Editorial: Introducing Commentaries to Annals of Botany

We have introduced a new section of ‘Commentaries’ to Annals of Botany. This series will present a personal perspective, from an expert, on the results presented in a paper in the same issue of Annals. Commentaries will often give a wider view of the work, putting it in a context that our readers will be familiar with, and they will bring out implications for understanding, application or areas for future progress. I’m delighted to announce Commentaries formally here. While being personal views of the contributors, Commentaries are reviewed against the same criteria of being novel, substantial, rigorous and ‘making a difference to the field of plant science’ that we apply to all of the content published in Annals. Rather than making a theoretical announcement, the current issue (124/2) includes the eight and ninth commentaries we have published (Arnold & Chittka, 2019; Chester, 2019), with an exciting pipeline coming up in future issues. You can see the range of important botanical topics covered from the citations and links below, and a special page of our website (https://academic.oup.com/aob/pages/commentaries) will highlight the Commentaries (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

The homepage https://academic.oup.com/aob/pages/commentaries featuring recent Commentaries in Annals of Botany.

At the Editorial Team of Annals of Botany, we are exceptionally happy to say that Professor Hugh Dickinson has agreed to act as the Coordinator and Editor for the Commentaries. His insight into botany is enormous and we welcome the opportunity to work with Hugh in this capacity. As well as being a regular Annals author (most recently, Junqueira et al., 2018), Hugh is also the Chairman of the not-for-profit charity that owns the Journal. Publication of the freely-available Commentaries is part of the ‘public benefit’ we present to botanists and our wider society.

Each Commentary is about 1,200 words long and includes an illustration to bring out major points in the work, citing a few key references. As quite a number of Annals authors know already, your Chief Editor is averse to generic comments about ‘improving understanding’, ‘being important’, or ‘showing more work is needed’. We expect the Commentaries to be critical and always go beyond a restatement of the results of the target paper, making definite statements about the relevance and impact of the ‘target’ work.

Notably, like all other content in Annals of Botany, we invite all our readers to contribute Commentaries about forthcoming articles. We are keen to ensure all botanists can contribute to our content, and a Commentary can be an excellent way to present your own ideas around a new publication. Nevertheless, we expect most Commentaries will be invited, being written by peers and acknowledged experts in the field of the paper. Some Commentary authors may have reviewed the submission for our Editors, so referees should also feel free to suggest writing a Commentary for a paper they have helpfully reviewed. The timescale for writing is short, but, with our new development of publishing author manuscripts online immediately after acceptance (https://academic.oup.com/aob/advance-articles), there is a month before the typeset proofs have been approved, during which a Commentary can be written and submitted for review. If you would like to submit a Commentary, please write to the Editorial Office (office@annbot.com) with an intention to submit, since we would not normally publish two Commentaries about one paper.

PUBLISHED COMMENTARIES

Arnold S E J, Chittka L. 2019. Flower colour diversity seen through the eyes of pollinators. A commentary on ‘Floral colour structure in two Australian herbaceous communities: it depends on who is looking’. Annals of Botany 124(2): viii–ix.

Blackmore S. 2019. Experimental ‘morphogenesis in miniature’ illuminates the evolution and development of pollen wall patterns. A commentary on: ‘Mimicking pollen and spore walls: self-assembly in action’. Annals of Botany 123(7): vi–vii.

Brodribb T. 2019. The changing world of drought resistance. A commentary on: ‘Embolism resistance in stems of herbaceous Brassicaceae and Asteraceae is linked to differences in woodiness and precipitation’. Annals of Botany 124(1): iv–v.

Chester M. 2019. The makings of higher-order polyploids. A commentary on ‘The story of promiscuous crucifers: origin and genome evolution of an invasive species, Cardamine occulta (Brassicaceae), and its relatives’. Annals of Botany 124(2): vi–vii.

Hempel de Ibarra N, Somanatha H. 2019. How are pollinators guided by colourful floral structures? A commentary on: ‘The role of pollinator preference in the maintenance of pollen colour variation’. Annals of Botany 123(6): iv–vi.

Kooyers N. 2019. Are drought resistance strategies associated with life history strategy? A commentary on: ‘ Arabidopsis species deploy distinct strategies to cope with drought stress’. Annals of Botany 124(1): vi–vii.

Muyle A. 2019. How different is the evolution of sex-biased gene expression between plants and animals? A commentary on: ‘Sexual dimorphism and rapid turnover in gene expression in pre-reproductive seedlings of a dioecious herb’. Annals of Botany 123(7): iv–v.

Olmstead RG, Bedoya AM. 2019. Whole genomes: the holy grail. A commentary on: Molecular phylogenomics of the tribe Shoreeae (Dipterocarpaceae) using whole plastid genomes. Annals of Botany 123(5): iv–v.

Renner S, Santos AS. 2019. The organization of nuclear ribosomal DNA in gnetophytes – physically separate and physically linked arrangements of 35S and 5S genes. A commentary on: ‘Remarkable variation of ribosomal DNA organization and copy number in gnetophytes, a distinct lineage of gymnosperms’. Annals of Botany 123(5): vi–vii.

SOURCE ARTICLES

Bouzid M, He F, Schmitz G, Häusler R E, Weber A P M, Mettler-Altmann T, de Meaux J. 2019. Arabidopsis species deploy distinct strategies to cope with drought stress. Annals of Botany 124(1): 27–40.

Chacon Dória L, Meijs C, Sotto Podadera D, Del Arco M, Smets E, Delzon S, Lens F. 2018. Embolism resistance in stems of herbaceous Brassicaceae and Asteraceae is linked to differences in woodiness and precipitation. Annals of Botany 124(1): 1–13.

Cossard GG, Toups MA, Pannell JR. 2018. Sexual dimorphism and rapid turnover in gene expression in pre-reproductive seedlings of a dioecious herb. Annals of Botany 123(7): 1119–1131.

Gabarayeva NI, Grigorjeva VV, Shavarda AL. 2019. Mimicking pollen and spore walls: self-assembly in action. Annals of Botany 123(7): 1205–1218.

Heckenhauer J, Paun O, Chase MW, Ashton PS, Kamariah AS, Samuel R. 2018. Molecular phylogenomics of the tribe Shoreeae (Dipterocarpaceae) using whole plastid genomes. Annals of Botany 123(5): 857–865.

Ison JL, Tuan ESL, Koski MH, Whalen JS, Galloway LF. 2018. The role of pollinator preference in the maintenance of pollen colour variation. Annals of Botany 123(6): 951–960.

Mandáková T, Zozomová-Lihová J, Kudoh H, Zhao Y, Lysak M A, Marhold K. 2019. The story of promiscuous crucifers: origin and genome evolution of an invasive species, Cardamine occulta (Brassicaceae), and its relatives. Annals of Botany 124(2): 209–220.

Shrestha M, Dyer A G, Garcia J E, Burd M. 2019. Floral colour structure in two Australian herbaceous communities: it depends on who is looking. Annals of Botany 124(2): 221–232.

Wang W, Wan T, Becher H, Kuderova A, Leitch IJ, Garcia S, Leitch AR, Kovařík A. 2018. Remarkable variation of ribosomal DNA organization and copy number in gnetophytes, a distinct lineage of gymnosperms. Annals of Botany 123(5): 767–781.