1938
DOI: 10.1007/bf02872451
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Physiological aspects of sex in angiosperms

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
6
1

Year Published

1939
1939
1962
1962

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 168 publications
2
6
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, no experiments were carried out where the control branch was defoliated. The differential acceleration of pistillate development by short photoperiod has been reported previously (e.g., Schaffner, 1927, for Zea ma.ys; Edmond, 1930, for Cucumis sativus; Kirichenko and Bassarskaj a, 1934, for Triticum erythrospermum according to Loehwing, 1938;and Naylor, 1941, for Xanthium pennsylvanicum). Sex reversal as described here for Ambrosia was primarily an after-effect of short-day treatments although there were instances within the course of the experiment.…”
Section: ) Illustrations Show This Clearly For a Trifidasupporting
confidence: 72%
“…However, no experiments were carried out where the control branch was defoliated. The differential acceleration of pistillate development by short photoperiod has been reported previously (e.g., Schaffner, 1927, for Zea ma.ys; Edmond, 1930, for Cucumis sativus; Kirichenko and Bassarskaj a, 1934, for Triticum erythrospermum according to Loehwing, 1938;and Naylor, 1941, for Xanthium pennsylvanicum). Sex reversal as described here for Ambrosia was primarily an after-effect of short-day treatments although there were instances within the course of the experiment.…”
Section: ) Illustrations Show This Clearly For a Trifidasupporting
confidence: 72%
“…The differential acceleration of pistillate development by short photoperiod has been reported previously (e.g., Schaffner, 1927, for Zea ma.ys; Edmond, 1930, for Cucumis sativus; Kirichenko and Bassarskaj a, 1934, for Triticum erythrospermum according to Loehwing, 1938;and Naylor, 1941, for Xanthium pennsylvanicum). Generally speaking, the changes produced in the treated branch did not appear in the other branch.…”
supporting
confidence: 72%
“…flower production is no guarantee of fruit production, flower bud is considered the better term and is used in this paper (cf. Loehwing, 1938).…”
Section: General Morphology Of the Shoot Systemmentioning
confidence: 99%