4.5 Article

STIGMA CLOSURE AND RE-OPENING IN OROXYLUM INDICUM (BIGNONIACEAE): CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
Volume 97, Issue 1, Pages 136-143

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.3732/ajb.0900100

Keywords

bat pollination; Bignoniaceae floral movement; Oroxylum indicum; stigma closure

Categories

Funding

  1. TRF/BIOTEC [BRT T_351002]
  2. Faculty of Science, and Graduate School of Prince of Songkla University (PSU)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study of plant responses to touch, particularly the responses of leaves, stems, and roots, has a long history. By contrast, floral responses are relatively unexplored. Stigma closure is common in the Bignoniaceae, but the factors influencing it are not well understood. We investigated factors influencing stigma closure and reopening and its effects on pollen receipt in seven Oroxylum indicum trees near Hat Yai, Thailand. The effects of pressure, conspecific and heterospecific pollen, and pollen load (the amount of pollen deposited) on stigma behavior were examined in 270 flowers (of the total 430 flowers evaluated in the entire study). Pressure alone resulted in faster closure than did conspecific pollination and faster reopening than did heterospecific pollination. Stigmas never reopened after conspecific pollination. Pollen load had no effect on stigma behavior. Stigmas discriminated between conspecific and foreign pollen; they reopened only after pollination with the latter. A manipulative experiment revealed that stigma closure did not affect the number of conspecific pollen grains received. We also counted pollen tubes in styles that were either hand-supplemented with outcross conspecific pollen or open-pollinated. Pollen tube numbers were highest after light pollination (similar to 900 grains), indicating that interference among pollen grains may occur after pollination with very heavy loads (>6000 grains). Possible fitness consequences of these responses are discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available