Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution

, Volume 59, Issue 6, pp 1101–1114 | Cite as

Diversity of the European indigenous wild apple Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill. in the East Ore Mountains (Osterzgebirge), Germany: I. Morphological characterization

  • Stefanie Reim
  • Anke Proft
  • Simone Heinz
  • Monika Höfer
Research Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill. is the only indigenous wild apple species in Europe and recognized as rare and endangered species. An important prerequisite for the preservation of M. sylvestris is the identification of ‘true type’ M. sylvestris individuals because hybrids with cultivated apple could be also occurred. In this study variations among 625 putative M. sylvestris trees originated in the East Ore Mountains were evaluated with 20 selected morphological traits. The importance of these traits concerning the differentiation of ‘true type’ and hybrids of M. sylvestris were determined by statistical analysis. The results demonstrated a strong correlation of individual traits and those contributing mostly to variation of M. sylvestris were detected by the Principal Component Analysis. The relationship of 284 M. sylvestris, 18 M. × domestica, M. floribunda 821 and M. robusta 5 individuals were calculated based on the morphological data and presented in a dendrogram. The individuals grouped in two main clusters and 68 hybrids of M. sylvestris were identified. The main result of the morphological data of these hybrids indicates that the grouping is mainly based on the flower and leaf pubescence and less on the fruit size.

Keywords

Cluster analysis Hybridization Malus sylvestris Morphology Principal component analysis Variability 

Abbreviations

PCA

Principal component analysis

ECPGR

European cooperative program for plant genetic resources

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research project was financial supported by the Federal Agency for Agriculture and Food for (06BM 002/2). We thank very much all volunteers from the Green League East Ore Mountains e.V. for their extensive work on the Malus sylvestris trees in the East Ore Mountains. We also thank Claudia Wiedow for her helpful comments.

References

  1. Allendorf FW, Leary RF, Spruell P, Wenburg JK (2001) The problems with hybrids: setting conservation guidelines. Trends Ecol Evol 16:613–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asma BM, Ozturk K (2005) Analysis of morphological, pomological and yield characteristics of some apricot germplasm in Turkey. Genet Resour Crop Evol 52:305–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Broothaerts W (2003) New findings in apple S-genotype analysis resolve previous confusion and request the re-numbering of some S-alleles. Theor Appl Genet 106:703–714PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Castiglione S, Cicatelli A, Lupi R, Patrignani G, Fossati T, Brundu G, Sabatti M, van Loo M, Lexer C (2010) Genetic structure and introgression in riparian populations of Populus alba L. Plant Biosyst 144:656–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chezhian P, Yasodha R, Ghosh M (2010) Genetic diversity analysis in a seed orchard of Eucalyptus tereticornis. New For 40(1):85–99Google Scholar
  6. Coart E, Vekemans X, Smulders MJM, Wagner I, Van Huylenbroeck J, Van Bockstaele E, Roldan-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. Mol Ecol 12:845–857PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dhar A, Ruprecht H, Vacik H (2008) Population viability risk management (PVRM) for in situ management of endangered tree species—a case study on a Taxus baccata L. population. For Ecol Manag 255:2835–2845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dreesen RSG, Vanholme BTM, Luyten K, Van Wynsberghe L, Fazio G, Roldan-Ruiz I, Keulemans J (2010) Analysis of Malus S-RNase gene diversity based on a comparative study of old and modern apple cultivars and European wild apple. Mol Breed 26:693–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evans KM, Fernandez-Fernandez F, Laurens F, Feugey L, van de Weg WE (2007) Harmonising fingerprinting protocols to allow comparisons between germplasm collections—Malus/Pyrus. XIIth EUCARPIA symposium on fruit breeding and genetics. Zaragoza (Espagne), 16–20 Sept 2007 (poster)Google Scholar
  10. Fellenberg U (2001) Beurteilung von Wildobst - Voraussetzung für geeignetes Vermehrungsgut zur Erhaltung von Waldgenressourcen. Forst und Holz 56:50–54Google Scholar
  11. Gascuel O (1997) Concerning the NJ algorithm and its unweighted version, UNJ. In: Mirkin B, McMorris F, Roberts F, Rzetsky A (eds) Mathematical hierarchies and biology. American Mathematical Society, DIMACS workshop, vol 37, pp 149–170Google Scholar
  12. Huson DH, Richter DC, Rausch C, Dezulian T, Franz M, Rupp R (2007) Dendroscope: an interactive viewer for large phylogenetic trees. BMC Bioinformatics 8:460Google Scholar
  13. Iezzoni AF, Pritts MP (1991) Applications of principal component analysis to horticultural research. Hortscience 26:334–338Google Scholar
  14. Jacques D, Van der Mijnsbrugge K, Lemaire S, Antofie A, Lateur M (2009) Natural distribution and variability of wild apple (Malus sylvestris) in Belgium. Belg J Bot 142:39–49Google Scholar
  15. Kleinschmit J (1998) Erhaltung und Nutzung wertvoller Edellaubbaumarten. Forst und Holz 17:515–519Google Scholar
  16. Kleinschmit J, Stephan R (1997) Wild fruit trees. EUFORGEN Noble Hardwoods, Network, Reports, pp 51–59Google Scholar
  17. Krahl KH, Lansari A, Iezzoni AF (1991) Morphological variation within a sour cherry collection. Euphytica 52:47–55Google Scholar
  18. Kutzelnigg H (1995) Malus. In: Hegi G (ed) Illustrierte Flora von Mitteleuropa. Band IV, Teil 2B, Blackwell, Berlin, pp 298–328Google Scholar
  19. Larsen AS, Kjaer ED (2009) Pollen mediated gene flow in a native population of Malus sylvestris and its implications for contemporary gene conservation management. Conserv Genet 10:1637–1646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Larsen A, Asmussen C, Coart E, Olrik D, Kjær E (2006) Hybridization and genetic variation in Danish populations of European crab apple. J Tree Genet Gen 2:86–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Larsen AS, Jensen M, Kjaer ED (2008) Crossability between wild (Malus sylvestris) and cultivated (M. × domestica) apples. Silvae Genet 57:127–130Google Scholar
  22. Müller F, Litschauer R (1996) Unterscheidung zwischen Wildobstarten und verwilderten Kulturformen. Österreichische Forstzeitung 3:21–22Google Scholar
  23. Natzke E, Pech M (1998) Die seltenen Baumarten Wildbirne und Wildapfel in Sachsen-Anhalt. In: Kleinschmit J, Soppa B, Fellenberg U (eds) Die Wildbirne, Pyrus pyraster (L.) Burgsd. Schriften der Forstlichen Fakultät der Universität Göttingen und der Niedersächsischen Forstlichen Versuchsanstalt, vol 125, pp 113–114Google Scholar
  24. Patzak P (2003) Förderung von Wildobst und Feldulme. Beitrag zum Erhalt der Artenvielfalt der Auewälder im Biosphärenreservat Flusslandschaft Mittlere Elbe. Naturwissenschaftliche Beiträge, Museum Dessau 15:21–43Google Scholar
  25. Paul M, Hinrichs T, Janssen A, Schmitt HP, Stephan BR, Dörflinge H (2000) Concept for the conservation and sustainable utilization of forest genetic resources in the Federal Republic of Germany. Sächsische Landesanstalt für Forsten. Pirna, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  26. Perrier X, Jacquemoud-Collet JP (2006) DARwin software. http://www.darwin.cirad.fr/darwin
  27. Rehder A (1990) Manual of cultivated trees and shrubs hardy in North America, 2nd edn. Dioscorides Press, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  28. Reim S, Flachowsky H, Michael M, Hanke MV (2006) Assessing gene flow in apple using a descendant of Malus sieversii var. sieversii f. niedzwetzkyana as an identifier for pollen dispersal. Environ Biosafety Res 5:89–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Remmy K, Gruber F (1993) Untersuchung zur Verbreitung und Morphologie des Wild-Apfels (Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill.). Mitt Deut Dendr Gesellsch 81:71–94Google Scholar
  30. Rhymer JM, Simberloff D (1996) Extinction by hybridization and introgression. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 27:83–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rieseberg LH, Ellstrand NC (1993) What can molecular and morphological markers tell us about plant hybridization. Cr Rev Plant Sci 12:213–241Google Scholar
  32. Robinson J, Harris SA, Juniper BE (2001) Taxonomy of the genus Malus Mill. (Rosaceae) with emphasis on the cultivated apple, Malus domestica Borkh. Plant Syst Evol 226:35–58Google Scholar
  33. Rosenthal G (2003) Bedeutung evolutionsbiologischer Prozesse für Landschaftsplanung und Naturschutz. Natur und Landschaft 78:497–506Google Scholar
  34. Ruiz D, Egea J (2008) Phenotypic diversity and relationships of fruit quality traits in apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) germplasm. Euphytica 163:143–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Saitou N, Nei M (1987) The neighbor-joining method—a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol 4:406–425PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Schweingruber FH (1979) Wildäpfel und prähistorische Äpfel. Archaeo-Physica 8:283–294Google Scholar
  37. Spearman C (1904) The proof and measurement of association between two things. Am J Psychol 15:72–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stephan R, Wagner I, Kleinschmit J (2003) Technical Guidelines for genetic conservation and use for wild apple and pear (Malus sylvestris and Pyrus pyraster). International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rom, p 6Google Scholar
  39. Tabel U, Maurer WD, Remmy K (2000) Wildapfel und Wildbirne. Taxation der “Wildformnähe” in Klonsamenplantagen. AFZ/Der Wald 16:846–849Google Scholar
  40. UPOV (2003) UPOV—ornamental apple (Malus Mill.). Guidelines for the conduct of tests for distinctness, uniformity and stability. TG/192/1, p 23Google Scholar
  41. UPOV (2005) UPOV—apple (Malus domestica Borkh.). Guidelines for the conduct of tests for distinctness, uniformity and stability. TG/14/9, p 38Google Scholar
  42. Wagner I (1995) Identifikation von Wildapfel (Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill.) und Wildbirne (Pyrus pyraster (L.) Burgsd.). Forstarchiv 66:39–47Google Scholar
  43. Wagner I (1996) Zusammenstellung morphologischer Merkmale und ihrer Ausprägung zur Unterscheidung von Wild- und Kulturformen des Apfels (Malus) und des Birnbaumes (Pyrus). Mitt Deut Dendr Gesellsch 82:87–108Google Scholar
  44. Wagner I (1998) Artenschutz bei Wildapfel: Die Blattbehaarung von 116 Apfelklonen auf zwei Samenplantagen. Forst und Holz 52:40–43Google Scholar
  45. Wagner I (2006) Malus sylvestris. Enzyklopädie der Holzgewächse 42:1–16Google Scholar
  46. Yilmaz KU, Zengin Y, Ercisli S, Orhan E, Yalcinkaya E, Taner O, Erdogan A (2009) Biodiversity, ex-situ conservation and characterization of cornelian cherry (Cornus mas L.) Genotypes in Turkey. Biotechnol Biotec Eq 23:1143–1149Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefanie Reim
    • 1
  • Anke Proft
    • 2
  • Simone Heinz
    • 2
  • Monika Höfer
    • 1
  1. 1.Julius Kühn-InstituteInstitute for Breeding Research on Horticultural and Fruit CropsDresdenGermany
  2. 2.Green League Osterzgebirge e.V.DippoldiswaldeGermany

Personalised recommendations