1977
DOI: 10.2307/2407748
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Evolution of Autogamy in Species of the Mustard Genus Leavenworthia

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
64
0

Year Published

1979
1979
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 63 publications
(67 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
2
64
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Leavenworthia stylosa and some populations of L. crassa and L. alabamica are self-incompatible. Some populations of both L. crassa and L. alabamica are selfcompatible, with varying frequencies of selffertilization, whereas L. uniflora, L. torulosa and L. exigua are uniformly self-compatible and highly inbreeding (Lloyd, 1965;Solbrig & Rollins, 1977). Four independent comparisons between more outcrossing and more inbreeding populations are thus possible.…”
Section: The Genus Leavenworthiamentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Leavenworthia stylosa and some populations of L. crassa and L. alabamica are self-incompatible. Some populations of both L. crassa and L. alabamica are selfcompatible, with varying frequencies of selffertilization, whereas L. uniflora, L. torulosa and L. exigua are uniformly self-compatible and highly inbreeding (Lloyd, 1965;Solbrig & Rollins, 1977). Four independent comparisons between more outcrossing and more inbreeding populations are thus possible.…”
Section: The Genus Leavenworthiamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some data on plants of the mustard genus, Leavenworthia, are reported here. This genus is a classic example of breeding system evolution (Lloyd, 1965;Solbrig & Rollins, 1977;Lyons & Antonovics 1991). The general aim of the work was to estimate genetic diversity from populations with different levels of inbreeding, to test whether inbreeding populations have lower diversity than outbreeding ones, and to estimate the magnitude of any such difference, for comparison with the results on DNA sequence diversity (Liu et al, 1998).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The numerous examples of breeding system evolution in plants (Baker, 1955;Crowe, 1964;Baker, 1966;Antonovics, 1968;Solbrig and Rollins, 1977;Charlesworth and Charlesworth, 1978;Brown and Jain, 1979) indicate that the ecological and genetic consequences of breeding systems vary in time and space. One of the most common breeding system changes is the evolution of selfing from an outcrossing ancestor (Stebbins, 1957;Crowe, 1964).…”
Section: Breeding System Evolutionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Self-fertilization has several potential advantages: 1) fathering more offspring via a combination ofself-fertilization and contributing male gametes to other individuals (Fisher, 1941;Kimura, 1958;Nagylaki, 1976;Maynard Smith, 1978;Lloyd, I 1979; Wells, 1979;Holsinger et aI., 1984;Lande and Schemske, 1985;Uyenoyama, 1986;Holsinger, 1988), 2) reproductive assurance-enhanced female reproductive success from the production of more seeds when outcrossers seed set is pollinationlimited (Levin, 1973;Jain, 1976;Solbrig, 1976;Solbrig and Rollins, 1977;Lloyd, 1979), and 3) producing locally adapted progeny that carry beneficial genes or multilocus gene complexes (Stebbins, 1957;Grant, 1958;Allard et aI., 1968Allard et aI., , 1977Antonovics, 1968). Despite the theoretical importance ofinbreeding depression in mating system evolution, there are very limited empirical data on the relationship of inbreeding depression and the mating system (Charlesworth and Charlesworth, 1987).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%