the first BPotD, Melliodendron xylocarpum. Also, have a gander at the BPotD widget! – Daniel.

The idea and concept for this photograph of variability in autumn leaf colour of vine maple is thanks to Dan Otis, who assembled the collection for his own photo during the recent Maple Society Symposium field trip. Dan kindly allowed me to also take a picture, so I'm sharing it with you. Bear in mind, though, that if you like the image, please be sure to thank Dan in the comments, and not me – after all, all I had to do was show up and press a button after he did the work. This is the third in the series of three shots on Acer circinatum, previously featured here and here.

From a previous entry, Anthony asked “Why would being in the woods affect the color of the maple leaves?”, since I'd mentioned that the vine maples in the woods were yellow in autumn colour, while those in exposed sites were a brilliant orange-red. For an outstanding article on the topic, check out “Autumn Colours – Nature’s Canvas is a Silk Parasol” (PDF - 750K). Written by Dr. Rob Guy and Jodie Krakowski of UBC's Faculty of Forestry for UBC Botanical Garden's journal Davidsonia (I'm working on its new web site with open access to all recent articles), I'll quote the abstract to answer the question in brief:

The variety and widespread nature of leaf colour change in autumn has led to investigation of the biochemical pathways and compounds responsible. The synthesis of bright red colouration initiated by longer nights prior to leaf abscission in deciduous species points to some adaptive value for this expensive ephemeral trait. It is hypothesized that during the breakdown of the unstable chlorophyll and the dismantling of the nutrient-rich photosynthetic apparatus, red anthocyanins provide a more biochemically parsimonious alternative to the elaborate xanthophyll system. This alternative enables leaves to screen out excess light energy and circumvent photooxidative damage to leaf cells, while allowing photosynthesis to persist at low rates in support of metabolic processes and phloem loading required for nutrient resorption from leaves.

In other words, the formation of red pigments in the autumn provides protection, preventing the too-rapid breakdown of chlorophyll which could occur in exposed (read: excess light) areas. As you can clearly see in the leaf in the upper right, the bottom-right corner has the pattern of the leaf above. Where the leaf above shaded this leaf, no red pigments were produced. Where the leaf was exposed, bright red anthocyanins were formed. To take this to a broader perspective, vine maple trees in shaded forests and under low light conditions have little need to produce red pigments, as the breakdown of chlorophyll can occur at a modest pace. However, vine maples in exposed sites turn flame orange and red, so that the pigments produced will slow the rate of chlorophyll breakdown. The leaves in this photograph are from trees that are partially exposed, hence the attractive blend of colours.

No botany resource link today, since I'm answering one of Victoria's questions regarding plant taxonomy and names: Why is it that so many plants are in limbo as to their correct/finalized/accepted names?

I recently gave a lecture on the topic, and I had stated there were two broad reasons. I'm going to split one of those reasons into two, so I'll give three reasons here. Please know, though, that any one of these reasons can be combined with another one or all three can occur in a particular scenario.

The first reason is analogous to bookkeeping. Imagine a scenario where a name is published for a plant and it is later discovered that another taxonomist had already published the name describing a different plant (or, as has happened occasionally, the same taxonomist!). The most recent name would have to change since the older name (assuming everything is scientifically valid) would have priority. Or, imagine that someone names a plant that had already been named. The latter name is dropped as a synonym of the original version. Essentially, these rules try to enforce the notions that each species of plant has only one validly published name and that each name can only apply to one species of plant. As you might suspect, the modern days of rapid communication and information warehouses mean that names needing to change due to bookkeeping are now not a big proportion of the whole.

Disagreement about whether a subset of a species is distinct enough to be a subspecies or variety, and if so, which one of the two it should be is the second reason. I'll direct you to this page from the Brooklyn Botanic Garden on “How Plants Are Named” for a discussion on the differences between subspecies and varieties. Frankly, this is a reason that makes me roll my eyes, because it causes much consternation over a relatively trivial matter. Should it be Pallaea glabella subsp. simplex or Pallaea glabella var. simplex? From the BBG link, you'll note that some scientists have tried to define when each should be used. Other scientists argue that only one or the other is needed, and they then refuse to recognize the other when publishing floristic works or databases, so in the fern species above, some scientists would use subspecies and others would use variety. This reason for instability of plant names makes little sense in the face of the overwhelming loss of biodiversity.

The final reason is the biggie. You first of all need to know that the modern system for scientifically naming plants predates Darwin's and Wallace's Theory of Evolution. Plant nomenclature did not therefore have mechanisms to reflect evolutionary relationships, though plants were recognized as being part of identifiable natural groups (e.g., composites or legumes) and very similar plants shared the same genus. As the conceptual lynchpin of modern biology took hold, however, the same general system of plant nomenclature was mapped onto evolution, such that this general principle emerged: plant names and classification should reflect evolutionary relationships.

The utility of this principle is immense, simply because closely related plants share similar characteristics. Given a scientific name for an unknown plant, a taxonomist can make several predictions about its morphology. A biochemist can predict the compounds she might be able to extract or use the knowledge of plant relationships to target groups of plants in search of a particular chemical. A horticulturist can use methods from propagating related species to increase the chance of successful propagation, perhaps helping conserve an endangered species. I'll expand on this area when I answer Victoria's question about the importance of taxonomy, but it will suffice for now to say that the predictive value when nomenclature and classification are tied to evolution is supremely important.

The downside, however, of tying the two together is that our understanding of evolutionary relationships both continues to develop and will doubtfully ever be completed. As new techniques are developed (e.g., rapid analysis of nucleic acid sequences) or new evidence is found (e.g., fossils, new species), different hypotheses may be formed about evolutionary relationships. Given that plant names and classification should reflect evolutionary relationships, the name of a species, genus or family may change to reflect the new hypothesis. It so happens that the rapid accrual of information through modern molecular techniques is causing a significant clarification of plant relationships, therein also requiring significant changes to plant names recently. Will it ever settle down? Perhaps, but it is hard to predict what future techniques might be developed to determine relationships. I suspect, though, that the massive loss of biodiversity will sadly make things simpler for our descendants due to smaller datasets.

13 Comments

You are making me see some sense in this subject. Thank you

some of these days... Beautifull

Thanks for the explanation about leaf pigmentation in vine maples- I have always puzzled about that. It also makes sense that vine maple should show this trait very dramatically, being able to grow in such a wide range of light conditions- from deep shade to bright sunlight. One thing still puzzles me. The article you quote states "synthesis of bright red colouration" is "initiated by longer nights prior to leaf abscission." However, I have noticed vine maples on exposed sites turning red even in the middle of July, when the nights are still short. Could this also be a protective reaction to the bright sunlight?

Matt, I suspect that the early colouration might have something to do with drought stress. Check out this article on “Stealing Rain from the Rainforest” from NASA's Earth Observatory – to jump right in, see page 5: “...anthocyanin pigments in the drought plot were 60 percent higher than the control plot at the end of the rainy season in July...”.

The above popularly-written article is derived in part from “Drought stress and carbon uptake in an Amazon forest measured with spaceborne imaging spectroscopy” (Asner et al., 2004. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 101(16):6039-6044).

Thanks for the explanation of the effect of sunlight on color change. It seems to be similar to that on tropical plants such as hoya that turn red in bright sunlight, an effect welcomed by horticulturists. Makes sense when I think about it, but far from the folk-botany my grandfather taught me.

Thanks, Daniel. I'll check out the article.

Matt

Wow thanks for the info i got an A+ on my website thanks to you.

from,
reece

The following was received via email from Chris:

“I have a question. Are these wonderful leaf colors preservable in any way? I am hoping there's a way to stop the chemical changes and keep those pigments. Most of the advice I get has to do with ironing them between sheets of waxed paper (maybe heat helps destroy enzymes, and cutting off air reduces oxidation of the color chemicals?) and soaking in a hot solution of glycerin and water (no clue, but maybe heat again). I haven’t tried these (I don't own an iron!). Do the pigments get destroyed by ultraviolet? Heat? Gases? Etc. I think it would be interesting to understand the chemistry of the coloration right now, when half the country is seeing these colors.”

Chris, I'll have to quote directly from an out-of-print book entitled “Leaves” written by Sir Ghillean Prance:

People often comment that they would like to preserve the fall colors of leaves...There are various methods to preserve leaves; different ways work better for different plants.

Try placing a freshly cut fall branch indoors somewhere cool such as the basement and just allowing it to dry out. This method works well for oaks and beeches. If it does not work, split the stem of a branch and place it in a jar with a solution of water (one part) and glycerin (four parts) for two weeks.

Individual leaves are often easily preserved by coating them with paraffin wax. Wax is melted in a pan and the leaves are dipped. Care should be taken to produce only a thin coating of wax so as to avoid obscuring the color of the leaf. One of the best modern methods is by embedding them in plastic...

One of the best ways to preserve fall color, which works for some of the hardest-to-preserve species, involves the use of sand. Prepare a wooden box and cover the bottom with sand to the size of the branch you wish to preserve. Next suspend the branch inside the box, laid on top of the sand, and support it with wire or sticks. Heat up a pan of sand until it is almost too hot to touch and then pour this carefully over the branch until it is covered. The warm sand will dry out and the leaves will be nicely pressed. Take care to arrange the leaves in the desired positions as the sand is poured gradually into the box.

leeves r sew kewl.

Whatever the problems of botanists with taxonomy
clearly they are brighter than the moronic astronomers who demoted Pluto. With their thought processes a hummingbird is an insect and a giant fossil dragonfly a bird merely because of size. Ditto for giant Australian earthworm which must be a snake. A biologist's kid was once flunked because he called bamboo a grass when the teach said it's a woody tree.
Evolution trumps size.
Flores man if he is real is a hominid like us.

Nice! Sorry to necropost but I didn't see this photo until recently. I did a (admittedly much inferior) similar photo with specimens from my parents' japanese maple back in 2002. I put up the URL to it in case you're curious. Anyway, my parents' maple died a few years ago and I've been thinking of giving them a new tree to replace it but couldn't think of a good example until today when I thought a vine maple might be nice because it's native and my father loves native plants and it has growing habits resembling japanese maples. A google search on vine maples is actually what led me here. :D

a place of mind, The University of British Columbia

 
UBC Botanical Garden and Centre for Plant Research
6804 SW Marine Drive, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 1Z4
Tel: 604.822.3928
Fax: 604.822.2016 Email: garden.info@ubc.ca

Emergency Procedures | Accessibility | Contact UBC | © Copyright The University of British Columbia