Lauraceae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nick Number (talk | contribs) at 18:27, 29 May 2012 (repaired link(s) to disambiguation page - (you can help) - Laurel). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Lauraceae
Litsea glutinosa
illustration from Flora de Filipinas, 1880-1883, by Francisco Manuel Blanco
Scientific classification
Kingdom:
(unranked):
(unranked):
Order:
Family:
Lauraceae

Genera

Many; see text

Cassytha filiformis
Leaves of Cinnamomum tamala - (Malabathrum or Tejpat)
Lindera triloba leaves.

The Lauraceae are the Laurel family, comprising over 3000 species of flowering plants in over 50 genera world-wide. They occur mainly in warm temperate and tropical regions, especially Southeast Asia and South America. Most are aromatic evergreen trees or shrubs, but one or two genera such as Sassafras are deciduous, and Cassytha is a genus of parasitic vines.

Overview

The Lauraceae are the botanical family that includes the "True Laurel" and its closest relatives. The family has a worldwide distribution in tropical and warm climates. The Lauraceae are important components of tropical forests ranging from low-lying to montane. In several forested regions Lauraceae are among the top five families in terms of the number of species present.

Apart from their general presence in tropical forests, members of the Lauraceae form a characteristic and often dominant component of habitats known as Laurel forests. Laurel forests of various types occur on all continents and on many associated major islands.

Although the taxonomy of the Lauraceae is uncertain, estimates suggest some 50 – 70 genera worldwide, including over 3000 species, possibly 3500. Compared to other plant families, the taxonomy of Lauraceae still is poorly understood. This is partly because of inadequate investment in taxonomic effort, particularly in countries with limited economic means.

Recent monographs of genera of Lauraceae in small and medium genera, up to about 100 species, have revealed many new species. Even larger increases in the numbers of species recognised in other genera are to be expected, particularly for genera with more than 150 known species.[1]

Most of the Lauraceae are evergreen trees in habit. Exceptions include some two dozen species of Cassytha, all of which are obligately parasitic vines.

Because the family is so ancient and was so widely distributed on the Gondwana supercontinent, modern species commonly occur in relict populations isolated by geographical barriers, for instance on islands or tropical mountains. Relict forests retain endemic fauna and flora in communities of great value in inferring the palaeontological succession and climate change that followed the breakups of the supercontinents.

Many species in the Lauraceae are of commercial importance:

  • Many Lauraceae contain high concentrations of essential oils, some of which are valued for spices and perfumes. Within the plants themselves most such substances are components of irritant or toxic sap or tissues that repel or poison many herbivorous or parasitic organisms. Some of the essential oils are valued as fragrances, such as in the traditional laurel wreath of classical antiquity, or in cabinet making, where the fragrant woods are prized for making insect-repellant chests. Some are valued in cooking, where bay leaves are popular spicy ingredient in various European, American and Asian cuisines.
  • Avocados are important oil-rich fruit that are cultivated in warm climates around the world.
  • Many species are exploited for timber.
  • Some species are valued as sources of medicinal material.

Loss of habitat and over-exploitation for such products has put many species in danger of extinction as a result of overcutting, extensive illegal logging and habitat conversion.[2][3][4][5]

The following genera include some of the best known species of particular commercial value:

Conversely, some species, though commercially valuable in some countries, are regarded as aggressive invaders in other regions. For example, Cinnamomum camphora, though a valued ornamental and medicinal plant, is so invasive as to have been declared a weed in subtropical forested areas of South Africa.[6]

Ecology

Lindera melissifolia. This endangered species is native to the southeastern United States, and its demise is associated with habitat loss from extensive drainage of wetlands for agriculture and forestry.[7]

Lauraceae flowers are protogynous, often with a complex flowering system to prevent inbreeding. The fruits are an important food source for birds, on which some Palaeognathae are highly dependent.[citation needed] Other birds that rely heavily on the fruit for their diet include members of the families Cotingidae, Columbidae, Trogonidae, Turdidae and Rhamphastidae, amongst others. Birds that are specialised frugivores tend to eat the whole fruit and regurgitate seeds intact, thereby releasing the seeds in favourable situations for germination (ornithochory). Some other birds that swallow the fruit pass the seed intact through the gut.

Seed dispersal of various species in the family is also carried out by monkeys, arboreal rodents, porcupines, opossums and fishes. Hydrochory occurs in Caryodaphnopsis.[8][dubious ]

The leaves of some species in the Lauraceae have domatia in the axils of their veins. The domatia are home to certain mites. Other Lauraceous species, members of the genus Pleurothyrium in particular, have a symbiotic relationship with ants that protect and defend the tree. Some Ocotea species are also used as nesting sites by ants, which may live in leaf pockets or in hollowed-out stems.[9]

The fruit in some species (particularly in the genera Ocotea and Oreodaphne) is partly immersed or covered in a cup-shaped or deep thick cupule, which is formed from the tube of the calyx where the peduncle joins the fruit; this gives the fruit an appearance similar to an acorn. In some Lindera species the fruit have a hypocarpium at the base of the fruit.

Defense mechanisms that occur among members of the Lauraceae include irritant or toxic sap or tissues that repel or poison many herbivorous organisms.

Trees of the family predominate in the world's laurel forests and cloud forests, which occur in tropical to mild temperate regions of both northern and southern hemispheres. Important examples of such forests occur in the Macaronesian islands, southern Japan, Madagascar, New Caledonia and central Chile. Other members of the family however, occur pantropically in general lowland and Afromontane forest, and in Africa for example there are species endemic to countries such as Cameroon, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda and Congo. Several relict species in the Lauraceae occur in temperate areas of both hemispheres.

Some Lauraceae species have adapted to demanding conditions in semi-arid climates but they tend to depend on favorable edaphic conditions, for example, perennial aquifers, periodic groundwater flows, or periodically flooded forests in sand that contains hardly any nutrients. Various species have adapted to swampy conditions by growing pneumatophores, roots that grow upward, that project above the levels of periodic floods that drown competing plants which lack such adaptations.[citation needed]

Some authorities have suggested that the family originated some 174±32 Ma, while others (see Li et al.2004, references) do not believe that they are older than the mid-Cretaceous. Fossil flowers attributed to this family occur in Cenomanian clays (mid-Cretaceous, 90-98 Ma ago) of the Eastern United States (Mauldinia mirabilis). Fossils of Lauraceae are common in the Tertiary strata of Europe and North America, but they virtually disappeared from central Europe in the Late Miocene.[citation needed] Because of its unusual fragility, the pollen of Lauraceae does not keep well and has been found only in relatively recent strata.

The patterns of speciation in the Lauraceae indicate that since the onset of aridification on the continents 15 million years ago, rainforests were fragmented into the current archipelagos of rainforests around the planet.[clarification needed] This led to increases in speciation with the majority of our modern species being the products of parapatric speciation.[citation needed] Many of the resulting species have a very disjunct distribution[clarification needed] with sister taxa occurring in other centres of rainforest and cloud forest diversity. This supports the idea that the group is of Gondwanan origin.[citation needed]

Many botanical species in other families have similar foliage to the Lauraceae due to convergent evolution, and forests of such plants are called laurel forest or Laurisilva. These plants are adapted to high rainfall and humidity, and have leaves with a generous layer of wax, making them glossy in appearance, and a narrow, pointed-oval shape with a 'drip tip', which permits the leaves to shed water despite the humidity, allowing transpiration to continue. Scientific names similar to Daphne (e.g., Daphnidium, Daphniphyllum)[10] or "laurel" (e.g.,Laureliopsis, Skimmia laureola) indicate other plant families that resemble Lauraceae. The dispersal of seeds in many laurel forest species is due to birds that swallow them, so the fruit and berries are often similar to attract birds.

Deciduous Lauraceae lose all of their leaves for part of the year depending on variations in rainfall. The leaf loss coincides with the dry season in tropical, subtropical and arid regions.

Classification

Twig of Ocotea obtusata with unripe fruit with an appearance similar to an acorn
Cassytha filiformis fruits.

Classification within the Lauraceae remains unresolved. Multiple classification schemes based on a variety of morphological and anatomical characteristics have been proposed, but none are fully accepted. According to Judd et al. (2007),[11] the suprageneric classification proposed by van der Werff and Richter (1996)[12] is currently the authority. However, due to an array of molecular and embryological evidence that disagrees with the groupings, it is not fully accepted by the scientific community. Their classification is based on both inflorescence structure and wood and bark anatomy. It divides Lauraceae into two subfamilies, Cassythoideae and Lauroideae. The Cassythoideae comprises a single genus, Cassytha, and is defined by its herbaceous, parasitic habit. The Lauroidaeae is then divided into three tribes: Laureae, Perseeae, and Cryptocaryeae.

The subfamily Cassythoideae is not fully supported. Backing has come from matK sequences of chloroplast genes [13] while a questionable placement of Cassytha has been concluded from analysis of intergenetic spacers of chloroplast and nuclear genomes.[14] Embryological studies also appear contradictory. One study by Heo et al. (1998)[15] supports the subfamily. It found that Cassytha develops an ab initio cellular type endosperm and rest of the family (with one exception) develops a nuclear type endosperm. Kimoto et al. (2006) [16] suggests that Cassytha should be placed in the Cryptocaryeae tribe because it shares a glandular anther tapetum and an embryo sac protruding from the nucellus with other members of the Cryptocaryeae.

The Laureae and Perseeae tribes are not well supported by any molecular or embryological studies. Sequences of the matK chloroplast gene [13] as well as sequences of chloroplast and nuclear genomes[14] reveal close relationships between the two tribes. Embryological evidence does not support a clear division between the two tribes either. Genera such as Caryodaphnopsis and Aspidostemon that share embryological characteristics with one tribe and wood and bark characteristics or inflorescence characteristics with another tribe blur the division of these groups.[15] All available evidence, except for inflorescence morphology and wood and bark anatomy, fails to support separate Laureae and Perseeae tribes.

The Cryptocaryeae tribe is partially supported by molecular and embryological studies. Chloroplast and nuclear genomes supports a tribal grouping that contains all the genera circumscribed by van der Weff and Richter (1996)[12] as well as three additional genera.[14] Partial support for the tribe is also attained from the matK sequences of chloroplast genes [13] as well as embryology.[17]

Challenges in Lauraceae classification

The knowledge of all species comprising the Lauraceae is incomplete. As of 1991, approximately 25-30% of neotropical Lauraceae species had not been described.[18] As of 2001, embryological studies had only been completed on individuals from 26 genera yielding a 38.9% level of knowledge, in terms of embryology, for this family.[17] Additionally, the huge amount of variation within the family for any potential defining characteristic poses a major challenge for developing a reliable classification.[12][18] It is impossible to describe even one genus or tribe by a single well-defined character.[18] For this reason, all proposed classifications rely on a set of characteristics where the combination presents the most frequently observed traits for the group.[12][18]

Phytochemistry

The adaptation of Lauraceae to new environments has followed a long evolutionary journey which has led to many specializations, including defensive or deterrent systems against other organisms.

Phytochemicals in the Lauraceae are numerous and diverse. Benzylisoquinoline alkaloids include aporphines, oxoaporphines, as well as derivatives of morphinans. Essential oils include terpenoids, benzyl benzoates, allylphenols and propenylphenols. Lignans and neolignans are present, along with S-methyl-5-O-flavonoids, proanthocyanidins, cinnamoylamides, phenylpyrroles, styryl pyrones, polyketides (acetogenins), furanosesquiterpenes, and germacranolidous, heliangolidous, eudesmanolidous and guaianolidous sesquiterpene lactones.[citation needed]

Genera

Recent taxonomic revisions of the family include the following genera:[19]

3

The following genera that have traditionally been considered separate within Lauraceae, have not yet been recently re-evaluated:[19]

References

  1. ^ http://botanica.uniandes.edu.co/investigacion/lauraceae.htm
  2. ^ http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/32642/0
  3. ^ http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/33981/0
  4. ^ http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/32552/0
  5. ^ http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/36328/0
  6. ^ Henderson, L. "Alien weeds and Invasive Plants" Agricultural Research Council, Agricultural Research Council, Pretoria South Africa, ISBN 1-86849-192-7
  7. ^ US Fish and Wildlife Service: Species Recovery Plan: Lindera melissifolia.
  8. ^ http://es.scribd.com/doc/73765287/Lauraceae
  9. ^ Jean Stout 1979. An Association of an Ant, a Mealy Bug, and an Understory Tree from a Costa Rican Rain Forest. Biotropica Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 309-311 first page available Retrieved May 22, 2012
  10. ^ Sunset Western Garden Book, 1995:606–607
  11. ^ Judd, Walter, S. (2007). Plant Systematics a Phylogenetic Approach, third edition. Massachusetts, USA: Sinauer Associates, Inc. ISBN 978-0-87893-407-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  12. ^ a b c d H van der Werff and J.G. Richter (1996). "Toward an improved classification of Lauraceae". Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 83 (3). Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, Vol. 83, No. 3: 409–418. doi:10.2307/2399870. JSTOR 2399870.
  13. ^ a b c Rohwer, J.G. (2000). "Toward a phylogenetic classification of the Lauraceae: evidence from matK sequences". Systematic Botany. 25 (1). Systematic Botany, Vol. 25, No. 1: 60–71. doi:10.2307/2666673. JSTOR 2666673.
  14. ^ a b c Chanderbali, A.S.,van der Werff,H. and Renner, S.S. (2001). "Phylogeny and historical biogeography of Lauraceae: Evidence from the chloroplast and nuclear genomes". Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 88 (1). Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, Vol. 88, No. 1: 104–134. doi:10.2307/2666133. JSTOR 2666133.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  15. ^ a b Heo,K.,van der Werff, H., and Tobe, H. (1998). "Embryology and relationships of Lauraceae(Laurales)". Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. 126 (4): 295–322. doi:10.1006/bojl.1997.0138.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  16. ^ Kimoto,Y.,Utame N., and Tobe, H. (2006). "Embryology of Eusideroxylon (Cryptocaryeae, Lauraceae) and character evolution in the family". Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. 150 (2): 187–201. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8339.2006.00458.x.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  17. ^ a b Kimoto,Y.,and H. Tobe (2001). "Embryology of Laurales: a review and perspectives". Journal of Plant Research. 114 (3): 247–261. doi:10.1007/PL00013988.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  18. ^ a b c d Rohwer, J. G.,H. Richter, and H. van der Werff (1991). "Two new genera of neotropical Lauraceae and critical remarks on the generic delimitation". Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 78 (2). Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, Vol. 78, No. 2: 388–4oo. doi:10.2307/2399568. JSTOR 2399568.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  19. ^ a b "The Plant List".
  • Lauraceae in L. Watson and M.J. Dallwitz (1992 onwards). The families of flowering plants.
  • Kostermans, André Joseph Guillaume Henri 1957. Lauraceae. Reinwardtia 4(2): 193-256
  • Meissner (né Meisner), Carl Daniel Friedrich 1864. Lauraceae (Ordo 162) in A. L. P. P. de Candolle (ed.), Prodromus Systematis Universalis Regni Vegetabilis 15(1): 1-260, Parisiis [Paris], Victoris Masson et Filii.
  • Mez, Carl Christian 1889. Lauraceae Americanae Monographice Descripsit. Jahrbuch des Königlichen Botanischen Gartens und des Botanischen Museums zu Berlin 5: 1-556.
  • Nees von Esenbeck, Christian Gottfried Daniel (1836): Systema Laurinarum, Berlin, Veitii et Sociorum. Until the page 352, available, free, on pdf files in Gallica
  • Rohwer, Jens G. in Kubitzki, K.(Editor) 1993. The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants, Vol.2: K. Kubitzki, J. G. Rohwer & V. Bittrich, 366-390. ISBN 3-540-55509-9
  • Wagner, W. L., D. R. Herbst, and S. H. Sohmer. 1990. Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawai'i. Spec. Publ. 83. University of Hawaii Press and Bishop Museum Press. Bishop Museum. 1854 pp.