Results are presented of our study of nectaries of 13 species of the genus Rosa from the collection of the M.M. Gryshko National Botanical Garden of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Using light microscopy, we described and illustrated their morphological features in details. Nectaries of all studied species were floral, hypanthial, symmetrical, non-septally structural, mesenchymatous, and persistent. Based on location of the androecium, nectaries were intrastaminal, and only Rosa henryi was found to have amphistaminal nectary. Each species was morphologically differentiated from others by one or more characters. We analyzed morphological features (diameter of nectary and throat of hypanthia, thickness of nectary tissue around throat of hypanthia and on the edge, form of nectary on the longitudinal section), on that basis we allocated groups of nectaries based on their shape – convex (cone- and dome-shaped), curved, and flat ones. The latter is typical for Rosa roxburghii, which, according to a number of other morphological features, is separated by taxonomists in a monotypic (monospecific) subgenus. Based on surface characteristics of the nectary, Rosa xanthina with papillary growns and Rosa henryi with a uniformly humped relief stood out the most examined species. We emphasized reduction of thickness of nectary tissue in radial direction, except for Rosa spinosissima, in which thickness was almost even throughout the whole area of the nectary. The listed morphological differences can be used as additional diagnostic characters at the species level. Such features as the outline of the nectary throat and edges are quite variable within species and were not taxonomically significant. We present original figures and photographs of nectaries in an outline and on a longitudinal section.

Keywords: amphistaminal nectaries, intrastaminal nectaries, diagnostic features, nectary tissue, Rosa

Full text: PDF (Ukr) 8.17M

1. APG [Angiosperm Phylogeny Group] II. 2003. An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG II. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 141: 399–436.
2. Bernardello G.A. 2007. A systematic survey of floral nectaries. In: Nectaries and nectar. Eds. S. Nicolson, M. Nepi, E. Pacini. Dordrecht: Springer, 395 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5937-7_2
3. Chkalov A.V. 2012. Identificatsiya predstaviteley roda Alchemilla L. Niznegorodskogo Povolzhya. Nizhniy Novgorod: Nizhegorodskiy gosuniversitet, 46 pp.
4. Du Mortier B. 1867. Monographie des Roses de la flore belge. Bulletin de la Société Royale de Botanique de Belgique / Bulletin van de Koninklijke Belgische Botanische Vereniging, 6(1): 3-66. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20790436
5. Evans R.C., Dickinson T.A. 2005. Floral ontogeny and morphology in Gillenia ("Spiraeoideae") and subfamily Maloideae C.Weber (Rosaceae). International Journal of Plant Sciences, 166(3): 427–447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/428631
6. Farkas Á., Orocz-Kovács A., Bubán T. 2006. Nectary structure of pear cultivars and its relation to fire blight susceptibility. Acta Horticulture, 704: 131–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2006.704.16
7. Farkas Á., Mihalik E., Dorgai L., Babán T. 2012. Floral traits affecting fire blight infection and management. Trees, 26: 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-011-0627-x
8. Fedoronchuk M.M. 2017. Ukrainian Botanical Journal, 74(1): 3–15. https://doi.org/10.15407/ukrbotj74.01.003
9. Kartashova N.N. 1965. Stroenie i funktsiya nektarnikov tsvetka dvudolnykh rasteniy. Tomsk: Izd-vo Tomskogo universiteta, 194 pp.
10. Khrzhanovskiy V.G. 1954. Rosa. In: Flora URSR, vol. 6. Ed. D.K. Zerov. Kyiv: AN URSR, pp. 177–280.
11. Khrzhanovskiy V.G. 1958. Rozy. Moscow: Sovetskaya nauka, 498 pp.
12. Lindenbaum S., Ginzburg C., Halevy A. 1975. A morphological study of the "Bullhead" malformation in the Baccara rose. Annals of Botany, 39(2): 219–223. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a084933
13. Lindley J. 1820. Rosarum monographia, or, A botanical history of roses: to which is added an appendix for the use of cultivators in which the most remarkable garden varieties are systematically arranged. London: Printed for J. Ridgeway, 156 pp. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.10316
14. Nagy-Déri H., Orocz-Kovács Z.S., Farkas Á. 2007. Morphological characterization of the floral nectary in some apple-shaped and pear-shaped quince cultivars. Acta Botanica Hungarica, 49(3–4). pp. 359–375. https://doi.org/10.1556/ABot.49.2007.3-4.11
15. Notov A.A., Andreeva E.A. 2007. Vestnik Tverskogo gosuniversiteta. Seriya: Biologiya i ekologiya, 6: 205–216.
16. POWO, 2022–onward. Plants of the World Online. Facilitated by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Available at: http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/
17. Radice S., Galati B.G. 2003. Floral nectary ultrastructure of Prunus persica (L.) Batch cv. Forastero (Newcomer), an Argentine peach. Plant Systematics and Evolution, 238: 23–32. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00606-002-0279-9
18. Rubtsova O.L. 2009. Rid Rosa L. v Ukraini: genofond, istoriya, napryami doslidzhen, dosyagnennya ta perspektivi. Kyiv: Feniks, 375 pp.
19. Takhtajan A. 2009. Flowering Plants. 2^nd ed. Berlin: Springer Science + Business Media B.V., 871 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9609-9
20. Weryszko-Chmielewska E., Masierowska M.I., Konarska A. 2003. Characteristics of floral nectaries and nectar in two species of Crataegus (Rosaceae). Plant Systematics and Evolution, 238(1–4): 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00606-002-0283-0
21. Wissemann V. 2003. Conventional taxonomy (wild roses). In: Encyclopedia of rose science. Eds. A.V. Roberts, T. Debener, S. Gudin. London: Elsevier, pp. 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809633-8.05017-2