Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution

, Volume 66, Issue 1, pp 17–25 | Cite as

Genetic diversity of Finnish home garden rhubarbs (Rheum spp.) assessed by simple sequence repeat markers

  • Pirjo TanhuanpääEmail author
  • Terhi Suojala-Ahlfors
  • Merja Hartikainen
Research Article


Rhubarb samples were collected from home gardens all around Finland to study their genetic diversity. Altogether, the study contained 647 samples, of which 539 were from home gardens. In addition, reference cultivars and samples from the Finnish national collection of rhubarb genetic resources located in the Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) were included. Six SSRs, which amplified a total of 80 alleles, were used to calculate genetic distances between samples, and a dendrogram was built. The most common cultivar among the rhubarbs from Finnish home gardens (57%) was identical to ‘Queen Victoria’ in the Luke collection. Thirty-eight samples (7%) from citizens were identical to ‘The Sutton’ and ‘Strawberry’, which on the other hand were identical to each other. We detected misidentifications of rhubarb cultivars in our study. Under the same cultivar name there might be different genotypes, for example ‘Victoria’ was very heterogeneous. On the other hand, cultivars with different names may have the same genotype e.g. ‘Strawberry’ and ‘The Sutton’. In addition to providing information about genetic variability of rhubarbs in home gardens, the results of the study were used to update the Finnish national collection of rhubarb genetic resources: to remove duplicates, and to replace accessions of unknown origin with new polymorphic ones with more accurate information of their history. As far as we know, this is the first study where rhubarb samples have been collected widely from home gardens and evaluated with DNA markers.


Rhubarb Genetic diversity Simple sequence repeat (SSR) Cultivar identity 



The authors wish to thank Marja-Riitta Arajärvi, Sirpa Moisander and Anneli Virta for excellent technical assistance. Finnish citizens and nurseries, as well as Morten Rasmussen (Norwegian Genetic Resource Centre), Lars Jacobsen (Aarhus University), Barbara Hellier (USDA-ARS Western Regional Plant Introduction Station), and the Finnish Plant Genetic Resources Programme are thanked for providing us the plant material. Pentti Alanko and Leena Lindén (University of Helsinki) are thanked for giving old plant catalogues and collecting information from the catalogues. The assistance of Maarit Heinonen for preparing the rhubarb call, Teija Tenhola-Roininen for selecting samples from the registered plants, and the coordinator of the Finnish Plant Genetic Resources Programme, Elina Kiviharju, for giving valuable comments to the manuscript is greatly appreciated. The Ministry of Education and Culture, Maiju ja Yrjö Rikalan Puutarhasäätiö, and Finnish Plant Genetic Resources Programme are acknowledged for the financial support of the study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10722_2018_692_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (254 kb)
Online Resource 1 The dendrogram of 647 rhubarb samples (with the names of the municipalities where they were grown, or cultivar names), of which 539 were collected from Finnish home gardens. Reference cultivars are marked with blue, samples from the Finnish national collection of rhubarb genetic resources with red, and samples from Finnish nurseries with green. Confidence levels greater or equal to 50% from bootstrap analysis for 1000 replicates are indicated (PDF 255 kb)


  1. Abuzayed M, El-Dabba N, Frary A, Doganlar S (2017) GDdom: an online tool for calculation of dominant marker gene diversity. Biochem Genet 55:155–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chin TC, Youngken HW (1947) The cytotaxonomy of Rheum. Am J Bot 34:401–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Eneroth O (1860) Kasvutarha-kirja rahvaan hyödyksi. GW Wilén, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  4. Englund R (1983) Odlad rabarber och taxonomiska problem inom släktet Rheum, speciellt sektionen Rhapontica. Report, Dept. of Systematic Botany, Uppsala University, Sweden (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  5. Foust CM (1992) Rhubarb: the wondrous drug. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gilmore BS, Bassil NV, Barney DL, Knaus BJ, Hummer KE (2014) Short-read DNA sequencing yields microsatellite markers for Rheum. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 139(1):22–29Google Scholar
  7. Hintze S (1951) Rabarber. In: Svensk växtförädling Del II Trädgårdsväxterna Skogsväxterna. Natur och Kultur, Stockholm, pp 389–391 (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  8. Kuhl JC, DeBoer VL (2008) Genetic diversity of rhubarb cultivars. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 133(4):587–592Google Scholar
  9. Libert B, Englund R (1989) Present distribution and ecology of Rheum rhaponticum (Polygonaceae). Willdenowia Bd 19, H 1:91–98Google Scholar
  10. Lozina-Lozinskaja AS (1936) Sistematiceskij obzor dikorastuscich vidov roda Rheum L. Trudy Bot Inst Akad Nauk SSSR, Ser. 1. Fl Sist Vyss Rast 3:67–141Google Scholar
  11. Pantoja A, Kuhl JC (2009) Morphologic variation in the USDA/ARS rhubarb germplasm collection. Plant Genet Resour-C 8(1):35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Perrier X, Jacquemoud-Collet JP (2006). DARwin software.
  13. Persson HA, Rumpunen K, Möllerstedt LK (2000) Identification of culinary rhubarb (Rheum spp.) cultivars using morphological characterization and RAPD markers. J Hortic Sci Biotechnol 75(6):684–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Roldan-Ruiz I, Dendauw J, Bockstaele EV, Depicker A, Loose MD (2000) AFLP markers reveal high polymorphic rates in ryegrass (Lolium spp.). Mol Breed 6:125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rumpunen K, Henriksen K (1999) Phytochemical and morphological characterization of seventy-one cultivars and selections of culinary rhubarb (Rheum spp.). J Hortic Sci Biotechnol 74(1):13–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ruoff E (2001) Vanhoja suomalaisia puutarhoja. Otavan Kirjapaino Oy, KeuruuGoogle Scholar
  17. Saitou N, Nei M (1987) The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol 4:406–425Google Scholar
  18. Stanev S (1984) Rheum rhaponticum. In: Velchev V (ed) Červena kniga na NR Bǎlgarija 1. –Sofija, p 90Google Scholar
  19. Stocks C (2009) Forgotten fruits: the stories behind Britain’s traditional fruit and vegetables. Windmill Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Stojanoff N (1937) Über die Autochtonität des Rila-Rhabarbers. Izv Carsk Prir Inst Sofija 10:247–258Google Scholar
  21. Tanhuanpää P, Manninen O (2012) High SSR diversity but little differentiation between accessions of Nordic timothy (Phleum pratense L.). Hereditas 149(4):114–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tinker NA, Fortin MG, Mather DE (1993) Random amplified polymorphic DNA and pedigree relationships in spring barley. Theor Appl Genet 85:976–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Turner DM (1938) The economic rhubarbs: a historical survey of their cultivation in Britain. J R Hortic Soc 63:355–370Google Scholar
  24. USDA, Agricultural Research Service, National Plant Germplasm System (2018) Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN-Taxonomy). National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland. Accessed 29 Aug 2018
  25. Walkey DGA, Mathews KAM (1979) Rapid cloning propagation of rhubarb (Rheum rhaponticum) from meristem-tips in tissue culture. Plant Sci Lett 14:301–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wang A, Yang M, Liu J (2005) Molecular phylogeny, recent radiation and evolution of gross morphology of the rhubarb genus Rheum (Polygonaceae) inferred from chloroplast DNA trnL-F sequences. Ann Bot 96:489–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zandstra BH, Marshall DE (1982) A grower’s guide to rhubarb production. Am Veg Grower 30(6):9–10Google Scholar
  28. Zhang D-Y, Chen N, Yang Y-Z, Zhang Q, Liu J-Q (2008) Development of 10 microsatellite loci for Rheum tanguticum (Polygonaceae). Conserv Genet 9:475–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pirjo Tanhuanpää
    • 1
    Email author
  • Terhi Suojala-Ahlfors
    • 1
  • Merja Hartikainen
    • 1
  1. 1.Production Systems, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke)JokioinenFinland

Personalised recommendations