4.7 Article

SILVOLIVE, a Germplasm Collection of Wild Subspecies With High Genetic Variability as a Source of Rootstocks and Resistance Genes for Olive Breeding

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PLANT SCIENCE
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00629

关键词

Olea europaea; wild germplasm; molecular markers; genetic variability; vigor; branching; rootstock; grafting

资金

  1. Spanish National Research Council Proyectos Intramurales [RECUPERA-2020, 20134R089, 201600200066 29]
  2. [CSIC-201640E069]
  3. [CSIC-201740E041]
  4. [CSIC-201940E077]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wild subspecies ofOlea europaeaconstitute a source of genetic variability with huge potential for olive breeding to face global changes in Mediterranean-climate regions. We intend to identify wild olive genotypes with optimal adaptability to different environmental conditions to serve as a source of rootstocks and resistance genes for olive breeding. The SILVOLIVE collection includes 146 wild genotypes representative of the sixO. europaeasubspecies and early-generations hybrids. These genotypes came either from olive germplasm collections or from direct prospection in Spain, continental Africa and the Macaronesian archipelago. The collection was genotyped with plastid and nuclear markers, confirming the origin of the genotypes and their high genetic variability. Morphological and architectural parameters were quantified in 103 genotypes allowing the identification of three major groups of correlative traits including vigor, branching habits and the belowground-to-aboveground ratio. The occurrence of strong phenotypic variability in these traits within the germplasm collection has been shown. Furthermore, wild olive relatives are of great significance to be used as rootstocks for olive cultivation. Thus, as a proof of concept, different wild genotypes used as rootstocks were shown to regulate vigor parameters of the grafted cultivar Picual scion, which could improve the productivity of high-density hedgerow orchards.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据