Am. J. Bot. Join the BSA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (16)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tomlinson, P. B.
Right arrow Articles by Rattenbury, J. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Tomlinson, P. B.
Right arrow Articles by Rattenbury, J. A.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Tomlinson, P. B.
Right arrow Articles by Rattenbury, J. A.

American Journal of Botany, Vol 84, 214, Copyright © 1997 by Botanical Society of America, Inc.

REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY

Contrasted pollen capture mechanisms in Phyllocladaceae and certain Podocarpaceae (Coniferales)

PB Tomlinson, JE Braggins and JA Rattenbury

Comparative study shows that Phyllocladus and representative Podocarpaceae differ in the mechanism by which pollen is introduced into the pollen chamber and onto the apex of the nucellus ("pollen capture"). Both types involve a pollination drop, but only in Podocarpaceae is it consistently inverted and in contact with adjacent surfaces. Phyllocladus has functionally nonsaccate pollen (although a vestigial saccus has been claimed); its pollen is wettable and sinks in water. Podocarpaceae (except Saxegorhaea) have saccate pollen, which is nonwettable and floats on water. In Phyllocladus the pollination drop receives the pollen directly and presence of pollen stimulates complete drop withdrawal, which may be a metabolic process. Once pollinated, an ovule does not resecrete a pollination drop. In Podocarpaceae the drop usually receives the pollen indirectly via pollen scavenging and saccate pollen is preferentially captured. The retraction of the drop appears to be the result of evaporation and is presumably nonmetabolic. Drop secretion can be repeated in the presence of pollen. A major consequence of these contrasted mechanisms is that in Phyllocladus the entire contents of the pollination drop are ingested, whereas in Podocarpaceae only that part of the drop that includes saccate pollen is ingested. Because of differences in repeatability of the secretion process, Podocarpaceae are likely to capture more pollen. In neither mechanism does the process favor 'own" pollen. but in Podocarpaceae all but saccate pollen is excluded. We thus have further evidence for differences in pollen capture mechanisms in conifers with a pollination drop, and differences in the behavior of the pollination drop itself.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ANN BOT (LOND)Home page
S. Mugnaini, M. Nepi, M. Guarnieri, B. Piotto, and E. Pacini
Pollination Drop in Juniperus communis: Response to Deposited Material
Ann. Bot., December 1, 2007; 100(7): 1475 - 1481.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ANN BOT (LOND)Home page
J. SALTER, B. G. MURRAY, and J. E. BRAGGINS
Wettable and Unsinkable: The Hydrodynamics of Saccate Pollen Grains in Relation to the Pollination Mechanism in the Two New Zealand Species of Prumnopitys Phil. (Podocarpaceae)
Ann. Bot., February 1, 2002; 89(2): 133 - 144.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1997 by the Botanical Society of America, Inc.