Advertisement

Euphytica

, Volume 184, Issue 3, pp 289–299 | Cite as

Architectural and genetic characterization of Hydrangea aspera subsp. aspera Kawakami group, H. aspera subsp. sargentiana and their hybrids

  • Laurent CrespelEmail author
  • Philippe Morel
  • Gilles Galopin
Article

Abstract

Hydrangea macrophylla (Thunb.) Ser. and H. paniculata Sieb. are the two most economically important species within the genus Hydrangea, and have been used as ornamental garden plants for a long time. However, other species such as H. aspera D. Don are of horticultural interest, particularly for the color of their inflorescences and plant shape. This species is composed of four sub-species and has previously been characterized both genetically and morphologically. The previous morphological characterization was qualitative, but was based mainly on leaf and inflorescence parameters outlined by UPOV, and provided little information about plant shape. To better characterize the shape of H. aspera, an architectural analysis was applied to the two most distantly related sub-species at the cytogenetic level: subsp. sargentiana (Redher) E.M. McClint. (clone 188) and subsp. aspera Kawakami group (clone 352). This method made it possible to reveal significant differences between these clones, both at the axis and the growth unit (GU) scale, in agreement with the high level of genetic differentiation (Jaccard dissimilarity index equal to 0.97) revealed between the two clones by Inter simple sequence repeats markers. Because this method is difficult to apply to a large population of individuals, a qualitative architectural characterization was tested on ten progenies derived from hybridization of the two clones, on the basis of their most discriminating architectural components. The hybrid nature of the progeny was confirmed by the architectural analysis. The architectural components of the hybrids are therefore a combination of those of the parents, with a predominance of clone 352, the female parent. Architectural differences between hybrids were clearly revealed by the length of the first vegetative GU (VGU1), the presence or the absence of VGU2 and the length of the floral GU of the A2 axis, and GU branching, allowing us to define five architectural profiles. These differences are supported by the average Jaccard dissimilarity index (0.33). This method, based on a qualitative description of the main architectural components of the plant, proved to be useful for characterizing the shape of H. aspera subsp. sargentiana, and subsp. aspera Kawakami group, and their hybrids. It could be extended to other sub-species of H. aspera and to their respective hybrids, providing an efficient tool for better characterizing genetic resources of H. aspera.

Keywords

Architectural analysis Axis Growth unit ISSR marker Shape Woody ornamental plant 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Daniel Relion and Monique Sigogne for their technical contribution to this study.

References

  1. Barlow PW (1989) Meristems, metamers and modules and the development of shoot and root systems. Bot J Linn Soc 100:255–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bertrand H, Becue I, Relion D (2007) Ressources génétiques du genre Hydrangea L. Bur des Ressour Génét, ParisGoogle Scholar
  3. Cerbah M, Mortreau E, Brown S, Siljak-Yakovlev S, Bertrand H, Lambert C (2001) Genome size variation relationships in the genus Hydrangea. Theor Appl Genet 103:45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chatterjee J, Mandal AKA, Ranade SA, Teixeira da Silva JA, Datta SK (2006) Molecular systematics in Chrysanthemum x grandiflorum (Ramat.) Kitamura. Sci Hortic 110:373–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crespel L, Pernet A, Le Bris M, Gudin S, Hibrand Saint Oyant L (2009) Application of ISSRs for cultivar identification and assessment of genetic relationships in rose. Plant Breed 128:501–506. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0523.2008.01600.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Galopin G, Mauget JC, Morel P (2010) Morphometric analysis of the phenotypic variability of the architectural unit of Hydrangea macrophylla. Ann For Sci 67:309. doi: 10.1051/forest/2009115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gardner N, Hokanson SC (2005) Intersimple sequence repeat fingerprinting and genetic variation in a collection of Clematis cultivars and commercial germplasm. HortSci 40:1982–1987Google Scholar
  8. Godin C, Caraglio Y (1998) A multiscale model of plant topological structures. J Theor Biol 191:1–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldman JJ (2008) The use of ISSR markers to identify Texas bluegrass interspecific hybrids. Plant Breed 127:644–646. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0523.2008.01526.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jones KD, Reed S (2006) Production and verification of Hydrangea arborescens ‘Dardom’ × H. involucrata hybrids. HortSci 41:564–566Google Scholar
  11. Kaul K, Karthigeyan S, Dhyani D, Kaur N, Sharma RK, Ahuja PS (2009) Morphological and molecular analyses of Rosa damascena × R. bourboniana interspecific hybrids. Sci Hortic 122:258–263. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2009.05.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kudo N, Matsui T, Okada T (2008) A novel interspecific hybrid plant between Hydrangea scandens subsp. chinensis and H. macrophylla via ovule culture. Plant Biotechnol 25:529–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Marie D, Brown SC (1993) A cytometric exercise in plant DNA histograms, with 2C values for 70 species. Biol Cell 78:41–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McClintock E (1957) A monograph of the genus Hydrangea. Proc Calif Acad Sci 29:147–255Google Scholar
  15. Morel P, Galopin G, Donès N (2009) Using architectural analysis to compare the shape of two hybrid tea rose genotypes. Sci Hortic 120:391–398. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2008.11.039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mortreau E, Bertrand H, Lambert C, Lallemand J (2003) Collection of Hydrangea: genetic resources characterisation. Acta Hortic 623:231–238Google Scholar
  17. Mortreau E, Siljak-Yakovlev S, Cerbah M, Brown SC, Bertrand H, Lambert C (2010) Cytogenetic characterization of Hydrangea involucrata Sieb. and H. aspera D. Don complex (Hydrangeaceae): genetic evolutional, and taxonomic implication. Tree Genet Genomes 6:137–148. doi: 10.1007/s11295-009-0235-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Perrier X, Jacquemoud-Collet JP (2006) DARwin software. http://darwin.cirad.fr/darwin. Accessed 21 june 2010
  19. Pharmawati M, Yan G, McFarlane IJ (2004) Application of RAPD and ISSR markers to analyse molecular relationships in Grevillea (Proteaceae). Aust Syst Bot 17:49–61. doi: 10.1071/SB03016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pharmawati M, Yan G, Finnegan PM (2005) Molecular variation and fingerprinting of Leucadendron cultivars (Proteaceae) by ISSR markers. Ann Bot 95:1163–1170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Senthil Kumar R, Parthiban KT, Govinda Rao M (2009) Molecular characterization of jatropha genetic resources through inter-simple sequence repeat (ISSR) markers. Mol Biol Rep 36:1951–1956. doi: 10.1007/s11033-008-9404-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Suo ZL, Li WY, Yao J, Zhang HJ, Zhang ZM, Zhao DX (2005) Applicability of leaf morphology and intersimple sequence repeat markers in classification of tree peony (Paeniaceae) cultivars. HortSci 40:329–334Google Scholar
  23. UPOV (1991) Guidelines for the conduct of tests for distinctness, homogeneity and stability. http://www.upov.int/en/publications/tg-rom/tg133/tg_133_3.pdf. Accessed 30 sept 2010
  24. White J (1979) The plant as a metapopulation. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 10:109–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laurent Crespel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Philippe Morel
    • 2
  • Gilles Galopin
    • 3
  1. 1.Agrocampus OuestCentre d’Angers, Institut National d’Horticulture et de Paysage, UMR 1259 GenHortAngers Cedex 01France
  2. 2.INRA, UMR SAGAH A 462BeaucouzéFrance
  3. 3.Agrocampus OuestCentre d’Angers, Institut National d’Horticulture et de Paysage, UMR SAGAH A 462Angers Cedex 01France

Personalised recommendations