4.3 Article

Effects of pollen quality and on pollen limitation in Crataegus monogyna (Rosaceae) in NW Spain

Journal

FLORA
Volume 203, Issue 6, Pages 499-507

Publisher

ELSEVIER GMBH, URBAN & FISCHER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1016/j.flora.2007.08.005

Keywords

fruit set; pollen limitation; pollination requirements; pollen supplementation experiments; pollen tube growth

Funding

  1. Fundacion Carolina
  2. Fundacion BBVA [BIOCON2003-162]
  3. CONICET

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pollen limitation occurs when plants produce less fruits and/or seeds than they would with adequate pollen receipt. If the addition of cross-pollen to stigmas increases fruit/seed production, it is interpreted as an evidence of pollen limitation. Much of the limitation may be associated with the quality rather than quantity of pollen; however, most studies do not discriminate between the two, which may lead to misinterpretation of the results. We studied the effects of quality and quantity of pollen on the reproduction of a northern Spanish population of Crataegus monogyna. The treatments included self- and cross-pollination, and Supplementation to open and bagged flowers. The response variables considered were number of pollen grains per stigma, pollen tubes per style, and initial and final fruit set. In the Cantabrian range, C monogyna requires insect pollinators to set fruit and is partially self-incompatible. We found that the number of pollen tubes did not differ between cross- and self-pollination treatments; however, self-pollinated flowers set less fruits than flowers that received pure cross-pollen or were supplemented with both cross- and self-pollen. The experimental design allowed us to infer qualitative rather than quantitative pollen limitation. Comparison of the number of pollen grains and tubes, and initial and final fruit set among pollination treatments suggested post-zygotic embryo selection against selfed progeny. (c) 2008 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available