Removal of pollinia from pod parent
 

I apologize if this has been covered anywhere, but searches have yielded no explicit answers.

Is it better to leave pollinia attached to pod parent after it has been pollinated?

I’m aware that the flower collapses within a few day of the removal. Both scenarios can and do occur in in-situ, and certainly both yield seed. From those experienced in propitiation, what is your preferred process? Have we seen any comparative studies? I’m not sure if there is more than a singular trigger for the auxin/ethylene signaling for ovule development. Basically is the pollination the trigger, removal of pollinia from pod parent, or both yield higher viable seed?

Most breeders will remove the pollinia prior to pollinating - to avoid the risk of inadvertently producing seed from a self-pollination.

This does not apply to Paphiopedilum, where the pollinia is sitting to the side.

Thanks Kim, that’s what I thought robber common practice. I was thinking that perhaps it may be a good idea to keep the pollinia ph the mother to allow the deposited pollen tubes to extend prior to the flower collapsing. From what I understand about the tube growth is that the time in which it sync with the ovules growth will ensure a better chance of distant crosses producing viable and more of it. I only ran across one study that dealt with the tube growth/ ovule growth, but it stops short of being able to conclude any relationship or definite application for breeding.

While many flowers will show signs of pollinia removal, most do not collapse till they have been pollinated.

The plant 'wants' to spread it's genes (pollen), but it also wants to carry a pod, so it can spread seed too.

Yes, that’s vital to keep front of mind. i do think that should we be able to understand the process more intimately through experience or formal science we can circumvent some of the challenges that are attributed to “just didn’t take” or chromosome count. Create a higher success gradient no matter if the plants are of distant relation or improving yield and therefore diversity of a species. Back to the post though thanks for confirming, and sharing your own experience and practice. I had a plant not take two pollinations in a row and wondering if i could have improved the odds by not removing the pod parent’s pollen or differed it. while I didn’t mind to much the pollen was a bit more precious.

Have you considered reciprocal crosses?

In my limited breeding efforts, I always swapped pollinia, doubling the chances of the cross "taking", and possibly allowing feature combinations I had not been anticipating.

If the goal is simply increasing the likelihood of a germination, consider so experimentation with treating the plant with KelpMax. Studies have shown that it enhances the length and growth rate of pollen tubes.

Thanks Ray,
I had a particular cross that was more like to work in one direction with the 4N as pod parent. The specifics of that situation aside, I normally would reciprocate the cross if I owned both parents, and they were in flower within the same interval. it is very sound advice, thank you. What I’m particularly interested in is that variables associated with pollination, fertilization, and highest yield of viable embryos.
I agree that anything that improves the health of the pollen parent could be reflected in the vigor of the pollen.

From there I will also be approaching the asymbiotic germination process, which after this long could use a bit of an overhaul. There are several points in process that compromise yield and stall plant metabolism. There has been some successful exploration of aspects, that I’ll fold in. Something closer to semi hydro would be more appropriate by my approximation, increased circulation of both liquid and gaseous nutrients.



---------- Post added at 08:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------

Ray, are the studies available on your website? I’d be interested to stack the process against another staining protocol for pollen tubes.

Apparently, the original study was published back in the 60’s and identified the nutrients critical to pollen germination and tube growth.

The manufacturers of KelpMax, noting that it contained “all of the above” as well as other important nutrient components, did experiments - all on food crops - that demonstrated significant increases in fruit production per plant as well as crop production per area.

As to reciprocal crosses: Whether I do them, depends upon what I want from the cross.

If the potential parents are dissimilar, you can expect significant differences between each of the reciprocal crosses. A classic example = Vandachostylis Pinky (Neofinetia falcata x Rhy gigantea)
NF x RG = small plants, starry flowers, low flower count.
RG x NF = mid size plants, fuller flowers & higher flower count.

Currently I am breeding on with (RGxNF), but I wouldn't dream of using (NFxRG).

On the other hand, if I was attempting a cross with two complex Paphiopedilum hybrids, then there is a strong case for doing it both ways.

The Neofinetia genes are a great case study for the dominance of certain species and population over others. Also interesting how it’s fragrance is sadly very recessive. It will be interesting if these are every mapped, multiply lifetimes of work without more expedient tech.