Advertisement

Der Züchter

, Volume 30, Issue 7, pp 300–312 | Cite as

Über die Kreuzungsunverträglichkeit verschiedenerBrassica-Arten als Folge eines gehemmten Pollenschlauchwachstums

  • Gerhard Röbbelen
Article

Summary

Crosses were made in all possible combinations between the following six species of the genusBrassica: B. oleracea, B. nigra, B. campestris, B. carinata, B. juncea, andB. napus. This was done in order to determine the causes of the differences in seed set after these interspecific crosses and to obtain some methods for improving the yield. The present publication deals with several investigations on the pollen tube growth in interspecific pollinations, and the following results were reported:

  1. 1.

    The germination of the pollen is retarded, and the growth of the pollen tube is inhibited with different intensities for the individual crosses. Consequently, the pollen tubes are unable to penetrate the stigma or to reach the ovules in time.

     
  2. 2.

    The inhibitory effects may be weakened or strengthened by changes of the environmental conditions which affect the mutual relations between pollen and stigma. The deficiency of pollen germinations is thus eliminated by high air humidity. The inhibition of pollen tube growth depends mainly on temperature, age of pollinated flower, and physiological stage of the mother plant. It is particularly reduced by lower temperatures (about 15° C) and less remarkable in buds and, to a certain extent, in older flowers than in those recently opened.

     
  3. 3.

    Therefore it is advantageous to carry out hybridizations of the studiedBrassica species under cool and humid weather conditions and to use plants which are not very luxurious as well as buds which would open 2 to 3 days later.

     
  4. 4.

    The same morphological and physiological peculiarities of pollen tubes that were observed inBrassica after interspecific cross-pollination are also found after self-pollination of the three diploid species ofBrassica used for this work. Therefore in the discussion of our results the interspecific inhibition of the pollen tube growth has been compared with the self-sterility reaction as it is common in many cruciferous plants.

     

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Alam, Z.: Self-sterility inEruca sativa Lam. J. Genet. (Cambridge)32, 257–276 (1936).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Attia, M. S.: The nature of incompatibility in cabbage. Proc. Amer. Soc. hort. Sci.56, 369–371 (1950).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Attia, M. S., andH. M. Munger: Self-incompatibility and the production of hybrid cabbage seed. Proc. Amer. Soc. hort. Sci.56, 363–368 (1950).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bateman, A. J.: Self-incompatibility systems in angiosperms. II.Iberis amara. Heredity (Lond.)8, 305–332 (1954).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bateman, A. J.: Self-incompatibility systems in angiosperms. III.Cruciferae. Heredity (Lond.)9, 53–68 (1955).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baur, E.: Einführung in die experimentelle Vererbungslehre. 6. Aufl., S. 272, Berlin: Borntraeger (1922).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beatus, R.: Die Selbststerilität vonCardamine pratensis. Jb. wiss. Bot.80, 457–503 (1934).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Becker, Th.: Siebenjährige blütenbiologische Studien an den CruciferenB. napus L.,B. oleracea L.,Raphanus L. undSinapis L. 1. Teil. Z. Pflanzenzücht.29, 222–240 (1951).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Becker, Th.: Siebenjährige blütenbiologische Studien an den CruciferenBrassica napus L.,Brassica rapa L.,Brassica oleracea L.,Raphanus L. undSinapis L. 2. Teil. Z. Pflanzenzücht.31, 72–103 (1952).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brune, W.: Genetische Beobachtungen innerhalb der GattungBrassica. Z. Pflanzenzücht.28, 144–185 (1949).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Calder, R. A.: Interpollination of Brassicas. New Zealand J. Agric.55, 299–308 (1937).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Christ, B.: Entwicklungsgeschichtliche und physiologische Untersuchungen über die Selbststerilität vonCardamine pratensis L. Z. Bot.47, 88–112 (1959).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Correns, C.: Selbststerilität und Individualstoffe. Biol. Zbl.33, 389–423 (1913).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Darwin, Ch.: The effects of cross and self fertilization in the vegetable kingdom. S. 98–103. London: Murray (1876).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Davies, D. R., andE. T. Wall: Effect of gamma radiation on interspecific incompatibility within the genusBrassica. Z. Vererbungslehre91, 45–51 (1960).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dionne, L. A., andP. B. Spicer: Staining germinating pollen and pollen tubes. Stain Technol.33, 15–17 (1958).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    East, E. M.: Self-sterility. Bibliogr. Genet.5, 331–368 (1929).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    East, E. M.: The reaction of the stigmatic tissue against pollentube growth in selfed self-sterile plants. Proc. nat. Acad. Sci. (Wash.)20, 364–368 (1934).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    East, E. M., andJ. B. Park: Studies on self sterility. I. The behavior of self sterile plants. Genetics2, 509–609 (1917).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Evans, H., andTh. Denward: Grafting and hybridization experiments in the genusTrifolium. Nature (Lond.)175, 687–688 (1955).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fisher, R. A., andF. Yates: Statistical tables for biological, agricultural and medical research. 5. Aufl., London: Oliver and Boyd (1957).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Focke, W. O.: Die Pflanzen-Mischlinge Ein Beitrag zur Biologie der Gewächse. S. 38 u. 455. Berlin: Borntraeger (1881).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Glenk, H. O.: Methoden zur Sichtbarmachung von Pollenschläuchen im Griffelgewebe an Ganzpräparaten. Mikrokosmos47, 121–125 (1958).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hoffmann, W., undR. Peters: Versuche zur Herstellung synthetischer und semisynthetischer Rapsformen. Züchter28, 40–51 (1958).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hosoda, T.: On new types ofBrassica naptus obtained from artificial amphidiploids. I. A new type as a forage crop. Ikushyu Kenhyu (Tokyo)4, 91–95 (1950).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kajanus, B.: Über Bastardierungen zwischenBrassica napus L. undBrassica rapa L. Z. Pflanzenzücht.5, 265–322 (1917).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kakizaki, Y.: Studies on the genetics and physiology of self- and cross-incompatibility in the common cabbage (Brassica oleracea L. var.capitata L.). Japan. J. Bot.5, 133–208 (1930).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kakizaki, Y., andT. Kasai: Bud pollination in cabbage and radish. Some examples of conspicious „pseudofertility” in normally self-incompatible plants. J. Heredity (Wash.)24, 359–360 (1933).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kroh, M.: Genetische und entwicklungs-physiologische Untersuchungen über die Selbststerilität vonRaphanus raphanistrum. Z. Vererbungslehre87, 365–384 (1956).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee, S. H.: The effects of bud pollination on fertility and F1 fruit characters of some Chinese brassicas. Proc. Amer. Soc. hort. Sci.52, 435–440 (1948).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lewis, D.: The physiology of incompatibility in plants. I. The effect of temperature. Proc. roy. Soc. (Lond.) B131, 13–26 (1942).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lewis, D.: Serological reactions of incompatibility substances. Proc. roy. Soc. (Lond.) B140, 127–135 (1952).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lewis, D.: Incompatibility and plant breeding. Brookhaven Symp. Biol.9, 89–100 (1956).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lewis, D., andL. K. Crowe: Unilateral interspecific incompatibility in flowering plants. Heredity (Lond.)12, 233–256 (1958).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Linskens, H. F.: Physiologische Untersuchungen der Pollenschlauch-Hemmung selbststeriler Petunien. Z. Bot.43, 1–44 (1955).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Linskens, H. F.: Zur Frage der Entstehung der Abwehr-Körper bei der Inkompatibilitätsreaktion vonPetunia. I. Versuche zur Markierung der Griffel mit P32 und C14-Verbindungen. Ber. dtsch. bot. Ges.71, 3–10 (1958).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Linskens, H. F.: Zur Frage der Entstehung der Abwehr-Körper bei der Inkompatibilitätsreaktion vonPetunia. II. Versuche mit radioaktiv markiertem Pollen. Ber. dtsch. bot. Ges.72, 84–92 (1959).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Linskens, H. F.: Zur Frage der Entstehung der Abwehr-Körper bei der Inkompatibilitätsreaktion vonPetunia. III Serologische Teste mit Leitgewebs- und Pollen-Extrakten. Z. Bot.48, 126–135 (1960).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Linskens, H. F., undK. Esser: Stoffaufnahme der Pollenschläuche aus dem Leitgewebe des Griffels. Proc. kon. ned. Akad. Wet. (Amsterd.) C62, 150–154 (1959).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mizushima, U.: Karyo-genetical studies onBrassiceae. (Japanisch) Tokyo: Gihodo (1952).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mohammad, A.: Pollination studies in toria (Brassica napus L. var.dichotoma Prain) and sarson (Brassica campestris L. var.sarson Prain). Indian J. agr. Sci.5, 125–154 (1935).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Morinaga, T.: Preliminary note on interspecific hybridization inBrassica. Proc. Imp. Acad. Japan4, 620–622 (1928).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Morinaga, T.: Interspecific hybridization inBrassica. I. The cytology of F1-hybrids ofB. napella and various other species with 10 chromosomes. Cytologia (Tokyo)1, 16–27 (1929a).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Morinaga, T.: Interspecific hybridization inBrasscia. II. The cytology of F1 hybrids ofB. cernua and various other species with 10 chromosomes. Japan. J. Bot.4, 277–289 (1929b).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Morinaga, T.: Interspecific hybridization inBrassica. III. The cytology of F1 hybrid ofB. cernua andB. napella. J. Dept. Agr. Kyuschu Imp. Univ.2, 199–206 (1929c).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Morinaga, T.: Interspecific hybridization inBrassica. IV. The cytology of F1 hybrids ofB. carinata and some other species with 10 chromosomes. Cytologia (Tokyo)3, 77–83 (1931).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Morinaga, T.: Interspecific hybridization inBrassica. V. The cytology of F1 hybrid ofB. carinata andB. alboglabra. Japan. J. Bot.6, 467–476 (1933).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Morinaga, T.: Interspecific hybridization inBrassica. VI. The cytology of F1 hybrids ofB. juncea andB. nigra. Cytologia (Tokyo)6, 62–67 (1934).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Moritz, O.: Die Serologie der pflanzlichen Eiweißkörper. In: Hdb. d. Pflanzenphysiologie (Hrsg. W. Ruhland) Bd.8, S. 356–451, Berlin: Springer (1958).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Munro, R.: On the reproduction and cross-fertilization of Passifloras. Transact. Proc. bot. Soc., Edinburgh9, 399–402 (1868).Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Murabaa, A. I. M. el: Factors affecting seed set in brussels sprout, radish and cyclamen. Meded. Landb. Hoogesch., Wageningen57, 1–33 (1957a).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Murabaa, A. I. M. el: Effect of high temperature on imcompatibility in radish. Euphytica (Wageningen)6, 268–270 (1957b).Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Nelson, A.: Fertility in the genusBrassica. J. Genet. (Cambridge)18, 109–135 (1927).Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Odland, M. L., andC. J. Noll: The utilization of cross-incompatibility and self-incompatibility in the production of F1 hybrid cabbage. Proc. Amer. Soc. hort, Sci.55, 391–402 (1950).Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Oelke, J.: Zur Physiologie der Selbst- und Kreuzungssterilität beim Radieschen (Raphanus sativus L.). Züchter27, 358–369 (1957).Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Olsson, G.: Undersökning av självfertiliteten hos artificiell raps. Kungl. Lantbruksakad. (Stockh.)92, 394–402 (1953).Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Olsson, G.: Species crosses within the genusBrassica. I. ArtificialBrassica juncea Coss. Hereditas (Lund)46, 171–223 (1960).Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Olsson, G., A. Josefsson, A. Hagberg, andS. Ellerström: Synthesis of the ssp.rapifera ofBrassica napus. Hereditas (Lund)41, 241–249 (1955).Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Pearson, O. H.: Observations on the type of sterility inBrassica oleracea var.capitata. Proc. Amer. Soc. hort. Sci.26, 34–38 (1929).Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Riley, H. P.: The genetics and physiology of self-sterility in the genusCapsella. Genetics21, 24–39 (1936).Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Roemer, W.: Fruchtbarkeits- und Vererbungsstudien beiBrassica-Artkreuzungen. Z. Pflanzenzücht.20, 377–416 (1935).Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Rudorf, W.: Über die Erzeugung und die Eigenschaften synthetischer Rapsformen. Z. Pflanzenzücht.29, 35–54 (1951).Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Rudorf, W.: Experimentell aus ihren Ursprungsarten hergestellte Rapsformen im Vergleich mit natürlichem Raps. Fette u. Seife60, 635–637 (1958).Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Sasaoka, T.: Karyological observations in different interspecific hybrids ofBrassica. Japan. J. Genet.6, 20–32 (1930).Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Sears, E. R.: Cytological phenomena connected with selfsterility in the flowering plants. Genetics22, 130–181 (1937).Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Sinskaja, E. N.: Geno-systematical investigations of cultivatedBrassica. Bull. appl. Bot., Genet. a. Plant Breeding (Leningrad)17, (1), 1–166 (1927).Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Sutton, A. W.:Brassica crosses. J. Linnean Soc. (Lond.)38, 337–349 (1908).Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Swaminathan, M. S.: Overcoming cross-incompatibility among some Mexican diploid species ofSolanum. Nature (Lond.)176, 887–888 (1955).Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Stout, A. B.: Cyclic manifestations of sterility inBrassica pekinensis andB. chinensis. Bot. Gaz.73, 110–132 (1922).Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Stout, A. B.: The physiology of incompatibilities. Amer. J. Bot.10, 459–461 (1923).Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Stout, A. B.: Pollen-tube behaviour inBrassica pekinensis with reference to self-incompatibility in fertilization. Amer. J. Bot.18, 686–695 (1931).Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Straub, J.: Zur Entwicklungs-physiologie der Selbststerilität vonPetunia. II. Das Prinzip des Hemmungsmechanismus. Z. Naturforsch.26, 433–444 (1947).Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Straub, J.: Das Überwinden der Selbststerilität. Z. Bot.46, 98–111 (1958).Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Tatebe, T.: Studies on the behaviour of incompatible pollen in the Japanese radish. J. hort. Ass. Japan11, 207–234 (1940).Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Tatebe, T.: Studies on the inhibiting substance that prevents the self-fertilization of the Japanese radish. J. hort. Ass. Japan16, 106–125 (1947).Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Tatebe, T.: Studies on the behaviour of incompatible pollen inBrassica. IV.Brassica oleracea L. var.capitata and var.botrytis L. J. hort. Ass. Japan20, 19–26 (1951).Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Tatebe, T.: Studies on the selfincompatibility of the common cabbage. II. On inhibiting substance. J. hort. Ass. Japan24, 168–174 (1955).Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Troll, H. J.: Beobachtungen über die Winterfestigkeit und deren Vererbung an verschiedenen Rapsformen und ihren Bastarden. Züchter17, 439–447 (1947).Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    U, Nahagaru: Genome analysis inBrassica with special reference to the experimental formation ofB. napus and peculiar mode of fertilization. Japan. J. Bot.7, 389–452 (1935).Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Watkins, A. E.: Hybrid sterility and incompatibility. J. Genet. (Cambridge)25, 125–162 (1932).Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Wiering, D.: Artificial pollination of cabbage plants. Euphytica (Wageningen)7, 223–294 (1958).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1960

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerhard Röbbelen
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Pflanzenbau und Pflanzenzüchtung der Universität GöttingenGöttingenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations