Daniele Nocentini
University of Siena
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Daniele Nocentini.
BMC Ecology | 2015
Moritz Mittelbach; Andrey Yurkov; Daniele Nocentini; Massimo Nepi; Maximilian Weigend; Dominik Begerow
BackgroundStudies on the diversity of yeasts in floral nectar were first carried out in the late 19th century. A narrow group of fermenting, osmophilous ascomycetes were regarded as exclusive specialists able to populate this unique and species poor environment. More recently, it became apparent that microorganisms might play an important role in the process of plant pollination. Despite the importance of these nectar dwelling yeasts, knowledge of the factors that drive their diversity and species composition is scarce.ResultsIn this study, we linked the frequencies of yeast species in floral nectars from various host plants on the Canary Islands to nectar traits and flower visitors. We estimated the structuring impact of pollination syndromes (nectar volume, sugar concentration and sugar composition) on yeast diversity.The observed total yeast diversity was consistent with former studies, however, the present survey yielded additional basidiomycetous yeasts in unexpectedly high numbers. Our results show these basidiomycetes are significantly associated with ornithophilous flowers. Specialized ascomycetes inhabit sucrose-dominant nectars, but are surprisingly rare in nectar dominated by monosaccharides.ConclusionsThere are two conclusions from this study: (i) a shift of floral visitors towards ornithophily alters the likelihood of yeast inoculation in flowers, and (ii) low concentrated hexose-dominant nectar promotes colonization of flowers by basidiomycetes. In the studied floral system, basidiomycete yeasts are acknowledged as regular members of nectar. This challenges the current understanding that nectar is an ecological niche solely occupied by ascomycetous yeasts.
Taxon | 2016
Federico Luebert; Lorenzo Cecchi; Michael W. Frohlich; Marc Gottschling; C. Matt Guilliams; Kristen E. Hasenstab-Lehman; Hartmut H. Hilger; James S. Miller; Moritz Mittelbach; Mare Nazaire; Massimo Nepi; Daniele Nocentini; Dietrich Ober; Richard G. Olmstead; Federico Selvi; Michael G. Simpson; Karel Sutorý; Benito Valdés; Genevieve K. Walden; Maximilian Weigend
The Boraginales are now universally accepted as monophyletic and firmly placed in Lamiidae. However, a consensus about familial classification has remained elusive, with some advocating recognition of a single, widely variable family, and others proposing recognition of several distinct families. A consensus classification is proposed here, based on recent molecular phylogenetic studies, morphological characters, and taking nomenclatural stability into consideration. We suggest the recognition of eleven, morphologically well-defined and clearly monophyletic families, namely the Boraginaceae s.str., Codonaceae, Coldeniaceae fam. nov., Cordiaceae, Ehretiaceae, Heliotropiaceae, Hoplestigmataceae, Hydrophyllaceae, Lennoaceae, Namaceae, and Wellstediaceae. Descriptions, synonomy, a taxonomic key, and a list of genera for these eleven families are provided, including the new family Coldeniaceae (monogeneric) and Namaceae (segregated from Hydrophyllaceae and comprising Nama, Eriodictyon, Turricula, and Wigandia), the latter necessitating a revised circumscription of a more morphologically coherent Hydrophyllaceae.
Annals of Botany | 2017
Massimo Nepi; Stefan A. Little; Massimo Guarnieri; Daniele Nocentini; Natalie Prior; Julia Gill; P. Barry Tomlinson; Stefanie M. Ickert-Bond; Cary Pirone; Ettore Pacini; Patrick von Aderkas
Background and Aims Gymnosperms are either wind-pollinated (anemophilous) or both wind- and insect-pollinated (ambophilous). Regardless of pollination mode, ovular secretions play a key role in pollen capture, germination and growth; they are likely also involved in pollinator reward. Little is known about the broad-scale diversity of ovular secretions across gymnosperms, and how these may relate to various reproductive functions. This study analyses the sugar and amino acid profiles of ovular secretions across a range of ambophilous (cycads and Gnetales) and anemophilous gymnosperms (conifers) to place them in an evolutionary context of their possible functions during reproduction. Methods Ovular secretions from 13 species representing all five main lineages of extant gymnosperms were sampled. High-performance liquid chromatography techniques were used to measure sugar and amino acid content. Multivariate statistics were applied to assess whether there are significant differences in the chemical profiles of anemophilous and ambophilous species. Data were compared with published chemical profiles of angiosperm nectar. Chemical profiles were placed in the context of phylogenetic relationships. Key results Total sugar concentrations were significantly higher in ovular secretions of ambophilous species than wind-pollinated taxa such as Pinaceae and Cupressophyta. Ambophilous species had lower amounts of total amino acids, and a higher proportion of non-protein amino acids compared with anemophilous lineages, and were also comparable to angiosperm nectar. Results suggest that early gymnosperms likely had ovular secretion profiles that were a mosaic of those associated with modern anemophilous and ambophilous species. Ginkgo, thought to be anemophilous, had a profile typical of ambophilous taxa, suggesting that insect pollination either exists in Gingko, but is undocumented, or that its ancestral populations were insect-pollinated. Conclusions Chemical profiles of ovular secretions of ambophilous gymnosperms show a clear signal of pollinator-driven selection, including higher levels of carbohydrates than anemophilous taxa, lower levels of amino acids, and the presence of specific amino acids, such as β-alanine, that are known to influence insect feeding behaviour and physiology.
Flora | 2012
Massimo Nepi; Chiara Soligo; Daniele Nocentini; Mariangela Abate; Massimo Guarnieri; Giampiero Cai; Luca Bini; Michele Puglia; Laura Bianchi; Ettore Pacini
Flora | 2012
Daniele Nocentini; Ettore Pacini; Massimo Guarnieri; Massimo Nepi
Plant Ecology | 2013
Daniele Nocentini; Ettore Pacini; Massimo Guarnieri; Diego Martelli; Massimo Nepi
Acta Agrobotanica | 2015
Daniele Nocentini; Massimo Guarnieri; Chiara Soligo
Phytotaxa | 2015
Andrea Coppi; Lorenzo Cecchi; Daniele Nocentini; Federico Selvi
International meeting on Plant Reproduction | 2014
Massimo Nepi; Daniele Nocentini; Massimo Guarnieri; Gherardo Bogo; Laura Bortolotti; M. Galloni; Simona Sagona; Antonio Felicioli
International Plant Science Conference (IPSC) | 2014
Daniele Nocentini; Massimo Guarnieri; Lorenzo Cecchi; Federico Selvi; Maximilian Weigend; Simona Maccherini; Massimo Nepi