Variation in style length and the effect on reproductive success in Chinese plums (Armeniaca mume)

doi:10.17520/biods.2018317

Abstract

Abstract:

Style length might affect gametophyte competition during pollen germination and pollen tube elongation if pollen quality and quantity deposited on stigmas differs with style length. However, it is unknown whether pollen donors from flowers with different style lengths affect sexual reproduction. Field observation noted that style length of Armeniaca mume varied within individuals including those with long-style type, short-style type and male-flower type. Corolla diameters, pistil length, style length, pollen number and pollen volume of long-style type were significantly higher than those of short-style type. Flower longevity and female phase of long-style type were significantly longer than those of short-style type. Pollen germination rates among long-style, short-style and male-flower types were not significantly different. Pollen tube length of the male-flower type was significantly longer than that of long-style and short-style types. Pollen germination rates and pollen tube length of long-style type as pollen recipient were significantly higher than those of short-style type as pollen recipient. Fruit sets did not significantly differ between flowers pollinated by pollen from long-style, short-style and male-flower types with open-pollinated individuals. Fruit sets of long-style type as pollen recipient were significantly higher than those of short-style type as pollen recipient.

Key words: Armeniaca mume, variation in style length, intraplant floral variation, pollen germination rates, pollen tube length, fruit set, pollen siring success

Wang Xiaoyue,Zhu Xinxin,Yang Juan,Liu Yunjing,Tang Xiaoxin. Variation in style length and the effect on reproductive success in Chinese plums (Armeniaca mume)[J]. Biodiv Sci, 2019, 27(2): 159-167.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://www.biodiversity-science.net/EN/10.17520/biods.2018317

https://www.biodiversity-science.net/EN/Y2019/V27/I2/159

Figures/Tables 6

References 34

[1]	Barrett SCH, Hough J ( 2013) Sexual dimorphism in flowering plants. Journal of Experimental Botany, 64, 67-82. DOI URL
[2]	Barrett SCH, Harder LD ( 2005) The evolution of polymorphic sexual systems in daffodils (Narcissus). New Phytologist, 154, 45-53. DOI URL PMID
[3]	Bell G ( 1985) On the function of flowers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 224, 223-265. DOI URL
[4]	Bernasconi G, Lang DJ, Schmid B ( 2007) Microgametophyte population sizes and plant reproductive output in the insect- pollinated Prunella grandiflora (Lamiaceae). New Phytologist, 173, 393-400. DOI URL PMID
[5]	Campbell DR ( 1989) Measurements of selection in a hermaphroditic plant: Variation in male and female pollination success. Evolution, 43, 318-334. DOI URL PMID
[6]	Cresswell JE ( 2000) Manipulation of female architecture in flowers reveals a narrow optimum for pollen deposition. Ecology, 81, 3244-3249. DOI URL
[7]	Chen JY, Bao MZ ( 1992) Botanical classification and horticultural classification of Chinese Mei (Prunus mume) resources. Journal of Zhejiang Forest College, 9, 119-132. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 陈俊愉, 包满珠 ( 1992) 中国梅(Prunus mume)的植物学分类和园艺学分类. 浙江林学院学报, 9, 119-132.]
[8]	Diggle PK ( 1995) Architectural effects and the interpretation of patterns of fruit and seed development. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 26, 531-552. DOI URL
[9]	Diggle PK ( 1997) Ontogenetic contingency and floral morphology: The effects of architecture and resource limitation. International Journal of Plant Sciences, 158, 99-107. DOI URL
[10]	Erbar C ( 2003) Pollen tube transmitting tissue: Place of competition of male gametophytes. International Journal of Plant Sciences, 164, 265-277. DOI URL
[11]	Granado-Yela C, Balaguer L, Cayuela L, Méndez M ( 2017) Unusual positional effects on flower sex in an andromonoecious tree: Resource competition, architectural constraints, or inhibition by the apical flower? American Journal of Botany, 104, 608-615. DOI URL PMID
[12]	Hong Y, Fang HT, Na R ( 2006) Pollen viability and stigma receptivity of Prunus mongolica Maxim. Guihaia, 26, 589-591. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI URL
	[ 红雨, 方海涛, 那仁 ( 2006) 濒危植物蒙古扁桃花粉活力和柱头可授性研究. 广西植物, 26, 589-591.] DOI URL
[13]	Huang SQ, Guo YH ( 2000) New advances in pollination biology. Chinese Science Bulletin, 45, 225-237. (in Chinese) DOI
	[ 黄双全, 郭友好 ( 2000) 传粉生物学的研究进展. 科学通报, 45, 225-237.] DOI
[14]	Johnson MTJ, Smith SD, Rausher MD ( 2010) Effects of plant sex on range distributions and allocation to reproduction. New Phytologist, 186, 769-779. DOI URL PMID
[15]	Jürgens A, Witt T, Gottsberger G ( 2012) Pollen grain size variation in Caryophylloideae: A mixed strategy for pollen deposition along styles with long stigmatic areas? Plant Systematics and Evolution, 298, 9-24. DOI URL
[16]	Lankinen ?, Skogsmyr I ( 2001) Evolution of pistil length as a choice mechanism for pollen quality. Oikos, 92, 81-90. DOI URL
[17]	Liu CQ, Huang SQ ( 2012) Does the relative importance of resource competition and architectural effect in floral variation vary with stages of floral ontogeny? Journal of Systematics and Evolution, 50, 119-124. DOI URL
[18]	Lloyd DG ( 1980) Sexual strategies in plants. I. An hypothesis of serial adjustment of maternal investment during one reproductive session. New Phytologist, 86, 69-79. DOI URL
[19]	Love J, Graham SW, Irwin JA, Ashton PA, Bretagnolle F, Abbott RJ ( 2016) Self-pollination, style length development and seed set in self-compatible Asteraceae: Evidence from Senecio vulgaris L. Transactions of the Botanical Society of Edinburgh, 9, 371-379.
[20]	Lu LD, Bruce B ( 2003) Armeniaca. In: Flora of China (eds Wu ZY, Raven PH, Hong DY), Vol. 9, pp. 396-401. Science Press, Beijing & Missouri Botanical Garden Press St. Louis.
[21]	Ma WJ, Zhang FP, Peng YQ, Yang DR ( 2009) Comparison of style length and reproduction success in Ficus of different breeding systems. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 33, 911-918. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI URL
	[ 马文娟, 张凤萍, 彭艳琼, 杨大荣 ( 2009) 不同繁育系统的榕树雌花的花柱长度和繁殖率比较. 植物生态学报, 33, 911-918.] DOI URL
[22]	Mazer SJ, Dudley LS, Hove AA, Emms SK, Verhoeven AS ( 2010) Physiological performance in Clarkia sister taxa with contrasting mating systems: Do early-flowering autogamous taxa avoid water stress relative to their pollinator-dependent counterparts? International Journal of Plant Sciences, 171, 1029-1047. DOI URL
[23]	Mazer SJ, Moghaddasi A, Bello AK, Hove AA ( 2016) Winning in style: Longer styles receive more pollen, but style length does not affect pollen attrition in wild Clarkia populations. American Journal of Botany, 103, 408-422. DOI URL PMID
[24]	Mulcahy DL ( 1979) The rise of the angiosperms: A genecological factor. Science, 206, 20-23. DOI URL
[25]	Plitmann U ( 1993) Pollen tube attrition as related to breeding systems in Brassicaceae. Plant Systematics and Evolution, 188, 65-72. DOI URL
[26]	Ramesha BT, Yetish MD, Ravikanth G, Ganeshaiah KN, Ghazoul J, Shaanker RU ( 2011) Stylish lengths: Mate choice in flowers. Journal of Biosciences, 36, 229-234. DOI URL PMID
[27]	Roulston TH, Cane JH, Buchmann SL ( 2000) What governs protein content of pollen: Pollinator preferences, pollen- pistil interactions, or phylogeny? Ecological Monographs, 70, 617-643.
[28]	Stephenson AG, Travers SE, Mena-Ali JI, Winsor JA ( 2003) Pollen performance before and during the autotrophic- heterotrophic transition of pollen tube growth. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 358, 1009-1018. DOI URL
[29]	Taylor ML, Williams JH ( 2012) Pollen tube development in two species of Trithuria (Hydatellaceae) with contrasting breeding systems. Sexual Plant Reproduction, 25, 83-96. DOI URL PMID
[30]	Ushimaru A, Itagaki T, Ishii HS ( 2003) Variation in floral organ size depends on function. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 5, 615-622.
[31]	Wang XF, Armbruster WS, Huang SQ ( 2012) Extra-gynoecial pollen-tube growth in apocarpous angiosperms is phylogenetically widespread and probably adaptive. New Phytologist, 193, 253-260. DOI URL
[32]	Wang XY, Quan QM, Wang B, Li YX, Huang SQ ( 2018) Pollen competition between morphs in a pollen-color dimorphic herb and the loss of phenotypic polymorphism within populations. Evolution, 72, 785-797. DOI URL PMID
[33]	Wang YF, Gao HY, Shi HY, Wang JH, Du GZ ( 2008) Adaptive significance of Saussurea parviflora's sexual organs, Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, China. Journal of Plant Ecology (Chinese Version), 32, 379-384. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI URL
	[ 王一峰, 高宏岩, 施海燕, 王剑虹, 杜国祯 ( 2008) 小花风毛菊的性器官在青藏高原的海拔变异. 植物生态学报, 32, 379-384.] DOI URL
[34]	Zhang CX, Tateishi N, Tanabe K ( 2010) Pollen density on the stigma affects endogenous gibberellin metabolism, seed and fruit set, and fruit quality in Pyrus pyrifolia. Journal of Experimental Botany, 61, 4291-4302. DOI URL

花部特征 Flower character	长柱型 Long-style type	短柱型 Short-style type	雄花型 Male-flower type	Wald χ²	df	P
花萼长 Spur length (mm)	5.30 ± 0.09^a	5.38 ± 0.08^a	4.99 ± 0.10^b	8.970	2	0.011
花萼宽 Spur width (mm)	3.62 ± 0.05^a	3.78 ± 0.07^a	3.76 ± 0.12^a	2.755	2	0.252
花冠直径 Corolla diameter (mm)	24.42 ± 0.44^a	23.43 ± 0.23^b	21.64 ± 0.41^c	27.656	2	< 0.001
花瓣长 Petal length (mm)	10.44 ± 0.18^a	10.03 ± 0.16^a	9.17 ± 0.18^b	22.160	2	< 0.001
花瓣宽 Petal width (mm)	9.70 ± 0.20^a	9.31 ± 0.16^a	8.05 ± 0.25^b	32.449	2	< 0.001
雄蕊数 Stamen Number	53.71 ± 0.71^b	53.56 ± 0.79^b	56.93 ± 1.10^a	8.460	2	0.015
雄蕊长 Stamen length (mm)	9.25 ± 0.21^b	10.39 ± 0.18^a	8.82 ± 0.22^b	33.193	2	< 0.001
花药长 Anther length (mm)	1.01 ± 0.02^a	1.02 ± 0.01^a	1.01 ± 0.02^a	0.500	2	0.779
雌蕊长 Pistil length (mm)	14.46 ± 0.20^a	12.34 ± 0.21^b	3.42 ± 0.16^c	8.460	2	0.015
花柱长 Style length (mm)	12.20 ± 0.19^a	10.18 ± 0.18^b	/	58.394	1	< 0.001
花粉数 Pollen Number	37,522.22 ± 1,305.85^a	30,386.67 ± 1,412.62^b	32,000.00 ± 2,003.29^b	15.133	2	0.001
花粉体积 Pollen volume (mm³)	1,213.07 ± 28.87^a	1,102.47 ± 31.08^b	1,067.13 ± 49.45^b	10.226	2	0.006
胚珠数 Ovule Number	2.00 ± 0.00^a	2.00 ± 0.00^a	0.90 ± 0.35^b	46.620	2	< 0.001
单花期 Flower longevity (days)	10.43 ± 0.24^a	9.29 ± 0.56^b	10.70 ± 0.30^a	6.620	2	0.037
雄花期 Male phase (days)	5.46 ± 0.35^a	5.23 ± 0.52^a	/	0.140	1	0.079
雌花期 Female phase (days)	4.96 ± 0.30^a	4.06 ± 0.30^b	/	4.670	1	0.031

花部特征 Flower character	长柱型 Long-style type	短柱型 Short-style type	雄花型 Male-flower type	Wald χ²	df	P
花萼长 Spur length (mm)	5.30 ± 0.09^a	5.38 ± 0.08^a	4.99 ± 0.10^b	8.970	2	0.011
花萼宽 Spur width (mm)	3.62 ± 0.05^a	3.78 ± 0.07^a	3.76 ± 0.12^a	2.755	2	0.252
花冠直径 Corolla diameter (mm)	24.42 ± 0.44^a	23.43 ± 0.23^b	21.64 ± 0.41^c	27.656	2	< 0.001
花瓣长 Petal length (mm)	10.44 ± 0.18^a	10.03 ± 0.16^a	9.17 ± 0.18^b	22.160	2	< 0.001
花瓣宽 Petal width (mm)	9.70 ± 0.20^a	9.31 ± 0.16^a	8.05 ± 0.25^b	32.449	2	< 0.001
雄蕊数 Stamen Number	53.71 ± 0.71^b	53.56 ± 0.79^b	56.93 ± 1.10^a	8.460	2	0.015
雄蕊长 Stamen length (mm)	9.25 ± 0.21^b	10.39 ± 0.18^a	8.82 ± 0.22^b	33.193	2	< 0.001
花药长 Anther length (mm)	1.01 ± 0.02^a	1.02 ± 0.01^a	1.01 ± 0.02^a	0.500	2	0.779
雌蕊长 Pistil length (mm)	14.46 ± 0.20^a	12.34 ± 0.21^b	3.42 ± 0.16^c	8.460	2	0.015
花柱长 Style length (mm)	12.20 ± 0.19^a	10.18 ± 0.18^b	/	58.394	1	< 0.001
花粉数 Pollen Number	37,522.22 ± 1,305.85^a	30,386.67 ± 1,412.62^b	32,000.00 ± 2,003.29^b	15.133	2	0.001
花粉体积 Pollen volume (mm³)	1,213.07 ± 28.87^a	1,102.47 ± 31.08^b	1,067.13 ± 49.45^b	10.226	2	0.006
胚珠数 Ovule Number	2.00 ± 0.00^a	2.00 ± 0.00^a	0.90 ± 0.35^b	46.620	2	< 0.001
单花期 Flower longevity (days)	10.43 ± 0.24^a	9.29 ± 0.56^b	10.70 ± 0.30^a	6.620	2	0.037
雄花期 Male phase (days)	5.46 ± 0.35^a	5.23 ± 0.52^a	/	0.140	1	0.079
雌花期 Female phase (days)	4.96 ± 0.30^a	4.06 ± 0.30^b	/	4.670	1	0.031

变量 Source of variation	Wald χ²	df	P
萌发率 Germination rates
授粉处理 Pollination treatments	1.010	2	0.604
花粉受体 Pollen recipient type	4.110	1	0.043
交互作用 Interaction	3.860	2	0.145
花粉管长度 Pollen tube length
授粉处理 Pollination treatments	147.178	2	< 0.001
花粉受体 Pollen recipient type	26.615	1	< 0.001
交互作用 Interaction	19.526	2	< 0.001

变量 Source of variation	Wald χ²	df	P
萌发率 Germination rates
授粉处理 Pollination treatments	1.010	2	0.604
花粉受体 Pollen recipient type	4.110	1	0.043
交互作用 Interaction	3.860	2	0.145
花粉管长度 Pollen tube length
授粉处理 Pollination treatments	147.178	2	< 0.001
花粉受体 Pollen recipient type	26.615	1	< 0.001
交互作用 Interaction	19.526	2	< 0.001

变量 Source of variation	Wald χ²	df	P
坐果率 Fruit set
授粉处理 Pollination treatments	0.704	3	0.872
花粉受体 Pollen recipient type	3.914	1	0.048
交互作用 Interaction	5.920	3	0.116