4.5 Article

Gene flow and mating system in five Cryptomeria japonica D. Don seed orchards as revealed by analysis of microsatellite markers

Journal

TREE GENETICS & GENOMES
Volume 1, Issue 4, Pages 174-183

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11295-005-0023-z

Keywords

conifer; paternal contribution; selfing; SSR; seed

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We investigated gene flow in five Cryptomeria japonica D. Don seed orchards of two different types (common and miniature) at widely spaced locations using microsatellite markers. The quality of a seed crop is determined by many factors, including pollen contamination from outside sources, self-fertilization, and the proportion of contributions from constituent clones. Contamination rates were found to vary among ramets both within seed orchards (10.0-76.7% in the most variable seed orchard) and among seed orchards (35.0-65.8% on average). Among ramets, there were significant negative correlations between pollen contamination rate and their distance from the orchard edge; among seed orchards, there were significant positive correlations between the pollen contamination rate and the C. japonica forest area nearby. Some proportion of the pollen (10.7% of total contamination) also migrated from parts of the orchards that had not been treated with gibberellin to induce flowering. Self-fertilization rates varied among seed orchards (1.4-4.4% on average), and there were significant positive correlations between self-fertilization rate and the number of ramets per clone in both types of seed orchard. Contributions as pollen donors differed significantly among clones in all seed orchards. The distance between planted ramets, flowering phenology, and relative pollen fecundity may also have contributed to observed differences in paternal contribution. The influence of these factors on genetic potential did not differ greatly between the two types of orchards.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available