Pollen tube growth and inhibition in distylous and homostylous<i>Turnera</i>and<i>Piriqueta</i>(Turneraceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate sites of incompatibility for five Turnera L. species and for Piriqueta caroliniana (Walt.) Urban using aniline blue staining of pollen tubes and fluorescence microscopy. We show that sites of incompatibility occur in the stigma and upper regions of the style. There is an asymmetry between the morphs where, following selfing, pollen tubes tend to grow further into long-styled compared to short-styled plants, although the difference is not particularly marked. We demonstrate for the first time a qualitative difference in the appearance of pollen tubes. Upon self-pollination, pollen tubes in short-styled plants do not produce callose plugs, while all other pollinations result in callose plug formation. This could indicate that there is a difference in the mechanisms of incompatibility between the morphs. Exploiting crosses between two populations of Turnera scabra Millsp. that differ in flower size, we found no support for the hypothesis that incompatibility of long-styled plants is the result of insufficient nutrient reserves in pollen. Bud-pollinations provided limited support for the hypothesis that a short-specific style protein is involved in incompatibility. Crosses between distylous and homostylous species provided support for a recombinant origin for homostyly for four species, while deviations from this expectation were observed in four instances.Key words: distyly, homostyly, self-incompatibility, callose, pollen tubes, Turnera.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".