1990
DOI: 10.1002/j.1537-2197.1990.tb14452.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Among‐ and Within‐flower Comparisons of Pollen Tube Growth Following Self‐ and Cross‐pollinations in Dianthus Chinensis (Caryophyllaceae)

Abstract: Wecomparedthe rate of pollen tube growth following self-and cross-pollinations both among and within flowers of two clonesof Dianthus chinensis L. For among-flower comparisons, both styles of a flower were pollinated with either self-or cross-pollen. Within-flower comparisons weremade between the two stylesof the same flower, one of which was self-pollinated and the other cross-pollinated. Comparisons between flowers indicatedthat self-pollen grewslowerthan cross-pollen in both clones. However, differences in … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
51
1
1

Year Published

1991
1991
2008
2008

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 77 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
1
51
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, in most cases the mechanisms producing the observed variation in siring success have not been clearly identified (Barrett, 1988;Walsh & Charlesworth, 1992). Other studies showing differences in germination and tube growth between self and outcross pollen (Cruzan, 1989;Hessig, 1989;Aizen et a!., 1990) suggest that siring differences may arise from prezygotic inhibition of selfed pollen tube growth.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, in most cases the mechanisms producing the observed variation in siring success have not been clearly identified (Barrett, 1988;Walsh & Charlesworth, 1992). Other studies showing differences in germination and tube growth between self and outcross pollen (Cruzan, 1989;Hessig, 1989;Aizen et a!., 1990) suggest that siring differences may arise from prezygotic inhibition of selfed pollen tube growth.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is unclear at which stage between pollination and determination of progeny genotypes the success of self-pollination is reduced. Pollen grains may differ in their ability to germinate on stigmas (Levin and Clay, 1985), in the growth rate of their pollen-tubes (Aizen et al, 1990;Snow andSpira, 1991a, 1991b) or in their probability of degeneration after ovule penetration (Waser and Price, 1991), while the probability of embryo abortion after fertilization may also be different (Manasse and Stanton, 1991). Reduced seed set following higher levels of self-pollination of F, plants may account for the smaller fraction of developed seeds observed for these plants in the sparse experimental patch 2.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This method (comparing individuals against a standard pollen donor with a genetic marker) has been used frequently in pollen competition studies, particularly on maize (Ottaviano et a!., 1983;Landi & Frascaroli, 1988 (urn/mm) pollen donor affects pollen tubes from other donors in the same way, either enhancing or inhibiting their growth to a similar extent. Some studies have suggested that pollen tubes interact (Aizen et a!., 1990;Cruzan, 1990a), but this is usually the result of incompatibility phenomena such as cryptic self-incompatibility (reviewed by Barrett, 1988) or the mentor effect, i.e. fertilization by normally incompatible pollen when compatible pollen is also present (Visser, 1983).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%