Skip Navigation


Journal of Heredity Advance Access originally published online on April 13, 2005
Journal of Heredity 2005 96(4):410-416; doi:10.1093/jhered/esi065
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
96/4/410    most recent
esi065v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wassom, J. J.
Right arrow Articles by Tranel, P. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wassom, J. J.
Right arrow Articles by Tranel, P. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The American Genetic Association. 2005. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org.

Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism-Based Genetic Relationships Among Weedy Amaranthus Species

J. J. Wassom, and P. J. Tranel

Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801

Address correspondence to Patrick J. Tranel at the address above, or e-mail: tranel{at}uiuc.edu.

Weedy Amaranthus species frequently cause economically significant reductions in crop yields. Accurate identification of Amaranthus species is important for efficient weed control, but Amaranthus species can interbreed, which might cause difficulty when identifying hybrid-derived specimens. To determine which of several economically important weedy Amaranthus species are most genetically similar, and thus most likely to produce viable hybrids, we performed amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP)-based unweighted pair group method with arithmetic mean (UPGMA) analysis on 8 of these species, with 141 specimens representing 98 accessions. The analysis grouped the specimens into four principal clusters composed of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.) and spiny amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus L.); Powell amaranth (Amaranthus powellii S. Wats.), redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), and smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus L.); waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) Sauer) and sandhills amaranth (Amaranthus arenicola I.M. Johnst.); and tumble pigweed (Amaranthus albus L.). The cluster analysis provided evidence suggesting hybridization among Powell amaranth, redroot pigweed, and smooth pigweed. Further investigations using molecular analysis of the ribosomal internal transcribed spacer region from atypical plants supported this notion. Three species, Palmer amaranth, sandhills amaranth, and waterhemp, are dioecious; nevertheless, the Palmer amaranth and waterhemp–sandhills amaranth clusters were distinct from each other. The Palmer amaranth–spiny amaranth cluster included a cluster of Palmer amaranth and two clusters of spiny amaranth, a monoecious species. Thus the dioecious species Palmer amaranth and waterhemp may not necessarily hybridize with each other more readily than they would to one or more of the monoecious Amaranthus species.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Crop Sci.Home page
M. A. Mallory, R. V. Hall, A. R. McNabb, D. B. Pratt, E. N. Jellen, and P. J. Maughan
Development and Characterization of Microsatellite Markers for the Grain Amaranths
Crop Sci., May 1, 2008; 48(3): 1098 - 1106.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Crop Sci.Home page
A. L. Rayburn, R. McCloskey, T. C. Tatum, G. A. Bollero, M. R. Jeschke, and P. J. Tranel
Genome Size Analysis of Weedy Amaranthus Species
Crop Sci., October 27, 2005; 45(6): 2557 - 2562.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.