Abstract
InRubus L. a connection seems to exist between the degree of meiotic disturbances on the one hand, and the production of unreduced embryo sacs, pollen fertility and relative seed set on the other hand. Severe meiotic disturbances commonly encountered in apomictic taxa decrease pollen fertility and thereby seed set since pollen is necessary for endosperm development. By contrast interspecific hybrids between apomictic taxa appear to be sexual and exhibit high pollen fertilities, probably due to an improved meiosis. Thus, apomixis leads to a decreased fertility inRubus, not the opposite, as often discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Åkerberg, E., 1942: Cytogenetic studies inPoa pratensis and its hybrids withPoa alpina. — Hereditas28: 1–126.
Asker, S., 1979: Progress in apomixis research. — Hereditas91: 231–240.
Bammi, R. K., Olmo, H. P., 1966: Cytogenetics ofRubus. V. Natural hybridization betweenR. procerus P. J. Muell. andR. laciniatus Willd. — Evolution20: 617–633.
Berger, X., 1953: Untersuchungen über die Embryologie partiell apomiktischerRubus-Arten. — Ber. Schweiz. Bot. Ges.63: 224–266.
Christen, H. R., 1950: Untersuchungen über die Embryologie pseudogamer und sexuellerRubus-Arten. — Ber. Schweiz. Bot. Ges.60: 153–198.
Clausen, J., 1954: Partial apomixis as an equilibrium system in evolution. — Caryologia6 (suppl.): 469–479.
Craig, D. L., 1960: Studies on the cytology and the breeding behaviour ofRubus canadensis L. — Canad. J. Genet. Cytol.2: 96–102.
Crane, M. B., 1940: Reproductive versatility inRubus. I. Morphology and inheritance. — J. Genet.40: 109–118.
—, 1927: The origin of new forms inRubus. — Genetica9: 241–276.
—, —, 1932: Chromatid segregation in tetraploidRubus. — Nature129: 869.
Czapik, R., 1983: Embryological problems inRubus L. — InErdelska, O., (Ed.): Fertilization and embryogenesis in ovulated plants, pp. 375–379. — Bratislava: Veda.
Darrow, G. M., Longley, A. E., 1933: Cytology and breeding ofRubus macropetalus, the Logan, and related blackberries. — J. Agric. Res.47: 315–330.
—, 1933: Pseudogamy in blackberry crosses. — J. Heredity24: 313–315.
De Wet, J. M. J., Stalker, H. T., 1974: Gametophytic apomixis and evolution in plants. — Taxon23: 689–697.
Dowrick, G. J., 1966: Breeding systems in tetraploidRubus species. — Genet. Res.7: 243–253.
Einset, J., 1951: Apomixis in American polyploid blackberries. — Amer. J. Bot.38: 768–772.
Gerlach, D., 1965: Befruchtung und Autogamie beiRubus caesius. — Biol. Zentralbl.84: 611–633.
Grazi, F., Umaerus, M., Åkerberg, E., 1961: Observations on the mode of reproduction and the embryology ofPoa pratensis. — Hereditas47: 489–541.
Gustafsson, Å., 1943: The genesis of the European blackberry flora. — Lunds Univ. Årsskrift39 (6: 1–200.
Haskell, G., 1960: Role of the male parent in crosses involving apomicticRubus species. — Heredity14: 101–113.
Heslop-Harrison, Y., 1968:Rubus L. — InTutin, G & al. (Eds.): Flora Europaea2, pp. 7–25. — Cambridge: University Press.
Jennings, D. L., Craig, D. L., Topham, P. B., 1967: The role of the male parent in the reproduction ofRubus. — Heredity22: 43–55.
Kerr, E. A., 1954: Seed development in blackberries. — Canad. J. Bot.32: 654–672.
Lidforss, B., 1905: Studier öfver artbildningen inom släktetRubus. I. — Arkiv Bot.4 (6: 1–41.
—, 1907: Studier öfver artbildningen inom släktetRubus. II. — Arkiv Bot.6 (16: 1–43.
Newton, A., 1975:Rubus L. — InStace, C. A., (Ed.): Hybridization and the flora of the British Isles, pp. 200–206. — London: Academic Press.
Nybom, H., 1980: Seed germination in Swedish blackberry species (Rubus L. subgen.Rubus). — Bot. Notiser133: 619–631.
—, 1985: Pollen viability assessments in blackberries (Rubus subgen.Rubus). — Pl. Syst. Evol.150: 281–290.
—, 1986a: Active self-pollination and pollen stainability in someRubus cultivars. — J. Hortic. Sci.61: 49–55.
—, 1986b: Chromosome numbers and reproduction inRubus subgen.Malachobatus. — Pl. Syst. Evol.152: 211–218.
—, 1987: Pollen-limited seed set in pseudogamous blackberries (Rubus L. subgen.Rubus). — Oecologia (Berlin)72: 562–568.
Peitersen, A. K., 1921: Blackberries of New England—genetic status of the plants. — Vermont Agric. Expt. Sta., Bull.218: 1–34.
Petrov, D. F., 1939: On the occurrence of facultative pseudogamy in a triploid variety of raspberries, Immer tragende (R. idaeus). — Compt. Rend. l'Acad. Sci. l'U.R.S.S.22: 352–353.
Pratt, C., Einset, J., 1955: Development of the embryo sac in some American blackberries. — Amer. J. Bot.42: 637–645.
—, —, Clausen, R. T., 1958: Embryology, breeding behaviour and morphological characteristics of apomictic, triploidRubus idaeus L. — Bull. Torrey Bot. Club85: 242–254.
Rozanova, M. A., 1938: On polymorphic type of species' origin. — Compt. Rend. l'Acad. Sci. l'U.R.S.S.18: 677–680.
Thomas, P. B., 1940: Reproductive versatility inRubus. II. The chromosomes and development. — J. Genet.40: 119–128.
Weber, H. E., 1973: Die GattungRubus (Rosaceae) im nordwestlichen Europa. — Lehre: J. Cramer.
Williamson, C. J., 1981: Variability in seedling progenies and the effect of light regimes during seed production on interspecific hybrids ofPoa. — New Phytol.87: 785–797.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nybom, H. Apomixis versus sexuality in blackberries (Rubus subgen.Rubus, Rosaceae). Pl Syst Evol 160, 207–218 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00936048
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00936048