Plant Systematics and Evolution

, Volume 279, Issue 1–4, pp 219–231 | Cite as

A combined morphometric and AFLP based diversity study challenges the taxonomy of the European members of the complex Prunus L. section Prunus

  • Leander Depypere
  • Peter Chaerle
  • Peter Breyne
  • Kristine Vander Mijnsbrugge
  • Paul Goetghebeur
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Multivariate analysis of both endocarp and leaf morphometrics is combined with cluster analysis and Bayesian inference of AFLP markers to assess the morphologic and genetic variation of five European members of Prunus section Prunus (P. cerasifera, P. domestica, P. insititia, P. spinosa, and P. × fruticans). Endocarp morphometrics separate most Prunus taxa studied, but overlap remains between P. domestica and P. cerasifera, and P. spinosa and P. × fruticans. Leaf morphometrics yield better separation of P. domestica and P. cerasifera, but do not allow distinction between P. spinosa and P. × fruticans. Both cluster analysis and PCoA of AFLP markers equally produce three distinct clusters. A first consists of all P. cerasifera samples and the sole P. cocomilia; a second cluster includes all individuals of P. domestica and P. insititia; and a third group comprises all P. spinosa and P. × fruticans samples.

Keywords

Prunus L. section Prunus Eurasian plums Morphometrics AFLP Phenetic analysis Taxonomy 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Research funded by a PhD grant of the Institute for the Promotion of Innovation through science and Technology in Flanders (IWT-Vlaanderen). We are grateful to Stefaan Moreels and Leen Verschaeve for their assistance during sampling, Tine Paessens, Joel Dockx, Leen Verschaeve, David Halfmaerten, and Tina Kyndt for guidance with DNA isolation and/or AFLP analysis, Bert Maes for help with the plant identifications.

References

  1. Aradhya MK, Weeks C, Simon CJ (2004) Molecular characterization of variability and relationships among seven cultivated and selected wild species of Prunus L. using amplified fragment length polymorphism. Scientia Horticulturae 103:131–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Behre KE (1978) Formenkreise von Prunus domestica L. von der Wikingerzeit bis in die frühe Neuzeit nach Fruchtsteinen aus Haithabu und Alt-Schleswig. Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft 91:161–179Google Scholar
  3. Bortiri E, Oh S-H, Jiang J, Baggett S, Granger A, Weeks C, Buckingham M, Potter D, Parfitt DE (2001) Phylogeny and systematics of Prunus (Rosaceae) as determined by sequence analysis of ITS and the chloroplast trnL–trnF spacer DNA. Systematic Botany 26(4):797–807Google Scholar
  4. Brewer MT, Lang L, Fujimura K, Dujmovic N, Gray S, van der Knaap E (2006) Development of a controlled vocabulary and software application to analyze fruit shape variation in tomato and other plant species. Plant Physiology 141:15–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coart E, Vekemans X, Smulders MJM, Wagner I, Van Huylenbroeck J, Van Bockstaele E, Roldán-Ruiz I (2003) Genetic variation in the endangered wild apple (Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill.) in Belgium as revealed by amplified fragment length polymorphism and microsatellite markers. Molecular Ecology 12:845–857PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Cock K, Vander Mijnsbrugge K, Breyne P, Van Bockstaele E, Van Slycken J (2008) Morphological and AFLP-based differentiation within the taxonomical complex section Caninae (subgenus Rosa). Annals of Botany 102(5):685–697PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Decroocq V, Hagen LS, Favé M-G, Eyquard J-P, Pierronnet A (2004) Microsatellite markers in hexaploid Prunus domestica species and parentage lineage of three European plum cultivars using nuclear and chloroplast simple-sequence repeats. Molecular Breeding 13:135–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Depypere L, Chaerle P, Vander Mijnsbrugge K, Goetghebeur P (2007) Stony endocarp dimension and shape variation in Prunus L. section Prunus. Annals of Botany 100:1585–1597PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dice LR (1945) Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology 26:297–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drossou A, Katsiotis A, Leggett JM, Loukas M, Tsakas S (2004) Genome and species relationships in genus Avena based on RAPD and AFLP molecular markers. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 109:48–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fournier P (1977) Les Quatres Flores de la France. Lechevalier, ParisGoogle Scholar
  12. Frary A, Doğanlar S (2003) Comparative genetics of crop plant domestication and evolution. Turk J Agric For 27:59–69Google Scholar
  13. Gleason HA (1958) Illustrated flora, vol 2. Lancaster Press, LancasterGoogle Scholar
  14. Gower JC (1966) Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multivariate analysis. Biometrika 53:325–338Google Scholar
  15. Hagen LS, Khadari B, Lambert P, Audergon J-M (2002) Genetic diversity in apricot revealed by AFLP markers: species and cultivar comparisons. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 105:298–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4(1):9 pp. http://palaeo-electronica.org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.htm
  17. Hanelt P (1997) European wild relatives of Prunus fruit crops. Bocconea 7:401–408Google Scholar
  18. Hübner S, Wissemann V (2004) Morphometrische Analysen zur Variabilität von Prunus spinosa L.—Populationen (Prunoideae, Rosaceae) im Mittleren Saaletal, Thüringen. Forum Geobotanicum 1:19–51Google Scholar
  19. Jones CJ, Edwards KJ, Castaglione S, Winfield MO, Sala F, Van De Wiel C, Bredemeijer G, Vosman B, Matthes M, Daly A, Brettschneider R, Bettini P, Buiatti M, Maestri E, Malcevschi A, Marmiroli N, Aert R, Volckaert G, Rueda J, Linacero R, Vazquez A, Karp A (1997) Reproducibility testing of RAPD, AFLP and SSR markers in plants by a network of European laboratories. Molecular Breeding 3:381–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kalkman C (2004) Rosaceae. In: Kubitzki K (ed) The families and genera of vascular plants, vol VI. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  21. Katayama H, Uematsu C (2005) Structural analysis of chloroplast DNA in Prunus (Rosaceae): evolution, genetic diversity and unequal mutations. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 111:1430–1439PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koopman WJM, Zevenbergen MJ, Van den Berg RG (2001) Species relationships in Lactuca s.l. (Lactuceae, Asteraceae) inferred from AFLP fingerprints. American Journal of Botany 88:1881–1887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koopman WJM, Wissemann V, De Cock K, Van Huylenbroeck J, De Riek J, Sabatino GJH, Visser D, Vosman B, Ritz CM, Maes B, Werlemark G, Nybom H, Debener T, Linde M, Smulders MJM (2008) AFLP markers as a tool to reconstruct complex relationships: a case study in Rosa (Rosaceae). American Journal of Botany 95(3):353–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Körber-Grohne U (1996) Pflaumen, Kirschpflaumen, Schlehen—Heutige Pflanzen und ihre Geschichte seit der Frühzeit. Thesis, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  25. Krüssmann G (1978) Prunus. In: Handbuch der Laubgehölze, Band III. Verlag Paul Parey, Berlin, pp 13–56Google Scholar
  26. Kühn F (1999) Alte Pflaumen, lebende Zeugen mittelalterlichen Obstbaus. Hamburger Werkstattreihe zur Archäologie 4:70–77Google Scholar
  27. Lambinon J, De Langhe J-E, Delvosalle J, Duvigneaud J (1998) Flora van België, het Groothertogdom Luxemburg, Noord-Frankrijk en de aangrenzende gebieden (Pteridofyten en Spermatofyten), derde druk. Uitgave van de Nationale Plantentuin van België, Meise, pp 1091Google Scholar
  28. Mabberley DJ (2008) Mabberley’s plant-book. A portable dictionary of plants, their classification and uses, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Mace ES, Gebhardt CG, Lester RN (1999a) AFLP analysis of genetic relationships in the tribe Datureae (Solanaceae). Theoretical and Applied Genetics 99:634–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mace ES, Lester RN, Gebhardt CG (1999b) AFLP analysis of genetic relationships among the cultivated eggplant, Solanum melongena L., and wild relatives (Solanaceae). Theoretical and Applied Genetics 99:626–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maes N (1993) Genetische kwaliteit van inheemse bomen en struiken. Deelproject: Randvoorwaarden en knelpunten bij behoud en toepassing van inheems genenmateriaal. IBN-rapport 20, IKC-NBLF, IBN-DLO, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  32. Maes N, Rövekamp C (1998) Oorspronkelijk inheemse bomen en struiken in Vlaanderen. Een onderzoek naar autochtone genenbronnen in de Ecologische Impulsgebieden. Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Afdeling Bos en Groen, BrusselGoogle Scholar
  33. Maes B, Rövekamp C (1999) Cursus autochtone bomen en struiken Vlaanderen (een productie van het Ekologisch Adviesburo Maes en BRONNEN). Educatief bosbouwcentrum Groenendaal, BrusselGoogle Scholar
  34. Maes N, Rövekamp C, Opstaele B, Zwaenepoel A (2003) Oorspronkelijke inheemse bomen en struiken in de houtvesterijen Antwerpen en Turnhout. Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, afdeling Bos en Groen, BrusselGoogle Scholar
  35. Mantel NA (1967) The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Research 27:209–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Mason SC (1913) The pubescent-fruited species of Prunus of the Southwestern States. J Agr Res 1:147–179Google Scholar
  37. McGregor CE, Lambert CA, Greyling MM, Louw JH, Warnich L (2000) A comparative assessment of DNA fingerprinting techniques (RAPD, ISSR, AFLP and SSR) in tetraploid potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) germplasm. Euphytica 113:135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mowrey BD, Werner DJ (1990) Phylogenetic relationships among species of Prunus as inferred by isozyme markers. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 80:129–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nei M, Li WH (1979) Mathematical model for studying genetic variation in terms of restriction endonucleases. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol 76, pp 5269–5273Google Scholar
  40. Nielsen J, Olrik DC (2001) A morphometric analysis of Prunus spinosa, P. domestica ssp. insititia, and their putative hybrids in Denmark. Nordic Journal of Botany 21(4):349–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Opstaele B (2001) Autochtone bomen en struiken in de houtvesterijen Leuven en Hasselt. Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, afdeling Bos en Groen, BrusselGoogle Scholar
  42. Peyre P (1945) Les pruniers sauvages cultivés. Clermont-Ferrand, ParisGoogle Scholar
  43. Rehder A (1940) Manual of cultivated trees and shrubs hardy in North America, 2nd edn. The Macmillan Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Reynders S, Salesses G (1991) Study of the genetic relationships within the subgenus Prunophora. Restriction maps of the ribosomal genes in P. cerasifera and P. spinosa. Acta Horticulturae 283:17–25Google Scholar
  45. Ritz CM, Wissemann V (2003) Male correlated non-matroclinal character inheritance in reciprocal hybrids of Rosa section Caninae (DC.) Ser. (Rosaceae). Plant Systematics and Evolution 241:213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Röder K (1940) Sortenkundliche Untersuchungen an Prunus domestica. Kühn Archiv 54:1–132Google Scholar
  47. Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP (2003) MRBAYES: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19:1572–1574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rövekamp C, Maes N (2000) Oorspronkelijk inheemse bomen en struiken in het Regionaal Landschap West-Vlaamse Heuvels. Een onderzoek naar autochtone genenbronnen. Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Afdeling Bos en Groen, BrusselGoogle Scholar
  49. Rövekamp C, Maes N, Zwaenepoel A (2000) Oorspronkelijk inheemse bomen en struiken en cultuurwilgen in de Vlaamse Vallei. Een onderzoek naar autochtone genenbronnen in Gent en omgeving. Brussel, Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Afdeling Bos en GroenGoogle Scholar
  50. Russell JR, Fuller JD, Macaulay M, Hatz BG, Jahoor A, Powell W, Waugh R (1997) Direct comparison of levels of genetic variation among barley accessions detected by RFLPs, AFLPs, SSRs and RAPDs. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 95:714–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schenk MF, Thienpont C-N, Koopman WJM, Gilissen LJWJ, Smulders MJM (2008) Phylogenetic relationships in Betula (Betulaceae) based on AFLP markers. Tree Genetics and Genomes 4:911–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Scholz H, Scholz I (1995) Prunoideae. In: Conert HJ, Jäger EJ, Kadereit JW, Schultze-Motel W, Wagenitz G, Weber HE (eds) Gustav Hegi’s Illustrierte Flora von Mitteleuropa, Band IV Teil 2B. Blackwell Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin, pp 446–510Google Scholar
  53. Shaw J, Small RL (2004) Addressing the “hardest puzzle in American pomology:” Phylogeny of Prunus sect. Prunocerasus (Rosaceae) based on seven noncoding chloroplast DNA regions. American Journal of Botany 91:985–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shaw J, Small RL (2005) Chloroplast DNA phylogeny and phylogeography of the North American plums (Prunus subgenus Prunus section Prunocerasus, Rosaceae). American Journal of Botany 92:2011–2030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sokal RR, Michener CD (1958) A statistical method for evaluating systematic relationships. University of Kansas Science Bulletin 28:1409–1438Google Scholar
  56. Stace CA (1975) Hybridization and the Flora of the British Isles. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  57. Thórsson ÆT, Salmela E, Anamthawat-Jónsson K (2001) Morphological, cytogenetic, and molecular evidence for introgressive hybridization in birch. Journal of Heredity 92:404–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Van de Peer Y, De Wachter R (1994) TREECON for Windows: a software package for the construction and drawing of evolutionary trees for the Microsoft Windows environment. Computer Applications in Biosciences 10:569–570Google Scholar
  59. Van Droogenbroeck B, Breyne P, Goetghebeur P, Romeijn-Peeters E, Kyndt T, Gheysen G (2002) AFLP analysis of genetic relationships among papaya and its wild relatives (Caricaceae) from Ecuador. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 105:289–297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Van Zeist W, Woldring H (2000) Plum (Prunus domestica L.) varieties in late- and post-medieval Groningen: the archaeobotanical evidence. Palaeohistoria 39(40):563–576Google Scholar
  61. Vos P, Hogers R, Bleeker M, Reijans M, van de Lee T, Hornes M, Frijters A, Pot J, Peleman J, Kuiper M, Zabeau M (1995) AFLP: a new technique for DNA fingerprinting. Nucleic Acids Research 23:4407–4414PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Webb DA (1968) Prunus. In: Tutin TG, Heywood VH, Burges NA, Moore DM, Valentine DH, Walters SM, Webb DA (eds) Flora Europaea. Rosaceae to Umbelliferae, vol 2. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  63. Werneck HL (1961) Die Wurzel- und Kernechten Stammformen der Pflaumen in Oberösterreich. Naturkundliches Jahrbuch der Stadt LinzGoogle Scholar
  64. Wissemann V, Hellwig FH (1997) Reproduction and hybridisation in the genus Rosa, section Caninae (Ser.) Rehd. Botanica Acta 110:251–256Google Scholar
  65. Woldring H (2000) On the origin of plums: a study of sloe, damson, cherry plum, domestic plums and their intermediates. Palaeohistoria 39(40):535–562Google Scholar
  66. Zohary D (1992) Is the European plum, Prunus domestica L., a P. cerasifera Ehrh. × P. spinosa L. allo-polyploid? Euphytica 60:75–77Google Scholar
  67. Zohary D, Hopf M (1994) Domestication of plants in the Old World, 2nd edn. Clarendon press, Oxford, p 279Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leander Depypere
    • 1
  • Peter Chaerle
    • 1
  • Peter Breyne
    • 2
  • Kristine Vander Mijnsbrugge
    • 2
  • Paul Goetghebeur
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Group Spermatophytes, Department of BiologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Research Institute for Nature and Forest, Scientific Institute of the Flemish GovernmentGeraardsbergenBelgium

Personalised recommendations