Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T17:26:47.483Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Duplication assessments in Brassica vegetable accessions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2017

Svein Øivind Solberg ,
Anna Artemyeva ,
Flemming Yndgaard ,
Malin Dorre ,
Jerker Niss  and
Stephen Burleigh
Svein Øivind Solberg*
Affiliation:
Nordic Genetic Resource Center, P. O. Box 41, SE 230 53 Alnarp, Sweden World Vegetable Center, Box 42, Shanhua, Tainan 74151, Taiwan
Anna Artemyeva
Affiliation:
N. I. Vavilov Institute of Plant Genetic Resources (VIR), 42-44, B. Morskaya Street, 190000, St. Petersburg, Russia
Flemming Yndgaard
Affiliation:
Nordic Genetic Resource Center, P. O. Box 41, SE 230 53 Alnarp, Sweden
Malin Dorre
Affiliation:
Nordic Genetic Resource Center, P. O. Box 41, SE 230 53 Alnarp, Sweden
Jerker Niss
Affiliation:
Nordic Genetic Resource Center, P. O. Box 41, SE 230 53 Alnarp, Sweden
Stephen Burleigh
Affiliation:
Nordic Genetic Resource Center, P. O. Box 41, SE 230 53 Alnarp, Sweden
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is extensive duplication of accessions among collection holders globally. To save costs, unwanted duplication should be avoided. This issue has been addressed internationally. In Europe, there are currently 35 Brassica collections located in 24 countries. Duplication may be identified not only by surveying passport data and seed transactions, but also by applying morphological or genetic characterization. Our study included two collections; one at the N. I. Vavilov Institute of Plant Genetic Resources in St. Petersburg (VIR) and one at the Nordic Genetic Resource Center (NGB). A random set of 13 accession pairs or triplets of cabbage, turnip and swede were selected on the basis of identical or similar accession names. The accessions could potentially be regarded as duplicates. Morphological characterization showed that in about 50% the pair/triplet, the accessions were identical and should thus be regarded as duplicate holding. Determining the status of the remaining accessions, which were more or less distinct but had identical or similar names, was more difficult. In this paper, possible explanations for the similarities in names are discussed, as is the need to include characterization in any duplicate assessment process.

Keywords

Brassica napus var. napobrassicaBrassica oleracea var. capitataBrassica rapa var. rapacabbageconservationgenebank managementswedeturnip
Type
Research Article
Information
Plant Genetic Resources , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , June 2018 , pp. 201 - 208
Copyright
Copyright © NIAB 2017 

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

Börjesson, A (2015) Sorter av köksväxter – Svenska priskuranter från 1800-talet till 1930. Alnarp, Sweden: Nordic Genetic Resource Center.Google Scholar
Branca, F, Bas, N, Artemyeva, A, De Haro, A and Maggioni, L (2013) Activities of the Brassica working group of the European cooperative programme for plant genetic resources (ECPGR). Acta Horticulturae 1005: 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawley, MJ (2009) The R Book. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
Cruz, V, Nason, J, Luhman, R, Marek, L, Shoemaker, R, Brummer, E and Gardner, C (2006) Analysis of bulked and redundant accessions of Brassica germplasm using assignment tests of microsatellite markers. Euphytica 152: 339–349.Google Scholar
Diederichsen, A (2009) Duplication assessments in Nordic Avena sativa accessions at the Canadian national genebank. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 56: 587–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ECPGR (2008) A Strategic Framework for the Implementation of a European Genebank Integrated System (AEGIS). Discussion paper. European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources (ECPGR). Rome: Bioversity International.Google Scholar
Ellstrand, NC and Elam, DR (1993) Population genetic consequences of small population size: implications for plant conservation. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 24: 217–242.Google Scholar
Engels, JMM and Maggioni, L (2012) AEGIS: a regionally based approach to PGR conservation. In: Maxted, N, Dulloo, ME, Ford-Lloyd, BV, Frese, L, Iriondo, JM and Pinheiro de Carvalho, MAA (eds) Agrobiodiversity Conservation: Securing the Diversity of Crop Wild Relatives and Landraces. Wallingford: CAB International, pp. 321–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO (2010) The Second Report on the State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
Fowler, C (2007) Global Dimensions of Conserving Crop Diversity. Seed Savers 2006 Harvest Edition. Decorah: Seed Savers Exchange, pp. 33–42.Google Scholar
GENESYS (2017). The Global Gateway to Genetic Resources, online database search from. Available at https://www.genesys-pgr.org (last retrieved 24 January 2017).Google Scholar
Germeier, CU, Frese, L and Bücken, S (2003) Concepts and data models for treatment of duplicate groups and sharing of responsibilities in genetic resources information systems. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 50: 693–705.Google Scholar
Gomez, OJ, Blair, MW, Frankow-Lindberg, BE and Gullberg, U (2005) Comparative study of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) landraces conserved ex situ in genebanks and in situ by farmers. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 52: 371–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammer, K (1993) The 50th anniversary of the Gatersleben genebank. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 91/92: 1–8.Google Scholar
Jonge, E and van der Loo, M (2013) An Introduction to Data Cleaning with R. Statistics. Available at http://cran.r-project.org/doc/contrib/.Google Scholar
Jördens, R and Button, P (2011) Effective systems of plant variety protection in responding to challenges of a changing world: UPOV perspective. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 16: 74–83.Google Scholar
Loskutov, IG (1999) Vavilov and his Institute. A History of the World Collection of Plant Genetic Resources in Russia. Rome: International Plant Genetic Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Menting, F and Bas, N (2016) The ECPGR Brassica Database. Available at http://ecpgr.cgn.wur.nl/Brasedb/.Google Scholar
Negri, V and Tiranti, B (2010) Effectiveness of in situ and ex situ conservation of crop diversity. What a Phaseolus vulgaris L. landrace case study can tell us. Genetica 138: 985–998.Google Scholar
NPVB (1952) Förteckning over sorter och stammar, som Orginalutsädesnämden som äro berättigad till statsplombering 1952–1953. (Official Swedish list of cultivars.) Stockholm: Orginalutsädesnämden, Emil Kihlströms Tryckeri AB (in Swedish).Google Scholar
NPVB (1960) Rikssortlista – omfattande sorter och stammar, som Orginalutsädesnämden förklarats berättigade till statsplombering sesongen 1960–1961. (Official Swedish list of cultivars.) Helsingborg: Orginalutsädesnämden, Schmidts Boktryckeri AB (Abstract in English).Google Scholar
Plucknett, DL, Smith, NJH, Williams, JT and Anishetty, NM (1987) Gene Banks and the World's Food. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2014) R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at http://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
SESTO (2017) SESTO Genebank management system. Available at http://sesto.nordgen.org/sesto.Google Scholar
Solberg, SØ and Breian, L (2015) Commercial cultivars and farmers’ access to crop diversity: a case study from the Nordic region. Agricultural and Food Science 24: 150–163.Google Scholar
Solberg, SO, Yndgaard, F and Palmè, A (2017) Morphological and phenological consequences of ex situ conservation of natural populations of red clover (Trifolium pratense L.). Plant Genetic Resources 15: 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soleri, D and Smith, SE (1995) Morphological and phenological comparisons of two Hopi maize varieties conserved in situ and ex situ. Economical Botany 49: 56–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UPOV (2001) UPOV Guidelines for the Conduct of Tests for Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability TG/37/10. Geneva: International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants.Google Scholar
UPOV (2004) UPOV Guidelines for the Conduct of Tests for Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability TG/48/7. Geneva: International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants.Google Scholar
UPOV (2009) UPOV Guidelines for the Conduct of Tests for Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability TG/89/6. Geneva: International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants.Google Scholar
Van Hintum, TJL and Boukema, IW (1999) Genetic resources of leafy vegetables. In: Lebeda, A and Krístková, E (eds) EUCARPIA Leafy Vegetables ’99. Proceedings of the EUCARPIA Meeting on Leafy Vegetables Genetics and Breeding. Olomouc, Czech Republic: Palacký University, pp. 59–72.Google Scholar
Van Hintum, TJL and Knüpffer, H (1995) Duplication within and between germplasm collections. I. Identifying duplication on the basis of passport data. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 42: 127–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Hintum, TJL and Visser, DL (1995) Duplication within and between germplasm collections. II. Duplication in four European barley collections. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 42: 135–145.Google Scholar
Van Hintum, TJL, Sackville Hamilton, NR, Engels, JMM and van Treuren, R (2002) Accession management strategies: splitting and lumping. In: Engels, JMM, Rao, VR, Brown, AHD and Jackson, MT (eds) Managing Plant Genetic Resources. Wallingford: CABI Publishing, pp. 113–120.Google Scholar
Van Hintum, TJL, van Treuren, R, van de Wiel, CCM, Visser, DL and Vosman, B (2007) The distribution of genetic diversity in a Brassica oleracea genebank collection related to the effects on diversity of regeneration, as measured with AFLPs. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 114: 777–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Treuren, R, Engels, JMM, Hoekstra, R and van Hintum, TJL (2009) Optimization of the composition of crop collections for ex situ conservation. Plant Genetic Resources 7: 185–193.Google Scholar
Walters, C (2004) Principles for preserving germplasm in genebanks. In: Guerrant, E, Havens, K, Maunder, M (eds) Ex situ Plant Conservation: Supporting Species Survival in the Wild. Covelo, California: Island Press, pp. 442–453.Google Scholar