Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:38:23.545Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Self- and cross-fertility in field beans (Vicia faba Linn.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Jean M. Drayner
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Trumpington, Cambridge

Extract

1. Controlled self- and cross-pollinations were performed on field bean plants. It was found that while manipulation of the flower stimulated seed setting, both self- and cross-pollination were equally effective.

2. Estimations of pollen germination on artificial medium, to which had been added extracts of styles or ovaries from the same or a different plant, gave some slight evidence of a specific inhibition by ‘self’ extracts. No analogous effect was detected on pollen tube growth.

3. Experiments in which the style was cut at varying intervals after pollination detected no difference between self- and foreign pollen in rate of growth through the style. Pollen placed on stigmas of immature flowers began growth at once although the fertility achieved was less than when mature flowers were used.

4. The composition of seed from mixed self- and cross-pollination was examined. Early application of foreign pollen increased the proportion of crossfertilization but the results were similar in hybrids and inbreds.

5. Flower manipulation was more effective in stimulating seed setting than shaking the plants. Spraying with hormone solution was ineffective.

6. It was found that plants varied in their capacity to set seed without flower manipulation (autofertility). Hybrid plants were more autofertile than plants from inbred lines.

7. X-ray pictures of unopened flowers suggested that the pollen may be more abundant and less diffuse in hybrids than in inbreds.

8. The expression of autofertility was affected by many genetic factors.

9. Seed produced by open pollination of F1 hybrids contained a much higher proportion derived from self-pollination than did seed from inbred plants grown in the same plot. Possible explanations for this difference, and some consequences for the population genetics of the species, are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Armstrong, J. M. & White, W. J. (1935). J. Agric. Sci. 25, 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, D. A. (1957). Ph.D. Thesis, Durham University.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1858). Gdnrs Chron. p. 828.Google Scholar
Drayner, Jean M. (1956). Nature, Lond., 177, 489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fyfe, J. L. & Bailey, N. T. J. (1951). J. Agric. Sci. 41, 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. L. & Blackman, G. E. (1956). J. Exp. Bot. p. 147.Google Scholar
Kirk, L. E. & Stevenson, T. M. (1931). Canad. J. Res. 5, 313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mather, K. (1938). The Measurement of Linkage in Heredity. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Picard, (1953). Ann. Amel. Plantes, 3, 57.Google Scholar
Reisch, (1952). Z. Acker- u. PflBau. 94, 281.Google Scholar
Rowlands, D. G. (1958). Hered. 12, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sirks, M. J. (1923). Meded. Landhoogesch. Wageningen, 26, 40.Google Scholar