Advertisement

Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution

, Volume 51, Issue 3, pp 259–267 | Cite as

Phalaris canariensis is a domesticated form of P. brachystachys

  • R.N. Oram
Article

Abstract

Three hybrid plants were obtained by hot-water emasculation of Phalaris canariensis L. panicles immediately before anthesis, followed by the daily application of pollen from P. brachystachys Link. The hybrids were fully fertile, and the seed retention characteristic of P. canariensis was inherited in the F1, F2 and F3 generations as a single recessive trait, showing that P. canariensis is a cultigen derived from P. brachystachys. The dominant allele for seed shedding is designated Ssh. All 1008 plants examined in segregating F3 families had either short sterile florets and shed their seeds, or long sterile florets and retained their seeds, i.e. there were no recombinants. No seed retaining BC1F2 plants could be found in the progeny of (P. truncata Guss.×P. canariensisP. truncata, suggesting that the ssh'allele' may be a number of mutant alleles in a segment of chromosome in which recombination is suppressed in hybrids of P. canariensis with P. brachystachys, but in not those with P. truncata. Compared with P. brachystachys, P. canariensis has heavier seeds, stronger panicle branches and thicker peduncles. These traits were polygenically inherited in F2 and thus appear to have been developed by the accumulation of alleles during cultivation of P. canariensis as a grain crop. Modified seeds with much reduced sterile florets were found in the terminal spikelets of most panicle branches of P. brachystachys. Unlike the typical seeds, the modified seeds were often retained in the outer glumes when the panicle fragmented. It seems that this system allows these seeds to be dispersed much further by animals, wind or water than typical seeds. This mechanism has been lost in P. canariensis.

Annual grass Bird seed Cereal Dimorphic seeds Domestication Non-shedding mutant 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ambashta H.N.S. 1956. Cytological investigations in Phalaris. Genetica 28: 64-98.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson D.E. 1961. Taxonomy and distribution of the genus Phalaris. Iowa State J. Sci. 36: 1-96.Google Scholar
  3. Baldini R.M. 1995. Revision of the genus Phalaris L. (Gramineae). Webbia 49: 265-329.Google Scholar
  4. Bonin S.G. and Goplen B.P. 1963. A histological study of seed shattering in reed canary grass. Can. J. Plant Sci. 43: 200-205.Google Scholar
  5. Cialzeta C. 1967a. Interspecific hybrid in Phalaris. P. truncataXP. canariensis. Bol. Genet., Inst. Fitotec., Castelar 1967(3): 9-15.Google Scholar
  6. Cialzeta C. 1967b. Phalaris truncataXP. brachystachys. Bol. Genet., Inst. Fitotec., Castelar 1967(4): 23-24.Google Scholar
  7. Febrel J. and Carballido A. 1965. Estudio Bromatologico del Alpisto. Anal. Bromat. 17: 345-360.Google Scholar
  8. Gilmore E.C. 1964. Suggested method of using reciprocal recurrent selection in some naturally self-pollinated species. Crop Sci. 4: 323-325.Google Scholar
  9. Hucl P., Matus-Cadiz M., Vandenberg A., Sosulski F.W., Abdel-Aal E.S.M., Hughes G.R. et al. 2001. CDC Maria annual canarygrass. Can. J. Plant Sci. 81: 115-116.Google Scholar
  10. Knight R. 1966. The performance of hybrids between Mediterra-nean and northern European parents of cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata L.) in a Mediterranean type environment. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 17: 105-117.Google Scholar
  11. Kornicke F. 1885. Die Arten und Varietaten des Getreides. In: Kornicke F. and Werner H. (eds), Handbuch des Getreidebaues. Paul Parey, Berlin, pp. 238-244.Google Scholar
  12. Le Houerou H.N. 1979. Resources and potential of the native flora for fodder and sown pasture production in the arid and semi-arid zones of North Africa. In: Goodin J.R. and Northington D.K. (eds), Arid Land Plant Resource. Texas Technical University Press, Lubbock, TX, pp. 384-401.Google Scholar
  13. Little T.M. and Hills F.J. 1978. Agricultural Experimentation. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Matus M. and Hucl P. 1999. Isozyme variation within and among accessions of annual Phalaris species in North American germ-plasm. Crop Sci. 39: 1222-1228.Google Scholar
  15. McWilliam J.R. and Gibbon C.N. 1983. Selection for seed retention in Phalaris aquatica L. In: Smith J.A. and Hayes V.W. (eds), Proceedings of the 14th International Grassland Congress, Lex-ington, Kentucky, 15-24 June 1981. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 269-272.Google Scholar
  16. Robinson R.G. 1983. Elias annual canarygrass. Crop Sci. 23: 1011.Google Scholar
  17. Sangster A.G., Hodson M.J. and Wynn Parry D. 1983. Silicon deposition and anatomical studies in the inflorescence bracts of four Phalaris species with their possible relevance to carcino-genesis. New Phytol. 93: 105-122.Google Scholar
  18. de Wet J.M.J. 1979. Principles of Evolution and Cereal Domestication In: Proceedings of the Conference on Broadening the Genetic Base of Crop Plants. Pudoc,Wageningen, pp. 269-282.Google Scholar
  19. de Wet J.M.J. 1992. The three phases of cereal domestication. In: Chapman G.P. (ed.), Grass Evolution and Domestication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 176-198.Google Scholar
  20. Zohary D. 1973. The origin of cultivated cereals and pulses in the Near East. Chromosomes Today 4: 307-320.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • R.N. Oram
    • 1
  1. 1.CSIRO Plant IndustryCanberraAustralia (e-mail

Personalised recommendations