Reciprocal compatibility within the genus Pisum L. as studied in F1 hybrids: 2. Crosses involving P. fulvum Sibth. et Smith
- 33 Downloads
Pisum fulvum Sibth. et Smith. (accession WL2140) was crossed, in both directions, with seven accessions representing other pea taxa: P. abyssinicum A. Br. (1 accession), P. sativum L. subsp. elatius (Bieb.) Schmalh. s.l. (5 accessions) and the cultivated pea, P. sativum L. subsp. sativum (1 accession). Efficiency of crosses (the average number of hybrid seeds per cross), pollen and seed fertility and general quantitative traits of reciprocal F1 hybrids were evaluated in a greenhouse experiment. Crossability with P. fulvum as the seed parent was very poor but at least some viable seeds were obtained in all crosses. F1 hybrids with accessions VIR320, 721 and CE1 (P. s. elatius) were very weak and produced 0–3 seeds; those with WL1238 (P. s. sativum) were variable in vigour and fertility; both reciprocal hybrids with JI1794 were small plants. Other hybrids were tall, vigorously branching but poorly fertile plants. In all F1 hybrids, pollen fertility did not exceed or scarcely exceeded 50% without differences between reciprocal hybrids except for the pair P. fulvum × P. s. sativum. Pollen of all hybrids contained micro-grains formed around chromosomes retarded in anaphase I. Seed fertility was low, with significant differences between reciprocal hybrids found only in the pair P. fulvum—JI1794. F1 hybrids between P. fulvum and peas of the evolutionary ‘lineage AC’ showed higher pollen and seed fertility than those with peas of the ‘lineage B’. The sum of evidence available suggests that P. fulvum does not differ from P. sativum by reciprocal translocations.
KeywordsPea crop wild relatives Crossing barriers Crossability Reproductive compatibility Pisum L. Pisum fulvum Sibth. et Smith, Pisum sativum subsp. elatius (Bieb.) Schmalh.
The work was supported by the Russian State Scientific Project No 0324-2018-0018. Lyudmila P. Romkina made a large work with plant handling, Arseniy K. Yadrikhinskiy helped assessing pollen and seed fertility, Vladimir Solovyev helped with quantitative data analysis. Plants were grown in the greenhouse of the Artificial Plant Growing Facility, ICG SB RAS; cytological analysis was carried out in Microscopic Centre Facility ICG SB RAS.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Human and animal rights
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- Aryamanesh N, Byrne O, Hardie DC, Khan T, Siddique KHM, Yan G (2012) Large-scale density-based screening for pea weevil resistance in advanced backcross lines derived from cultivated field pea (Pisum sativum) and Pisum fulvum. Crop Pasture Sci 63:612–618. https://doi.org/10.1071/CP12225 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ben-Ze’ev N, Zohary D (1973) Species relationship in the genus Pisum L. Isr J Bot 22:73–91Google Scholar
- Bogdanova VS, Kosterin OE (2007) Hybridization barrier between Pisum fulvum Sibth. et Smith and P. sativum L. is partly due to nuclear-chloroplast incompatibility. Pisum Genet 39:8–9Google Scholar
- Bogdanova VS, Galieva ER, Kosterin OE (2009) Genetic analysis of nuclear-cytoplasmic incompatibility in pea associated with cytoplasm of an accession of wild subspecies Pisum sativum subsp. elatius (Bieb.) Schmalh. Theor Appl Genet 118:801–809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-008-0940-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bogdanova VS, Kosterin OE, Yadrikhinskiy AK (2014) Wild peas vary in their cross-compatibility with cultivated pea (Pisum sativum subsp. sativum L.) depending on alleles of a nuclear-cytoplasmic incompatibility locus. Theor Appl Genet 127:1163–1172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-014-2288-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bogdanova VS, Zaytseva OO, Mglinets AV, Shatskaya NV, Kosterin OE, Vasiliev GV (2015) Nuclear-cytoplasmic conflict in pea (Pisum sativum L.) is associated with nuclear and plastidic candidate genes encoding Acetyl-CoA carboxylase subunits. PLoS ONE 10(3):e0119835. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119835 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Coulot P, Rabaute P (2016) Monographie de Leguminosae de France. Tome 4. Tribus des Fabeae, des Cicereae et des Genisteae. Bull de la Société Botanique du Centre-Ouest 46:1–902Google Scholar
- Kosterin OE, Zaytseva OO, Bogdanova VS, Ambrose M (2010) New data on three molecular markers from different cellular genomes in Mediterranean accessions reveal new insights into phylogeography of Pisum sativum L. subsp. elatuis (Bieb.) Schmalh. Genet Resour Crop Evol 57:733–739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-009-9511-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lamm R (1951) Cytogenetical studies of translocations in Pisum. Hereditas 37:356–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-5223.1951.tb02899.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lehmann CO, Blixt S (1984) Artificial infraspecific classification in relation to phenotypic manifestation of certain genes in Pisum. Agric Hort Genet 42:48–74Google Scholar
- Makasheva RK (1979) Kul’turnaya flora SSSR [Cultivated Flora of the USSR], vol. 4, Leningrad (in Russian)Google Scholar
- Schaefer H, Hechenleitner P, Santos-Guerra A, Menezes de Sequeira M, Pennington RT, Kenicer G, Carine MA (2012) Systematics, biogeography, and character evolution of the legume tribe Fabeae with special focus on the middle-Atlantic island lineages. BMC Evol Biol 12:250. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-12-250 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Singh RJ (2003) Plant cytogenetics, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, p 463Google Scholar
- Zaytseva OO, Bogdanova VS, Mglinets AV, Kosterin OE (2017) Refinement of the collection of wild peas (Pisum L.) and search for the area of pea domestication with a deletion in the plastidic psbA-trnH spacer. Genet Resour Crop Evol 64:1417–1430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-016-0446-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar