Advertisement

Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 89, Issue 6, pp 655–660 | Cite as

Gene flow between cultivated and wild sunflowers

  • D. M. Arias
  • L. H. Rieseberg
Article

Abstract

With the development of transgenic crops, concern has been expressed regarding the possible escape of genetically-engineered genes via hybridization with wild relatives. This is a potential hazard for sunflowers because wild sunflowers occur as weeds in fields where cultivated sunflowers are grown and hybridization between them has been reported. In order to quantify the potential for gene escape, two experimental stands of sunflower cultivars were planted at two sites with different rainfall and altitude profiles. Populations of wild plants were planted at different distances from each cultivar stand. An allele homozygous in the cultivar (6Pgd-3-a), but absent in the wild populations, was used as a molecular marker to document the incidence and rate of gene escape from the cultivar into the wild populations of sunflowers. Three-thousand achenes were surveyed to determine the amount of gene flow from the cultivated to the wild populations. The marginal wild populations (3 m from the cultivar) showed the highest percentage (27%) of gene flow. Gene flow was found to decrease with distance; however, gene flow occurred up to distances of 1000 m from the source population. These data suggest that physical distance alone will be unlikely to prevent gene flow between cultivated and wild populations of sunflowers.

Key words

Hybridization Gene flow Sunflowers Transgenes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson E (1949) Introgressive hybridization. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker HG (1972) Human influences on plant evolution. Econ Bot 26:32–43Google Scholar
  3. Barrett SCH (1983) Crop mimicry in weeds. Econ Bot 37:255–282Google Scholar
  4. Bateman AJ (1947 a) Contamination in seed crops. I. Insect pollination. J Genet 48:257–275Google Scholar
  5. Bateman AJ (1947 b) Contamination in seed crops. II. Wind pollination. Heredity 1:235–246Google Scholar
  6. Bateman AJ (1947 c) Contamination in seed crops. III. Relation with isolation distance. Heredity 1:303–336Google Scholar
  7. Brunken J, de Wett JMJ, Harlan JR (1977) The morphology and domestication of pearl millet. Econ Bot 31:163–174Google Scholar
  8. Chandler JM, Jan C, Beard BV (1986) Chromosomal differentiation among the annual Helianthus species. Systematic Bot 11:353–371Google Scholar
  9. Colwell RK, Norse EA, Pimentel D, Sharples FE, Simberloff D (1985) Genetic engineering in agriculture. Science 229:111–112Google Scholar
  10. Crane MB, Mather K (1943) The natural cross-pollination of crop plants with particular reference to the radish. Ann Appl Biol 30:301–308Google Scholar
  11. Crawley MJ (1990) The ecology of genetically-engineered organisms: assessing the environmental risks. In: Mooney HA, Bernardi G (eds) Introduction of genetically-modified organisms into the environment, Scientific committee on problems of the environment 44, John Wiley and Sons, Chicester, pp 133–150Google Scholar
  12. De Wet JMJ (1975) Evolutionary dynamics of cereal domestication. II. Bull Torrey Bot Club 102:307–312Google Scholar
  13. Dedio W, Putt ED (1980) Sunflower. In: Fehr WR, Hadley HH (eds) Hybridization in crop plants. Am Soc Agron: Crop Sci Soc Am, Madison, Wisconsin, pp 631–644Google Scholar
  14. Doggett H, Majisu BN (1968) Disruptive selection in crop development. Heredity 23:1–23Google Scholar
  15. Dorado O, Rieseberg LH, Arias DM (1992) Chloroplast DNA introgression in Southern California sunflowers. Evolution 46:566–572Google Scholar
  16. Ellstrand NC (1988) Pollen as vehicle for the escape of engineered genes? Tree 3:30S-32SGoogle Scholar
  17. Ellstrand NC (1992) Gene flow by pollen: implications for plant conservation genetics. Oikos 63:77–86Google Scholar
  18. Ellstrand NC, Hoffman CA (1990) Hybridization as an avenue for escape of engineered genes. BioScience 40:438–442Google Scholar
  19. Free JB (1964) The behaviour of honeybees on sunflowers (Helianthus annuus L.). J Appl Ecol 1:19–27Google Scholar
  20. Goodman RM, Newell N (1985) Genetic engineering plants for herbicide resistance: status and prospects. In: Halvorson HO, Pramer D, Rogul M (eds) Engineered organisms in the environment: scientific issues. Am Soc Microbiol, Washington, DC, pp 47–53Google Scholar
  21. Grosberg RK (1991) Sperm-mediated gene flow and the genetic structure of a population of the colonial ascidian Botryllus schlosseri. Evolution 45:130–142Google Scholar
  22. Harlan JR (1965) The possible role of weed races in the evolution of cultivated plants. Euphytica: 173–176Google Scholar
  23. Haskell G (1943) Spatial isolation of seed crops. Nature 151:307–317Google Scholar
  24. Heiser CB (1954) Variation and subspeciation in the common sunflower, Helianthus annuus. Am Midl Nat 51:287–305Google Scholar
  25. Heiser CB (1976) Sunflowers. In: Simmonds NW (ed) Evolution of crop plants. Longman, London, pp 36–38Google Scholar
  26. Heiser CB, Smith DM, Clevenger S, Martin WC (1969) The North American sunflowers (Helianthus). Mem Torrey Bot Club 22:1–218Google Scholar
  27. Hutchcroft CD (1955) Contamination in seed fields of corn resulting from incomplete detasseling. Doctoral thesis, Department of Agronomy, Iowa State College, Ames, IowaGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones MD (1948) Pollen dissemination by grasses. Okl Agric Exp Stat, Exp Stat Bull 319:118–123Google Scholar
  29. Kareiva P, Manasse R, Morris W (1991) Using models to integrate data from field trials and estimate risks of gene escape and gene spread. In: MacKenzie DR, Henry SC (eds) Biological monitoring of genetically engineered plants and microbes. Int Symp on the biosafety results of field tests of genetically-modified plants and microorganisms. Agric Res Inst, Bethesda, Maryland, pp 31–42Google Scholar
  30. Keeler KH, Turner CE (1990) Management of transgenic plants in the environment. In: Levin M, Strauss H (eds) Risk assessment in genetic engineering: environmental release of organisms. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 189–218Google Scholar
  31. Kirpatrick KJ, Wilson HD (1988) Interspecific gene flow in Cucurbita: C. texana vs C. pepo. Am J Bot 75:519–525Google Scholar
  32. Klinger TD, Elam R, Ellstrand NC (1991) Radish as a model for the study of engineered escape rates via crop-weed mating. Conserv Biol 5:531–535Google Scholar
  33. Klinger TD, Arriola PE, Ellstrand NC (1992) Crop-weed hybridization in radish (Raphanus sativus) effects of distance and population size. Am J Bot 79:1431–1435Google Scholar
  34. Langevin SA, Clay K, Grace JB (1990) The incidence and effects of hybridization between cultivated rice and its related weed red rice (Oryza sativa L.). Evolution 44:1000–1008Google Scholar
  35. Manasse RS (1992) Ecological risks of transgenic plants: effects of spatial dispersion of gene flow. Ecol Appl 2:431–438Google Scholar
  36. McCormick I, Davison CW, Hoskin RL (1992) The U. S. Sunflower Industry. USDA, Agric Econ Rep 663Google Scholar
  37. Nieuwhof M (1963) Pollination and contamination of Brassica oleracea L. Euphytica 12:17–26Google Scholar
  38. Oka HI, Chang WT (1959) The impact of cultivation on populations of wild rice, Oryza perennis f. spontanea. Phyton 13:105–117Google Scholar
  39. Oka HI, Chang WT (1961) Hybrid swarm between wild and cultivated rice species Oryza perennis and O. sativa. Evolution 15:418–430Google Scholar
  40. Oka HI, Morishima HH (1971) The impact of plant domestication: cultivation experiments with Oryza perennis and its hybrid with O. sativa. Evolution 25:356–364Google Scholar
  41. Putt ED (1978) History and present world status. In: Carter JF (ed) Sunflower science and technology. Am Soc Agron: Crop Sci Soc Am, Madison, Wisconsin, pp 1–30Google Scholar
  42. Rieseberg LH, Brunsfeld S (1992) Molecular evidence and plant introgression. In: Soltis PS, Soltis DE, Doyle JJ (eds) Molecular systematics of plants. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 151–176Google Scholar
  43. Rieseberg LH, Seiler GJ (1990) Molecular evidence and the origin and development of the domesticated sunflower (Helianthus annuus, Asteraceae). Econ Bot 44:79S-91SGoogle Scholar
  44. Rieseberg LH, Soltis DE, Palmer JF (1988) A reexamination of introgression between Helianthus annuus and H. bolanderi (Compositae). Evolution 42:227–238Google Scholar
  45. Rogers CE, Thompson TE, Seiler GJ (1982) Sunflower species of the United States. National Sunflower Association, Bismarck, North DakotaGoogle Scholar
  46. Small E (1984) Hybridization in the domesticated-weed-wild complex. In: Grant WF (ed) Plant biosystematics. Academic Press, Canada, pp 195–210Google Scholar
  47. Soltis DE, Haufler CH, Darrow DC, Gastony GJ (1983) Starch-gel electrophoresis of ferns: a compilation of grinding buffers, gel and electrodes buffers, and staining schedules. Am Fern J 73:9–27Google Scholar
  48. Sprague HB (1938) Breeding rye by continuous selection. J Am Soc Agron 30:287–293Google Scholar
  49. Stebbins GE, Daly K (1961) Changes in the variation pattern of a hybrid population of Helianthus over an eight-year period. Evolution 15:60–71Google Scholar
  50. SYSTAT (1992) Statistics. Version 5.2 edition. Systat Inc, Evanston, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  51. Tiedje JM, Colwell RK, Grossman YL, Hodson RE, Lenski RE, Mack RN, Regal PJ (1989) The planned introduction of genetically-engineered organisms: ecological consequences and recommendations. Ecology 70:298–315Google Scholar
  52. Till-Bottraud I, Reboud X, Brabant P, Lefranc M, Rherissi B, Vedel F, Darmency H (1992) Outcrossing and hybridization in wild and cultivated foxtail millets: consequences for the release of transgenic crops. Theor Appl Genet 83:940–946Google Scholar
  53. U. S. National Research Council (1989) Field testing geneticallymodified organisms: framework for decisions. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  54. USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (1991) Data base released in October 1991Google Scholar
  55. Williamson M, Perrins J, Fitter A (1990) Releasing genetically-engineered plants: present proposals and possible hazards. Trends Ecol Evol 5:417–419Google Scholar
  56. Wilson H, Manhart J (1993) Crop/weed gene flow: Chenopodium quinoa Willd. and C. berlandieri Moq. Theor Appl Genet 86:642–648Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. M. Arias
    • 1
  • L. H. Rieseberg
    • 2
  1. 1.Centro de Investigación en Biotecnología, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de MorelosCuernavacaMexico
  2. 2.Department of BiologyIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations