4.7 Article

Indicators to assess temporal genetic diversity in the French Catalogue:: no losses for maize and peas

Journal

THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS
Volume 113, Issue 7, Pages 1197-1209

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00122-006-0368-1

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study, led by the GEVES (Research and Control Group for Varieties and Seeds), was to suggest indicators to assess the diversity available to farmers since the French Official Catalogue for Plant Varieties and Species was initiated. The largest datasets of 1990 inbred maize lines and 578 pea lines from the last 50 years were analysed using morphological and enzymatic parameters. Lines were grouped into three to five periods. Genetic diversity was estimated in each period from morphological and enzymatic markers by computing numerous indices, such as the number of classes of scores for each characteristic, allelic richness or genetic diversity index (H (e) ). Population differentiation parameters (G(ST), G(ST)', F-ST, Q(ST)) were also estimated between periods. While genetic diversity computed from distinction, uniformity, stability traits was more marked for maize (0.66) than for garden peas (0.35) or feed peas (0.29), the opposite trend was observed with enzymes, resulting in a genetic diversity of 0.43, 0.35 and 0.22 for garden peas, feed peas and maize, respectively. However, no significant changes in genetic diversity were observed over time, and genetic differentiation was slight between periods. All our results demonstrated that no significant reduction in the diversity available to farmers had been observed since initiation of the French Catalogue. The H (e) was a good indicator providing a quantitative estimate of genetic diversity, but it should be interpreted alongside a more precise indicator such as allelic richness or the number of classes for morphological characteristics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available