Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:24:08.494Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pollen morphological differences in Amaranthus species and interspecific hybrids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Aaron S. Franssen ,
Daniel Z. Skinner ,
Kassim Al-Khatib  and
Michael J. Horak
Aaron S. Franssen
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66502
Daniel Z. Skinner
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66502
Michael J. Horak
Affiliation:
Monsanto Co., St. Louis, MO 63141
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined pollen morphological variation among Amaranthus species and interspecific hybrids. Ten weedy Amaranthus species, a cultivated grain species, and several putative hybrids resulting from interspecific mating between common waterhemp and Palmer amaranth were grown in a greenhouse. Mature pollen was collected, viewed, and photographed with a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The pollen grains were spherical shaped with polypantoporate, or golf ball-like, aperture arrangement. Differences were observed between the monoecious and dioecious Amaranthus species. Pollen grains of the dioecious species had a greater number of apertures on the visible surface. One exception to these trends was the dioecious species, Palmer amaranth, whose pollen was similar to that of the monoecious species spiny amaranth. However, pollen grain diameters did not differ between the monoecious and dioecious plants. Significant differences also were noted between the pollen from the putative common waterhemp × Palmer amaranth hybrids and the parental-type pollen grains. Pollen of the hybrids was similar in size to the maternal parent but had an aperture number that was intermediate between parents. This indicates that pollen characteristics may be controlled by the female and that hybrids may be more prevalent than originally thought.

Keywords

Common waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer AMATAgrain amaranth, Amaranthus cruentus L. AMACRPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. AMAPAPowell amaranth, Amaranthus powellii S. Wats. AMAPOprostrate pigweed, Amaranthus blitoides S. Wats. AMABLredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. AMAREsandhills amaranth, Amaranthus arenicola I. M. Johnst. AMAARsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. AMACHspiny amaranth, Amaranthus spinosus L. AMASPtall waterhemp, Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) J. D. Sauer AMATUtumble pigweed, Amaranthus albus L. AMAALDioeciousmonoeciouspigweeds
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 49 , Issue 6 , December 2001 , pp. 732 - 737
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

Franssen, A. S., Skinner, D. Z., Al-Khatib, K., Horak, M. J., and Kulakow, P. A. 2001. Interspecific hybridization and gene flow of ALS resistance in weedy Amaranthus species. Weed Sci. In press.Google Scholar
[GPFA] Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Amaranthaceae, the pigweed family. Pages 179–184 In Barkley, T. M., ed. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Gupta, V. K. and Gudu, S. 1991. Interspecific hybrids and possible phylogenetic relations in grain amaranths. Euphytica 52:33–38.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., Chessman, D. J., and Wax, L. M. 1994. Pigweed Identification: A Pictorial Guide to the Common Pigweeds of the Great Plains. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Cooperative Extension Service Publ. S80. 12 p.Google Scholar
Iwanami, Y., Sasakuma, T., and Yamada, Y. 1988. Pollen morphology of flowering plants. Pages 10–122 In Pollen: Illustrations and Scanning Electromicrographs. Tokyo: Kodansha Press.Google Scholar
Jorgensen, T. P. 1993. The aerodynamics of golf. Pages 61–72 In The Physics of Golf. New York: AIP Press.Google Scholar
Kapp, R. O. 1969. Pollen and spore structure. Pages 3–10 In How to Know Pollen and Spores. Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown.Google Scholar
Kerr, L. A. and Kelch, W. J. 1998. Pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) toxicosis in cattle. Vet. Human Toxicol. 40:216–218.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, B. A. 1995. Interspecific Relationships Within the Genus Amaranthus (Amaranthaceae). Ph.D. dissertation. Texas A & M University, College Station, TX. 87 p.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Horak, M. J., and Vanderlip, R. L. 1997. Relative time of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) emergence is critical in pigweed-sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] competition. Weed Sci. 45:502–508.Google Scholar
Lanoue, K. Z., Wolf, P. G., Browning, S., and Hood, E. E. 1996. Phylogenetic analysis of restriction-site variation in wild and cultivated Amaranthus species (Amaranthaceae). Theor. Appl. Genet. 93:722–732.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayo, C. M., Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., and Boyer, J. E. 1998. Differential control of four Amaranthus species by six postemergence herbicides in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 9:141–147.Google Scholar
Menges, R. M. 1987. Allelopathic effects of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and other plant residues in soil. Weed Sci. 35:339–347.Google Scholar
Menges, R. M. 1988. Allelopathic effects of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) on seedling growth. Weed Sci. 36:325–328.Google Scholar
Moore, P. D. and Webb, J. A. 1978. The collection and treatment of samples. Pages 16–29 In An Illustrated Guide to Pollen Analysis. New York: Halsted Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, S. D., Yankubu, Y., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Effect on planting patterns and inter-row cultivation on competition between corn (Zea mays) and late emerging weeds. Weed Sci. 44:856–870.Google Scholar
Robertson, K. R. 1981. The genera of amaranthaceae in the southeastern United States. J. Arnold Arbor. Harv. Univ. 62:267–314.Google Scholar
Sauer, J. D. 1967. The grain amaranths and their relatives: a revised taxonomic and geographic survey. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 54:101–113.Google Scholar
Sauer, J. D. 1972. The dioecious amaranths: a new species name and major range extensions. Madrono 21:426–434.Google Scholar
Sweat, J. K., Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., Lloyd, R. W., and Boyer, J. E. 1998. Herbicide efficacy on four Amaranthus species in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 12:315–321.Google Scholar
Transue, D. K., Fairbanks, D. J., Robinson, L. R., and Anderson, W. R. 1994. Species identification by RAPD analysis of grain amaranth genetic resources. Crop Sci. 34:1385–1389.Google Scholar
Wax, L. M. 1995. Pigweeds of the Midwest—distribution, importance and management. Proc. Int. Crop Mgmt. Conf. 7:239–242.Google Scholar
Wetzel, D. K., Horak, M. J., and Skinner, D. Z. 1999a. Use of PCR-based molecular markers to identify weedy Amaranthus species. Weed Sci. 47:518–523.Google Scholar
Wetzel, D. K., Horak, M. J., Skinner, D. Z., and Kulakow, P. A. 1999b. Transferral of herbicide resistance traits from Amaranthus palmeri to Amaranthus rudis . Weed Sci. 47:538–543.Google Scholar