4.1 Article

Evaluation of Pollen Quality and Self-Fertility in Selected Cultivars of Asian and European Pears

期刊

出版社

UNIV AGR SCI & VETERINARY MED CLUJ-NAPOCA
DOI: 10.15835/nbha45210877

关键词

pollen germination index; pollen tube; pollination; self-incompatibility

资金

  1. Polish Ministry of Higher Education [DS 3500]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Asian pears have become increasingly popular in the European market, but their cultivation history in Europe is rather short. Pear is a demanding species in terms of pollen - donor cultivar. The self-fertility phenomenon in Asian pear cultivars is not currently known. The study was conducted in a 6-year pear orchard (of 23 Asian and 5 European cultivars) at the Mendel University in Lednice (Czech Republic). The following traits were assessed: number of pollen grains, pollen viability, pollen grain germination, self-fertility and the pollen germination index (PGI). European cultivar - 'Clapp's Favourite' and Asian cultivars - 'Zao Su Li', and 'Shinko' were characterized by the highest number of pollen grains (over 50,000 grains). Asian cultivar 'Dangshansu Li' had the lowest number of pollen grains (less than 10,000 grains). The pollen viability of Asian pears ranged between 90 and 100%. Among European pears, 'Williams Bon Chretien' and 'Clapp's Favourite' exhibited the highest pollen viability (90%), while the lowest viability was observed for the pollen of cultivars 'Beurre Bosc' and 'Alexander Lucas' pear (60-70%). Additionally, it was found that the germination capacity of the latter two cultivars was very weak (40-70%). After open-pollination all investigated cultivars exhibited greater pollen germination index (PGI) comparing to selfpollination. After the cross-pollination the percentage of pollen tubes below the 20% value at half the length of the pistil suggested a strong incompatibility between the crossed cultivars. The results clearly showed that none of the Asian cultivars are self-fertile, and they require a pollen - donor to produce fruits.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据