Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 293–301

Self-incompatibility reactions in wild species of the genusBeta and their relation to taxonomical classification and geographical origin

  • L. Bruun
  • A. Haldrup
  • S. G. Petersen
  • L. Frese
  • Th. S. M. de Bock
  • W. Lange
Regular Research Papers


The expression of self-incompatibility (SI) rejection patterns in 29 accessions of wildBeta species was studied at the anatomical level. Three different SI-related pollen tube rejection patterns were observed: (1) The pollen germinate from many pores and the pollen tubes are very short, often with swollen tips. (2) The pollen germinate and grow along the stigmatic papillae, where the self-incompatibility response takes place at the basis of the stigmatic papillae. (3) The pollen germinate and the pollen tubes grow with a distinct direction towards the style; the self-incompatibility response is observed at the border between the stigma and the style. In general the patterns observed inB. vulgaris L. subsp.vulgaris sensu lato seem to be in accordance with an ongoing microevolutionary process that has given rise to the largemaritima complex (viz.B. trojana Pamukçuoğlu,B. atriplicifolia Rouy, andB. maritima (L.) Arcangeli), in which it seems that the variation is related to geographical origin. The data support the idea that the endemicB. vulgaris subsp.adanensis (Pamukçuoğlu) Ford-Lloyd & Williams forms a distinct, self-compatible group separated from themaritima complex and also thatB. macrocarpa Gussone should be retained as a separate self-compatible species. For the sectionCorollinae Ulbrich the rejection patterns are in accordance with a division into two subsections (viz.,Lomatogonae andTrigynae) previously suggested on the basis of phenotypical and molecular data. The results fromProcumbentes Ulbrich are interpreted as evidence forB. procumbens Smith andB. webbiana Moquin being more related to each other than toB. patellaris Moquin, reflecting also a similar taxonomic relationship.

Key words

Beta beet self-incompatibility pollen rejection pollen tube growth 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barocka, K.-H., 1966. Die SektionCorollinae der GattungBeta (Tournef.) L.Z. Planzenzüchtg. 56: 379–388.Google Scholar
  2. Bruun, L., 1989. Anatomical, genetical, and physiological variation in embryo development and nutrition underin situ andin vitro conditions in the genusBeta (Chenopodiaceae). Ph.D. thesis, University of Copenhagen, DK.Google Scholar
  3. Buchter-Larsen, A. & C.J. Jensen, 1986. Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) pollen quality assessment and effect of irradiation as measured by fluorochromatic reaction andin vitro germination. In: Horn et al., (Eds), Proc. Int. Symp. Genetic Manipulation in Plant Breeding, Eucarpia, Berlin, Walther de Gruyter Publisher, pp.283–285.Google Scholar
  4. Buttler, K.P., 1977a. Revision vonBeta SektionCorollinae (Chenopodiaceae). I. Selbststerile Basisarten. Mitt. Bot. München 13:255–336.Google Scholar
  5. Buttler, K.P., 1977b. Variation in wild populations of annual beet (Beta, Chenopodiaceae). Plant Syst. Evol. 128: 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coons, G.H., 1954. The wild species ofBeta. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 8: 142–147.Google Scholar
  7. Dale, M.F.B., 1980. Breeding patterns in the genusBeta, sectionBeta. Ph.D. thesis, University of Birmingham, UK.Google Scholar
  8. Dale, M.F.B. & B.V. Ford-Lloyd, 1983. Reproductive characters associated with breeding behaviour inBeta seet.Beta (Chenopodiaceae). Plant Syst. Evol. 143: 277–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Bock, Th.S.M., 1986. The genusBeta: Domestication, taxonomy and interspecific hybridization for plant breeding. Acta Horticult. 183: 335–343.Google Scholar
  10. De Nettancourt, D., 1977. Incompatibility in angiosperms. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Ford-Lloyd, B.V., 1986. Infraspecific variation in wild and cultivated beets and its effects upon infraspecific classification, In: B.T. Styles (Ed.) The systematic association. Special vol. 29, Oxford pp.331–344.Google Scholar
  12. Ford-Lloyd, B.V. & J.T. Williams, 1975. A revision ofBeta sectionVulgares (Chenopodiaceae), with new light on the origin of cultivated beets. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 71: 89–102.Google Scholar
  13. Fritzsche, K., M. Metzlaff, R. Melzer & R. Hagemann, 1987. Comparative restriction endonuclease analysis and molecular cloning of plastid DNAs from wild species and cultivated varieties of the genusBeta (L.). Theor. Appl. Genet. 74: 589–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haldrup, A. & L. Bruun, 1993. Self-incompatibility reactions and compatible pollen tube growth is retained within vitro pollinations of sugar beet,Beta vulgaris L. Sex. Plant Reprod. 6: 46–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Helm, J., 1957. Über die historische Entwicklung der Gliederung vonBeta vulgaris L. in Untersippen und deren Nomenklatur. Kulturpflanze 5: 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jassem, B., 1990. Apomixis in the genusBeta. Apomixis Newsletter 2:7–11.Google Scholar
  17. Jassem, B., 1992. Species relationship in the genusBeta as revealed by crossing experiments. In: L. Frese (Ed). 2nd InternationalBeta Genetic Resources Workshop, Braunschweig, Germany. International Crop Network Series No. 7, IBPGR, Rome, pp. 55–61.Google Scholar
  18. Jung, C., K. Pillen, L. Frese, S. Fähr & A.E. Melchinger, 1993. Phylogenetic relationships between cultivated and wild species of the genusBeta revealed by DNA “fingerprinting”. Theor. Appl. Genet. 86: 449–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Knapp, E., 1958.Beta-Rüben. Bes. Zuckerrüben. In: H. Kappert & W. Rudorf, (Eds) Handbuch der Pflanzenzüchtung Bd. 3. Paul Parey, Berlin, Hamburg, pp. 198–284.Google Scholar
  20. Larsen, K., 1977. Self-incompatibility inBeta vulgaris L. Hereditas 85:227–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Letschert, J.P.W., 1993.Beta sectionBeta: Biogeographical patterns of variation, and taxonomy. Wageningen Agricultural University Papers 93.1, Wageningen, pp. 1–155.Google Scholar
  22. Letschert, J.P.W., W. Lange, L. Frese & R.G. Van Den Berg, 1994. Taxonomy ofBeta sectionBeta. J. Sugar Beet Res. (in press).Google Scholar
  23. Maletsky, S.I. & N.J. Weisman, 1978. A population genetic analysis of self- and cross-incompatibility in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Theor. Appl. Genet. 52: 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Olesen, P. & L. Bruun, 1990. A structural investigation of the ovule in sugar beet,Beta vulgaris: Integuments and micropyle. Nord. J. Bot. 9: 499–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Owen, F.V. 1942. Inheritance of cross- and self-sterility and self fertility inBeta vulgaris. J. Agr. Res. 64: 679–698.Google Scholar
  26. Reamon-Ramos, S.M. & G. Wricke, 1992. A full set of monosomic addition lines inBeta vulgaris fromBeta webbiana: Morphology and isozyme markers. Theor. Appl. Genet. 84: 411–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Santoni, S. & A. Bervillé, 1992. Characterization of the nuclear ribosomal DNA units and phylogeny ofBeta L. wild forms and cultivated beets. Theor. Appl. Genet. 83: 533–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Savitsky, H. (= Kharetshko-Savitskaya, E.), 1944. Selbststerilität und Selbstfertilität beiBeta vulgaris L. Z. Pflanzenzüchtg. 26: 103–118.Google Scholar
  29. Savitsky, H., 1950. A method for determining self-fertility and self- sterility in sugar beets, based on the stage of ovule development shortly after flowering. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Techn. 6: 198–201.Google Scholar
  30. Smith, M.M. & M.E. McCully, 1978. Enhancing aniline blue fluorescent staining of cell wall structures. Stain Technology 53: 79–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Sundelin, G., 1934. Självfertilitet och sjäilvsterilitet hosBeta. Sveriges Utsädesförenings Tidskrift 44: 329–385.Google Scholar
  32. Schwanitz, F., 1940. Beiträge zur Züchtung und Genetik selbstfertiler Rüben (Beta vulgaris L.). I Erste Ergebnisse von Kreuzungen zwischen selbststerilerBeta vulgaris L. und selbstfertilerBeta maritima L. Züchter 12: 167–178.Google Scholar
  33. Transhel, V.A., 1927. The species of the genusBeta. -Bull. Appl. Botany and Plant Breeding 17: 203–224.Google Scholar
  34. Ulbrich, E., 1934. Chenopodiaceae. In: Engler & Prand. Die Natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. 2nd Ed. Vol. 16c: 379–584.Google Scholar
  35. Van Geyt, J.P.C., M. Oleo, W. Lange & Th.S.M. De Bock, 1988. Monosomic additions in beet (Beta vulgaris) carrying extra chromosomes ofBeta procumbens. I. Identification of the alien chromosomes with the help of isozyme markers. Theor. Appl. Genet. 76: 577–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wagner, H., W.-M. Gimbel & G. Wricke, 1989. AreBeta procumbens Chr. Sm. andBeta webbiana Moq. different species? Plant Breeding 102: 17–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weisman, N.J., 1982. A cyto-embryological study on incompatibility in inbred lines of sugar beet. Incomp. Newsletter 14: 36–39.Google Scholar
  38. Weisman, N.J., 1986. A cytoembryological analysis of the results of different types of pollination in sugar beet. In: D.L. Mulcahy, G.B. Mulcahy & E. Ottaviano (Eds), Biotechnology and Ecology of Pollen. Springer-Verlag New York, Berlin, Heidelberg, Tokyo, pp. 227–231.Google Scholar
  39. Zaikovskaya, N.E. & T.P. Zhuzhzhalova, 1976. Pollen-tube development in self-fertile and self-sterile sugar-beet strains in isolation. Cytology and Genetics 10: 54–57.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Bruun
    • 1
  • A. Haldrup
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. G. Petersen
    • 2
  • L. Frese
    • 3
  • Th. S. M. de Bock
    • 4
  • W. Lange
    • 4
  1. 1.Botanical LaboratoryUniv. of CopenhagenCopenhagen KDenmark
  2. 2.DANISCO BiotechnologyGrindsted ProductsCopenhagen KDenmark
  3. 3.Institute of Crop Science (FAL)BraunschweigGermany
  4. 4.DLO-Centre for Plant Breeding and Reproduction Research, CPRO-DLOWageningenthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations