Untitled

More documents

Recommendations

Info

170 7. ROLE OF QTLs IN THE EARLY EVOLUTION... By contrary, the best transgressants being almost erect, rather dark green and a little more resistant to crown rust overcame parents by roughly 42%. With regard to vegetative and generative characters they exceeded parents of about 70 and 91%. Again, the extreme increases were found for weight of vegetative parts and tillers. For example, green weight could be as much as threefold higher in F 2 genotypes in comparison with parents. And even higher increase, reaching about 500% was observed for green weight of tillers. Besides high weight, the best genotypes had bigger basal leaves, longer spikes and a great number of spikelets in addition to better winter survival. It should be also noted that a given transgressive genotype expressed higher values for the majority of analysed traits at once. This was also a true for the worst genotypes. They performed very poorly for majority of characters. Whether a population was derived from an interspecific cross or intraspecific one, this did not influence the level of transgression. In contrast, its magnitude seemed to be related rather with parental genotypes. In interspecific crosses both the highest increase and the highest decrease in comparison with parents were observed. This was the F 2 population derived from the cross BR3 x NZ15 (L. multiflorum x L. perenne), in which the best transgressive forms were twice as good as the better parent (average 128% for all characters). This value was even higher if vegetative and generative characters were considered separately, on average 138% and 146%, respectively (Figure 7.4). A unique feature of this population was that the worst genotypes differed from the parents of as little as 20- 30% (Figure 7.5). This was among the lowest values in comparison with the other populations. The opposite relationship was observed in another interspecific cross, HU5 x BO2 (L. multiflorum x L. perenne). The relatively low increase over the better parent and the great decrease below the worse parent were typical features of it. These differences in behaviour of both populations were likely resulted from performance of parents. The parents of the former population had generally lower values than those of the latter. If we turn instead to intraspecific crosses, the similar relationships were observed. In the L. multiflorum population the variation was shifted towards the lower values. This was emphasized by extremely high decreases of all characters in transgressive forms, and only modest increases of the best genotypes over the better parent for all but generative traits. In that case, the unexpectedly high increase resulted primarily from very low dry weight of parents. The L. perenne population could be described by the lowest differences between maximum and minimum. The range of variation of floret number, comparable to that of interspecific crosses, was the most interesting feature of this population. It is worthy to notice that the maximum number of florets in L. multiflorum and L. perenne populations were almost identical. Distributions of half quantitative characters analysed in all populations were nearly normal that suggested many genes with presumably additive effects and genotype x environment interactions were responsible for the performance of these traits. Significant departures from normality were observed for about 45% of characters and the number of deviated histograms did not depend on whether a population originated from interspecific or intraspecific crosses (Table 7.2). The asymmetric distribution, suggesting non-additive gene interactions was the most frequent deviation, although some others were also noticed. A striking example was coming from rust resistance, for which five qualitative classes were noticed in the L. multiflorum population. Somehow qualitative variation involving
7. ROLE OF QTLs IN THE EARLY EVOLUTION... 171 four distinct classes with several minor classes in between was also pronounced in the L. perenne population. This may indicate that Mendelian factors were responsible for rust resistance in these cross combinations. However, a caution should be made that bi-
Page 4 and 5:
This research was done within the E
Page 6 and 7:
Acknowledgements I would like to th
Page 8 and 9:
8 CONTENTS 4.4.4. Role of transposo
Page 10 and 11:
10 CONTENTS 9.3.2. Similarity of ge
Page 12 and 13:
12 1. INTRODUCTION
Page 14 and 15:
14 1. INTRODUCTION occasionally use
Page 16 and 17:
16 1. INTRODUCTION On the basis of
Page 18 and 19:
18 1. INTRODUCTION The evidences fr
Page 20 and 21:
20 1. INTRODUCTION overlap between
Page 22 and 23:
22 1. INTRODUCTION et al. 2000; Cat
Page 24 and 25:
24 1. INTRODUCTION According to the
Page 26 and 27:
26 1. INTRODUCTION 1.6. APPLICATION
Page 28 and 29:
28 1. INTRODUCTION of evolution wit
Page 30 and 31:
30 1. INTRODUCTION are continuously
Page 32 and 33:
2. GOALS The aim of this research w
Page 34 and 35:
3. MORPHOLOGICAL VARIATION OF L. MU
Page 36 and 37:
36 3. MORPHOLOGICAL VARIATION... fo
Page 38 and 39:
38 3. MORPHOLOGICAL VARIATION...
Page 40 and 41:
40 3. MORPHOLOGICAL VARIATION... Wi
Page 42 and 43:
42 3. MORPHOLOGICAL VARIATION... va
Page 44 and 45:
44 3. MORPHOLOGICAL VARIATION... 3.
Page 46 and 47:
46 3. MORPHOLOGICAL VARIATION...
Page 48 and 49:
48 3. MORPHOLOGICAL VARIATION... in
Page 50 and 51:
50 3. MORPHOLOGICAL VARIATION... pl
Page 52 and 53:
52 3. MORPHOLOGICAL VARIATION... di
Page 54 and 55:
4. GENETIC DIVERSITY OF L. MULTIFLO
Page 56 and 57:
56 4. GENETIC DIVERSITY... deed con
Page 58 and 59:
58 4. GENETIC DIVERSITY... 4.2.2. D
Page 60 and 61:
60 4. GENETIC DIVERSITY...
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
64 4. GENETIC DIVERSITY... RAPD and
Page 66 and 67:
66 4. GENETIC DIVERSITY... SSAP pol
Page 68 and 69:
68 4. GENETIC DIVERSITY... It can b
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
72 4. GENETIC DIVERSITY... than wit
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
82 4. GENETIC DIVERSITY... power of
Page 84 and 85:
84 4. GENETIC DIVERSITY... Hamrick
Page 86 and 87:
86 4. GENETIC DIVERSITY... deviatio
Page 88 and 89:
88 4. GENETIC DIVERSITY... individu
Page 90 and 91:
90 4. GENETIC DIVERSITY... (inversi
Page 92 and 93:
92 4. GENETIC DIVERSITY... related
Page 94 and 95:
94 4. GENETIC DIVERSITY... cies and
Page 96 and 97:
96 4. GENETIC DIVERSITY... their sp
Page 98 and 99:
98 4. GENETIC DIVERSITY... 4.5. CON
Page 100 and 101:
100 5. ORIGIN OF SEEDLING... Applic
Page 102 and 103:
102 5. ORIGIN OF SEEDLING... 5.2.2.
Page 104 and 105:
104 5. ORIGIN OF SEEDLING... 5.3. R
Page 106 and 107:
106 5. ORIGIN OF SEEDLING... very l
Page 108 and 109:
108 5. ORIGIN OF SEEDLING... 5.3.4.
Page 110 and 111:
110 5. ORIGIN OF SEEDLING... 5.4. D
Page 112 and 113:
112 5. ORIGIN OF SEEDLING... A seco
Page 114 and 115:
114 5. ORIGIN OF SEEDLING... Perhap
Page 116 and 117:
6. DO ANY SPECIES BOUNDARIES EXIST
Page 118 and 119:
118 6. DO ANY SPECIES BOUNDARIES...
Page 120 and 121: 120 6. DO ANY SPECIES BOUNDARIES...
Page 158 and 159: 7. ROLE OF QTL s IN THE EARLY EVOLU
Page 160 and 161: 160 7. ROLE OF QTLs IN THE EARLY EV
Page 196 and 197: 196 8. MOLECULAR PHYLOGENY OF THE G
Page 220 and 221:
220 8. MOLECULAR PHYLOGENY OF THE G
Page 222 and 223:
9. PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS BETWE
Page 224 and 225:
224 9. PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS..
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
10. MARKER EFFICIENCY 10.1. INTRODU
Page 238 and 239:
238 10. MARKER EFFICIENCY 10.3. DNA
Page 240 and 241:
240 10. MARKER EFFICIENCY method. H
Page 242 and 243:
242 10. MARKER EFFICIENCY alleles p
Page 244 and 245:
244 10. MARKER EFFICIENCY proportio
Page 246 and 247:
246 10. MARKER EFFICIENCY 10.7. CON
Page 248 and 249:
248 11. CONCLUSIONS ABOUT EVOLUTION
Page 250 and 251:
250 12, LITERATURE CITED Bączkiewi
Page 252 and 253:
252 12, LITERATURE CITED Clayton WD
Page 254 and 255:
254 12, LITERATURE CITED Giddings G
Page 256 and 257:
256 12, LITERATURE CITED Jing R, Kn
Page 258 and 259:
258 12, LITERATURE CITED MacDonald
Page 260 and 261:
260 12, LITERATURE CITED Payne RC,
Page 262 and 263:
262 12, LITERATURE CITED Schiex T,
Page 264 and 265:
264 12, LITERATURE CITED United Sta
Page 266 and 267:
266 12, LITERATURE CITED Zielinski
Page 268 and 269:
268 13. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS pla
Page 270 and 271:
270 13. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
274 13. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS ANN
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
280 13. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS Ann
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
290 13. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS •
Page 292 and 293:
292 13. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS The
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
296 13. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS fie
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
The average gene diversity between
Page 306 and 307:
306 13. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS Unb
Page 308 and 309:
308 14. ABBREVIATIONS Lolcopia1 - L
Page 310 and 311:
310 14. ABBREVIATIONS Drosophila wi
Page 312 and 313:
312 14. ABBREVIATIONS Saccharomyces
Page 314 and 315:
314 15. SUMMARY At different stages
Page 316 and 317:
316 15. SUMMARY L. multiflorum mito
Page 318 and 319:
REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS With a great
show all

Untitled

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?