Skip to main content
Log in

Origin and relationships of New Zealand chestnut (Castanea sp.Fagaceae) selections reflect patterns of graft failure

  • Published:
Plant Systematics and Evolution Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Graft failure that occurs in the clonal propagation of chestnuts is a practical problem which has arisen in recent years. Several hypotheses have been put forward to explain reasons for the failure but none have focused on origin and relationships of cultivars. This study was carried out to determine whether relationships of New Zealand chestnut selections and their origin reflect patterns of graft failure within the selections. Two different character data sets, random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) and morpho-nut, were employed for the analyses of the relationships between the chestnut selections. Four different analyses were done to generate trees depicting the relationships of the selections. These were: morpho-nut character, RAPD character, taxonomic congruence (combination of morpho-nut and RAPD trees), and character congruence (combination of morpho-nut and RAPD data sets). When graft failure data were mapped onto the majority rule consensus tree constructed from character congruence analysis, it was found that self graft incompatibility was reflected in the origin and relationships of the chestnut selections. Information on the affinities of the chestnut selections to introduced chestnut species showed that the selections that were mostly implicated in graft failure which are from the North Island had affinities with theCastanea crenata species. But the selections (from the South Island) that were placed withCastanea sativa as well as hybrids (“1002” and “1007” from the North Island) ofCastanea mollissima andC. crenata had no failed grafts. This finding indicates that graft failure in New Zealand chestnut selections does not occur by chance but is dependent on the origin and/or evolutionary history of the selections.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desvignes J. C. (1989) Progression of cherry leaf roll virus through walnuts and the formation of black line -2éme Colloque Noyer-Noisetier, Agrimed Bordeaux Public CEE EUR 12005: 17–23. [In French]

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle J. J., Doyle J. R. (1987) A rapid DNA isolation procedure for small quantities of fresh tissue. Phytochem. Bull. 19: 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faith D. P., Cranston P. S. (1991) Could a cladogram this short have arisen by chance alone? On permutation tests for cladistic structure. Cladistics 7: 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsbrough G. (1990) A beginner's guide to chestnut growing. Hilton Press, Auckland, New Zealand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy M. B. (1960) The propagation of Chinese chestnut trees. Rep. Annual N. Nut Growers' Assoc. 51: 36–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howat J. I. (1992) History and structure of the NZ chestnut industry. In: Proceedings of the NZ Chestnut Conference, Hamilton, New Zealand, pp. 1–10. Hort Research Conference hall, Hamilton, New Zealand Chestnut Council Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang H. H., Norton J. D., Boyhan G. E., Abrahams B. R. (1994) Graft compatibility among chestnut (Castanea) species. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 119: 1127–1132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaynes R. A. (1961) Genetic and cytological studies in the genusCastanea Doctoral Dissertation. Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim K. J., Jansen R. K. (1994) Comparisons of phylogenetic hypotheses among different data sets in dwarf dandelions (Kirgia, Asteraceae): additional information from internal transcribed spacer sequences of nuclear ribosomal DNA. Plant Syst. Evol. 190: 157–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klinac D. J., Lelieveld J. F., Knowles R. D. (1995). Time of flowering and pollination in some New Zealand chestnut selections, and introduced cultivars. New Zealand J. Crop Hort. Sci. 23: 331–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluge A. G. (1989) A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships amongEpicrates (Boidae,Serpentes). Syst. Zool. 18: 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanyon S. M. (1993) Phylogenetic frameworks: Towards a firmer foundation for the comparative approach. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 49: 45–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddison W. P., Maddison D. R. (1993) MacClade 3.1 Interactive analysis of phylogeny and character evolution. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minitab (1994) Release 10.1 Computer Services Centre, Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson G. J., Plantnick N. (1981) Systematics and biogeography: Cladistics and vicariance. Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oraguzie N. C. (1997) Phylogenetic relationships among New Zealand chestnut selections and the relationships with graft failure. Ph. D. Thesis, Lincoln University, New Zealand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oraguzie N. C., McNeil D. L., Klinac D. J., Knowles R. D., Sedcole R. J. (1998a) Relationships of chestnut species and New Zealand chestnut selections using morpho-nut characters. Euphytica 99: 27–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oraguzie N. C., McNeil D. L., Paterson A. M., Chapman H. (1998b) Comparison of RAPD and morpho-nut characters for revealing genetic relationships between chestnut species and New Zealand chestnut selections. New Zealand J. Crop Hort. Sci. 26: 109–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oraguzie N. C., McNeil D. L., Thomas M. B. (1998c) Examination of graft failure in New Zealand chestnut selections. Sci. Hort. 76: 89–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page R. D. M. (1990) Component analysis: a valiant failure? Cladistics 6: 119–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page R. D. M. (1992) Component user manual (Release 2.0). Natural History Museum, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohlf F. J. (1982) Consensus indices for comparing classifications. Math. Biosci. 59: 131–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutter P. A., Miller G., Payne J. A. (1990) Chestnuts (Castanea) Acta Hort. 290: 761–768.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer H. B., Clark J. M., Kraus F. (1991) When molecules and morphology clash: a phylogenetic analysis of the North American ambystomatid salamanders (Caudata:Ambystomatidae). Syst. Zool. 40: 284–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swofford D. L. (1993) PAUP: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, version 3.1. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Ill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vane-Wright R. I., Schulz S., Boppre M. (1992) The cladistics ofAmauris butterflies: congruence, consensus and total evidence. Cladistics 8: 125–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams J. G. K., Kubelik A. R., Livak K. J., Rafalaski J. A., Tingey S. V. (1990) DNA polymorphism amplified by arbitrary primers are useful as genetic markers. Nucl. Acids. Res. 18: 6531–6535.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Oraguzie, N.C., Paterson, A.M. & McNeil, D.L. Origin and relationships of New Zealand chestnut (Castanea sp.Fagaceae) selections reflect patterns of graft failure. Pl Syst Evol 218, 193–204 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01089227

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01089227

Key words

Navigation