, Volume 70, Issue 10, pp 1318–1325 | Cite as

Genetic status of the putative hybrid swarms of mountain dwarf pine and Scots pine in contact zones of their distribution in Slovakia

  • Peter Maňka
  • Andrej KormuťákEmail author
  • Martin Galgóci
  • Dušan Gömöry
Section Botany


Genetic structure of the mountain dwarf pine (Pinus mugo) and Scots pine (P. sylvestris) natural populations along with their 4 putative hybrid swarms in Slovakia were analyzed using 12 enzyme loci. The study aimed in evaluation of postulated hybrid status of the swarms on molecular level. Based on semidiagnostic allele frequencies of the MDH B, MDH C, 6PGDH B, ADH 1 and F-EST loci in their megagametophytes and vegetative buds, the conspicuous genetic differences were detected between P. mugo and P. sylvestris populations. The putative hybrid swarms seem to incline by their genetic structure to P. mugo rather than to P. sylvestris. Obtained results indicate independent developmental history of each of the scored hybrid swarms. The putative hybrid swarm in Suchá Hora was found to be a mixed stand consisting prevailingly of pure-species individuals of P. mugo and P. sylvestris. On the contrary, the putative hybrid swarms in Habovka, Tisovnica and Terchová are supposed to be of hybrid origin.

Key words

Pinus mugo P. sylvestris introgressive hybrids isoenzymes 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bobowicz M.A., Danielewicz W., Pieczyńska B., Wojnicka-Poltorak A. & Prus-Glowacki W. 2000. Isoenzymatic variability in progeny of Pinus mugo Turra × Pinus sylvestris L. hybrids from Bór na Czerwonem, in experimental culture. Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 69: 137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Businský R. 1999. Taxonomic study on Pinus mugo aggregate and its hybrid populations. Acta Průhoniciana 68: 123–143.Google Scholar
  3. Cheliak W.M. & Pitel J.A. 1984. Techniques for starch gel electrophoresis of enzymes from forest tree species. National Forestry Institute, Petawawa, 49 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Concle M.T., Hodgskiss P. D., Nunnaly L.B. & Hunter S.C. 1982. Starch gel electrophoresis of conifer seeds: a laboratory manual. Pacific Southwest Forest Range Experimantal Station, Berkeley, 18 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dobrinov I. 1965. Study on natural hybrids between Pinus sylvestris and Pinus mugo var. mughus in Bulgaria. Naučne Trudy Lesotechn. Inst. 13: 39–48.Google Scholar
  6. Dobrinov I. & Jaghidis G. 1971. Spontaneous hybrids between Pinus sylvestris and Pinus mugo in Bulgaria. Gorsko Stopanstvo 11: 28–30.Google Scholar
  7. Edwards-Burke M.A., Hamrick J.L. & Price R.A. 1997. Frequency and direction of hybridization in sympatric populations of Pinus taeda and P. echinata (Pinaceae). Am. J. Bot. 84: 879–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jurukov S. & Tashev A. 1992. Studies of natural hybrids between Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and Mountain pine (Pinus mugo Turra) in the south-east Rilla Mts. Nauka Zagorata 29: 39–43.Google Scholar
  9. Lewandowski A., Boratyński A. & Mejnartowicz L. 2000. Al-lozyme investigations on the genetic differentiation between closely related pines - Pinus sylvestris, P. mugo, P. uncinata, and P. uliginosa (Pinaceae). Plant Syst. Evol. 221: 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lewandowski A., Samočko J., Boratyńska K. & Boratyński A. 2002. Genetic differences between two Polish populations of Pinus uliginosa, compared to P. sylvestris and P. mugo. Dendrobiology 48: 51–57.Google Scholar
  11. Mirov N.T. 1967. The Genus Pinus. The Ronald Press Company, New York, 602 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Neet-Sarqueda C. 1994. Genetic differentiation of Pinus sylvestris L. and Pinus mugo aggr. populations in Switzerland. Silvae Genet. 43: 207–215.Google Scholar
  13. Neet-Sarqueda C., Lumettaz-Clott A.C. & Bécholey I. 1988. Mise en évidence de l’hybridation introgressive entre Pinus sylvestris L. et Pinus uncinata DC. En Valais (Suisse) par deux méthodes multivariées. Bot. Helv. 98: 161–169.Google Scholar
  14. Odrzykoski I.J. 2002. Studies on genetic diversity of Dwarf mountain Pine (Pinus mugo) using biochemical and molecular markers. Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, Poznań, 135 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Panetsos K.P. 1986. Genetics and breeding in the group of halepensis. Foret méditerranéenne 8: 5–12.Google Scholar
  16. Politov D.S.V. & Krutovskij K.V. 2004. Phylogenetics, genogeog-raphy and hybridization in five-needle Pines in Russia and neighboring countries, pp. 85–97. In: Sniezko R., Samman S., Schlarbaum S. & Kriebel H. (eds), Breeding and genetic resources of of five-needle pines: growth, adaptability, and pest resistance: IUFRO Working Party 2.02.15. Medford, 2001 July 24–25.Google Scholar
  17. Prus-Glowacki W. & Szweykowski J. 1980. Serological characteristic of some putative hybrid individuals from a P. sylvestris × P. mugo swarm population. Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 49: 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Staszkiewicz J. 1996. Natural hybrids of Pinus mugo × P. sylvestris (Pinaceae) in Tatra Mtns. Frag. Flor. Geobot., 3: 23–30.Google Scholar
  19. Staszkiewicz J. & Tyszkiewicz M. 1969. Natural hybrids of Pinus mugo Turra × Pinus sylvestris L. in Nowy Targ Valley. Frag. Flor. Geobot. 15: 187–212.Google Scholar
  20. Stebbins G. Jr. 1950. Variation and evolution in plants. Columbia University Press, New York, 643 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Swofford D.L. & Selander R.B. 1981. Biosys-1: a FORTRAN program for the comprehensive analysis of electrophoretic data in population genetics and systematics. J. Heredity 72: 281–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Viewegh J. 1981. Variability of the hybrid swarms Pinus mugo × Pinus sylvestris on peat-bog in Zuberec, Orava. Folia den-drobiologica 8: 41–59.Google Scholar
  23. Viewegh J. & Čambalová H. 1993. Variability of hybrid swarm Pinus × celakovskiorum A. et Gr. processed with some cluster analysis methods. Biologia 48: 39–44.Google Scholar
  24. Wu C.L. 1956. The taxonomic revision and phytogeographical study of Chinese pines. Acta Phytotax. Sinica 5: 131–163.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Slovak Academy of Sciences 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Maňka
    • 1
  • Andrej Kormuťák
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Martin Galgóci
    • 3
  • Dušan Gömöry
    • 4
  1. 1.Ministry of EnvironmentDepartment of State Administration of Nature ProtectionBratislavaSlovakia
  2. 2.Institute of Plant Genetics and Biotechnology SAS, Akademická 2NitraSlovakia
  3. 3.Constantine Philosopher University, Faculty of Natural SciencesDepartment of Botany and GeneticsNitraSlovakia
  4. 4.Technical University in Zvolen, Faculty of ForestryZvolenSlovakia

Personalised recommendations