4.5 Article

Pollen-Mediated Gene Flow in Triticale

期刊

CROP SCIENCE
卷 52, 期 5, 页码 2293-2303

出版社

CROP SCIENCE SOC AMER
DOI: 10.2135/cropsci2011.08.0457

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Agriculture Bioproducts Innovation Program (ABIP)
  2. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
  3. Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development (AARD)
  4. Canadian Triticale Biorefinery Initiative (CTBI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Triticale (xTriticosecale Wittm. ex A. Camus) is primarily an animal feed crop with promising qualities for a bioindustrial crop. Development of genetically modified (GM) triticale is in progress and before release of GM cultivars, the potential for pollen-mediated gene flow (PMGF) needs to be assessed to determine if it can coexist with conventional cultivars without causing market harm. Small and large plot experiments were conducted to quantify PMGF using an experimental blue aleurone triticale line as pollen donor and 'AC Alta' as pollen receptor. Small plot experiments were conducted at two locations in both 2007 and 2009 in Alberta, Canada. There were no site or year differences. Average PMGF from 0.2 to 1.4 m was 0.76%. Large plot experiments were conducted at two locations in both 2008 and 2009 using a concentric donor (20 by 20 m) and receptor (120 by 120 m) design. Over 17 million seeds were screened. There were no significant differences between sites or years. Pollen-mediated gene flow best fit an exponential decay model in which the highest average PMGF (3.4%) occurred adjacent to the donor crop and rapidly declined to 0.09% by 50 m. Directional differences were detected with highest PMGF corresponding to prevailing wind directions at flowering. The estimated adventitious presence of GM triticale after harvest blending within a 50-m conventional field was 0.22%. Pollen-mediated gene flow in triticale is similar to spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and should not prevent the coexistence of GM and conventional triticale using the 0.9% threshold established by the European Union.

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