4.7 Article

Swiss Mattenklee landraces, a distinct and diverse genetic resource of red clover (Trifolium pratense L.)

Journal

THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS
Volume 107, Issue 2, Pages 306-315

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00122-003-1248-6

Keywords

Mattenklee; Trifolium pratense L.; landraces; genetic variability; AFLP

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Genetic variability within and among 19 landraces and cultivars of red clover (Trifolium pratense L.) was investigated by means of amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) analysis in order to assess the potential value of Swiss Mattenklee landraces as genetic resources for plant breeding and the preservation of biodiversity. Populations were classified into three groups according to their origin and agronomic features: Mattenklee landraces (8), Mattenklee cultivars (8) and field clover cultivars (3). Analysis of molecular variance based on 276 polymorphic AFLP markers revealed 80% of total variability to be due to variability within populations while 12% were attributed to variability among groups. Stepwise discriminant analysis identified a subset of 126 AFLP markers which best separated individual plants into the three respective groups. Genetic distances between populations were considerably larger among groups than among populations within the same group, providing further evidence for the genetic distinction between Mattenklee landraces, Mattenklee cultivars and field clover cultivars. AFLP markers identified two landrace clusters, containing three and four populations respectively, which, together with one additional landrace, may sufficiently represent the genetic variability of all eight landraces investigated. The results of this study strongly suggest that Swiss Mattenklee landraces form a genetically distinct group of red clover. The data obtained provide criteria on how to efficiently manage, preserve and exploit Mattenklee germplasm.

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