Incompatibility in Rubus arcticus L.

Tammisola, Jussi; Ryynänen, Annikki

doi:10.1111/j.1601-5223.1970.tb02350.x

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Abutilon hybridum (Pandey, 1960) Myrsinaceae Anagallis monelli (Talavera et al, 2001) Onagraceae Oenothera organensis; O. rhombipetala (Emerson, 1939;Ball & Hecht, 1965) Papaveraceae Papaver nudicaule; P. rhoeas (Faberg e, 1942;Lawrence, 1975) Plantaginaceae Antirrhinum glutinosum (Gruber, 1932in Pandey, 1956 Nemesia strumosa (Riley, 1934) Veronica syriaca (Filzer, 1926in Arasu, 1968 Plantago lanceolata (Ross, 1978) Poaceae (all with 2 loci S & Z) Secale cereale (Lundquist, 1954) Phalaris caerulescens (Hayman, 1956) Festuca pratensis (Lundquist, 1955) Hordeum bulbosum (Lundquist, 1962) Dactylis aschersoniana, D. glomerata (Lundquist, 1965(Lundquist, , 1969 Briza media (Murray, 1974) Polemoniaceae Phlox drummondii (Levin, 1993) Ranunculaceae (all 3-4 loci) Ranunculus acris; R. bulbosus; R. polyanthemous (Østerbye, 1975) Caltha palustris (Lundquist, 1992) Rosaceae Prunus avium (Crane & Brown, 1937;Darlington & Mather, 1961) Rubus arcticus (Tammisola & Ryynanen, 1970) Rubiaceae Coffea canephora (Berthaud, 1980) Solanaceae Nicotiana 'sanderae' (East & Yarnell, 1929) Petunia violacea (Harland & Atteck, 1933) Physalis ixocarpa (Pandey, 1957; 2 loci) Solanum aracc-papa; S. subtilius, S. caldasii (Pal & Pushkar, 1942;Pushkar, 1945Pushkar, , 1953 Homomorphic sporophytic self-incompatibility (SSI) Asteraceae Calotis cuneifolia (Davidson & Stace, 1986) Cosmos bipinnatus (Crowe, 1954) Crepis foetida (Hughes & Babcock, 1950) Parthenium argentatum …”

Section: Loci) Malvaceaementioning

confidence: 99%

Late‐acting self‐incompatibility–the pariah breeding system in flowering plants

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contents 717I.717II.718III.718IV.720V.722VI.722VII.728730References730 Summary It is estimated that around half of all species of flowering plants show self‐incompatibility (SI). However, the great majority of species alleged to have SI simply comply with ‘the inability of a fully fertile hermaphrodite plant to produce zygotes when self‐pollinated’ – a definition that is neutral as to cause. Surprisingly few species have been investigated experimentally to determine whether their SI has the type of genetic control found in one of the three established mechanisms, that is, homomorphic gametophytic, homomorphic sporophytic or heteromorphic SI. Furthermore, our knowledge of the molecular basis of homomorphic SI derives from a few species in just five families – a small sample that has nevertheless revealed the existence of three different molecular mechanisms. Importantly, a sizeable cohort of species are self‐sterile despite the fact that self‐pollen tubes reach the ovary and in most cases penetrate ovules, a phenomenon called late‐acting self‐incompatibility (LSI). This review draws attention to the confusion between species that show ‘self‐incompatibility’ and those that possess one of the ‘conventional SI mechanisms’ and to argue the case for recognition of LSI as having a widespread occurrence and as a mechanism that inhibits selfing and promotes outbreeding in many plant species.

show abstract

Section: Loci) Malvaceaementioning

confidence: 99%

Late‐acting self‐incompatibility–the pariah breeding system in flowering plants

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rubus arcticus is a long-lived perennial with a circumpolar distribution (Tammisola, 1988), displaying bisexual flowers that are completely self-incompatible (Tammisola and Ryynanen, 1970). The species is also capable of asexual reproduction via rhizomes, which produce dense aggregations of clonal patches (Tammisola, 1988).…”

Section: Generalization At the Species Level: Study Site And Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As well, Rubus can suffer from low drupelet number or "crumbly fruit, " which is thought to arise if heat stress occurs during pollination (Graham et al, 2015). Here, we examine the pollen limitation in fruit production and seed set in R. arcticus, with the expectation that pollen limitation is likely because, the species is self-incompatible (Tammisola and Ryynanen, 1970) with the dominant pollinators being bees (Kangasjärvi and Oksanen, 1989). As R. arcticus was observed to have fragile stigmas, we further investigated (1) how the handling efficiency differs in the dominant visitors of this species in Canada and (2) whether microclimate would affect the visitation by the more efficient pollinators.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When less is more: Visitation by generalist pollinators can have neutral or negative effects on plant reproduction

Burns

Villalobos²,

Vamosi³

2022

Front. Ecol. Evol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Selection for specialized coevolutionary relationships can arise if generalized opportunistic pollinators, while still delivering some pollen, operate as less effective pollen delivery agents. Nevertheless, generalization could buffer high-latitude communities from loss of specialist pollinator species by providing some pollination service. Currently, there is limited understanding of the ecosystem services provided by generalized pollinators and whether they increase the fitness of the plants they visit. Network data and thorough observations of floral visitors, paired with estimates of seed set, offer some insight into the role of generalists, which in turn can inform us about how plants are likely to respond to ecosystem disturbances, such as losses of some pollinators, or changes in land cover. Here, we report on plant-pollinator visitation networks in Canada with high levels of generalization and examine the effects of generalization on seed set under different disturbance histories. We also then take a case study of one crop wild relative, Rubus arcticus or Arctic raspberry, and report on a near-complete characterization of pollinator interactions in different environmental conditions. Our findings indicate that generalized pollinators, though frequent and robust to variable temperatures and moisture conditions, do not appear to play a strong role in increasing the reproductive output of many plant species, and may provide only a weak buffer against the stronger effects of disturbance.

show abstract

“…After first (terminal) flowering in the spring, there is often second phase of flowering associated with the growth of axillary shoots (Ryynänen 1973). Cross-pollination by insects is necessary for arctic bramble fruiting (Tammisola and Ryynänen 1970;Tammisola 1988). In traditional field cultivation, arctic bramble plants compete poorly against weeds (Ryynänen 1973;Hellqvist 2000;Kokko et al 2012), and the emergence of fungal diseases has caused a decline in arctic bramble cultivation in Finland (Koponen et al 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sphagnum moss is a promising growth substrate in arctic bramble container cultivation

Tommila

Kämäräinen

Kokko

et al. 2022

Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B — Soil & Plant Sc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Development of container cultivation methods for arctic bramble (Rubus arcticus L.) is currently underway. The aim of this study was to evaluate Sphagnum moss and two substrate mixes containing peat and coir or perlite as alternatives for a pure peat substrate in arctic bramble container cultivation, with particular interest on Sphagnum moss. The experiment was conducted in plastic high tunnel in plant towers with three planting levels (Top, Middle, Bottom). The substrates used were unfertilised peat (UP), an UP and perlite mix (80/20 by dry loose volume) (UPP), an UP and commercial coir mix (50/50) (UPCoir) and unfertilised Sphagnum moss (SM). Plant vigour was higher in SM compared to UP and UPP, while total fruit yield, mean fruit weight and individual drupelet weight were higher in SM compared to UPP. Both plant vigour and fruit yield were substantially reduced on Middle and especially Bottom level, compared to the Top level of plant towers. Water retention measurement of pure substrate materials showed higher air volume content in SM compared to UP or pure coir material. We conclude that Sphagnum moss is a highly promising substitute for peat as a substrate in arctic bramble container cultivation.

show abstract

Incompatibility in Rubus arcticus L.

Cited by 8 publications

References 14 publications

Late‐acting self‐incompatibility–the pariah breeding system in flowering plants

Late‐acting self‐incompatibility–the pariah breeding system in flowering plants

When less is more: Visitation by generalist pollinators can have neutral or negative effects on plant reproduction

Sphagnum moss is a promising growth substrate in arctic bramble container cultivation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About