Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 78, Issue 1, pp 42–48 | Cite as

Hierarchical cluster analysis as a tool to manage variation in germplasm collections

  • J. P. Peeters
  • J. A. Martinelli


The potential of using hierarchical cluster analysis to classify entries from a germplasm collection according to their degree of similarity was assessed. Results suggest that similarity is generally greatest among individual entries by country of origin and that hierarchical cluster analysis could be used as a tool to classify entries from germplasm collections according to their respective gene pools, even when no passport data are available. Based on this technique, it is also shown that the segregative potential of entries can be estimated.

Key words

Cluster analysis Germplasm collections Variability Relatedness 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ariyo OJ (1987) Multivariate analysis and the choice of parents for hybridization in Okra (Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench). Theor Appl Genet 74:361–363Google Scholar
  2. Asher MJC, Thomas CE (1987) The inheritance of mechanisms of partial resistance to Erysiphe graminis in spring barley. Plant Pathol 36:66–72Google Scholar
  3. Bhatt GM (1970) Multivariate analysis approach to selection of parents for hybridization aiming at yield improvement in self-pollinated crops. Aust J Agric Res 21:1–7Google Scholar
  4. Biémont C, Aouar A, Arnault C (1987) Genome reshuffling of the copia element in an inbred line of Drosophila melanogaster. Nature 329:742–744Google Scholar
  5. Duvick DN (1984) Genetic diversity in major farm crops on the farm and in reserve. Econ Bot 38:161–178Google Scholar
  6. Fink WL (1986) Microcomputers and phylogenetic analysis. Science 234:1135–1139Google Scholar
  7. Frankel OH (1984) Genetic perspectives of germplasm conservation. In: Arber W, Illmensee K, Peacock WJ, Starlinger P (eds) Genetic manipulation: impact on man and society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 167–170Google Scholar
  8. fnGenstat (1980) Reference manual 4.03. Lawes Agricultural Trust, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Numerical Algorithms Group, UKGoogle Scholar
  9. Goodman MM (1984) An evaluation and critique of current germplasm programs. In: Report of the 1983 plant breeding research forum. Aug. 9–11, 1983. Conservation and utilization of exotic germplasm to improve varieties. Pioneer HiBred International, Des Moines/IA, pp 195–227Google Scholar
  10. Gower JC, Ross GJS (1969) Minimum spanning trees and single linkage cluster analysis. Appl Stat 18:54–64Google Scholar
  11. IBPGR (1985) International Board for Plant Genetic Resources. Annual Report 1984. IBPGR Secretariat, RomeGoogle Scholar
  12. Lebeda A, Jendrulek T (1987) Cluster analysis as a method for evaluation of genetic similarity in specific host-parasite interaction (Lactuca sativaBremia lactucae). Theor Appl Genet 75:194–199Google Scholar
  13. Lefort-Buson M, Guillot-Lemoine B, Dattee Y (1987) Heterosis and genetic distance in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.): crosses between European and Asiatic selfed lines. Genome 29:413–418Google Scholar
  14. Lin CS, Binns MR, Lefkovitch LP (1986) Stability analysis: Where do we stand? Crop Sci 26:894–900Google Scholar
  15. Moseman JG, Scharen AL, Greeley LW (1965) Propagation of Erysiphe graminis f. sp. tritici on barley and Erysiphe graminis f. sp. hordei on wheat. Phytopathology 55:92–96Google Scholar
  16. Murphy JP, Cox TS, Rodgers DM (1986) Cluster analysis of red winter wheat cultivars based upon coefficients of parentage. Crop Sci 26:672–676Google Scholar
  17. Peeters JP (1988) Crop variability and its exploitation through germplasm collections: an assessment based on barley. PhD Thesis, Cambridge UniversityGoogle Scholar
  18. Peeters JP, Galwey NW (1988) Germplasm collections and breeding needs in Europe. Econ Bot (in press)Google Scholar
  19. Rohlf FJ, Wooten MC (1988) Evaluation of the restricted maximum-likelihood method for estimating phylogenetic trees using simulated allele-frequency data. Evolution 42:581–595Google Scholar
  20. Sokal RR (1986) Phenetic taxonomy: theory and methods. Annu Rev Ecol Sys 17:423–442Google Scholar
  21. Spagnoletti Zeuli PL, Qualset CO (1987) Geographic diversity for quantitative spike characters in a world collection of durum wheat. Crop Sci 27:235–241Google Scholar
  22. Tateno Y, Tajima F (1986) Statistical properties of molecular tree construction methods under the neutral mutation model. J Mol Evol 23:354–361Google Scholar
  23. Thorpe RS (1985) The effect of insignificant characters on the multivariate analysis of simple patterns of geographic variation. Biol J Linn Soc 26:215–223Google Scholar
  24. Veronesi F, Falcinelli M (1988) Evaluation of an Italian germplasm collection of Festuca arundinacea Schreb. through a multivariate analysis. Euphytica 38:211–220Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. P. Peeters
    • 1
  • J. A. Martinelli
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Applied BiologyCambridge UniversityCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Department of Cereal ResearchAFRC-IPSRTrumpington, CambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations