Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T14:48:33.068Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphology and fitness components of wild × crop F1 hybrids of Sorghum bicolor (L.) in Ethiopia: implications for survival and introgression of crop genes in the wild pool

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2013

Asfaw Adugna  and
Endashaw Bekele
Asfaw Adugna*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Addis Ababa University, PO Box 1176, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Endashaw Bekele
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Addis Ababa University, PO Box 1176, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
*
* Corresponding author. E-mail: asfaw123@rediffmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Natural hybridization between wild/weedy and crop species often results in rare hybrids, which can be more weedy and difficult to control. Moreover, the advent of transgenic crop plants raises questions of biosafety risk assessment on the consequences of rare hybrids with possible fitness enhancing genes on the environment. This study aimed at measuring the fitness components of wild–crop sorghum hybrids for various juvenile survival and adult morphological and fertility characters as part of the risk assessment of transgenic sorghum in Africa where the crop was believed to have first domesticated and serves as the major staple. Out of a pool of hybrids made in 2010 from 23 wild sorghum accessions and two released cultivated sorghum varieties using hand emasculation techniques, seven were selected for the field study of their fitness components in 2011. The study confirmed that crop–wild hybrids of sorghum are fertile. Two approaches were followed (relative fitness and mid-parent heterosis) which showed that most of the hybrids were as fit as their wild parents, and in some cases they showed mid-parent heterosis for the measured traits. The results of this study highlighted a potential risk that hybrids carrying crop genes (including herbicide resistance transgenes) could pose because they could be more weedy than their wild/weedy parents if transgenic sorghum is deployed in regions where the wild and cultivated sorghum populations coexist, such as in Ethiopia and in other parts of Africa.

Keywords

fitnessheterosishybridintrogressionSorghumbicolorwild sorghum
Type
Research Article
Information
Plant Genetic Resources , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , December 2013 , pp. 196 - 205
Copyright
Copyright © NIAB 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adugna, A and Bekele, E (2013) Geographical distribution and phenotypic diversity in wild sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.)] in Ethiopia: implications for germplasm conservation and crop-wild gene flow. Plant Genetic Resources 11: 68–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adugna, A, Snow, AA, Sweeney, PM, Bekele, E and Mutegi, E (2012) Population genetic structure of in situ wild Sorghum bicolor in its Ethiopian center of origin based on SSR markers. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution. doi:10.1007/s10722-012-9921-8.Google Scholar
Adugna, A, Sweeney, PM and Bekele, E (2013) Estimation of in situ mating systems in wild sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.)] in Ethiopia using SSR-based progeny array data: implications for the spread of crop genes into the wild. Journal of Genetics 92. doi:10.1007/s12041-013-0214-6.Google Scholar
Andow, DA and Zwahlen, C (2006) Assessing environmental risks of transgenic plants. Ecology Letters 9: 196–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arriola, PE and Ellstrand, NC (1997) Fitness of interspecific hybrids in the genus Sorghum: persistence of crop genes in wild populations. Ecological Applications 7: 512–518.Google Scholar
Burke, JM, Carney, SE and Arnold, ML (1998) Hybrid fitness in the Louisiana irises: analysis of parental and F1 performance. Evolution 52: 37–43.Google Scholar
Chapman, MA and Burke, JM (2006) Letting the gene out of the bottle: the population genetics of GM crops. New Phytologist 170: 429–443.Google Scholar
Chen, LY, Snow, AA, Wang, F and Lu, BR (2006) Effects of insect-resistance on fecundity in rice (Oryza sativa, Poaceae): a test for underlying costs. American Journal of Botany 93: 94–101.Google Scholar
de Wet, JMJ (1978) Systematics and evolution of sorghum sect. Sorghum (Gramineae). American Journal of Botany 65: 477–484.Google Scholar
de Wet, JMJ and Huckabay, JP (1967) The origin of Sorghum bicolour. II. Distribution and domestication. Evolution 21: 787–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di, K, Stewart, CN, Wei, W, Shen, B, Tanga, Z and Ma, K (2009) Fitness and maternal effects in hybrids formed between transgenic oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) and wild brown mustard [B. juncea (L.) Czern et Coss.] in the field. Pest Management Science 65: 753–760.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ejeta, G and Grenier, C (2005) Sorghum and its weedy hybrids. In: Gressel, J (ed.) Crop Ferality and Volunteerism. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis, pp. 123–135.Google Scholar
Ellstrand, NC, Prentice, HC and Hancock, JF (1999) Gene flow and introgression from domesticated plants into their wild relatives. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30: 539–563.Google Scholar
Fredshavn, JR and Poulsen, GS (1996) Growth behavior and competitive ability of transgenic crops. Field Crops Research 45: 11–18.Google Scholar
Gepts, P and Papa, R (2003) Possible effects of (trans)gene flow from crops on the genetic diversity from landraces and wild relatives. Environmental Biosafety Research 2: 89–103.Google Scholar
Groot MHM, van de Wiel CCM, van Tienderen PH and den Nijs HCM (2003) Hybridization and introgression between crops and wild relatives: current knowledge and research priorities in lieu of impending introductions of GM crops. COGEM research 2003-02, University of Amsterdam & Plant Research International, Amsterdam & Wageningen.Google Scholar
Guadagnuolo, R, Clegg, J and Ellstrand, NC (2006) Relative fitness of transgenic vs. non-transgenic maize × teosinte hybrids: a field evaluation. Ecological Applications 16: 1967–1974.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hails, RS (2000) Genetically modified plants – the debate continues. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15: 14–18.Google Scholar
Hails, RS and Raymond, B (2004) Insect-resistant transgenic plants and their environmental impact. In: den Nijs, HCM, Bartsch, D and Sweet, J (eds) Introgression from Genetically Modified Plants into Wild Relatives. Oxfordshire: CABI Publishing, pp. 279–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, TP, Shaw, RG and Østergård, H (1998) Fitness of F-1 hybrids between weedy Brassica rapa and oilseed rape (B. napus). Heredity 81: 429–435.Google Scholar
Hauser, TP, Bjorn, GK, Magnussen, L and Shim, SI (2004) Hybrids between cultivated and wild carrots: a life history. In: den Nijs, HCM, Bartsch, D and Sweet, J (eds) Introgression from Genetically Modified Plants into Wild Relatives. Oxfordshire: CABI Publishing, pp. 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooftman, DAP, De Jong, MJ, Oostermeijer, JGB and Den Nijs, JCM (2007) Modelling the long-term consequences of crop-wild relative hybridization: a case study using four generations of hybrids. Journal of Applied Ecology 44: 1035–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, DI and Hodgkin, T (1999) Wild relatives and crop cultivars: detecting natural introgression and farmer selection of new genetic combinations in agroecosystems. Molecular Ecology 8: 5159–5173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenczewski, E, Ronfort, J and Chèvre, AM (2003) Crop-to-wild gene flow, introgression and possible fitness effects of transgenes. Environmental Biosafety Research 2: 9–24.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, RB and Wilkinson, MJ (2005) Rare hybrids and methods for their detection. In: Poppy, GM and Wilkinson, MJ (eds) Gene Flow from GM Plants. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Kiær, LP, Philipp, M, Jorgensen, RB and Hauser, TP (2007) Genealogy, morphology and fitness of spontaneous hybrids between wild and cultivated chicory (Cichorium intybus). Heredity 99: 112–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liang, H and Gao, ZS (2001) Phylogenetic analysis and transformation of sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]. Recent Research in Developmental and Plant Biology 1: 17–33.Google Scholar
Muraya, MM, Geiger, HH, Sagnard, F, Toure, L, Traore, PCS, Togola, S, de Villiers, S and Parzies, HK (2012) Adaptive values of wild × cultivated sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) hybrids in generations F1, F2, and F3. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 59: 83–93.Google Scholar
Paterson, AH, Schertz, KF, Lin, YR, Liu, SC and Chang, YL (1995) The weediness of wild plants: molecular analysis of genes influencing dispersal and persistence of Johnson grass, Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 92: 6127–6131.Google Scholar
Raybould, A and Cooper, I (2005) Tiered tests to assess the environmental risk of fitness changes in hybrids between transgenic crops and wild relatives: the example of virus resistant Brassica napus. Environmental Biosafety Research 4: 127–140.Google Scholar
Small, E (1984) Hybridization in the domesticated-weed-wild complex. In: Grant, WF (ed.) Plant Biosystematics. Toronto: Academic Press, pp. 195–210.Google Scholar
Snow, AA, Moran-Palma, P, Rieseberg, LH, Wszelaki, A and Seiler, GJ (1998) Fecundity, phenology, and seed dormancy of F1 wild-crop hybrids in sunflower (Helianthus annuus, Asteraceae). American Journal of Botany 85: 794–801.Google Scholar
Snow, AA, Pilson, D, Rieseberg, LH, Paulsen, M, Pleskac, N, Reagon, MR, Wolf, DE and Selbo, SM (2003) A Bt transgene reduces herbivory and enhances fecundity in wild sunflowers. Ecological Applications 13: 279–286.Google Scholar
Song, ZP, Lu, BR, Wang, B and Chen, JK (2004) Fitness estimation through performance comparison of F1 hybrids with their parental species Oryza rufupogon and O. sativa. Annals of Botany 93: 311–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, CN Jr, Halfhill, MD and Warwick, SI (2003) Transgene introgression from genetically modified crops to their wild relatives. National Review on Genetics 4: 806–817.Google Scholar
Templeton, AR (2006) Population Genetics and Microevolutionary Theory. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, SI, Légère, A, Simard, M-J and James, T (2008) Do escaped transgenes persist in nature? The case of a herbicide resistance transgene in a weed population of Brassica rapa. Molecular Ecology 17: 1387–1395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weis, AE (2005) Assessing the ecological fitness of recipients. In: Poppy, GM and Wilkinson, MJ (eds) Gene Flow from GM Plants. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Wynne, JC, Emery, DA and Rice, PW (1970) Combining ability estimates in Arachis hypogaea L. II. Field performance of F1 hybrids. Crop Science 10: 713–715.Google Scholar
Zhao, Z, et al. (2007) The Africa biofortified sorghum project – applying biotechnology to develop nutritionally improved sorghum for Africa. In: Xu, Z (ed.) Biotechnology and Sustainable Agriculture 2006 and Beyond. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 273–277.Google Scholar
Zhao, ZY, Cai, T, Tagliani, L, Miller, M, Wang, N, Pang, H, Rudert, M, Schroeder, S, Hondred, D, Seltzer, J and Pierce, D (2000) Agrobacterium mediated sorghum transformation. Plant Molecular Biology 44: 789–798.Google Scholar
Zhao, ZY, Glassman, K, Sewalt, V, Wang, N, Miller, M, Chang, S, Thompson, T, Catron, S, Wu, E, Bidney, D, Kedebe, Y and Jung, R (2003) Nutritionally improved transgenic sorghum. In: Vasil, IK (ed.) Plant Biotechnology 2002 and Beyond. Orlando, FL: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 413–416.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Adugna et al. supplementary material

Supplementary tables

Download Adugna et al. supplementary material(File)
File 18.8 KB