Abstract
In most self-incompatible (SI) plants, pollen tube growth in self-pollinated flowers is inhibited on the stigma or in the style. SI systems that operate in the ovary have been assumed to be extremely rare. Evidence from many plant species is presented to show that the SI barriers in the ovary, described here as late-acting SI systems, are quite common. The late-acting SI systems are divided into four categories: (1) ovarian inhibition of incompatible pollen tubes before the ovule is reached; (2) prefertilization inhibition in the ovule; (3) post-zygotic rejection of the embryo, and (4) ovular inhibition for which the cytological details have not been established.
Whether or not post-zygotic incompatibility systems can be distinguished from inbreeding depression depends upon the assumptions underlying the genetic models of self-incompatibility. However, four approaches are outlined that could distinguish between active uniform rejections that are presumably evolved responses to inbreeding depression and the passive, variable failures that are commonly understood to be expressions of typical inbreeding depression.
Possible advantages of late-acting SI include an extended period of time over which pollen genotypes may be evaluated by the maternal parent and greater flexibility in the choice of male parents.
Due to a paucity of data regarding the genetics and physiology of lateacting SI systems, little can be said at this time about the possible diversity of such systems of their evolutionary relationships with classical gametophytic and sporophytic SI.
An hypothesis for the operation of post-zygotic SI is described whereby maternal resources to developing embryos are terminated if the embryo (and/or endosperm) fall below a threshold level of heterosis. This hypothesis is a modification of one first proposed by Westoby and Rice in 1982 to explain variable maternal resource allocation to developing embryos.
Resumé
Pour la majorité des plantes autostériles, la croissance du tube pollinique, lorsque l’autopollinisation a lieu, est inhibée sur le stigmate ou dans le style. Il avait été supposé jusqu’ici que les mécanismes l’autostérilisation opérant dans l’ovaire étaient extrêmement rares. Des exemples provenant de plusieurs espèces végétales sont présentés ici pour montrer que les phénomènes d’autostérilisation au niveau de l’ovaire (désignés dans ce qui suit par l’expression “systèmes d’autostérilisation à action tardive”) sont en fait très communs. Les systèmes d’autostérilisation à action tardive son divisés en quatre catégories: (1) Inhibition ovarienne des tubes polliniques incompatibles avant que l’ovule ne soit atteint; (2) Inhibition dans l’ovule avant la fertilisation; (3) Rejet de l’embryon postzygotique; (4) Inhibition ovulaire (les détails cytologiques n’en ont pas encore été entièrement décrits).
Suivant les hypothèses sur lesquelles sont basés les différents modèles génétiques décrivant l’autostérilité, il est ou n’est pas possible de faire la distinction entre les systèmes d’incompatibilité post-zygotiques et la dégénérescence consanguine. Quatre différentes approches de la question sont proposées ici pour tenter de distinguer les rejets uniformes actifsqui sont présumés être des conséquences évolutionnaires de la dégénérescence consanguine—des défaillances variables passives, habituellement considérées comme l’expression caractéristique de la dégénérescence consanguine.
Deux avantages possibles des systèmes d’autostérilisation à action tardive pourraient être l’extension de la période durant laquelle les génotypes du pollen peuvent être évalués par le parent femelle, et une plus grande flexibilité dans le choix des parents mâles.
Vu la rareté des données génétiques et physiologiques en ce qui concerne les systèmes d’autostérilisation à action tardive, il est difficile d’estimer le degré de diversité de ces systèmes, ou leur corrélation évolutionnaire avec les systèmes classiques gamétophytiques et sporophytiques d’autostérilisation.
Une hypothèse décrivant le fonctionnement de l’autostérilisation postzygotique est exposée: les ressources maternelles cessent d’être fournies à l’embryon si le niveau d’hétérose de ce dernier (et/ou de l’endosperme) tombe en-dessous d’un seuil. Cette hypothèse est une modification de celle qui fut proposée en premier par Westoby et Rice en 1982 pour expliquer la variation dans l’attribution des ressources maternelles à l’embryon.
Similar content being viewed by others
Literature Cited
Arasu, N. T. 1970. Self-incompatibility inRibes. Euphytica19: 373–378.
Barnes, D. K. &R. W. Cleveland. 1963. Genetic evidence for nonrandom fertilization in alfalfa as influenced by differential pollen tube growth. Crop Sci.3: 295–297.
Bawa, K. S. &J. H. Beach. 1983. Self-incompatibility systems in the Rubiaceae of a tropical lowland wet forest. Amer. J. Bot.70: 1281–1288.
—,D. R. Perry &J. H. Beach. 1985. Reproductive biology of tropical lowland rain forest trees. I. Sexual systems and incompatibility mechanisms. Amer. J. Bot.72: 331–345.
— &C. J. Webb. 1984. Flower, fruit and seed abortion in tropical forest trees: Implications for the evolution of paternal and maternal reproductive patterns. Amer. J. Bot.71: 736–751.
Beach, J. H. &W. J. Kress. 1980. Sporophyte versus gametophyte: A note on the origin of self-incompatibility in flowering plants. Syst. Bot.5: 1–5.
Bertin, R. I. 1982. Paternity and fruit production in trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans). Amer. Naturalist119: 694–709.
Blinkenberg, C., H. Brix, M. Schaffalitzky de Muckadell &H. Vedel. 1958. Controlled pollinations inFagus. Silvae Genet.7: 116–122.
Bookman, S. S. 1984. Evidence for selective fruit production inAsclepias. Evolution38: 72–86.
Bouharmont, J. 1960. Recherches cytologiques sur la fructification et l’incompatibilité chezTheobroma cacao L. INEAC (Congo). Ser. Sci.89: 1–117.
Brandham, P. E. &S. J. Owens. 1978. The genetic control of self-incompatibility in the genusGasteria (Liliaceae). Heredity40: 165–169.
Brewbaker, J. L. 1957. Pollen cytology and self-incompatibility systems in plants. J. Hered.48: 271–277.
— &D. D. Gorrez. 1967. Genetics of self-incompatibility in the monocot generaAnanas (pineapple) andGasteria. Amer. J. Bot.54: 611–616.
Brink, R. A. &D. C. Cooper. 1938. Partial self-incompatibility inMedicago sativa. Proc. Nat. Acad. U.S.A.24: 497–499.
——. 1939. Somatoplastic sterility inMedicago sativa. Science90: 545–546.
Brock, R. D. 1954. Fertility inLilium hybrids. Heredity8: 409–420.
Bubar, J. S. 1958. An association between variability in ovule development within ovaries and self-incompatibility inLotus (Leguminosae). Canad. J. Bot.36: 65–72.
—. 1959. Differences between self-incompatibility and self-sterility. Nature183: 411–412.
— &R. K. Miri. 1965. Inheritance of self-incompatibility and brown keel tip inLotus corniculatus L. Nature205: 1035–1036.
Busbice, T. H., R. Y. Gurgis &H. B. Collins. 1975. Eifert of selection for self-fertility and self-sterility in alfalfa and related characters. Crop Sci.15: 471–475.
Casper, B. B. &D. Wiens. 1981. Fixed rates of random ovule abortion inCryptantha flava (Boraginaceae) and its possible relation to seed dispersal. Ecology62: 866–869.
Chan, H. T. 1981. Reproductive biology of some Malaysian Dipterocarps III. Breeding systems. Malaysian Forester44: 28–36.
Charlesworth, D. 1985. Distribution of dioecy and self-incompatibility in angiosperms. Pages 237–268in P. J. Greenwood, P. H. Harvey & M. Slatkin (eds.), Evolution: Essays in honour of John Maynard Smith. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Compton, R. H. 1913. Preliminary note on the inheritance of self-sterility inReseda odorata. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.17: 7.
Cooper, D. C. &R. A. Brink. 1940. Partial self-incompatibility and the collapse of fertile ovules as factors affecting seed formation in alfalfa. J. Agric. Res.60: 453–472.
Cope, F. W. 1939. Some factors controlling the yield of young cacao—II. 8th Ann. Rep. Cacao Res. (1938), Trinidad, pages 4–15.
-. 1940. Studies in the mechanism of self-incompatibility in cacao—II. 9th Ann. Rep. Cacao Res. (1939), Trinidad, pages 19–23.
— 1958. Incompatibility inTheobroma cacao. Nature181: 279.
— 1962a. The mechanism of pollen incompatibility inTheobroma cacao L. Heredity17: 157–182.
— 1962b. The effects of incompatibility and compatibility on genotype proportions in populations ofTheobroma cacao L. Heredity17: 183–195.
Crowe, L. K. 1971. The polygenic control of outbreeding inBorago officinalis. Heredity27: 111–118.
Crumpacker, D. W. 1967. Genetic loads in maize (Zea mays L.) and other cross-fertilized plants and animals. Pages 306–414in T. Dobzhansky, M. K. Hecht & W. C. Steere (eds.), Evolutionary biology. Vol. 1. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.
Darwin, C. 1876. Effects of cross and self fertilization in the vegetable kingdom. 2nd ed., 1878. New York, Appleton.
Dobrofsky, S. &W. F. Grant. 1980a. An investigation into the mechanism for reduced seed yield inLotus corniculatus. Theor. Appl. Genet.57: 157–160.
——. 1980b. Electrophoretic evidence supporting self-incompatibility inLotus corniculatus. Canad. J. Bot.58: 712–716.
Dobzhansky, T. 1970. Genetics of the evolutionary process. Columbia University Press, New York.
Dulberger, R. 1964. Flower dimorphism and self-incompatibility inNarcissus tazetta L. Evolution18: 361–363.
Eigsti, O. J. 1937. Pollen tube behavior in self-fertile, self-sterile and interspecific pollinated Resedaceae. Amer. Naturalist71: 520–521.
Fyfe, J. L. 1957. Relational incompatibility in diploid and tetraploid lucerne. Nature179: 591–592.
Giles, W. F. 1949. The morphological aspects of self-sterility inLotus corniculatus. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Missouri, Columbia.
Godley, E. J. 1966. Breeding systems in New Zealand plants 4. Self-sterility inPentachondra pumila. New Zealand J. Bot.4: 249–254.
— &D. H. Smith. 1981. Breeding systems in New Zealand plants 5.Pseudowintera colorata (Winteraceae). New Zealand J. Bot.19: 151–156.
Haldane, J. B. S. 1957. The cost of natural selection. J. Genet.55: 511–524.
Jain, S. K. 1978. Breeding system inLimnanthes alba: Several alternative measures. Amer. J. Bot.65: 272–275.
Janzen, D. H. 1978. Seeding patterns of tropical trees. Pages 83–128in P. B. Tomlinson & M. H. Zimmerman (eds.), Tropical trees as living systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Jaynes, R. A. 1968. Self incompatibility and inbreeding depression in three laurel (Kalmia) species. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.93: 618–622.
Kenrick, J., V. Kaui &R. B. Knox. 1984. Self incompatibility and the site of pollen tube arrest in Australian speciesof Acacia. Incompatibility Newsletter16: 3–4.
Knight, R. &H. H. Rogers. 1953. Sterility inTheobroma cacao L. Nature172: 164.
——. 1955. Incompatibility inTheobroma cacao. Heredity9: 69–77.
Kostoff, D. 1930. Ontogeny, genetics, and cytology ofNicotiana hybrids. Genetica12: 33–139.
Kress, W. J. 1981. Sibling competition and evolution of pollen unit, ovule number, and pollen vector in angiosperms. Syst. Bot.6: 101–112.
—. 1983. Self-incompatibility in Central AmericanHeliconia. Evolution37: 735–744.
Larsen, K. 1983. Incompatibility, pseudo-compatibility, and preferential fertilization inBeta vulgaris L.In D. L. Mulcahy & E. Ottaviano (eds.), Pollen: Biology and implications for plant breeding. Elsevier Biomédical, New York.
Lewis, D. 1979. Sexual incompatibility in plants. Studies in Biology No. 110. Edward Arnold, London.
Linskens, H. F. 1959. Biochemical aspects of incompatibility. Recent Adv. Bot.2: 1500–1503.
Lloyd, D. G. 1980. Sexual strategies in plants. I. An hypothesis of serial adjustment of maternal investment during one reproductive session. New Phytol.86: 69–79.
—,C. J. Webb &R. B. Primack. 1980. Sexual strategies in plants. II. Data on the temporal determination of maternal investment. New Phytol.86: 81–92.
Lundqvist, A. 1975. Complex self-incompatibility systems in angiosperms. Proc. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. B, Biol. Sci.188: 235–245.
Mather, K. 1950. Genetical control of incompatibility in angiosperms and fungi. Pages 118–128in C. D. Darlington & K. Mather (eds.), Genes, plants, and people. George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London.
McKay, J. W. 1942. Self-sterility in the Chinese chestnut (Castanea mollissima). Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. Proc.41: 156–160.
Meinke, D. W. 1982. Embryo-lethal mutants ofArabidopsis thaliana: Evidence for gametophytic expression of the mutant genes. Theor. Appl. Genet.63: 381–386.
— &I. M. Sussex. 1979. Embryo-lethal mutants ofArabidopsis thaliana: A model system for genetic analysis of plant embryo development. Developm. Biol.72: 50–61.
Miri, R. K. &J. S. Bubar. 1966. Self-incompatibility as an outcrossing mechanism in birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus). Canad. J. Plant Sci.46: 411–418.
Mulcahy, D. L. &G. B. Mulcahy. 1983. Gametophytic self-incompatibility reexamined. Science220: 1247–1251.
de Nettancourt, D. 1972. Self-incompatibility in basic and applied researches with higher plants. Genet. Agrar.26: 163–216.
—. 1977. Incompatibility in angiosperms. Monographs on Theoretical and Applied Genetics 3. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Osterbye, U. 1975. Self-incompatibility inRanunculus acris L., genetic interpretation and evolutionary aspects. Hereditas80: 91–112.
Pandey, K. K. 1959. Mutations of the self-incompatibility gene (S) and pseudo-compatibility in angiosperms. Lloydia22: 222–234.
Philipp, M. &O. Schou. 1983. An unusual heteromorphic incompatibility system: Distyly, self-incompatibility, pollen load and fecundity inAnchusa officinalis (Boraginaceae). New Phytol.89: 693–703.
Price, M. V. &N. M. Waser. 1979. Pollen dispersal and optimal outcrossing inDelphinium nelsoni. Nature277: 294–297.
Rao, C. V. 1952. The embryology ofMuntingia calabura L. J. Indian Bot. Soc.31: 87–101.
Sayers, E. R. &R. P. Murphy. 1966. Seed set in alfalfa as related to pollen tube growth, fertilization frequency, and post-fertilization ovule abortion. Crop Sci.6: 365–368.
Schemske, D. W. 1983. Breeding system and habitat effects on fitness components in three neotropicalCostus (Zingiberaceae). Evolution37: 523–539.
Schmitt, D. &T. O. Perry. 1964. Self-sterility in sweetgum. Forest Sci.10: 302–305.
Schon, O. &M. Philipp. 1983. An unusual heteromorphic incompatibility system. II. Pollen tube growth and seed sets following compatible and incompatible crossing withinAnchusa officinalis L. Pages 219–227in D. L. Mulcahy & E. Ottaviano (eds.), Pollen: Biology and implications for plant breeding. Elsevier Biomedical, New York.
Sears, E. R. 1937. Cytological phenomena connected with self-sterility in the flowering plants. Genetics22: 130–181.
Sheridan, W. F. &M. G. Neuffer. 1982. Maize developmental mutants, embryos unable to form leaf primordia. J. Heredity73: 318–329.
Sorenson, F. 1969. Embryonic genetic load in coastal Douglas-fir,Pseudotsuga menziesii var.menziesii. Amer. Naturalist103: 389–398.
Sparnaaij, L. D., Y. O. Kho &J. Baer. 1968. Investigations on seed production in tetraploid freesias. Euphytica17: 289–297.
Sparrow, F. K. &N. L. Pearson. 1948. Pollen compatibility inAsclepias syriaca. J. Agric. Res.77: 187–199.
Spiss, L. 1969. Laboratory methods of determining compatibility in birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus). Genet. Polon.10: 114–116.
— &D. J. Paolillo, Jr. 1969. Semi-vitro methods in the study of compatibility in birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.). Crop Sci.9: 173–176.
Stephenson, A. G. 1981. Flower and fruit abortion: Proximate causes and ultimate functions. Annual Rev. Ecol. Syst.12: 253–279.
-& R. I. Bertin. 1983. Male competition, female choice, and sexual selection in plants. Pages 109–149in L. Real (ed.), Pollination biology. Academic Press.
Stout, A. B. &C. Chandler. 1933. Pollen-tube behavior inHemerocallis with special reference to incompatibilities. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club60: 397–416.
Straley, C. &B. Melton. 1970. Effect of temperature on self-fertility andin vitro pollen growth characteristics of selected alfalfa clones. Crop Sci.10: 326–329.
Taroda, N. &P. E. Gibbs. 1982. Floral biology and breeding system ofSterculia chicha St. Hil. (Sterculiaceae). New Phytol.90: 735–743.
Wallace, B. 1970. Genetic load, its biological and conceptual aspects. Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey.
Westoby, M. &B. Rice. 1982. Evolution of the seed plants and inclusive fitness of plant tissues. Evolution36: 713–724.
Williams, E. G., V. Kaul, J. L. Rouse &R. B. Knox. 1984. Apparent self-incompatibility inRhododendron ellipticum, R. championae andR. amamiense: A post-zygotic mechanism. Incompatibility Newsletter16: 10–11.
—,R. B. Knox &J. L. Rouse. 1982. Pollination sub-systems distinguished by pollen tube arrest after incompatible interspecific crosses inRhododendron (Ericaceae). J. Cell Sci.53: 255–277.
Willson, M. F. 1982. Sexual selection and dicliny in angiosperms. Amer. Naturalist119: 579–583.
— &N. Barley. 1983. Mate choice in plants: Tactics, mechanisms, and consequences. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Wojciechowska, B. 1963. Embryological studies in the genusLotus. Part I. Fertilization and seed development following openxand self-pollination ofLotus corniculatus L. Genet. Polon.4: 53–63.
Wright, S. 1977. Evolution and the genetics of populations. Vol. III. Experimental results and evolutionary deductions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Seavey, S.R., Bawa, K.S. Late-acting self-incompatibility in angiosperms. Bot. Rev 52, 195–219 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02861001
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02861001

