Plant Systematics and Evolution

, Volume 257, Issue 1–2, pp 1–8 | Cite as

A critical evaluation of reproductive barriers between closely related species using DNA markers - a case study in Pinus

  • W. Wachowiak
  • B. R. Stephan
  • I. Schulze
  • W. Prus-Głowacki
  • B. Ziegenhagen


Former controlled crosses between twelve Pinus montana var. rostrata (Pinus mugo complex) and eight P. sylvestris clones revealed that only two P. sylvestris had efficiently fertilised P. montana. Two species-diagnostic chloroplast DNA markers were applied to verify the species purity of the parental clones. All maternal P. montana were unambiguously confirmed to belong to the P. mugo complex at both chloroplast DNA marker loci. Six P. sylvestris clones carried the `sylvestris' haplotypes. However, the same two P. sylvestris clones that had efficiently fertilised P. montana displayed the chloroplast haplotypes diagnostic to the P. mugo complex. The patterns of highly polymorphic cpDNA microsatellite markers in parents and offspring ruled out contamination by foreign pollen. We concluded that the two clones successful in the crosses represent fertile hybrids between the two species with P. mugo as the pollen donor. Consequently, DNA markers are proposed for verifying or falsifying the success of artificial fertilisation in general. The existence of crossing barriers between the two Pinus species, meaningful to the postulated natural hybridisation and the evolution of their populations in sympatric stands, was indicated and is newly discussed.


Pinus mugo Pinus sylvestris Scots pine artificial hybridisation chloroplast microsatellites trnL-trnPCR-RFLP reproductive barrier 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arnold, M.L. 1997Natural hybridization and evolutionOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Bobowicz, M.A. 1990Hybrids of Pinus mugo Turra x Pinus sylvestris L. from the Bór na Czerwonem peatbog in Nowy Targ Valley. Wyd. NaukUAMPoznańGoogle Scholar
  3. Bobowicz, M.A., Stephan, B.R., Prus–Głowacki, W. 2000Genetic variation of F1 hybrids from controlled crosses between Pinus montana var. rostrata and Pinus sylvestris in anatomical needle traitsActa Soc. Bot. Pol.69207214Google Scholar
  4. Bobowicz, M.A., Stephan, B.R., Prus–Głowacki, W. 2001Genetic variation of F1 hybrids from controlled crosses between Pinus montana var. rostrata and Pinus sylvestris in morphological needle traitsJ. Appl. Genet.42449466PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bucci, G., Anzidei, M., Madaghiele, A., Vendramin, G.G. 1998Detection of haplotypic variation and natural hybridisation in halepensis-complex pine species using chloroplast simple sequence repeat (SSR) markersMolec. Ecol.716331643Google Scholar
  6. Christiansen, K., Dar, G.H. 1997A morphometric analysis of spontaneous and artificial hybrids of Pinus mugo x P. sylvestris (Pinaceae)Nord.J. Bot.177786Google Scholar
  7. Dengler, A. 1932Künstliche Bestäubungsversuche an KiefernZeitschr. f. Forst- und Jagdwesen64513555Google Scholar
  8. Dengler, A. 1939Über die Entwicklung künstlicher KiefernkreuzungenZeitschr. f. Forst- und Jagdwesen71457485Google Scholar
  9. Dengler, A. 1942Herkunfts- und Kreuzungsversuche im Versuchsgarten des Waldbauinstituts EberswaldeMitt Deutsch. Dendrol. Ges.55157169Google Scholar
  10. Nettancourt, D. 1997Incompatibility in angiospermsSex. Plant Rep.10185199Google Scholar
  11. Dumolin, S., Demesure, B., Petit, R.J. 1995Inheritance of chloroplast and mitochondrial genomes in pedunculate oak investigated with an efficient PCR methodTheor. Appl. Genet.9112531256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edwards-Burke, M.A., Hamrick, J.L., Price, R.A. 1997Frequency and direction of hybridisation in sympatric populations of Pinus taeda and P. echinata (Pinaceae)Amer. J. Bot.84879886Google Scholar
  13. Filppula, S., Szmidt, A.E., Savolainen, O. 1992Genetic comparison between Pinus sylvestris and P. mugo using isozymes and chloroplast DNANord. J. Bot.12381386Google Scholar
  14. Gaget, M., Said, C., Dumas, C., Knox, R.B. 1984Pollen-pistil interactions in interspecific crosses of Populus (Sections Aigeiros and Leuce): Pollen adhesion, hydration and callose responsesJ. Cell. Sci.72173184PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Germano, J., Klein, A.S. 1999Species–specific nuclear and chloroplast single nucleotide polymorphisms to distinguish Picea glauca, P. mariana and P. rubens Theor. Appl. Genet.993749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hipkins, V.D., Krutovskii, K.V., Strauss, S.H. 1994Organelle genomes in conifers: structure, evolution, and diversityForest Genet.4179189Google Scholar
  17. Kormutak, A., Lanakowa, M. 1988Biochemistry of reproductive organs and hybridological relationships of selected pine species (Pinus sp.)Acta Dendrob.17103Google Scholar
  18. Kormuták, A., Vookova, B., Ziegenhagen, B. 2002Reproductive isolation between Colorado white fir (Abies concolor) and the Mediterranean firsBiologia, Bratislava57527532Google Scholar
  19. Lauranson-Broyer, J., Lebreton, P. 1993Flavonoids and morphological traits of needles, as markers of natural hybridisation between Pinus uncinata Ram. and Pinus sylvestris LBiochem. Syst. Ecol.21241247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marcet, E. 1967Über den Nachweis spontaner Hybriden von Pinus mugo Turra und Pinus sylvestris auf Grund von NadelmerkmalenBer. Schweiz. Bot. Ges.77314361Google Scholar
  21. Marchelli, P., Gallo, L., Scholz, F., Ziegenhagen, B. 1998Chloroplast DNA markers revealed a geographical divide across Argentinean southern beech Nothofagus nervosa (Phil.) Dim. et Mil. distribution areaTheor. Appl. Genet97642646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Melchior, G.H., Seitz, F.W. 1968Interspezifische Kreuzungssterilität innerhalb der Pappelsektion Aigeiros Silvae Genet.178893Google Scholar
  23. Neale, D.B., Sederoff, R.R. 1988Paternal inheritance of chloroplast and maternal inheritance of mitochondrial DNA in loblolly pineTheor. Appl. Genet.77212216Google Scholar
  24. Neet-Sarqueda, C. 1994Genetic differentiation of Pinus sylvestris L. and Pinus mugo aggr. populations in SwitzerlandSilvae Genet.43207215Google Scholar
  25. Petit, R.J., Bodénès, C., Ducousso, A., Roussel, G., Kremer, A. 2003Hybridization as a mechanism of invasion in oaksNew Phytologist161151164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Prus-Głowacki, W., Szweykowski, J., Sadowski, J. 1978Studies on serological similarity of Pinus sylvestris L., P. mugo Turra and individuals from a hybrid swarm populationGenet. Polon.19321338Google Scholar
  27. Prus-Głowacki, W., Szweykowski, J. 1983Studies on isoenzyme variability in populations of Pinus sylvestris L., Pinus mugo Turra, Pinus uliginosa Neumann and individuals from a hybrid swarm populationBull. Sci. Amis. Poznań22107122Google Scholar
  28. Prus-Głowacki, W., Stephan, B.R. 1998Immunochemical and isoenzymatic characterization of hybrids from controlled crosses between Pinus montana var. rostrata and Pinus sylvestris Forest Genet.5155163Google Scholar
  29. Song, B.H., Wang, X.Q., Wang, X.R., Ding, K.Y., Hong, D.Y. 2003Cytoplasmic composition in Pinus densata and population establishment of the diploid hybrid pineMolec. Ecol.1229953001Google Scholar
  30. Staszkiewicz, J., Tyszkiewicz, M. 1969Natural hybrids of Pinus mugo Turra x Pinus silvestris L. in Kotlina Nowotarska (in Polish)Fragm. Flor. Geobot.15187212Google Scholar
  31. Streiff, R., Labbe, T., Bacilieri, R., Steinkellner, H., Glössl, J., Kremer, A. 1998Within- population genetic structure in Quercus robur L. and Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl. assessed with isozymes and microsatellitesMolec. Ecol.7317328Google Scholar
  32. Szmidt, A.E., Wang, X.R. 1991DNA markers in forest geneticsMüller-Starck, G.Ziehe, M. eds. Genetic variation in European populations of forest treesSauerländer's VerlagFrankfurt am Main7994Google Scholar
  33. Taberlet, P., Gielly, L., Pauton, G., Bouvet, J. 1991Universal primers for amplification of three non-coding regions of chloroplast DNAPl. Molec. Biol.1711051109Google Scholar
  34. Vendramin, G.G., Lelli, L., Rossi, P., Morgante, M. 1996A set of primers for the amplification of 20 chloroplast microsatellites in PinaceaeMolec. Ecol.5111114Google Scholar
  35. Viewegh, J., Cambalowa, H. 1993Variableness of hybrid swarm Pinus celekovskiorum A. et Gr. processed with some cluster analyses methodsBiol. Bratislava483944Google Scholar
  36. Wachowiak, W., Leśniewicz, K., Odrzykoski, I., Augustyniak, H., Prus-Głowacki, W. 2000Species specific cpDNA markers useful for studies on the hybridisation between Pinus mugo and P. sylvestris Acta Soc. Bot. Pol.69273276Google Scholar
  37. Wachowiak, W., Lewandowski, A., Prus-Głowacki, W. 2005Reciprocal controlled crosses between Pinus sylvestris and P. mugo verified by a species-specific cpDNA markerJ. Appl. Genet.464143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Wagner, D.B., Furnier, G.R., Saghai-Maroof, M.A., Wiliams, S.M., Dancik, P.B., Allard, R.W. 1987Chloroplast DNA polymorphism in lodgepole and jack pines and their hybridsProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA8420972100PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Wagner, D.B. 1992Nuclear, chloroplast and mitochondrial DNA polymorphism as biochemical markers in population genetic analyses of forest treesNew Forests6373390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Watano, Y., Imazu, M., Shimizu, T. 1995Chloroplast DNA typing by PCR-SSCP in the Pinus pumilaP. parviflora var. pentaphylla complex (Pinaceae)J. Plant. Res.108493499Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Wachowiak
    • 1
    • 5
  • B. R. Stephan
    • 2
  • I. Schulze
    • 2
  • W. Prus-Głowacki
    • 3
  • B. Ziegenhagen
    • 4
  1. 1.Polish Academy of ScienceInstitute of DendrologyKórnikPoland
  2. 2.Federal Research Centre for Forestry and Forest ProductsInstitute for Forest Genetics and Forest Tree BreedingGrosshansdorfGermany
  3. 3.Department of GeneticsInstitute of Experimental Biology, Adam Mickiewicz UniversityPoznańPoland
  4. 4.Faculty of Biology, Nature Conservation DivisionPhilipps-University MarburgMarburgGermany
  5. 5.Department of GeneticsUniversty of OuluOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations