Advertisement

Euphytica

, 136:139 | Cite as

Breeding barriers between the cultivated strawberry, Fragaria × ananassa, and related wild germplasm

  • Arias E. Marta
  • Elsa L. Camadro
  • Juan C. Díaz-Ricci
  • Atilio P. Castagnaro
Article

Abstract

Five-hundred interspecific and intergeneric crosses were performed among accessions of the wild strawberries Fragaria vesca(2x), Duchesnea indica (8x), Potentilla tucumanensis (2x) and 9 genotypes of the cultivated strawberry, Fragaria×ananassa (8x), following an incomplete diallele mating design. Crosses between D. indica and F.×ananassa produced many putative hybrids when D. indica was used as female but a few achenes and plants when used as male; therefore, pollen-pistil compatibility relations were analyzed by fluorescence microscopy in this direction of the cross. Of the genotypic combinations, 78.6% were incompatible at the stigma level and 17.2% at the first third of the style. Only 3.6% were pollen-pistil compatible and produced fruits with achenes (seven did not germinate or originated short-lived plants and nine produced normal plants). F.vesca×F.×ananassa crosses produced 35 hybrid achenes but only 14% germinated, yielding short-lived plants; histological analyses revealed that inviable seeds had less developed (or collapsed) endosperms and smaller embryos than control plump F. vesca seeds. P.tucumanensis was only used as male, with negative results. These species and genera are partially isolated by a complex system of pre- and post-zygotic barriers. Knowledge of their nature would allow the breeder to devise strategies to put the genetic variability available in the group into a useful form.

cross-incompatibility Duchesnea Fragaria pollen-pistil compatibility Potentilla strawberries 

References

  1. Abdullah, J.S. & M.J. Hennerty, 1993. Intergeneric hybrids of Fragaria and Potentilla. Acta Hort 348: 151–154.Google Scholar
  2. Abdala, M.M.F. & J.G.Th. Hermsen, 1972. Unilateral incompatibility: hypothesis, debate and its implications for plant breeding. Euphytica 21: 32–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arias, M., J. Diaz Ricci & A. Castagnaro, 2001. Changes in the distribution range of Potentilla tucumanensis (Rosaceae), an endangered cryptic species. Bol Soc Argent Bot 36: 151–157.Google Scholar
  4. Asker, S., 1970. An intergeneric Fragaria ×Potentilla hybrid. Hereditas 64: 135–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bringhurst, R.S., 1990. Cytogenetics and evolution in American Fragaria. Hortscience 25: 879–881.Google Scholar
  6. Bringhurst, R.S. & F. Barrientos, 1973. Fertile Fragaria chiloensis and Potentilla glandulosa amphiploids. Abstr Genetics 74, Univ. Calif. Davis, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Camadro, E.L. & S.J. Peloquin, 1981. Cross-incompatibility between two sympatric polyploid Solanum species. Theor Appl Genet 60: 65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Camadro, E.L., A.L. Verde & O.N. Marcellán, 1998. Pollen-pistil incompatibility in a diploid hybrid potato population with cultivated and wild germoplasm. Amer J Potato Res 75: 81–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Castagnaro, A., Diaz Ricci, J., Arias M. & P. Albornoz, 1998. A new southern hemisphere species of Potentilla (Rosaceae). Novon 8: 333–336.Google Scholar
  10. Darrow, G.M., 1966. The Strawberry. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Dionne, L.A., 1958. 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid as an aid to seed production when widely separated Solanum species are crossed. Nature 181: 361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellis, J.R., 1962. Fragaria-Potentilla intergeneric hybridization and evolution in Fragaria. Proc Linn Soc London 173: 99–106.Google Scholar
  13. ErazzÚ, E.L., E.L.Camadro & A.M. Clausen, 1999. Pollen-style compatibility relations in natural populations of the wild diploid potato species Solanum spegazzinii Bitt. Euphytica 105: 219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans, W., 1977. The use of synthetic octoploids in strawberry breeding. Euphytica 26: 497–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Evans, W.D. & J.K. Jones, 1967. Incompatibility in Fragaria. Can J Gen Cytol 9: 831–836.Google Scholar
  16. García, M.G., M. Ontivero, J.C. Diaz Ricci & A.P. Castagnaro, 2002. Morphological traits and high resolution RAPD markers for the identification of the main strawberry varieties cultivated in Argentina. Plant Breed 121: 76–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grun, P. & M. Aubertin, 1966. The inheritance and expression of unilateral incompatibility in Solanum. Heredity 21: 131–138.Google Scholar
  18. Grun, P. & A. Radlow, 1961. Evolution of barriers to crossing of self-incompatible with self-compatible species of Solanum. Heredity 21: 131–138Google Scholar
  19. Hadley, H.H. & S.J. Openshaw, 1980. Interspecific and intergeneric hybridization. In: W.R. Fehr & H.H. Hadley (Eds.), Hybridization of Crop Plants, pp. 133–159. Am Soc Agron, Crop Sci Soc of America, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Hancock, J.F., J.L. Maas, C.H. Shanks, P.J. Breen & J.J. Luby, 1990. Strawberry (Fragaria spp.). In: J.N. Moore & J. R. Ballington (Eds.), Genetic Resources in Temperate Fruit and Nut Crops, pp. 491–532. Int Soc Hort Sci, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  21. Hermsen, J.G.Th. & E. Sawicka, 1979. Incompatibility and incongruity in tuber-bearing Solanum species. In: J.G. Hawkes, R.N. Lester & A.D. Skelding (Eds.), Linn Soc Symp Ser 7: 445–453.Google Scholar
  22. Hogenboom, N.G., 1973. A model for incongruity in intimate partner relationships. Euphytica 21: 219–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hogenboom, N.G., 1979. Incompatibility and incongruity in Lycopersicon. In: J.G. Hawkes, R.N. Lester & A.D. Skelding (Eds.), The Biology and Taxonomy of the Solanaceae, pp. 435–444. Academic Press, London, U.K.Google Scholar
  24. Johnston, S.A., T.P.M. den Nijs, S.J. Peloquin & R.E. Hanneman, Jr., 1980. The significance of genic balance to endosperm development in interspecific crosses. Theor Appl Genet 56: 5–9.Google Scholar
  25. Jones, J.K., 1955. Cytogenetic Studies in the Genera Fragaria and Potentilla. Ph. D. thesis, University of Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
  26. Kalkmam, C., 1968. Potentilla, Duchesnea, and Fragaria in Malasia (Rosaceae). Blumea 16: 325–354.Google Scholar
  27. Lewis, D. & L.K. Crowe, 1958. Unilateral interspecific incompatibility in flowering plants. Heredity 12: 233–256.Google Scholar
  28. Luby, J.J., J.F. Hancock & J.C. Cameron, 1991. Expansion of the strawberry germoplasm base in North America. In: A. Dale & J. Luby (Eds.), The strawberry into the 21st Century, pp. 65–75. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
  29. Maas, J.L., 1998. Compendium of Strawberry Diseases. 2nd Edition. APS Press, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Mabberly, D.J., 2002. Potentilla and Fragaria reunited. Telopea 9: 793–801.Google Scholar
  31. Macfarland Smith, W.H. & J.K. Jones, 1985. Intergeneric crosses with Fragaria and Potentilla. I. Crosses between Fragaria moschata and Potentilla fruticosa. Euphytica 34: 725–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mangelsdorf, A.J. & E.M. East, 1927. Studies on the genetic of Fragaria. Genetic 12: 307–397.Google Scholar
  33. Marcellán, O.N. & E.L. Camadro, 1996. Self-and cross-incompatibility in Asparagus officinalis and Asparagus densiflorus cv. Sprengeri. Can J Bot 74: 1621–1625.Google Scholar
  34. Marks, G.E., 1954, An acetocarmine glycerol jelly for use in pollen fertility counts. Stain Technol 29: 277.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Martin, F.W., 1958. Staining and observing pollen tubes in the style by means of fluorescence. Stain Technol 34: 125–128.Google Scholar
  36. Martin, F.W., 1961. Complex unilateral hybridization in Lycopersicon hirsutum. Proc Nat Acad Sci 47: 855–857.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Martin, F.W., 1964. The inheritance of unilateral incompatibilty between two tomato species. Genetics 50: 459–469.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Masuelli, R.W. & Camadro E.L., 1997. Crossability relationships among wild potato species with different ploidies and endosperm balance numbers (EBN). Euphytica 94: 227–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Murashige, T. & F. Skoog, 1962. A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissues cultures. Physiol Plant 15: 473–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ontivero, M., M. Arias, J. Díaz Ricci, J. Babot, P. Albornoz & A. Castagnaro, 2000. Analysis of genetic similarities among species of Fragaria, Potentilla and Duchesnea growing in the northwest of Argentina by using morphological, anatomical and molecular characters. Can J Bot 78: 547–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Richardson, K., L. Jarret & E. Finke, 1960. Embedding in epoxy resins for ultra thin sectioning in electron microscopy. Stain Technol 35: 313–315.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Sala, C.A., 1993. Incompatibilidad cruzada entre cinco especies tuberosas de Solanum (Solanaceae). Darwiniana 32: 15–25Google Scholar
  43. Scott, D.H., 1951. Cytological studies on polyploids derived from tetraploid Fragaria vesca and cultived strawberries. Genetics 36: 311–330.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Spurr, A.R., 1969. A low-viscosity epoxy resin embedding medium for electron microscopy. J Ultrastruct Res 26: 31–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Staudt, G., 1962. Taxonomic studies in the genus Fragaria. Typification of Fragaria species known at the Linnaeus. Can J Bot 40: 869–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Staudt, G., 1989. The species of Fragaria, their taxonomy and geographycal distribution. Acta Hort 265: 23–33.Google Scholar
  47. Stone, L.S. & D.R. Goring, 2001. The molecular biology of self-incompatibility systems in flowering plants. Plant Cell, Tissue & Organ Culture 67: 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Trajkovski, K., 1982. Hybrisidering med Fragaria, en litterature-studie. Sveriges Lantbruniversitet, Balsgard, Verksmhetsbetattelse 1980–1981: 80–101.Google Scholar
  49. Wolf, T.H., 1908. Monographie der Gattung Potentilla. Bibl Bot, Hett 71.Google Scholar
  50. Yuhua Li, Xiunying Hou, Liang Lin, Shisi Jing & Mingqin Deng, 2000. Abnormal pollen germination and embryo abortion in the interspecific cross, Fragaria ×ananassa ×F. vesca, as related to cross-incompatibility. J Japan Soc Hort Sci 69: 84–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zardini, E.M., 1999. Rosaceae. In: F.O. Zuloaga & O. Morrone (Eds.), Catálogo de las Plantas Vasculares de la RepÚblica Argentina II. Fabaceae-Zygofyllaceae (Dicotyledoneae), pp. 990. Missouri Botanical Garden Press. St. Louis, Missouri.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arias E. Marta
    • 1
  • Elsa L. Camadro
    • 2
  • Juan C. Díaz-Ricci
    • 3
  • Atilio P. Castagnaro
    • 3
  1. 1.Cátedra Anatomía Vegetal, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel LilloUniversidad Nacional de Tucumán (UNT)TucumánArgentina
  2. 2.Estación Experimental Agropecuaria (EEA) Balcarce, Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA)-Facultad de Ciencias AgrariasUniversidad Nacional de Mar del Plata (UNMdP)Buenos AiresArgentina
  3. 3.Instituto de Química Biológica 'Dr Bernabé Bloj', Facultad de Bioquímica y FarmaciaInstituto Superior de Investigaciones Biológicas (INSIBIO; CONICET-UNT), Departamento de Bioquímica de la NutriciónTucumánArgentina

Personalised recommendations