Why some grasses evolved a more efficient photosynthesis and others didn't

December 24, 2012, Brown University
In this magnified cross-section of a leaf of Eriachne ciliata grass, scientists note that the circle-shaped veins are relatively close and are ringed by large "bundle sheath" cells. That anatomy promotes a more efficient "C4" means of photosythesis. Credit: Courtesy Edwards Lab/Brown University

Even on the evolutionary time scale of tens of millions of years there is such a thing as being in the right shape at the right time. An anatomical difference in the ability to seize the moment, according to a study led by Brown University biologists, explains why more species in one broad group, or clade, of grasses evolved a more efficient means of photosynthesis than species in another clade did.

Their findings appear this week in the .

Biologists refer to the grasses that have evolved this better means of making their food in warm, sunny and dry conditions with the designation "C4." Grasses without that trait are labeled "C3."

What scientists had already known is that while all of the grasses in the BEP and PACMAD clades have the basic metabolic infrastructure to become C4 grasses, the species that have actually done so are entirely in the PACMAD clade. A four-nation group of scientists wondered why that disparity exists.

To find out, Brown and lead author Pascal-Antoine Christin spent two years closely examining the cellular anatomy of 157 living species of BEP and PACMAD grasses. Using the team also organized the species into their , which they then used to infer the anatomical traits of ancestral grasses that no longer exist today, a common analytical technique known as ancestral state reconstruction. That allowed them to consider how anatomical differences likely evolved among species over time.

Paradoxically, to understand C4 evolution, the researchers focused on the anatomy of C3 grasses in each clade.

In general what they found was that in the leaves of many PACMAD C3 grasses the veins were closer together, and that the veins themselves were surrounded by larger cells ("bundle sheath" cells) than in BEP C3 grasses. Ultimately PACMAD grasses had a higher ratio of bundle sheath cells to mesophyll cells (cells that fill in the area between veins).

In C4 plants, such an anatomical arrangement facilitates a more efficient transfer and processing of CO2 in the bundle sheath cells when CO2 is in relatively short supply. When temperatures get hot or plants become stressed, they stop taking in as much CO2, creating just such a shortage within the leaf.

So PACMADs as a group had developed an anatomical predisposition to C4 photosynthesis that BEP grasses didn't, said senior author Erika Edwards, an assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Brown.

"We found that consistently these PACMAD C3s are very different anatomically than the C3 BEPs," she said. "We think that was the evolutionary stepping stone to C4-like physiology."

When the new leaves turned over

It didn't used to be this way. Back around 60 or so million years ago, BEP and PACMAD grasses were more similar and both headed in the same direction. The distance between the leaf veins in both clades had been growing closer together. But then they started to diverge in a key way. The bundle sheath cells surrounding the veins in BEP grasses started to shrink down while those in PACMAD grasses stayed larger.

For a long time the climate didn't particularly punish or reward either of those directions. But then climate changed, and opportunity knocked, Edwards said. Only PACMAD was near the proverbial door.

"When atmospheric CO2 decreased tens of millions of years after the split of the BEP and PACMAD clades, a combination of shorter [distances between veins] and large [sheath] cells existed only in members of the PACMAD clade, limiting C4 evolution to this lineage," Christin and co-authors wrote in the paper.

The researchers also found that evolution among C4 grasses was anatomically nuanced. Some C4 grasses evolved because of advantageous changes in outer sheath cells, while others saw the improvement in inner sheath cells.

Ultimately, Edwards said, studies like this one show that plant biologists have made important progress in understanding the big picture of when and where important plant traits evolved. That could lead to further advances in both basic science, and perhaps agriculture as well.

"Now that we have this increasingly detailed birds-eye view, we can start to become a more predictive science," she said. "Now we have the raw goods to ask interesting questions about why, for example, one trait evolves 10 times in this region of the tree but never over here. In terms of genetic engineering we're going to be able to provide some useful information to people who want to improve species, such as important crops."

Explore further: How drought-tolerant grasses came to be

Related Stories

How drought-tolerant grasses came to be

November 23, 2011

If you eat bread stuffing or grain-fed turkey this Thanksgiving, give thanks to the grasses — a family of plants that includes wheat, oats, corn and rice. Some grasses, such as corn and sugar cane, have evolved a unique ...

Biologist solves mystery of tropical grasses' origin

February 8, 2010

Around 30 to 40 million years ago, grasses on Earth underwent an epic evolutionary upheaval. An assemblage capitalized on falling levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide by engineering an internal mechanism to concentrate the ...

Genes may travel from plant to plant to fuel evolution: study

February 16, 2012

The evolution of plants and animals generally has been thought to occur through the passing of genes from parent to offspring and genetic modifications that happen along the way. But evolutionary biologists from Brown University ...

New research changes understanding of C4 plant evolution

November 15, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- A new analysis of fossilized grass-pollen grains deposited on ancient European lake and sea bottoms 16-35 million years ago reveals that C4 grasses evolved earlier than previously thought. This new evidence ...

Recommended for you

Scientists shed light on biological roots of individuality

February 16, 2018

Put 50 newborn worms in 50 separate containers, and they'll all start looking for food at roughly the same time. Like members of other species, microscopic C. elegans roundworms tend to act like other individuals their own ...

Plants are given a new family tree

February 16, 2018

A new genealogy of plant evolution, led by researchers at the University of Bristol, shows that the first plants to conquer land were a complex species, challenging long-held assumptions about plant evolution.

Birds and beans: Study shows best coffee for bird diversity

February 16, 2018

It's an age-old debate for coffee lovers. Which is better: Arabica beans with their sweeter, softer taste, or the bold, deep flavor of Robusta beans? A new study by WCS, Princeton University, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

1 / 5 (12) Dec 25, 2012
explains why more species in one broad group, or clade, of grasses evolved a more efficient means of photosynthesis than species in another clade did.

So here we're talking about ghosts - the mystical, imaginary cladistical tree of classification of evolutionary progress that only exists in some fertile minds, not in real life.

But, that aside, ther eal question one should be asking is
How did photosynthesis "evolve" in the first place?

The whole process is extremely complicated and the steps required cannot be separated. It either works as a whole or it does not work at all. There is currently no way to explain how the extreme control required at the quantum-molecular level could have developed by random purely physical/biological processes.

At that nanoscale level, chemical and physical constraints are so high that the only way for things to come to such a complex arrangement is by purposeful outside intervention. If you disagree, supply supporting contrary evidence.
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 25, 2012
If you don't have a cooking clue how things work, just about everything seems to be so confusingly complicated that you have to invoke mystical interventions to get things to make sense to you.
Luckily it's curable, that is IF you are willing to make the effort.
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2012
So here we're talking about ghosts - the mystical, imaginary ...

This was verrry funny, or is it ironic?
5 / 5 (7) Dec 25, 2012
So here we're talking about ghosts - the mystical, imaginary ...

This was verrry funny, or is it ironic?

I've been saying that kevin's a creationist parody for quite some time. I've seen countless comments by him that have backhanded sorts of phrases like that. Some of kevin's prior gems-


Do you realize that you are appealing to a completely unknown and unobserved entity whilst dismissing a far more reasonable and totally plausible explanation?


One needs to be on the lookout for such sleight of hand in these "journeys into the past" which are more story-telling than real science.

3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 25, 2012
This was verrry funny, or is it ironic?

Ojorf this is actually very common in religious zealots like Kevin. Quite a few of his posts criticize evolution with religious terms like "leap of faith".

They honestly don't see the irony. It's rank intentional, unconscious hypocrisy.
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2012
Creationists shouldn't comment on science. It is hilarious and the criticism that happens when fundamentalists meets facts deconverts religious en masse.

Of course, only a total imbecile would take a scientific result as somehow handwavingly supporting the opposite claim.

Here phylogenies are the observations that eventually led people to reject creationism in favor for what works. It is the observation that you look somewhat alike your parents but not exactly so. Absent exact clones we are all related by lineage family trees.
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 25, 2012
Creationists parody themselves. The real parody is that the moderators allow antiscientists on science sites, whether they draw traffic by trolling or not.

It is immoral by both these parties.

Fully understandable on account of creationists as religious standards starts with genocides, torture, slavery, misogyny et cetera in the religious texts. A few lies and misdirections is nothing in comparison, and they are always forgiven how malodorous they are.

Not so understandable for the a priori upright secular sites.
5 / 5 (4) Dec 25, 2012
@kevin - creationists shouldn't use computers. Computers are tools created by scientists and engineers using the same scientific method that discovered how evolution works.

So stop using a computer to criticize evolution, or you are being a hypocrite.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.