堇菜属两个不同倍性物种在不同光周期下的花型变化及形态差异

doi:10.17520/biods.2026035

生物多样性 ›› 2026, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (6): 26035. DOI: 10.17520/biods.2026035 cstr: 32101.14.biods.2026035

• 研究报告: 植物多样性 • 上一篇下一篇

堇菜属两个不同倍性物种在不同光周期下的花型变化及形态差异

王杜丽¹^,^#, 贺佳思²^,^#, 孙坤¹, 李巧峡¹^,^*()

¹ 西北师范大学生命科学学院, 兰州 730070
² 西北师范大学地理与环境科学学院, 兰州 730070

收稿日期:2026-02-03 接受日期:2026-05-15 出版日期:2026-06-20 发布日期:2026-07-31
通讯作者: *E-mail: liqiaoxia8024@nwnu.edu.cn
作者简介:^#共同第一作者
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金(32360059);国家自然科学基金(32160055)

Flower type changes and morphological differences of two different ploidy species in Viola under different photoperiods

Duli Wang¹^,^#, Jiasi He²^,^#, Kun Sun¹, Qiaoxia Li¹^,^*()

¹ College of Life Sciences, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou 730070, China
² College of Geography and Environmental Science, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou 730070, China

Received:2026-02-03 Accepted:2026-05-15 Online:2026-06-20 Published:2026-07-31
Contact: *E-mail: liqiaoxia8024@nwnu.edu.cn
About author:
^#Co-first authors
Supported by:
National Natural Science Foundation of China(32360059);National Natural Science Foundation of China(32160055)

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 光周期是诱导两型花发育的关键生态因子。堇菜属(Viola)物种紫花地丁(V. philippica)与早开堇菜(V. prionantha)为典型的两型闭花受精植物, 同一植株均可诱导开放花(chasmogamous flower, CH花)与闭锁花(cleistogamous flower, CL花)两种花型, 其中紫花地丁为二倍体, 早开堇菜为四倍体, 目前二者倍性与形态学的相关性尚不清楚。本研究以紫花地丁和早开堇菜为材料, 分别培养于10 h、12 h和16 h光照条件下, 利用染色体核型分析及显微观察等实验方法, 开展两个不同倍性物种在不同光周期处理下的花型响应变化研究。结果表明, 紫花地丁与早开堇菜分别有24条染色体(2n = 24)和48条染色体(4n = 48); 光周期虽调控这两种植物两型花的形成, 但同一光周期下的不同花型比例存在一定差异, 在短日照(10 h)与中日照(12 h)下, 早开堇菜开放花的比率低于紫花地丁, 而在长日照(16 h)下, 早开堇菜形成完全闭锁花, 紫花地丁仍保留少量偏向闭锁花的过渡闭锁花。因此, 倍性差异可能影响了两个物种不同光周期下的花型变化, 四倍体基因剂量效应可能会强化光周期信号调控响应。此外, 四倍体早开堇菜相对于二倍体紫花地丁, 营养与繁殖器官均较大, 且气孔孔径也较大, 而气孔密度较小, 这些特征可作为两个物种鉴定的辅助指标。该研究为堇菜属多倍体与繁育系统协同进化及物种鉴别研究提供了依据。

关键词: 堇菜属, 倍性, 两型花, 光周期调控, 细胞学形态

Abstract

Aims: Viola philippica and V. prionantha are the plants with typical cleistogamous dimorphic flowers. The same plant can induce two flower types: chasmogamous (CH) flower and cleistogamous (CL) flower. Photoperiod plays an important role in development of dimorphic flower. Viola. philippica is diploid, while V. prionantha is tetraploid. At present, the correlation between chromosome ploidy and morphology remains unclear.

Methods: Viola philippica and V. prionantha were grown under 10 h, 12 h and 16 h daylight, respectively. Experimental methods such as karyotype analysis and microscopic observation were utilized, which were employed to investigate the flower type changes between diploid V. philippica and tetraploid V. prionantha under different photoperiods. Chromosomal karyotype analysis was performed via carbol fuchsin staining and observed under optical microscope. Dissection and photography were conducted under a stereomicroscope to count the numbers of CH, intermediate CL, and CL flower buds under different photoperiods. Morphological indices of leaves, flower buds and fruits were measured with a vernier caliper. Additionally, the number and size of stomata were counted by the epidermal peeling method under optical microscope. Seeds weight was determined with an electronic balance.

Results: Viola philippica and V. prionantha have 24 chromosomes (2n = 24) and 48 chromosomes (4n = 48), respectively. Although photoperiods regulated the development of dimorphic flowers in Viola, there were certain differences in the proportion of different flower types under the same photoperiod. Under short daylight (10 h) and medium daylight (12 h) conditions, the ratio of CH flowers in V. prionantha was lower than that in V. philippica. However, under long daylight conditions (16 h), V. prionantha produced only complete CL flowers, while V. philippica still retained a small amount of intermediate CL flowers that were more inclined towards CL flowers. In addition, the nutritional and reproductive organs of tetraploid V. prionantha were significantly larger than those of diploid V. philippica. Moreover, the pore diameter of the stomata of V. prionantha was significantly larger than that of V. philippica, while the pore density was significantly lower than that of V. philippica. These characteristics can serve as auxiliary indicators for the identification of the two species.

Conclusion: The ploidy difference may have affected the flower type changes of V. philippica and V. prionantha under different photoperiods. The tetraploid gene dose effect in V. prionantha may have strengthened the regulatory response to photoperiodic signals. This study provides a basis for the research on the co-evolution of polyploids and breeding systems, and the identification of Viola species.

Key words: Viola, ploidy, dimorphic flowers, photoperiodic regulation, cytological morphology

王杜丽, 贺佳思, 孙坤, 李巧峡 (2026) 堇菜属两个不同倍性物种在不同光周期下的花型变化及形态差异. 生物多样性, 34, 26035. DOI: 10.17520/biods.2026035.

Duli Wang, Jiasi He, Kun Sun, Qiaoxia Li (2026) Flower type changes and morphological differences of two different ploidy species in Viola under different photoperiods. Biodiversity Science, 34, 26035. DOI: 10.17520/biods.2026035.

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://www.biodiversity-science.net/CN/10.17520/biods.2026035

https://www.biodiversity-science.net/CN/Y2026/V34/I6/26035

图/表 6

图1 紫花地丁(A-C)和早开堇菜(D-F)的不同花型。(A)、(D): 开放花; (B)、(E): 闭锁花; (C)、(F): 过渡闭锁花。pe: 花瓣; st: 雄蕊; se: 萼片; sg: 柱头; fi: 花丝; ng: 蜜腺体。

Fig. 1 The different flower shapes of Viola philippica (A-C) and V. prionantha (D-F). (A), (D), Chasmogamous flower; (B), (E), Cleistogamous flower; (C), (F), Intermediate cleistogamous flower. pe, Petal; st, Stamen; se, Sepal; sg, Stigma, fi, Filament, ng, Nectary.

图2 紫花地丁(A-B)和早开堇菜(C-D)染色体数目比较

Fig. 2 Comparison of chromosome numbers between Viola philippica (A-B) and V. prionantha (C-D)

图3 不同光周期紫花地丁和早开堇菜花芽形态观察与数量统计。(A-B): 开放花; (C-J): 过渡闭锁花; (K-L): 闭锁花; 其中(A)、(C)、(E)、(G)、(I)、(K)为紫花地丁不同花型; (B)、(D)、(F)、(H)、(J)、(L)为早开堇菜不同花型; (M)、(N)、(O)分别为10 h/14 h、12 h/12 h、16 h/8 h光周期下不同形态花芽数量统计。pe: 花瓣; st: 雄蕊; se: 萼片。不同大写和小写字母分别表示同一光周期紫花地丁和早开堇菜不同花型所占比例存在显著差异(P < 0.05)。

Fig. 3 Observation and statistical analysis of floral morphology of Viola philippica and V. prionantha under different photoperiods. (A-B), Chasmogamous flowers; (C-J), Intermediate cleistogamous flowers; (K-L), Cleistogamous flowers. (A), (C), (E), (G), (I), (K) show the flower morphology of V. philippica; (B), (D), (F), (H), (J), (L) show that of V. prionantha; (M), (N), (O), Quantitative analysis of flower buds in different forms under 10 h/14 h, 12 h/12 h, 16 h/8 h photoperiod, respectively. pe, Petal; st, Stamen; se, Sepal. Uppercase and lowercase letters indicate significant differences in the proportions of V. philippica and V. prionantha with different flower morphologies under the same photoperiod, respectively (P < 0.05).

图4 紫花地丁(A、C、E、G)和早开堇菜(B、D、F、H)花、果实与种子的大小比较。(A-B)开放花(CH花); (C-D)闭锁花(CL花); (E-F)果实; (G-H)种子。不同小写字母表示差异显著(P < 0.05)。

Fig. 4 Comparison of flowers, fruits, and seeds between Viola philippica (A, C, E, G) and V. prionantha (B, D, F, H). (A-B) Chasmogamous (CH) flower; (C-D) Cleistogamous (CL) flower; (E-F) Fruit; (G-H) Seeds. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).

图5 紫花地丁和早开堇菜叶片的形态比较。不同小写字母表示差异显著(P < 0.05)。

Fig. 5 Comparison of leaf morphology between Viola philippica and V. prionantha. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).

图6 紫花地丁和早开堇菜气孔形态比较。不同小写字母表示差异显著(P < 0.05)。

Fig. 6 Comparison of stomata between Viola philippica and V. prionantha. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).

参考文献 28

[1]	Cao DL, Zhang XJ, Xie SQ, Fan SJ, Qu XJ (2022) Application of chloroplast genome in the identification of traditional Chinese medicine Viola philippica. BMC Genomics, 23, 540.
[2]	Correia S, Braga A, Martins J, Correia B, Pinto G, Canhoto J (2023) Effects of polyploidy on physiological performance of acclimatized Solanum betaceum Cav. plants under water deficit. Forests, 14, 208.
[3]	Cui HL, Guo HH, Yang LX, Ma XX, Li T, Chen CX, Liang HY (2023) Leaf morphology and photosynthetic characteristics analysis of diploid and polyploid Ulmus pumila. Heilongjiang Agricultural Sciences, 30(3), 68-72. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[崔华蕾, 郭欢欢, 杨丽晓, 马小欣, 李探, 陈彩霞, 梁海永 (2023) 二倍体及多倍体白榆叶片形态与光合特性分析. 黑龙江农业科学, 30(3), 68-72.]
[4]	Culley TM (2000) Inbreeding depression and floral type fitness differences in Viola canadensis (Violaceae), a species with chasmogamous and cleistogamous flowers. Canadian Journal of Botany, 78, 1420-1429.
[5]	Culley TM, Grubb TC Jr (2003) Genetic effects of habitat fragmentation in Viola pubescens (Violaceae), a perennial herb with chasmogamous and cleistogamous flowers. Molecular Ecology, 12, 2919-2930.
[6]	Gao R, Wang HB, Dong B, Yang XD, Chen SM, Jiang JF, Zhang ZH, Liu C, Zhao N, Chen FD (2016) Morphological, genome and gene expression changes in newly induced autopolyploid Chrysanthemum lavandulifolium (Fisch. ex Trautv.) Makino. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 17, 1690.
[7]	Islam MM, Deepo DM, Nasif SO, Siddique AB, Hassan O, Siddique AB, Paul NC (2022) Cytogenetics and consequences of polyploidization on different biotic-abiotic stress tolerance and the potential mechanisms involved. Plants, 11, 2684.
[8]	Li JY (1995) Key to the Plants of Northeast China, 2nd edn, pp. 418-429. Science Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)
	[李骥云 (1995) 东北植物检索表(第二版), 418-429页. 科学出版社, 北京.]
[9]	Li QX, An ZH, Zhao GF, Chen CL, Sun K, He CY (2025a) Interspecies transcriptomic comparisons reveal potential molecular genetic mechanisms underlying the evolutionary development of dimorphic flowers in Viola. Journal of Systematics and Evolution, 63, 892-909.
[10]	Li QX, Huo QD, Wang J, Zhao J, Sun K, He CY (2016) Expression of B-class MADS-box genes in response to variations in photoperiod is associated with chasmogamous and cleistogamous flower development in Viola philippica. BMC Plant Biology, 16, 151.
[11]	Li QX, Li KP, Zhang ZR, Li JG, Wang B, Zhang ZM, Zhu YY, Pan CC, Sun K, He CY (2022) Transcriptomic comparison sheds new light on regulatory networks for dimorphic flower development in response to photoperiod in Viola prionantha. BMC Plant Biology, 22, 336.
[12]	Li QX, Li YL, Li JG, Chen CL, Sun K (2024) Effects of photoperiods on the development of chasmogamous and cleistogamous flowers in Viola monbeigii and V. dissecta. Biodiversity Science, 32, 23484. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[李巧峡, 李有龙, 李纪纲, 陈晨龙, 孙坤 (2024) 光周期调控维西堇菜与裂叶堇菜开放花和闭锁花的发育. 生物多样性, 32, 23484.]
[13]	Li QX, Zhu YY, Li YL, Chen CL, Li JG, Sun K, He CY (2025b) Expression variation of Viola APETALA3 orthologous genes is correlated with chasmogamous and cleistogamous flower development. BMC Plant Biology, 25, 319.
[14]	Lord EM, Eckard KJ (1984) Incompatibility between the dimorphic flowers of Collomia grandiflora, a cleistogamous species. Science, 223, 695-696.
[15]	Luo Y, Hu JY, Li L, Luo YL, Wang PF, Song BH (2016) Genome-wide analysis of gene expression reveals gene regulatory networks that regulate chasmogamous and cleistogamous flowering in Pseudostellaria heterophylla (Caryophyllaceae). BMC Genomics, 17, 382.
[16]	Luque JMR, Sara Moreno EM, Kovalsky IE, Seijo JG, SolÍs Neffa VG (2022) Polyploidy, genome size variation and diversification in an autopolyploid complex: The case of Turnera sidoides (Passifloraceae, Turneroideae). Systematics and Biodiversity, 20, 1-18.
[17]	Song Y, Chen RC, Zhang HB, Wang C (2023) Comparative study on leaf characters between diploid and tetraploid in Clivia miniata. Horticulture & Seed, 43(3), 4-5, 16. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[宋阳, 陈睿聪, 张宏斌, 王冲 (2023) 君子兰二倍体与四倍体叶片性状的比较研究. 园艺与种苗, 43(3), 4-5, 16.]
[18]	Sternberger AL, Ruhil AVS, Rosenthal DM, Ballard HE, Wyatt SE (2020) Environmental impact on the temporal production of chasmogamous and cleistogamous flowers in the mixed breeding system of Viola pubescens. PLoS ONE, 15, e0229726.
[19]	Sun K, Wang QR (1991) Notes on the Chinese Violaceae (II)—Cytological studies on some violets of China. Bulletin of Botanical Research, 11(1), 69-72. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[孙坤, 王庆瑞 (1991) 中国堇菜科小志(二)——堇菜属植物细胞学的初步研究. 植物研究, 11(1), 69-72.]
[20]	Sun K, Wang QR (1996) Cytological studies on six species of Viola in Northwest China. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 13(1), 46-47. (in Chinese)
	[孙坤, 王庆瑞 (1996) 西北地区6种堇菜属植物的细胞学研究. 植物学通报, 13(1), 46-47.]
[21]	Tao DH, Li XH, Wang LQ, Zhou JL, Chen Y, Huo WG (2009) Progresses on determination of cell chromosome ploidy level of plants. Life Science Research, 13, 453-458. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[陶抵辉, 李小红, 王利群, 周杰良, 陈涌, 霍稳根 (2009) 植物染色体倍性鉴定方法研究进展. 生命科学研究, 13, 453-458.]
[22]	Varga S, Soulsbury CD (2020) Environmental stressors affect sex ratios in sexually dimorphic plant sexual systems. Plant Biology, 22, 890-898.
[23]	Wu ZY, Raven PH, Hong DY (2007) Flora of China, Vol. 13. Science Press, Beijing & Missouri Botanical Garden Press, St. Louis.
[24]	Yamagishi M, Jitsuyama Y, Hoshino Y (2023) Agronomic performance in tetraploid Lilium leichtlinii: Larger flowers and earlier flowering. Euphytica, 219, 126.
[25]	Ye TW, Li SF, Li YM, Xiao SX, Yuan DY (2024) Impact of polyploidization on genome evolution and phenotypic diversity in oil-tea Camellia. Industrial Crops and Products, 218, 118928.
[26]	Zhang DY (2004) Evolution of Plant Life History and Reproductive Ecology. Science Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)
	[张大勇 (2004) 植物生活史进化与繁殖生态学. 科学出版社, 北京.]
[27]	Zhang JY, Wu F, Yan Q, John UP, Cao MS, Xu P, Zhang ZS, Ma TT, Zong XF, Li J, Liu RJ, Zhang YF, Zhao YF, Kanzana G, Lv YY, Nan ZB, Spangenberg G, Wang YR (2021) The genome of Cleistogenes songorica provides a blueprint for functional dissection of dimorphic flower differentiation and drought adaptability. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 19, 532-547.
[28]	Zhu MJ, Wang ZY, Yang YZ, Wang ZF, Mu WJ, Liu JQ (2023) Multi-omics reveal differentiation and maintenance of dimorphic flowers in an alpine plant on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Molecular Ecology, 32, 1411-1424.

堇菜属两个不同倍性物种在不同光周期下的花型变化及形态差异

Flower type changes and morphological differences of two different ploidy species in Viola under different photoperiods

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 6

参考文献 28

相关文章 2

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	刘勇波. 多倍体植物混合倍性种群的建立机制研究进展[J]. 生物多样性, 2021, 29(8): 1128-1133.
[2]	黄宏文, 龚俊杰, 王圣梅, 何子灿, 张忠慧, 李建强. 猕猴桃属(Actinidia)植物的遗传多样性[J]. 生物多样性, 2000, 08(1): 1-12.