Preliminary Studies on the Variation in Self-compatibility among 52 Cultivars of Eruca sativa

doi:10.11983/CBB14113

Abstract

Abstract: To evaluate the genetic variation in self-compatibility in different cultivars of Eruca sativa (“rocket salad”), we used three methods of pollination bagging-self-pollination, bud-pollination and open-pollination―in field conditions and calculated the self-compatibility index and relative compatibility index of 52 cultivars of E. sativa from China, Iran and Pakistan. Results showed that (1) E. sativa is a highly self-incompatible plant, but several cultivars may have self-compatibility genes; (2) E. sativa cultivars show variation in self-compatibility; the mean compatibility index ranged from 0 to 4.98, with variation among individual plants; (3) E. sativa cultivars could be divided into 4 groups: highly self-compatible, self-compatible, self-incompatible and highly self-incompatible; and (4) the self-compatibility varied by geographical origin in the order of southwest>northwest>North China.

Huiling Fan, Fangfang Luo, Xuelian Huang, Xiaosha Xu, Wancang Sun. Preliminary Studies on the Variation in Self-compatibility among 52 Cultivars of Eruca sativa [J]. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2015, 50(5): 598-604.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://www.chinbullbotany.com/EN/10.11983/CBB14113

https://www.chinbullbotany.com/EN/Y2015/V50/I5/598

Figures/Tables 6

References 18

1	范惠玲, 孙万仓, 武军艳, 朱惠霞, 燕妮 (2007). 白芥自交亲和性分析. 西北植物学报 27, 938-942.
2	方智远, 孙培田, 刘玉梅 (1983). 甘蓝杂种优势利用和自交不亲和系选育的几个问题. 中国农业科学 16(3), 51-62.
3	刘后利 (2000). 油菜遗传育种学. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社. pp. 82-177.
4	孙万仓 (2000). 中国芸芥的分布、类型划分及油菜-芸芥杂交亲和性研究. 博士论文. 长沙: 湖南农业大学. pp. 26-30.
5	孙万仓, 范惠玲, 叶剑, 张亚宏, 刘雅利, 曾军, 王鹏 (2006). 白菜型油菜自交亲和性变异分析. 西北植物学报 26, 688-695.
6	孙万仓, 官春云, 孟亚雄, 刘自刚, 张涛, 李栒, 杨随庄, 令利军, 陈社元, 曾秀存, 王鹤龄 (2005). 芸芥(Eruca sativa Mill.)与芸薹(Brassica L.)属3个油用种的远缘杂交. 作物学报 31, 36-42.
7	陶国华, 徐家炳, 李银安 (1982). 关于大白菜自交不亲和性稳定性问题的探讨. 中国农业科学 15(2), 30-37.
8	张涛, 孙万仓 (2004). 芸芥与白菜型油菜远缘杂交亲和性研究. 西北农业学报 13(2), 28-30.
9	Bell DJ, Rowland LJ, Stommel J, Drummond FA (2010). Yield variation among clones of lowbush blueberry as a function of genetic similarity and self-compatibility.J Am Soc Hortic Sci 135, 259-270.
10	Busch JW, Urban L (2011). Insights gained from 50 years of studying the evolution of self-compatibility in Leavenworthia (Brassicaceae).Evol Biol 38, 15-27.
11	Chen K, Zhang XB, Jiang JL, Wang XY (2011). Plantlet regeneration from cotyledon, cotyledon petiole, and hypocotyl explants via somatic embryogenesis pathway in roquette (Eruca sativa Mill.).Plant Biosyst 145, 68-76.
12	Kodad O, Socias i Company R (2008). Fruit set evaluation for self-compatibility selection in almond.Sci Hortic 118, 260-265.
13	Matsuzawa Y, Mekiyanon S, Kaneko Y, Bang SW, Wakui K, Takahata Y (1999). Male sterility in alloplasmic Brassica rapa L. carrying Eruca sativa cytoplasm.Plant Breed 118, 82-84.
14	Omirou M, Papastefanou C, Katsarou D, Papastylianou I, Passam HC, Ehaliotis C, Papadopoulou KK (2012). Relationships between nitrogen, dry matter accumulation and glucosinolates in Eruca sativa Mill. The applicability of the critical NO3-N levels approach.Plant Soil 354, 347-358.
15	Seavey SR, Bawa KS (1986). Late-acting self-incompa- tibility in angiosperms.Bot Rev 52, 195-219.
16	Sun WC, Pan QY, Liu ZG, Meng YX, Zhang T, Wang HL (2005). Overcoming self-incompatibility in Eruca sativa by chemical treatment of stigmas.Plant Genetic Resources 3, 13-18.
17	Tel-Zur N, Dudai M, Raveh E, Mizrahi Y (2012). Selection of interspecific vine cacti hybrids (Hylocereus spp.) for self-compatibility.Plant Breed 131, 681-685.
18	———————————————

No.	Name	Origin	No.	Name	Origin	No.	Name	Origin
1	Qingcheng	Gansu	19	Zhangyun 216-1	Gansu	37	Ningwu	Shanxi
2	Guanghe	Gansu	20	04 Jingyuan 100-2	Gansu	38	Haizibei	Shanxi
3	Huanxian	Gansu	21	06 yun 87-82	Gansu	39	Dongjiao	Ningxia
4	Jingning	Gansu	22	Wudou	Gansu	40	Sanying	Ningxia
5	Yongjing	Gansu	23	Minle	Gansu	41	Zhaosu	Xinjiang
6	Tianshui	Gansu	24	Xinghe	Inner Mongolia	42	Hetian	Xinjiang
7	Kangle	Gansu	25	Taibusi	Inner Mongolia	43	Sichuan-2	Sichuan
8	Minxian	Gansu	26	Wuchuan	Inner Mongolia	44	Leshan	Sichuan
9	Huining	Gansu	27	Kangbao	Hebei	45	Guangyuan	Sichuan
10	06 yun 86-y	Gansu	28	Shizigou	Hebei	46	Machang	Qinghai
11	Lintao	Gansu	29	Zhangbei	Hebei	47	Boshehr	Iran
12	Hezheng	Gansu	30	Guyuan	Hebei	48	Varomin	Iran
13	Huachi	Gansu	31	Fugu	Shaanxi	49	Karaj-2	Iran
14	Qinchuan	Gansu	32	Xiliang	Shaanxi	50	Pakistan-03-2	Pakistan
15	Zhuoni	Gansu	33	Luyashan	Shanxi	51	Pakistan-03-1	Pakistan
16	Zhenyuan	Gansu	34	Jingbian	Shanxi	52	Pakistan	Pakistan
17	Weiyuan	Gansu	35	Shenchi	Shanxi
18	Qingyang	Gansu	36	Shuozhou	Shanxi

No.	Name	Origin	No.	Name	Origin	No.	Name	Origin
1	Qingcheng	Gansu	19	Zhangyun 216-1	Gansu	37	Ningwu	Shanxi
2	Guanghe	Gansu	20	04 Jingyuan 100-2	Gansu	38	Haizibei	Shanxi
3	Huanxian	Gansu	21	06 yun 87-82	Gansu	39	Dongjiao	Ningxia
4	Jingning	Gansu	22	Wudou	Gansu	40	Sanying	Ningxia
5	Yongjing	Gansu	23	Minle	Gansu	41	Zhaosu	Xinjiang
6	Tianshui	Gansu	24	Xinghe	Inner Mongolia	42	Hetian	Xinjiang
7	Kangle	Gansu	25	Taibusi	Inner Mongolia	43	Sichuan-2	Sichuan
8	Minxian	Gansu	26	Wuchuan	Inner Mongolia	44	Leshan	Sichuan
9	Huining	Gansu	27	Kangbao	Hebei	45	Guangyuan	Sichuan
10	06 yun 86-y	Gansu	28	Shizigou	Hebei	46	Machang	Qinghai
11	Lintao	Gansu	29	Zhangbei	Hebei	47	Boshehr	Iran
12	Hezheng	Gansu	30	Guyuan	Hebei	48	Varomin	Iran
13	Huachi	Gansu	31	Fugu	Shaanxi	49	Karaj-2	Iran
14	Qinchuan	Gansu	32	Xiliang	Shaanxi	50	Pakistan-03-2	Pakistan
15	Zhuoni	Gansu	33	Luyashan	Shanxi	51	Pakistan-03-1	Pakistan
16	Zhenyuan	Gansu	34	Jingbian	Shanxi	52	Pakistan	Pakistan
17	Weiyuan	Gansu	35	Shenchi	Shanxi
18	Qingyang	Gansu	36	Shuozhou	Shanxi

Types	Self-compatibility index	The number of cultivars	Percentages (%)	No. (compatibility index)
Highly self-compatible	>3.00	2	3.85	43 (4.98), 10 (3.54)
Self-compatible	1.00-3.00	5	9.62	44 (1.66), 46 (1.44), 29 (1.27), 23 (1.04), 8 (1.03)
Self-incompatible	0-1.00	28	53.85	21 (0.94), 45 (0.79), 39 (0.64),16 (0.63), 22 (0.55), 14 (0.47), 28 (0.46), 26 (0.44), 30 (0.36), 32 (0.32), 5 (0.32), 40 (0.28), 19 (0.25), 27 (0.25), 12 (0.23),13 (0.19),18 (0.15), 38 (0.15), 3 (0.1), 41 (0.08),1 (0.07), 49 (0.07), 6 (0.07), 48 (0.06), 24 (0.04), 17 (0.04), 36 (0.03), 25 (0.03)
Highly self-incompatible	0	17	32.69	2 (0.00), 4 (0.00), 7 (0.00), 9 (0.00), 11 (0.00), 15 (0.00), 20 (0.00), 31 (0.00), 33 (0.00), 34 (0.00), 35 (0.00), 37 (0.00), 42 (0.00), 47 (0.00), 50 (0.00), 51 (0.00), 52 (0.00)

Types	Self-compatibility index	The number of cultivars	Percentages (%)	No. (compatibility index)
Highly self-compatible	>3.00	2	3.85	43 (4.98), 10 (3.54)
Self-compatible	1.00-3.00	5	9.62	44 (1.66), 46 (1.44), 29 (1.27), 23 (1.04), 8 (1.03)
Self-incompatible	0-1.00	28	53.85	21 (0.94), 45 (0.79), 39 (0.64),16 (0.63), 22 (0.55), 14 (0.47), 28 (0.46), 26 (0.44), 30 (0.36), 32 (0.32), 5 (0.32), 40 (0.28), 19 (0.25), 27 (0.25), 12 (0.23),13 (0.19),18 (0.15), 38 (0.15), 3 (0.1), 41 (0.08),1 (0.07), 49 (0.07), 6 (0.07), 48 (0.06), 24 (0.04), 17 (0.04), 36 (0.03), 25 (0.03)
Highly self-incompatible	0	17	32.69	2 (0.00), 4 (0.00), 7 (0.00), 9 (0.00), 11 (0.00), 15 (0.00), 20 (0.00), 31 (0.00), 33 (0.00), 34 (0.00), 35 (0.00), 37 (0.00), 42 (0.00), 47 (0.00), 50 (0.00), 51 (0.00), 52 (0.00)

No.	Mean compatibility index	Self-compatibility index and number of individual					Percentages of self- compatible individual (%)
No.	Mean compatibility index	<1.00	1.00-2.00	2.10-3.00	3.10-4.00	>4.00	Percentages of self- compatible individual (%)
21	0.94	6	3	1	0	0	40
45	0.79	6	4	0	0	0	40
39	0.64	7	2	0	1	0	30
16	0.63	8	0	1	1	0	20
22	0.55	9	0	0	0	1	10
14	0.47	9	1	0	0	0	10
28	0.46	8	0	2	0	0	20
26	0.44	8	2	0	0	0	20
30	0.36	9	1	0	0	0	10
5	0.32	9	0	1	0	0	10
32	0.32	9	0	1	0	0	10
40	0.28	9	0	1	0	0	10
19	0.25	9	0	1	0	0	10
27	0.25	9	1	0	0	0	10
12	0.23	9	1	0	0	0	10
13	0.19	9	1	0	0	0	10
18	0.15	9	1	0	0	0	10
38	0.15	9	1	0	0	0	10
3	0.10	9	1	0	0	0	10
41	0.08	10	0	0	0	0	0
1	0.07	10	0	0	0	0	0
6	0.07	10	0	0	0	0	0
49	0.07	10	0	0	0	0	0
48	0.06	10	0	0	0	0	0
17	0.04	10	0	0	0	0	0
24	0.04	10	0	0	0	0	0
25	0.03	10	0	0	0	0	0
36	0.03	10	0	0	0	0	0