4.5 Article

Is the genetic integrity of wild Coffea canephora from Ivory Coast threatened by hybridization with introduced coffee trees from Central Africa?

期刊

EUPHYTICA
卷 218, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10681-022-03004-0

关键词

Coffea canephora; Genetic resources; Genetic erosion; Crop wild relative

资金

  1. national agricultural resaerch and extension fund Firca
  2. USDA-ARS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Robusta coffee is an important source of income and employment for many developing countries. However, genetic erosion from the introduction of Congolese accessions threatens the genetic integrity of wild populations from the Guinean gene pool. Pollen from the Congolese gene pool shows greater ability to pollinate the Guinean group, necessitating conservation measures for wild populations.
Robusta coffee (Coffea Canephora) is an important source of income and employment, contributing significantly to the economies of many developing countries. This species is split into two genetic groups: Guinean and Congolese. Cote-d'Ivoire is the primary diversification center of the Guinean pool, which offers great potential for genetic improvement. However, genetic erosion of this group is currently a threat in this country because of the massive introduction of Congolese accessions done in the previous decades. In this work, we analyzed the progenies of isolated population of C. canephora composed of a mix of Guinean and Congolese using SNP markers. The analysis is focus on the male parents' contribution in open pollination. The results show that the introduction of cultivars from the Congolese gene pool threat the genetic integrity of wild populations from the Guinean gene pool. Indeed, this analysis showed that Congolese pollens have more ability to pollinate the Guinean group than the Guinean pollen perform on Congolese trees. We recommend that a program be put in place to ensure the conservation of wild population of C. canephora through in situ or ex situ conservation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据