Comparison of RAPD and morpho-nut markers for revealing genetic relationships between chestnut species (Castanea spp.) and New Zealand chestnut selections

New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 109-115

  Oraguzie, N C ^a   McNeil, D L ^b   Paterson, A M ^b   Chapman, H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY   (New Zealand)

^b LINCOLN UNIVERSITY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Castanea; Congruence; Morpho nut; New Zealand chestnut selections; Phylogeny; RAPD; Species

Indexed keywords

CASTANEA CRENATA; CASTANEA MOLLISSIMA; PHENOTYPE; PHYLOGENY; PLANT GENETICS; POPULATION GENETICS; RANDOM AMPLIFIED POLYMORPHIC DNA;

CASTANEA;

EID: 0031877906     PISSN: 01140671     EISSN: 11758783     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01140671.1998.9514047     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Ahmad, M., and McNeil, D. L., 1996. Comparison of cross-ability, RAPD, SDS-PAGE and morphological markers for revealing genetic relationships within and among Lens species. Theoretical applied genetics, 93:788–793.
2. Atkinson, M. D., Withers, L. A., and Simpson, M. J. A., 1986. Characterisation of Cacao germplasm using isozyme markers. Euphytica, 35:741–745.
3. Baum, B. R., 1992. Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference, and the desirability of combining gene trees. Taxon, 41:3–10.
4. Demeke, T., Adams, R. P., and Chibbar, R., 1992. Potential taxonomic use of random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD):a case study in Brassica. Theoretical applied genetics, 84:990–994.
5. Frascaria, N., and Lefranc, M., 1992. Chestnut trade:a new aspect in the study of genetic variation of chestnut (Castanea sativa) populations in France. Annales des sciences forestieres, 49(1):75–79.
6. Genstat 3 Committee. 1989. Genstat 3 Reference Manual, Oxford:OUP.
7. Hillis, D. M., Mable, B. K., and Moritz, C., 1996. “Applications of molecular systematics:the state of the field and a look to the future”. In Molecular systematics, 2nd ed., Edited by:Hillis, D. M., Moritz, C., and Mable, B. K., 515–543. Sunderland, Massachusetts, United States:Sinauer Associates Inc.
8. Klinac, D. J., Lelieveld, J. F., and Knowles, R. D., 1995. Time of flowering and pollination in some New Zealand chestnut selections, and introduced cultivars. New Zealand journal of crop and horticultural science, 23:331–340.
9. Linhart, Y. B., Grant, M. C., and Montazen, P., 1989. Experimental studies in ponderosa pine. 1. Relationship between variations in proteins and morphology. American journal of botany, 76(7):1024–1032.
10. Liu, Z., and Furnier, G. R., 1993. Comparison of allozyme, RFLP, and RAPD markers for revealing genetic variation within and between trembling aspen and bigtooth aspen. Theoretical applied genetics, 57:97–105.
11. MacKey, J., 1988. A plant breeder's aspect on the taxonomy of cultivated plants. Biologisches Zentralblatt, 107:369–379.
12. Minitab Release 10.1. 1994. Computer Services Centre, New Zealand:Lincoln University.
13. Nei, M., and Li, W., 1979. Mathematical model for studying genetic variation in terms of restriction endonucleases. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 76:5256–5273.
14. Nelson, G., and Platnick, N., 1981. Systematics andbiogeog-raphy:cladistics and vicariance, New York:Columbia University Press.
15. Oraguzie, N. C., 1997. Phylogenetic relationships among New Zealand chestnut selections and the relationship with graft failure, Christchurch, New Zealand:Lincoln University. Unpublished PhD thesis
16. Oraguzie, N. C., McNeil, D. L., Klinac, D. J., Knowles, R. D., and Sedcole, R. J., 1998. Relationships of chestnut species and New Zealand chestnut selections using morpho-nut characters. Euphytica, 99(1):27–33.
17. Page, R. D. M., 1989. COMPONENT User manual (Release 1.5), Auckland:University of Auckland.
18. Page, R. D. M., 1990. Component analysis:a valiant failure?. Cladistics, 6:119–136.
19. Page, R. D. M., 1992. COMPONENT user manual (Release 2.0), London:Natural History Museum.
20. Paterson, A. M., Wallis, G. P., and Gray, R. D., 1995. Penguins, petrels, and parsimony:does cladistic analysis of behavior reflect seabird phylogeny. Evolution, 49(5):974–989.
21. Penny, D., Foulds, L. R., and Hardy, M. D., 1982. Testing the theory of evolution by comparing phylogenetic trees constructed from five different protein sequences. Nature, 297:197–200.
22. Pereira-Lorenzo, S., Fernandez-LOpez, J., and Moreno-Gonzalez, J., 1996. Variability and grouping of Northwestern Spanish chestnut cultivars. II. Isoenzyme traits. Journal of American Society of Horticultural Science, 121(2):190–197.
23. Smith, O. S., Smith, J. S. C., Browen, S. L., Tenborg, R. A., and Wall, S. J., 1990. Similarities among a group of elite maize inbreds as measured by pedigree, Fl grain yield, grain yield, heterosis, and RFLPs. Theoretical applied genetics, 80:387–396.
24. Vane-Wright, R. I., Schultz, S., and Boppre, M., 1992. The cladistics of Amauris butterflies:congruence, consensus and total evidence. Cladistics, 8:125–138.
25. Villani, F., Pigliucci, M., Lauteri, M., and Cherubim, M., 1992. Congruence between genetic, morpho-metric, and physiological data on differentiation of Turkish chestnut (Castanea sativd). Genome, 55:251–256.
26. Zink, R. M., and Avise, J. C., 1990. Patterns of mitochondrial DNA and allozyme evolution in the avian genus Ammodramus. Systematic zoology, 39:148–161.