Advertisement

Journal of Genetics

, 37:421 | Cite as

Observations on heterosis inLycopersicum

  • Leonard C. Luckwill
Article

Summary

1. The investigation was undertaken in order to determine in what type of hybrid, and at what stage in the life cycle of such hybrids, heterosis was manifested.

2. Populations of seven inbred and twelve hybrid lines ofLycopersicum spp. were grown and sampled at 16, 29 and 145 days after sowing.

3. The hybrids did not germinate more quickly than their parents.

4. There was found to be very little correspondence between the presence of heterosis in the seed and in the mature hybrid, and the reasons for this are discussed.

5. No size differences were observed, either at 16 or 145 days, between reciprocal hybrids from seeds of different weight.

6. In certain hybrids heterosis was already established in the young shoot primordium by the 16th day and was maintained on a relative basis until the 145th day. In others heterosis arose subsequent to the 16th day.

7. The heights of the plants on the 139th day bore no very close relationships to their weights; several hybrids which exhibited weight heterosis did not show height heterosis and vice versa.

8. The time of flowering of the hybrids was intermediate between that of their parents, except in intraspecific crosses which differed in a major growth factor (d orbr), when dominance of early flowering was shown.

9. Heterosis in certain intraspecific hybrids is explicable on Jones’s theory of the dominance of linked size-determining factors, but in the case of interspecific hybrids it is considered that the hypothesis proposed by East gives a better interpretation of the facts.

Keywords

Seed Weight Hybrid Seed Maternal Parent Hybrid Line Hybrid Vigour 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ashby, E. (1930). “Studies in the inheritance of physiological characters. I. A physiological investigation of the nature of hybrid vigour in maize.”Ann. Bot., Lond.,44, 457.Google Scholar
  2. —— (1932). “Studies in the inheritance of physiological characters. II. Further experiments upon the basis of hybrid vigour and upon the inheritance of the efficiency index in maize.”Ann. Bot., Lond.,46, 1007.Google Scholar
  3. —— (1937). “Studies in the inheritance of physiological characters. III. Hybrid vigour in the tomato. Part I. Manifestations of hybrid vigour from germination to the onset of flowering.”Ann. Bot., Lond., N.S.1, 11.Google Scholar
  4. Blackman, V. H. (1919). “The compound interest law and plant growth.”Ann. Bot., Lond.,33, 353.Google Scholar
  5. Bond, T. E. T. (1938). “On the nomenclature of the currant tomato,Lycopersicum pimpinellifolium Mill.”Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. 150, 181.Google Scholar
  6. Castle, W. E. &Wright, S. (1916). “Inheritance in guinea-pigs and rats.”Publ. Carneg. Instn. no. 241.Google Scholar
  7. Collins, G. N. &Kempton, J. H. (1913). “Effects of cross-pollination on the size of the seed in maize.”Circ. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 124.Google Scholar
  8. East, E. M. (1936). “Heterosis.”Genetics,21, 375.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. East, E. M. &Jones, D. F. (1919).Inbreeding and Outbreeding. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  10. —— —— (1920). “Genetic studies on the protein content of maize.”Genetics,5, 543.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Engledow, F. L. &Pal, B. P. (1934). “Investigations on yield in cereals. VIII. Hybrid vigour in wheat.”J. agric. Sci. 24, 390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fabergé, A. C. (1936). “The physiological consequences of polyploidy. I. Growth and size in the tomato.”J. Genet. 33, 365.Google Scholar
  13. —— (1938). “A simple spring torsion balance.”J. sci. Instrum. 25, 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fisher, R. A. (1936).Statistical Methods for Research Workers, 6th ed. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  15. Hackbarth, J., Loschkowa-Hasenbuch, N. &Sengsbusch, R. V. (1933). “Die Züchtung frühreifer Tomaten mittels Kreuzungen zwischenSolanum lycopersicum undSolanum racemigerum.”Züchter,5, 97.Google Scholar
  16. Humphrey, L. M. (1937). “A cytological and morphological analysis of tomato species.”Cytologia, Tokyo,8, 306.Google Scholar
  17. Jones, D. F. (1917). “The dominance of linked factors as a means of accounting for heterosis.”Genetics,2, 466.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. —— (1918). “The bearing of heterosis upon double fertilization.”Bot. Gaz. 65, 324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keeble, F. &Pellew, C. (1910). “The mode of inheritance of stature and time of flowering in peas (Pisum sativum).”J. Genet. 1, 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kölreuter, J. G. (1766).Dritte Fortselzung der verläufigen Nachricht von einigen das Geschlecht der Pflanzen betreffenden Versuchen und Beobachtungen. Leipzig.Google Scholar
  21. Kopeć, S. (1927). “The morphogenetical value of the weight of rabbits at birth.”J. Genet. 17, 187.Google Scholar
  22. Lindstrom, E. W. (1935). “Genetic experiments on hybrid vigour in maize.”Amer. Nat. 69, 311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Livesay, E. A. (1930). “An experimental study of hybrid vigour or heterosis in rats.”Genetics,15, 17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Luckwill, L. C. (1937). “Studies in the inheritance of physiological characters. IV. Hybrid vigour in the tomato. Part 2. Manifestations of hybrid vigour during the flowering period.”Ann. Bot., Lond., N.S.1, 379.Google Scholar
  25. -- (1939). “On the factors affecting the mean seed weight of tomato fruits.” (In the Press.)Google Scholar
  26. MacArthur, J. W. (1934). “Linkage groups in the tomato.”J. Genet. 29, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Malinowski, E. (1935). “Studies on hybrid vigour inPhaseolus vulgaris L. Savi. Part 1.”Z. indukt. Abstamm.- u. VererbLehre,70, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Manglesdorf, P. C. &Reeves, R. G. (1931). “Hybridization in maize,Tripsacum andEuchlaena.”J. Hered. 22, 329.Google Scholar
  29. Mendel, G. (1865). “Experiments in plant hybridization.” Translation in Bateson (1913):Mendel’s Principles of Heredity. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  30. Passmore, S. F. (1934). “Hybrid vigour in reciprocal crosses ofCucurbita Peop.”Ann. Bot., Lond.,48, 1029.Google Scholar
  31. Roberts, E. &Laibile, R. J. (1925). “Heterosis in pigs.”J. Hered. 16, 383.Google Scholar
  32. Sansome, F. W. (1933). “Chromatid segregation inLycopersicum.”J. Genet. 27, 105.Google Scholar
  33. Schlösser, L. A. (1938). “Fruchtstandshöhe und Reifungsgeschwindigkeit bei Tomaten.”Züchter,10, 132.Google Scholar
  34. Shull, G. H. (1910). “Hybridization methods in corn breeding.”Amer. Breed. Mag. 1, 98.Google Scholar
  35. Sprague, G. F. (1936). “Hybrid vigour and growth rates in a maize cross and its reciprocal.”J. agric. Res. 53, 831.Google Scholar
  36. Thayer, G. B. (1934). “Inheritance of cotyledonary characters inCucurbita Pepo.”Bull. Torrey. Bot. Cl. 61, 263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Umeya, Y. (1930). “Studies on the vigour of silkworms,Bombyx mori L.”Genetics,15, 189.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Wingard, S. A. (1927). “The immediate effect of cross-pollination on the size and shape of the bean seed.”Genetics,12, 115.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Yamasaki, Y. (1937). “Embryo transplanting as a method of genetico-physiological investigation.”Proc. Crop. Sci. Soc. Japan,9, 382.Google Scholar
  40. Yeager, A. F. &Meader, E. (1937). “Short cuts in tomato breeding.”Proc. Amer. Soc. hort. Sci. 35, 539.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 1939

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leonard C. Luckwill
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BotanyThe University of ManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations