Search for: All records

Karyotypic diversity is critical to catalyzing change in the evolution of all plants. By resulting in meiotic incompatibility among sets of homologous chromosomes, polyploidy and aneuploidy may facilitate reproductive isolation and the potential for speciation. Across plants, karyotypic variants in the form of allopolyploids receive greater taxonomic attention relative to autopolyploids and aneuploids. In particular, the prevalence and significance of autopolyploidy and aneuploidy in bryophytes is little understood. Using Fritsch’s 1991 compendium of bryophyte karyotypes with augmentation from karyological studies published since, we have quantified the prevalence of karyotypic variants among ~1500 extant morphological species of mosses. We assessed the phylogenetic distribution of karyological data, the frequency of autopolyploidy and aneuploidy, and the methodological correlates with karyotypic diversity. At least two ploidy levels were recorded from 17% of species potentially increasing current taxonomic diversity of mosses to over 15,000 species. We find that for a given species, the number of unique karyotypes recorded is correlated with the number of populations sampled. The evidence suggests that cytological diversity likely underlies yet undescribed species diversity in mosses, and that intensive karyological sampling is a needed tool for its discovery. 

Introduction. Half a century since the creation of the International Association of Bryologists, we carried out a review to identify outstanding challenges and future perspectives in bryology. Specifically, we have identified 50 fundamental questions that are critical in advancing the discipline. Methods. We have adapted a deep-rooted methodology of horizon scanning to identify key research foci. An initial pool of 258 questions was prepared by a multidisciplinary and international working group of 32 bryologists. A series of online surveys completed by a broader community of researchers in bryology, followed by quality-control steps implemented by the working group, were used to create a list of top-priority questions. This final list was restricted to 50 questions with a broad conceptual scope and answerable through realistic research approaches. Key results. The top list of 50 fundamental questions was organised into four general topics: Bryophyte Biodiversity and Biogeography; Bryophyte Ecology, Physiology and Reproductive Biology; Bryophyte Conservation and Management; and Bryophyte Evolution and Systematics. These topics included 9, 19, 14 and 8 questions, respectively. Conclusions. Although many of the research challenges identified are not newly conceived, our horizon-scanning exercise has established a significant foundation for future bryological research. We suggest analytical and conceptual strategies and novel developments for potential use in advancing the research agenda for bryology.