Ecological and biological information improves inferred paternity in a white spruce breeding orchard

Canadian Journal of Forest Research

Volumn 41, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 1344-1351

  Doerksen, T K ^a   Deslauriers, M ^a   Beaulieu, J ^a  

^a LAURENTIAN FORESTRY CENTRE   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION; GENETIC MARKERS; INDICATOR VARIABLES; OVERALL RATE; PATERNITY ANALYSIS; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; SEED ORCHARD; SELFING; SIRING SUCCESS; WHITE SPRUCE;

ORCHARDS; SEED;

ECOLOGY;

CONIFEROUS TREE; ECOLOGICAL APPROACH; ESTIMATION METHOD; GENETIC MARKER; NUMERICAL MODEL; ORCHARD; PATERNITY; PROVENANCE; REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; SEEDLING; SURVIVAL;

PICEA GLAUCA;

EID: 79958247198     PISSN: 00455067     EISSN: 12086037     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/x11-046     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Adams, W.T. 1992. Gene dispersal within forest tree populations. New For. 6(1): 217-240.
2. Adams, W.T., Griffin, A.R., and Moran, G.F. 1992. Using paternity analysis to measure effective pollen dispersal in plant populations. Am. Nat. 140(5): 762-780. doi:10.1086/285439. PMID:19426042.
3. Anderson, E.C., and Garza, J.C. 2006. The power of singlenucleotide polymorphisms for large-scale parentage inference. Genetics, 172(4): 2567-2582. doi:10.1534/genetics.105.048074.PMID:16387880.
4. Aronen, T., Nikkanen, T., Harju, A., Tiimonen, H., and Häggman, H. 2002. Pollen competition and seed-siring success in Picea abies. Theor. Appl. Genet. 104(4): 638-642. doi:10.1007/s00122-001-0789-9. PMID:12582668.
5. Beaulieu, J. 1996. Breeding program and strategy for white spruce in Québec. Canadian Forest Service, Québec, Information Report LAU-X-117E.
6. Besnard, G., Acheré, V., Faivre Rampant, P., Favre, J.M., and Jeandroz, S. 2003. A set of cross-species amplifying microsatellite markers developed from DNA sequence databanks in Picea (Pinaceae). Mol. Ecol. Notes, 3(3): 380-383. doi:10.1046/j.1471-8286.2003.00456.x.
7. Bonnet-Masimbert, M., and Webber, J.E. 1995. From flowerinduction to seed production in forest tree orchards. Tree Physiol. 15(7/8): 419-426. PMID:14965922.
8. Burczyk, J., Adams, W.T., Moran, G.F., and Griffin, A.R. 2002. Complex patterns of mating revealed in a Eucalyptus regnans seed orchard using allozyme markers and the neighbourhood model. Mol. Ecol. 11(11): 2379-2391. doi:10.1046/j.1365-294X.2002.01603.x. PMID:12406248.
9. Burczyk, J., Lewandowski, A., and Chalupka, W. 2004. Local pollen dispersal and distant gene flow in Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.). For. Ecol. Manage. 197(1/3): 39-48. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2004.05.003.
10. Byram, T.D., Lowe, W.J., and McGriff, J.A. 1986. Clonal and annual variation in cone production in loblolly pine seed orchards. For. Sci. 32(4): 1067-1073.
11. Devlin, B., Roeder, K., and Ellstrand, N.C. 1988. Fractional paternity assignment: theoretical development and comparison to other methods. Theor. Appl. Genet. 76(3): 369-380. doi:10.1007/BF00265336.
12. Di-Giovanni, F., and Kevan, P.G. 1991. Factors affecting pollen dynamics and its importance to pollen contamination: a review. Can. J. For. Res. 21(8): 1155-1170. doi:10.1139/x91-163.
13. El-Kassaby, Y.A., and Lstibůrek, M. 2009. Breeding without breeding. Genet. Res. (Cambridge), 91(2): 111-120. doi:10.1017/S001667230900007X. PMID:19393127.
14. El-Kassaby, Y.A., and Ritland, K. 1992. Frequency-dependent malereproductive success in a polycross of Douglas fir. Theor. Appl. Genet. 83(6): 752-758.
15. El-Kassaby, Y.A., Stoehr, M.U., Reid, D., Walsh, C.G., and Lee, T.E. 2007. Clonal-row versus random seed orchard designs: interior spruce mating system evaluation. Can. J. For. Res. 37(3): 690-696. doi:10.1139/X06-248.
16. Emery, A.M., Wilson, I.J., Craig, S., Boyle, P.R., and Noble, L.R. 2001. Assignment of paternity groups without access to parental genotypes: multiple mating and developmental plasticity in squid. Mol. Ecol. 10(5): 1265-1278. doi:10.1046/j.1365-294X.2001.01258.x. PMID:11380883.
17. Gasbarra, D., Pirinen, M., Sillanpää, M.J., Salmela, E., and Arjas, E. 2007. Estimating genealogies from unlinked marker data: a Bayesian approach. Theor. Popul. Biol. 72(3): 305-322. doi:10.1016/j.tpb.2007.06.004. PMID:17681576.
18. González-Martínez, S.C., Burczyk, J., Nathan, R., Nanos, N., Gil, L., and Alía, R. 2006. Effective gene dispersal and female reproductive success in Mediterranean maritime pine (Pinus pinaster Aiton). Mol. Ecol. 15(14): 4577-4588. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.03118.x. PMID:17107484.
19. Hadfield, J.D., Richardson, D.S., and Burke, T. 2006. Towards unbiased parentage assignment: combining genetic, behavioural and spatial data in a Bayesian framework. Mol. Ecol. 15(12): 3715-3730. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.03050.x. PMID:17032269.
20. Hansen, O.K., and Nielsen, U.B. 2010. Microsatellites used to establish full pedigree in a half-sib trial and correlation between number of male strobili and paternal success. Ann. For. Sci. 67(7): 703. doi:10.1051/forest/2010028.
21. Jones, A.G., Small, C.M., Paczolt, K.A., and Ratterman, N.L. 2010. A practical guide to methods of parentage analysis. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 10(1): 6-30. doi:10.1111/j.1755-0998.2009.02778.x.
22. Kang, K.-S., Bila, A.D., Harju, A.M., and Lindgren, D. 2003. Estimation of fertility variation in forest tree populations. Forestry, 76(3): 329-344. doi:10.1093/forestry/76.3.329.
23. Koch, M., Hadfield, J.D., Sefc, K.M., and Sturmbauer, C. 2008. Pedigree reconstruction in wild cichlid fish populations. Mol. Ecol. 17(20): 4500-4511. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03925.x. PMID:18986496.
24. Lindgren, D., and Mullin, T.J. 1997. Balancing gain and relatedness in selection. Silvae Genet. 46(2/3): 124-129.
25. Marshall, T.C., Slate, J., Kruuk, L.E.B., and Pemberton, J.M. 1998. Statistical confidence for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Mol. Ecol. 7(5): 639-655. doi:10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00374.x. PMID:9633105.
26. Matziris, D. 1998. Genetic variation in cone and seed characteristics in a clonal seed orchard of Aleppo pine grown in Greece. Silvae Genet. 47(1): 37-41.
27. Meagher, T.R. 1986. Analysis of paternity within a natural population of Chamaelirium luteum. I. Identification of most-likely male parents. Am. Nat. 128(2): 199-215. doi:10.1086/284554.
28. Morgan, M.T., and Conner, J.K. 2001. Using genetic markers to directly estimate male selection gradients. Evolution, 55(2): 272-281. PMID:11308085.
29. Moriguchi, Y., Tsuchiya, S., Iwata, H., Itoo, S., Tani, N., Taira, H., and Tsumura, Y. 2007. Factors influencing male reproductive success in a Cryptomeria japonica seed orchard revealed by microsatellite marker analysis. Silvae Genet. 56(5): 207-213.
30. Nielsen, R., Mattila, D.K., Clapham, P.J., and Palsbøll, P.J. 2001.Statistical approaches to paternity analysis in natural populations and applications to the North Atlantic humpback whale. Genetics, 157(4): 1673-1682. PMID:11290722.
31. Pavy, N., Parsons, L.S., Paule, C., MacKay, J., and Bousquet, J. 2006. Automated SNP detection from a large collection of white spruce expressed sequences: contributing factors and approaches for the categorization of SNPs. BMC Genomics, 7(1): 174. doi:10.1186/1471-2164-7-174. PMID:16824208.
32. Perry, D.J., and Bousquet, J. 1998a. Sequence-tagged-site (STS) markers of arbitrary genes: development, characterization and analysis of linkage in black spruce. Genetics, 149(2): 1089-1098. PMID:9611216.
33. Perry, D.J., and Bousquet, J. 1998b. Sequence-tagged-site (STS) markers of arbitrary genes: the utility of black spruce-derived STS primers in other conifers. Theor. Appl. Genet. 97(5/6): 735-743. doi:10.1007/s001220050950.
34. Plummer, M., Best, N., Cowles, K., and Vines, K. 2006. CODA: convergence diagnosis and output analysis for MCMC. R News, 6 (1): 7-11.
35. R Development Core Team. 2009. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
36. Sapp, R.L., Zhang, W., Bertrand, J.K., and Rekaya, R. 2007. Genetic evaluation in the presence of uncertain additive relationships. I. Use of phenotypic information to ascertain paternity. J. Anim. Sci. 85(10): 2391-2400. doi:10.2527/jas.2006-667. PMID:17504957.
37. Schoen, D.J., and Stewart, S.C. 1987. Variation in male fertilities and pairwise mating probabilities in Picea glauca. Genetics, 116(1): 141-152. PMID:17246377.
38. Skrøppa, T., and Lindgren, D. 1994. Male fertility variation and nonrandom segregation in pollen mix crosses of Picea abies. For.Genet. 1: 13-22.
39. Smouse, P.E., Meagher, T.R., and Kobak, C.J. 1999. Parentage analysis in Chamaelirium luteum (L.) Gray (Liliaceae): why do some males have higher reproductive contributions? J. Evol. Biol. 12(6): 1069-1077. doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.1999.00114.x.
40. Spiegelhalter, D.J., Best, N.G., Carlin, B.P., and van der Linde, A. 2002. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J. R. Stat. Soc. B, 64(4): 583-639. doi:10.1111/1467-9868.00353.
41. Wang, J. 2004. Sibship reconstruction from genetic data with typing errors. Genetics, 166(4): 1963-1979. doi:10.1534/genetics.166.4.1963. PMID:15126412.
42. Wang, J., and Santure, A.W. 2009. Parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data under polygamy. Genetics, 181(4): 1579-1594. doi:10.1534/genetics.108.100214. PMID:19221199.