Abstract
In the Spring and Fall 2006, the pollen viability of four diploid watermelon pollenizers was evaluated in Quincy, FL. Triploid watermelon plants [ Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. & Nakai.] do not produce sufficient viable pollen to pollenize themselves and a diploid cultivar must be interplanted as a pollen source. Recent studies have illustrated differences in triploid watermelon yields as a result of the pollenizer cultivar used. The viability of the pollen produced by pollenizer cultivars may greatly influence the fruit set and fruit quality in the triploid watermelon crop. Pollen samples were taken from ‘Companion’, ‘Jenny’, ‘Mickylee’, and ‘SP-1’ and were stained to determine their viability. There were no significant differences in pollen viability among cultivars and all cultivars had high average viability. Pollen viability was never lower than 95% for any cultivar. This study indicates that pollen viability of the cultivars evaluated should not influence their effectiveness as pollenizers.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 4
Claim · model-written summary
Pollen viability did not differ significantly among the four watermelon pollenizer cultivars.
- Taxon
- watermelon
Citrullus lanatust0 - Outcome
- pollen viabilitye0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Comparator
- cultivarse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were no significant differences in pollen viability among cultivars and all cultivars had high average viability.”
t0“Watermelon”
Claim · model-written summary
All evaluated pollenizer cultivars had high average pollen viability.
- Taxon
- watermelonCitrullus lanatust0
- Outcome
- average viabilitye0
- Direction
- highe0
- Comparator
- cultivarse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were no significant differences in pollen viability among cultivars and all cultivars had high average viability.”
t0“Watermelon”
Claim · model-written summary
No pollenizer cultivar had pollen viability below 95%.
- Taxon
- watermelonCitrullus lanatust0
- Outcome
- Pollen viabilitye0
- Direction
- never lowere0
- Value
- 95%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Pollen viability was never lower than 95% for any cultivar.”
t0“Watermelon”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that pollen viability should not affect effectiveness of the evaluated pollenizers.
- Taxon
- watermelonCitrullus lanatust0
- Outcome
- should not influence their effectiveness as pollenizerse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This study indicates that pollen viability of the cultivars evaluated should not influence their effectiveness as pollenizers.”
t0“Watermelon”