New Forests

, 39:75 | Cite as

Comparison of different control-pollination techniques for small-flowered eucalypts

  • Tasmien N. Horsley
  • Steven D. Johnson
  • Alexander A. Myburg
Article

Abstract

Controlled pollination (CP) is a labour-intensive, but useful procedure applied in tree improvement programmes. However, the high costs involved and relatively low seed yields often obtained has, in most cases, necessitated the use of lower quality, open pollinated seed. The aim of the present study was to compare control-pollination methods for combinations among small-flowered eucalypt species. By making crosses within and among Eucalyptus grandis, E. smithii and E. macarthurii, we compared effectiveness, in terms of seed production and level of genetic contamination, of three CP techniques, namely emasculation of bagged flowers and subsequent pollination of receptive stigmas (Conventional method), emasculation and immediate pollination of stigmas with induced receptivity followed by bagging (One Stop Pollination), and pollination of cut styles without emasculation and bagging (Artificially Induced Protogyny). One tree of each species was used as the female in these crosses. Although Artificially Induced Protogyny using ripe and semi-ripe buds produced the highest seeds/flower pollinated in the majority of crosses carried out in this study, the technique, when performed on green buds, resulted in the highest capsule abortion. Molecular analysis using microsatellite markers also revealed that progeny from the Artificially Induced Protogyny method, when using green and semi-ripe buds, were highly contaminated by self- and external pollen. Of the three CP-techniques tested, One Stop Pollination had the lowest genetic contamination. However, this technique also had one of the lowest seed yields, while the Conventional method was intermediate in performance.

Keywords

One Stop Pollination Artificially Induced Protogyny Controlled pollination Eucalyptus Open pollination Interspecific Intraspecific Selfing 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to the late Diana Madondo for her help with the controlled pollinations at the Shaw Research Centre. Thanks also to Elna Cowley at the University of Pretoria for the microsatellite marker analysis.

References

  1. Assis T, Warburton P, Harwood C (2005) Artificially induced protogyny: an advance in the controlled pollination of Eucalyptus. Aust For 68:27–33Google Scholar
  2. Barbour EL, Spencer N (2000) The potential of a crossing technique for interspecific hybridisation between E. globulus and E. dunnii. In: Dungey HS, Dieters MJ, Nickles DG (eds) Hybrid breeding and genetics of forest trees. Proceedings of QFRI/CRC-SPF Symposium, 9–14 April 2000. Noosa, Queensland, Australia. Department of Primary Industries, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  3. Brondani RPV, Brondani C, Tarchini R, Grattapaglia D (1998) Development, characterisation and mapping of microsatellite markers in Eucalyptus grandis and E. urophylla. Theor Appl Genet 97:816–827. doi: 10.1007/s001220050961 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooker MIH (2000) A new classification of the genus Eucalyptus L’Hér. (Myrtaceae). Aust Syst Bot 13:79–148. doi: 10.1071/SB98008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brooker MIH, Kleinig DA (1983) Field guide to Eucalypts, vol 1. Inkata Press Proprietary Limited, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  6. Callister A (2007) Genetic selection reduces the cost of Eucalyptus globulus seed produced by mass supplementary pollination. In: Proceedings of IUFRO Working Group 2.08.03—Eucalypts and diversity: balancing productivity and sustainability. 22–26 October 2007. Durban, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  7. Chaix G, Gerber S, Razafimaharo V, Vigneron P, Verhaegen D, Hamon S (2003) Gene flow estimation with microsatellites in a Malagasy seed orchard of Eucalyptus grandis. Theor Appl Genet 107:705–712. doi: 10.1007/s00122-003-1294-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Delaporte K, Conran JG, Sedgley M (2001) Interspecific hybridisation between three closely related ornamental Eucalyptus species: E. macrocarpa, E. youngiana and E. pyriformis. J Hortic Sci Biotechnol 76(4):384–391Google Scholar
  9. Eldridge KG, Griffin AR (1983) Selfing effects in Eucalyptus regnans. Silvae Genet 32:216–221Google Scholar
  10. Eldridge K, Davidson J, Harwood C, van Wyk G (1993) Eucalypt domestication and breeding. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Ellis ME, Sedgley M (1992) Floral morphology and breeding system of three species of Eucalyptus, section Bisectaria (Myrtaceae). Aust J Bot 40:249–262. doi: 10.1071/BT9920249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gore PL, Potts BM, Volker PW, Megalos J (1990) Unilateral cross-incompatibility in Eucalyptus: the case of hybridisation between E. globulus and E. nitens. Aust J Bot 38:383–394. doi: 10.1071/BT9900383 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Griffin AR, Moran GF, Fripp YJ (1987) Preferential outcrossing in Eucalyptus regnans F. Muell. Aust J Bot 35:465–475. doi: 10.1071/BT9870465 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harbard JL, Griffin AR, Espejo J (1999) Mass controlled pollination of Eucalyptus globulus: a practical reality. Can J Res 29:1457–1463. doi: 10.1139/cjfr-29-10-1457 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harbard JL, Griffin R, Espejo JE, Centurion C, Russell J (2000) ‘One stop pollination’ a new technology developed by Shell Forestry technology unit. In: Dungey HS, Dieters MJ, Nikles DG (eds) Proceedings of QFRI/CRC-SPF symposium: hybrid breeding and genetics of forest trees. Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane, pp 430–434Google Scholar
  16. Hayes CN, Winsor JA, Stephenson AG (2005) A comparison of male and female responses to inbreeding in Cucurbita pepo subsp. texana (Cucurbitaceae). Am J Bot 92(1):107–115. doi: 10.3732/ajb.92.1.107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hodgson LM (1976) Some aspects of flowering and reproductive behaviour in Eucalyptus grandis (Hill) Maiden at J. D. M. Keet Forest Research Station. S Afr J For 97:18–28; 98: 32–43; 99: 53–58Google Scholar
  18. Horsley TN, Johnson SD (2007) Is Eucalyptus cryptically self-incompatible? Ann Bot (Lond) 100:1373–1378. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcm223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Horsley TN, Johnson SD, Stanger TK (2007) Optimising storage and in vitro germination of Eucalyptus pollen. Aust J Bot 55:83–89. doi: 10.1071/BT05194 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. House SM (1997) Reproductive biology of eucalypts. In: Williams JE, Woinarski JCZ (eds) Eucalypt ecology: individuals to ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 30–55Google Scholar
  21. Jones ME, Shepherd M, Henry RJ, Delves A (2007) Pollen flow in a Eucalyptus grandis seed orchard determined by paternity analysis using microsatellite markers. Tree Genet Genomes (in press)Google Scholar
  22. McGowan MH (2007) Genetic control of reproductive traits in Eucalyptus globulus. PhD thesis, University of TasmaniaGoogle Scholar
  23. Moncur MW (1995) Techniques for pollinating eucalypts. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, pp 1–19Google Scholar
  24. Moran GF, Bell JC (1983) Eucalyptus. In: Tanksley SD, Orton TJ (eds) Isozymes in plant genetics and breeding. Part B. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 423–441Google Scholar
  25. Potts BM, Cauvin B (1988) Inbreeding and interspecific hybridisation in Eucalyptus. In: Proceedings of the international forestry conference for the Australian Bicentenary. Australian Forest Development Institute, Albury-Wodonga, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  26. Potts BM, Marsden-Smedley JB (1989) In vitro germination of Eucalyptus pollen: response to variation in boric acid and sucrose. Aust J Bot 37:429–441. doi: 10.1071/BT9890429 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Potts BM, Potts WC (1986) Eucalypt breeding in France. Aust For 49:210–218Google Scholar
  28. Potts BM, Savva M (1988) Self-incompatibility in Eucalyptus. In: Knox RB, Singh MB, Troini L (eds) Pollination’88. School of Botany. University of Melbourne, Melbourne, pp 165–170Google Scholar
  29. Potts BM, Potts WC, Cauvin B (1987) Inbreeding and interspecific hybridisation in Eucalyptus gunnii. Silvae Genet 30:194–199Google Scholar
  30. Potts BM, McGowen MH, Williams DR, Suitor S, Jones TH, Gore PL, Vaillancourt RE (2008) Advances in reproductive biology and seed production systems of Eucalyptus: the case of Eucalyptus globulus. South Forests 70(2):145–154Google Scholar
  31. Pound LM, Wallwork MAB, Potts BM, Sedgley M (2002) Self-incompatibility in Eucalyptus globulus ssp. globulus (Myrtaceae). Aust J Bot 50:365–372. doi: 10.1071/BT01076 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pound LM, Wallwork MAB, Potts BM, Sedgley M (2003) Pollen tube growth and early ovule development following self- and cross-pollination in Eucalyptus nitens. Sex Plant Reprod 16:59–69. doi: 10.1007/s00497-003-0175-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pryor LD (1956) An F1 hybrid between Eucalyptus pulverulenta and E. caesia. Proc Linn Soc NSW 81:97–100Google Scholar
  34. Pryor LD (1961) Inheritance, selection and breeding in Eucalyptus. Report and Documents, Second World Forestry Conference, vol 1. Sao Paulo, Brazil, pp 297–304Google Scholar
  35. Pryor LD (1976) The Biology of eucalypts. Edward Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Stephenson AG, Travers SE, Mena-Ali JI, Winsor JA (2003) Pollen performance before and during the autotrophic-heterotrophic transition of pollen tube growth. Philos Trans R Soc Lond, B 358:1009–1018. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2003.1290 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tibbits WN (1986) Frost resistance of Eucalyptus nitens (Deane & Maiden) Maiden. PhD Thesis. University of Tasmania, Hobart, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  38. Tibbits WN (1989) Controlled pollination studies with shining gum (Eucalyptus nitens (Dean & Maiden) Maiden). Aust For 62:111–126Google Scholar
  39. Travers SE, Mena-Ali J, Stephenson AG (2004) Plasticity in the self-incompatibility system of Solanum carolinense. Plant Species Biol 19:127–135. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-1984.2004.00109.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Wyk G (1977) Pollen handling, controlled pollination and grafting of Eucalyptus grandis. S Afr For J 101:47–53Google Scholar
  41. Williams DR, Potts BM, Black PG (1999) Testing single visit pollination procedures for Eucalyptus globulus and E. nitens. Aust For 62(4):346–352Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tasmien N. Horsley
    • 1
    • 2
  • Steven D. Johnson
    • 1
  • Alexander A. Myburg
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Biological and Conservation SciencesUniversity of KwaZulu-NatalScottsvilleSouth Africa
  2. 2.Shaw Research Centre, Sappi ForestsHowickSouth Africa
  3. 3.Department of Genetics, Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute (FABI)University of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations