The assessment of incompatibility and cross-compatibility in three populations of European globeflower (Trollius europaeus L.) by observing the pollen tubes growth

• Autorzy: Antkowiak W. , Niemann J. , Wojciechowski A.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The European globeflower was shown to be highly self‐incompatible by flower bagging experiments, however, a very small degree of selfing was observed in natural populations. The present study is an attempt to evaluate the level of self-incompatibility (SI) in three Trollius europaeus populations from different sites of Poland and to assess a degree of cross-compatibility (CC) between these populations. The SI and CC of the globeflower populations were evaluated based on the pollen germination index (PGI). The observations of pollen grains germination and pollen tubes penetration were made in pistils after self- and diallel cross-pollination of globeflower plants. The pollination combinations which had the PGI equal or higher than 2 were regarded as compatible. Generally, the PGI after self-pollination of all globeflower population was over 2, indicating that they are self-compatible. Also, in two globeflower populations after cross-pollination the PGI was higher than 2 showing that there was cross-compatibility between plants of these two populations. However, the third population, from Biedrusko, was fully cross-incompatible.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: 86
• Numer: 2
• Opis fizyczny: Article 3553 [6p.],fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Antkowiak W.

• Department of Botany, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 71c, 60-625 Poznań, Poland

autor

Niemann J.

• Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Dojazd 11, 60-632 Poznań, Poland

autor

Wojciechowski A.

• Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Dojazd 11, 60-632 Poznań, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. East EM. The distribution of self-sterility in flowering plants. Proc Am Philos Soc. 1940;82:449–518.
• 2. Brewbaker JL. Biology of the angiosperm pollen grain. Indian J Genet Plant Breed. 1959;19:121–133.
• 3. Pellmyr O. The cost of mutualism: interactions between Trollius europaeus and its pollinating parasites. Oecologia. 1989;78:53–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00377197
• 4. Despres L, Ibanez S, Hemborg ÅM, Godelle B. Geographic and within population variation in the globeflower – globeflower fly interaction: the costs and benefits of rearing pollinators’ larvae. Oecologia. 2007;151:240–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-006-0578-x
• 5. Jaeger N, Despres L. Obligate mutualism between Trollius europaeus and its seed‐parasite pollinators Chiastocheta flies in the Alps. Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Sciences. 1998;321:789–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0764-4469(98)80019-X
• 6. Klank C, Pluess AR, Ghazoul J. Effects of population size on plant reproduction and pollinator abundance in a specialized pollination system. J Ecol. 2010;98:1389–1397. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01720.x
• 7. Lemke T, Porembski S. Variation in the reproductive performance of the Trollius– Chiastocheta mutualism at the edge of its range in north-east Germany. Oecologia. 2012;172:437–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-012-2500-z
• 8. Lundqvist A, Österbye U, Larsen K, Linde-Larusen I. Complex of self-incompatibility systems in Ranuculus acris L. and Beta vulgaris L. Heredity. 1973;74:161–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-5223.1973.tb01118.x
• 9. Antkowiak W. Interpopulation variability of globe flower (Trollius europaeus L. subsp. europaeus) in north-western Poland. Roczniki Akademii Rolniczej w Poznaniu. Botanika. 2002;5:3–14.
• 10. Martin F. Staining and observing pollen tubes by means of fluorescence. Stain Technol. 1959;34:125–128. https://doi.org/10.3109/10520295909114663
• 11. Antkowiak W, Wojciechowski A. The evaluation of self-compatibility and crossability in the genus Pyrus based on the observation of pollen tubes growth. Acta Agrobot. 2006;59:91–97. https://doi.org/10.5586/aa.2006.009
• 12. Matsuzawa Y. Studies of the interspecific hybridization in genus Brassica. II. Crossability in interspecific crosses, B. oleracea L. × B. campestris L. Japanese Journal of Breeding. 1983;33:321–330. https://doi.org/10.1270/jsbbs1951.33.321
• 13. Pellmyr O. Stability of plant–animal mutualisms: keeping the benefactors at bay. Trends Plant Sci. 1997;2:408–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1360-1385(97)01127-8
• 14. Hemborg AM, Despers L. Oviposition by mutualistic seed-parasitic pollinators and its effects on annual fitness of single- and multi-flowered host plants. Oecologia. 1999;120:427–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050875
• 15. Jaeger N, Till-Botraud I, Despers L. Evolutionary conflict between Trollius europaeus and its seed parasite pollinators Chiastocheta flies. Evol Ecol Res. 2000;2:885–896.
• 16. Ferdy JB, Despres L, Godelle B. Evolution of mutualism between globeflowers and their pollinating flies. J Theor Biol. 2002;217:219–234. https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.2002.3018
• 17. Denisow B, Żuraw B. Wydajność pyłkowa czterech gatunków pełnika (Trollius L.). Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska, Sectio EEE Horticultura. 2003;13:85– 91.
• 18. Suchan T, Beauverd M, Trim N, Alvarez N. Asymmetrical nature of the Trollius– Chiastocheta interaction: insights into the evolution of nursery pollination systems. Ecol Evol. 2015;5(21):4766–4777. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1544
• 19. Berry PE, Calvo RN. Wind pollination, self-incompatibility, and altitudinal shifts in pollination systems in the High Andean genus Espeletia (Asteraceae). Am J Bot. 1989;76(11);1602–1614. https://doi.org/10.2307/2444398
• 20. Schoen D, Brown ADH. Whole- and part-flower self-pollination in Glycine clandestine and G. argyrea and the evolution of autogamy. Evolution. 1991;45:1651–1664. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1991.tb02670.x
• 21. Nogler G, Genetics of apospory in apomictic Ranunculus auricomus. V. Conclusions. Botanica Helvetica. 1984;94:411–422.
• 22. Maltisberger M, Widmer A. Chromosome numbers and karyotypes within the Ranunculus alpestris-group (Ranunculaceae). Organisms, Diversity and Evolution. 2009;9:232–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ode.2009.03.003
• 23. Rendle H, Murray BG. Breeding systems and pollen tube behaviour in compatible and incompatible crosses in New Zealand species of Ranunculus L., N Z J Bot. 1988;26(3):467–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/0028825X.1988.10410649
• 24. Lewis D, Crowe LK. Unilateral interspecific incompatibility in flowering plants. Heredity. 1958;12:233–256. https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1958.26
• 25. Röbbelen G. Uber die Kreuzungsunvertätglichkeit verschiedener Brassica – Arten als Folge eines gehemmten Pollenschlauchwachstems. Zuchter. 1960;30:300–312.
• 26. Sampson DR. Intergeneric pollen–stigma incompatibility in the Cruciferae. Can J Genet Cytol. 1962;4:38–49. https://doi.org/10.1139/g62-006
• 27. Wojciechowski A. Interspecific hybrids between Brassica campestris and B. oleracea. I. Effectiveness of crossing. Observations of pollen tube growth. The course of embriogenesis. Genetica Polonica. 1985;26(4):423–436.
• 28. Wojciechowski A, Andrzejewski RP. Evaluation of crossability in intergeneric crosses Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. × Capsicum annuum L. based on the pollen tube growth. Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Biological Sciences. 1986;34(10–12):219–226.
• 29. Andrzejewski RP, Mól R. Embryological analyses of developmental stages in floral buds of sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Biological Sciences. 1985;33:61–67.
• 30. Visser DL. The effects of an alternating temperatures on the self-incompatibility of some clones of Brussel sprouts [Brassica oleracea L. var. gemmifera (DC.) Schultz]. Euphytica. 1977;26:273–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00026988
• 31. Hermsen JGTH, Ramanna MS. Barriers to hybridization of Solanum bulbocastanum Dun. and S. verrucosum Schlechtd. and structural hybridity in their F1 plants. Euphytica. 1976;25:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00041523

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.5586/asbp.3553