Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 87, Issue 4, pp 471–478 | Cite as

The origin and evolution of weed beets: consequences for the breeding and release of herbicide-resistant transgenic sugar beets

  • P. Boudry
  • M. Mörchen
  • P. Saumitou-Laprade
  • Ph. Vernet
  • H. Van Dijk
Article

Abstract

Populations of weed beets have expanded into European sugar beet production areas since the 1970s, thereby forming a serious new weed problem for this crop. We sampled seeds in different French populations and studied mitochondrial DNA, chloroplast DNA and life-cycle variability. Given the maternal inheritance of the mitochondrial and chloroplastic genomes and the nuclear determinism of the annual habit, we were able to determine the maternal origin and evolution of these weed beet populations. Our study shows that they carry the dominant allele “B” for annual habit at high frequency. The main cytoplasmic DNA type found in northern weed beet populations is the cytoplasmic male-sterile type characteristic of sugar beets. We were able to determine that these populations arise from seeds originating from the accidental pollinations of cultivated beets by adventitious beets in the seed production area, which have been transported to the regions where sugar beets are cultivated. These seeds are supposedly the origin of the weed forms and a frequently disturbed cultivated environment has selected for annual habit and early flowering genotypes. We discuss the consequences of the weed beet populations for the breeding, seed production and release of herbicide-resistant transgenic sugar beets.

Key words

Life cycle variability Cytoplasmic DNA markers Beta vulgaris L. Weeds 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbott RJ (1992) Plant invasions, interspecific hybridization and the evolution of new plant taxa. TREE 7:401–405Google Scholar
  2. Barrett SCH (1984) Crop mimicry in weeds. Econ Bot 37:255–282Google Scholar
  3. Boiteau R, Christmann J (1977) Les betteraves mauvaises herbes-situation actuelle et importance du problème. In: Weickmans L (ed) 40th Winter Cong Int Inst Sugar Beet Res. IIRB, Brussels, pp 87–107Google Scholar
  4. Bonavent JF, Geny A, Bessone L, Bervillé A, Denizot JP, Brian C (1989) A possible origin for the sugar beet cytoplasmic male sterility called Owen. Genome 32:322–327Google Scholar
  5. Carsner E (1928) The wild beet in California. Facts Sugar 23:1120–1121Google Scholar
  6. De Bock ThSM (1986) The genus Beta: domestication, taxonomy and interspecific hybridization for plant breeding. Acta Hortic 182:335–343Google Scholar
  7. De Greef W, Delon R, De Block M, Leemans J, Booterman J (1989) Evaluation of herbicide resistance in transgenic crops under fields conditions. Bio/technology 7:61–64Google Scholar
  8. Desprez M (1980) Observations et remarques sur la montée à graines chez la betterave sucrière. CR Seances Acad Agric Fr 66:44–53Google Scholar
  9. Dewey RE, Levings CS, III, Timothy DH (1985) Nucleotide sequence of ATPase subunit 6 gene of maize mitochondria. Plant Physiol 79:914–919Google Scholar
  10. Dhalluin K, Bossut M, Bonne E, Mazur B, Leemans J, Botterman J (1992) Transformation of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) and evaluation of herbicide resistance in transgenic plants. Bio/Technology 10:309–314Google Scholar
  11. Ellstrand NC, Hoffman CA (1990) Hybridization as an avenue of escape for engineered genes. Bio-Science 40:438–442Google Scholar
  12. Evans A, Weir J (1981) The evolution of weed beet in sugar beet crops. Kulturpflanze 24:301–310Google Scholar
  13. Forcioli D, Saumitou-Laprade P, Michaelis G, Cuguen J. Chloroplast DNA polymorphism revealed by a fast, nonradioactive method in Beta vulgaris subsp maritima. Mol Ecol (in press)Google Scholar
  14. Ford-Lloyd BV (1986) Infraspecific variation in wild and cultivated beets and its effect upon infraspecific classification. In: BT Styles (ed) Infraspecific classification of wild and cultivated plants. Syst Assoc Spec Vol 29:331–334Google Scholar
  15. Ford-Lloyd BV, Hawkes JG (1986) Weed beets, their origin and classification. Acta Hortic 82:399–104Google Scholar
  16. Harlan JR (1987) Les plantes cultivées et l'homme. Agence de Coopération Culturelle et Technique et Conseil International de la langue Française, ParisGoogle Scholar
  17. Horsney KG, Arnold MM (1979) The origins of weed beet. Ann Appl Biol 92:279–285Google Scholar
  18. Johnson RT (1954) The effect of successive seed increases by the overwintering method on the non-bolting characteristics of two relatively non-bolting varieties of sugar beets. Proc Am Soc Sugar Beet Technol 8:79–83Google Scholar
  19. Johnson RT, Burtch LM (1959) The problem of wild annual sugar beets in California. Proc Am Soc Sugar Beet Technol 10:311–317Google Scholar
  20. Ketter K (1989). Can genetically engineered crops become weeds? Bio/Technology 7:1134–1139Google Scholar
  21. Kishima Y, Mikami T, Hirai A, Sugiura M, Kinoshita T (1987) Beta chloroplast analysis of fraction I protein and chloroplast DNA variation. Theor Appl Genet 73:330–336Google Scholar
  22. Lasa JM (1977) Sugar beet bolting in the root crop. J Agric Sci 89:223–228Google Scholar
  23. Longden PC (1976) Annual beet: problems and prospects. Pestic Sci 7:422–425Google Scholar
  24. Margara J (1960) Recherches sur le déterminisme de l'élongation et de la floraison dans le genre Beta. Ann Amélior Plant 10:361:471Google Scholar
  25. Martens M, Vanstallen R, Vigoureux A (1977) La lutte contre la betterave mauvaise herbe en Belgique. In: Weickmans L (ed) 40th Winter Cong Int Inst Sugar Beet Res. IIRB, Brussels, pp 173–184Google Scholar
  26. McFarlane JS (1975) Naturally occurring hybrids between sugar beet and Beta macrocarpa in the Imperial Valley of California. Proc Am Soc Sugar Beet Technol 8:392–398Google Scholar
  27. Mikami T, Kishima Y, Sugiura M, Kinoshita T (1985) Organelle genome diversity in sugar beet with normal and different sources of male-sterile cytoplasms. Theor Appl Genet 71:161–171Google Scholar
  28. Munerati O (1931) L'eredità della tendenza alla annualitá nella commune barbabietola coltivata. Z Zuechtung Reihe A Pflanzenzucht 17:84–89Google Scholar
  29. Owen FV (1945) Cytoplasmically inherited male sterility in sugar beets. J Agric Res 71:423–440Google Scholar
  30. Owen FV (1954) The significance of single gene reactions in sugar beets. Proc Am Soc Sugar Beet Technol 18:245–251Google Scholar
  31. Pichenez J, Guiraud D (1977) Elimination des betteraves mauvaises herbes en France. In: Weickmans L (ed) 40th Winter Cong Int Inst Sugar Beet Res. IIRB, Brussels, pp 185–191Google Scholar
  32. Pickersgill B (1981) Biosystematics of crop-weed complexes. Kulturpflanze 24:377–388Google Scholar
  33. Powling A, Ellis THN (1983) Studies on the organelle genomes of sugarbeet with male-fertile and male-sterile cytoplasms. Theor Appl Genet 65:323–328Google Scholar
  34. Rieseberg LH, Carter R, Zona S (1990) Molecular tests of the hypothesized origin of two diploid Helianthus species (Asterraceae) Evolution 44:1498–1511Google Scholar
  35. Saat T, De Laat A (1992) Behavior of engineered vs nonengineered plants in the environment: is there a difference? In: Casper R, Landsmann J (ed) Proc 2nd Int Symp Biosafety Results Field Tests Genet Modified Plants Microorganisms. Biologische Bundesanstalt für Landund Forstwirtschaft, Braunichweig, pp 31–36Google Scholar
  36. Santoni S, Bervillé A (1992) Evidences for gene exchanges between sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) and wild beets: consequence for transgenic sugar beets. Plant Mol Biol 20:575–577Google Scholar
  37. Saumitou-Laprade P, Pannenbecker G, Boutin-Stadler V, Michaelis G, Vernet Ph (1991) Plastid DNA diversity in natural populations of Beta maritima showing additional variation in sexual phenotype and mitochondrial DNA. Theor Appl Genet 81:533–536Google Scholar
  38. Saumitou-Laprade P, Rouwendal GJA, Cuguen J, Krens FA, Michaelis G (1993) Different CMS sources found in Beta vulgaris ssp. maritima: mitochondrial variability in wild populations revealed by a rapid screening procedure. Theor Appl Genet 85:529–535Google Scholar
  39. Van Dijk H, Boudry P (1992) Genetic variability for life-histories in Beta maritima. In: Frese L (ed) Int Beta Genet Resources Network. Rep 2nd Int Beta Genet Resources Workshop. (Int Crop Network Ser No. 7.) International Board for Plant Genetic Resources, Rome pp 9–16Google Scholar
  40. Williamson M, Perrins J, Fitter A (1990) Realising genetically engineered plants: present proposals and possible hazards. TREE 5:417–419Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Boudry
    • 1
  • M. Mörchen
    • 1
  • P. Saumitou-Laprade
    • 1
  • Ph. Vernet
    • 1
  • H. Van Dijk
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Génétique et Evolution des Populations Végétales, URA CNRS 1185Villeneuve d'Ascq CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations