Overcoming Barriers to Crossability Due to Style Length

Gardella, Catherine

doi:10.2307/2437905

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…by physical treatm ents), or in other cases simply by removing stylar parts (cf. Gardella 1950). I t has been shown to be possible also by inbreeding (Hogen boom 1972 d, e).…”

Section: A Pplications Op This Model and Some Consequences For Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incompatibility and incongruity: two different mechanisms for the non-functioning of intimate partner relationships

Hogenboom

1975

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B.

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A review of the literature is given to show that the hypothesis that non-functioning of the pistil-pollen relationship is solely based on the incompatibility system can no longer be maintained and that in non-functioning of the interpopulational pistil-pollen relationship/other principles are involved. A new theory regarding these principles is dealt with. The relationship between pistil and pollen is described as an intimate relationship based on matching genic systems which result from co-evolution. This theory allows two distinct mechanisms for the non-functioning of intimate partner relationships: incompatibility and incongruity. The nature, evolution, genetics and action of these mechanisms are compared. A simple letter model for matching genic systems and for incongruity in these systems is given. Applications of the new insight gained by the distinction between incompatibility and incongruity are reviewed and some consequences for research discussed. It is concluded that the influence of the S gene has been greatly overestimated, the importance of incongruity underestimated.

show abstract

“…by physical treatm ents), or in other cases simply by removing stylar parts (cf. Gardella 1950). I t has been shown to be possible also by inbreeding (Hogen boom 1972 d, e).…”

Section: A Pplications Op This Model and Some Consequences For Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incompatibility and incongruity: two different mechanisms for the non-functioning of intimate partner relationships

Hogenboom

1975

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B.

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other possibilities may lie in the substitution of an absent promotion or in making up a shortage in penetration capacity . In the literature interesting examples can be found of succesful treatments (GARDELLA, 1950 ;SWAMINATHAN & MURTY, 1959 ;KNox et al ., 1972) .…”

Section: Practical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A model for incongruity in intimate partner relationships

Hogenboom¹

1973

Euphytica

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A model for incongruity in intimate partner relationships is described . The model is tested with results from earlier research on intimate partner relationships in plants and these results are reinterpreted . It is demonstrated that in relationships between partners from different populations incongruity, i .e . non-functioning of a partner relationship resulting from a lack of genetic information in one partner about the other, plays a major role, while that of incompatibility is secondary or absent . Sexual partner relationships and host-parasite relationships are shown to be essentially similar as regards their genetic basis . Some practical implications of incongruity are mentioned .

show abstract

“…The inability of the pollen tubes of the small-styled species to grow the full length of the larger style has been suggested as the simplest explanation for the unilateral failure of hybridisation (Pryor 1956;Tibbits 1986;Potts and Savva 1988). This certainly appears to be the case for crosses involving species with comparable disparities in style length in other plant genera such as Datura (Gardella 1950), Phlox (Levin 1978a) and Rhododendron (Williams and Rouse 1988). Nevertheless, unilateral failure of hybridisation may arise through S-locus incompatibility where self-incompatible (SI) species are crossed with self-compatible (SC) species (Lewis and Crowe 1958;de Nettancourt 1977) or incongruity (Hogenboom 1975(Hogenboom , 1984 operative at either a pre-zygotic (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unilateral Cross-Incompatibility in Eucalyptus: the Case of Hybridisation Between E. globulus and E. nitens

Gore¹,

Potts²,

Volker³

et al. 1990

Aust. J. Bot.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The growth of E. globulus and E. nitens pollen tubes in styles of E. globulus was examined in order to elucidate the site of the unilateral barrier to hybridisation. Pollen tubes of E. nitens failed to grow the full length of the larger E. globulus style. E. globulus pollen tubes grew an average of 1.4 mm per day for the first 4 days, compared with 0.8 mm per day for pollen tubes of E. nitens. From days 4 to 14, the growth of E. nitens pollen tubes slowed to an average of 0.2 mm per day and virtually no growth occurred after day 14. In contrast, E. globulus pollen tubes grew through the style and into the ovary between days 5 and 14. By day 28, at about the time of style abscission, E. nitens tubes had grown only 6 mm, well short of the full length of the E. globulus style (9-10 mm). A similar difference in growth was obtained in vitro where E. nitens pollen tubes were significantly shorter than those of E. globulus. A comparison also including E. ovata, E. urnigera and E. gunnii indicated a significant correlation between style length and in vitro pollen tube length. It is argued that the unilateral cross-incompatibility between E. globulus and E. nitens is due to a structural barrier arising from an inherent limit to pollen tube growth which is associated with pistil size.

show abstract

Overcoming Barriers to Crossability Due to Style Length

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Incompatibility and incongruity: two different mechanisms for the non-functioning of intimate partner relationships

Incompatibility and incongruity: two different mechanisms for the non-functioning of intimate partner relationships

A model for incongruity in intimate partner relationships

Unilateral Cross-Incompatibility in Eucalyptus: the Case of Hybridisation Between E. globulus and E. nitens

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About