, Volume 149, Issue 1–2, pp 237–250 | Cite as

Statistical discrimination between pollen tube growth and seed set in establishing self incompatibility in Gaura lindheimeri 1

  • William L. Peters
  • Neil O. Anderson


The University of Minnesota Gaura breeding program is developing USDA Z3-4 winter-hardy genotypes via interspecific hybridization of G. lindheimeri (Z5-6) and G. coccinea (Z2-4). Prior to commencing interspecific hybridization, the reproductive barriers operating in both parental species need to be characterized. The objective of this research was to determine the type and stability of reproductive barriers operating in G. lindheimeri by statistical comparisons between pollen tube growth and seed set in a full-sib diallel. Slowed or aborted pollen tube growth in the style indicated the presence of a gametophytic self incompatibility (SI) system. A statistical method, female (FCC) and male (MCC) coefficients of crossability, was used to verify that a stable SI system was operating and that other reproductive barriers were present. Several genotypes also expressed stage-specific inbreeding depression and incongruity. The simple linear regression equation for FCC/MCC, using pollen tube growth, was Y = 0.0124 + 0.974X, which was much closer to the expected Y = 0.0 + 1.0X (indicating a stable SI system) than the equation for seed set, Y = 0.012 + 0.910X. Using pollen tube length, both general combining ability (GCA) and specific combining ability (SCA) values were highly significant for G. lindheimeri (P ≤ 0.001). Histograms were used to delineate cut-offs to identify intra-incompatible/inter-compatible classes and S allele groups. Four possible classes were identified, but further research is needed to verify S allele genotypes.


Female/male coefficient of crossability general combining ability pollen viability self incompatibility specific combining ability 



Female coefficient of crossability


General combining ability


Male coefficient of crossability


Self incompatibility


Specific combining ability


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, N.O., B.E. Liedl, P.D. Ascher & S.L. Desborough, 1989. Distinguishing between self-incompatibility and other reproductive barriers in plants using male (MCC) and female (FCC) coefficient of crossability. Sex Plant Reprod 2: 116–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, N.O. & P.D. Ascher, 1996. Inheritance of pseudo-self compatibility in self-incompatible garden and greenhouse chrysanthemums,Dendranthema grandiflora Tzvelv. Euphytica 87: 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, N.O. & P.D. Ascher, 2000. Fertility changes in inbred families of self-incompatible Chrysanthemums. J Amer Soc Hort Sci 125(5): 619–625.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, N.O. & W. Peters, 2001. Breeding for winter-hardyGaura. Per Plant Quarterly, Spr: 45–52.Google Scholar
  5. Ascher, P.D., 1976. Self-incompatibility systems in floriculture crops. Acta Hortic 63: 205–215.Google Scholar
  6. Behe, B., J.L. Hall-Dennis & R.M. Walden, 2002. 2001 season sales summary. Ohio Flor Assoc Bull, Mar issue.Google Scholar
  7. Burow, M.D. & J.G. Coors, 1993. DIALLEL analysis and simulation [A microcomputer program for the IBM-PC]. Univ of Wisconsin, Dept of Agron. Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  8. Burow, M.D. & J.G. Coors, 1994. DIALLEL—a microcomputer program for the simulation and analysis of diallel crosses. Agron J 86: 154–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carr, B. L., 1980. The effects of breeding system and chromosomal variability upon genetic recombination and evolution ofGaura (Onagraceae). Ph.D. diss, Washington Univ, St. Louis, Missouri.Google Scholar
  10. Carr, B.L., D.P. Gregory, P.H. Raven & W. Tai, 1986. Experimental hybridization and chromosomal diversity withinGaura sect. Gaura (Onagraceae). Syst Bot 11: 98–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carr, B.L., D.P. Gregory, P.H. Raven & W. Tai, 1988. Experimental hybridization, chromosomal diversity, and phylogeny withinGaura (Onagraceae). Amer J Bot 75: 484–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fehr, W.R., 1993. Principles of cultivar development. Iowa State Univer Press, Ames.Google Scholar
  13. Gepts, P. & F.A. Bliss, 1985. F1 hybrid weakness in the common bean: Differential geographic origin suggests two gene pools in cultivated bean germplasm. Jour Hered 76: 447–450.Google Scholar
  14. Gravois, K.A. & R.W. McNew, 1993. Combining ability and heterosis in U.S. southern long-grain rice. Crop Sci 33: 83–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Griffing, B., 1956. Concept of general and specific combining ability in relation to diallel crossing systems. Austr J Biol Sci 9: 463–493.Google Scholar
  16. Hogenboom, N.G., 1972. Breaking breeding barriers inLycopersicon. Euphytica 21: 221–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hogenboom, N.G., 1973. A model for incongruity in intimate partner relationships. Euphytica 22: 219–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hummel, R.L., P.D. Ascher & H.M. Pellett, 1982. Genetic control of self-incompatibility in red-osier dogwood. Hered 73: 308–309.Google Scholar
  19. Johannsen, W., 1926. Elemente der exakten Erblichkeitslehre. Jena, Fischer. 3rd ed.Google Scholar
  20. Kho, Y.D. & J. Baer, 1968. Observing pollen tubes by means of fluorescence. Euphytica 17: 298–302.Google Scholar
  21. Knight, R.J., 1991. Development of tetraploid hybrid Passion Fruit clones with potential for North Temperate Zone. HortSci 26(12): 1541–1543.Google Scholar
  22. Liedl, M.E. & N.O. Anderson, 1986. Incompatibility hermeneutics: The determination of cut-off values. Plant Cell Incomp Newsl 18: 6–12.Google Scholar
  23. Liedl, B.E. & N.O. Anderson, 1993. Reproductive barriers: Identification, uses and circumvention. Plant Breed Rev 11: 11–154.Google Scholar
  24. Mayo, O. & C.R. Leach, 1993. Quantitatively determined self-incompatibility. 5. Detection of multi-locus systems. Theor Appl Genet 86: 562–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mickelson, H.C., 1992. Congruity backcrossing as a method of establishing multi-species gene pools inPhaseolus. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul.Google Scholar
  26. Montaner, C., E. Floris & J.M. Alvarez, 2000. Is self-compatibility the main breeding system in borage (Borago officinalis L.)? Theor Appl Genet 101: 185–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nau, J., 1996. Ball perennial manual: Propagation and production. Ball Pub, Batavia, IL. pp. 238–240.Google Scholar
  28. Peters, W.L., 2002. Statistical discrimination between pollen tube growth and seed set in establishing self incompatibility inGaura lindheimeri. M.S. Thesis. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  29. Pietsch, G.M., P.H. Li & N.O. Anderson, 2005. The effect of short days on cold acclimation inGaura. HortScience 40(4): 1115.Google Scholar
  30. Poehlman, J.M., 1979. Breeding field crops. AVI Publishing Co, Westport, CT.Google Scholar
  31. Ramulu, K.S., G.M.M. Bredemeijer & P. Dijkhuis, 1979. Mentor pollen effects on gametophytic incompatibility inNicotiana,Oenothera andLycopersicon. TheorAppl Genet 54: 215–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Raven, P.H. & D.P. Gregory, 1972a. A revision of the genusGaura (Onagraceae). Memoirs of the Torrey Botanical Club, (Dec.) 1: 1–96. Seeman Printers, Durham, N.C.Google Scholar
  33. Raven, P.H. & D.P. Gregory, 1972b. Observations of meiotic chromosomes inGaura (Onagraceae). Brittonia 24: 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Robacker, C. & Ascher P.D., 1982. Discriminating styles (DS) and pollen-mediated pseudo-self-compatibility (PMPSC) inNemesia strumosa. Benth. II. Origin of PMPSC and nature of DS-PMPSC interaction. Theor Appl Genet 61: 289–296.Google Scholar
  35. Schemske, D.W. & R. Lande, 1985. The evolution of self-fertilization and inbreeding depression in plants. II. Empirical observations. Evol 39(1): 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith, W., 1979.Gaura coccinea Herbarium specimen, collected 8/3/79. Univ of Minnesota Herbarium, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
  37. Stubbe, W. & P.H. Raven, 1979. Genetic self-incompatibility inOenothera subsect Euoenothera. Science 204: 327.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Wiens, D., 1984. Ovule survivorship, brood size, life history, breeding systems, and reproductive success in plants. Oecologia 64: 47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Horticultural ScienceUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations