Folia Geobotanica

, 41:323 | Cite as

Mating interactions between coexisting dipoloid, triploid and tetraploid cytotypes ofHieracium Echioides (Asteraceae)

  • Tomáš Peckert
  • Jindřich Chrtek


Experimental crosses between diploids, triploids and tetraploids ofHieracium echioides were made to examine mating interactions. Specifically, cytotype diversity in progeny from experimental crosses, intercytotype pollen competition as a reproductive barrier between diploids and tetraploids, and differences in seed set between intra- and intercytotype crosses were studied. Only diploids were found in progeny from 2x × 2x crosses. The other types of crosses yielded more than one cytotype in progeny, but one cytotype predominated in each cross type: diploids (92%) in 2x × 3x crosses, tetraploids (88%) in 3x × 2x crosses, triploids (96%) in 2x × 4x crosses, triploids (90%) in 4x × 2x crosses, tetraploids (60%) in 3x × 3x crosses, pentaploids (56%) in 3x × 4x crosses, triploids (80%) in 4x × 3x crosses and tetraploids (88%) in 4x × 4x crosses. No aneuploids have been detected among karyologically analyzed plants. Unreduced egg cell production was detected in triploids and tetraploids, but formation of unreduced pollen was recorded only in two cases in triploids. Triploid plants produced x, 2x and 3x gametes: in male gametes x (92%) gametes predominated whereas in female gametes 3x (88%) gametes predominated.

Cytotype diversity in progeny from crosses where diploids and tetraploids were pollinated by mixture of pollen from diploid and tetraploid plants suggested intercytotype pollen competition to serve as a prezygotic reproductive barrier. No statistically significant difference in seed set obtained from intra- and intercytotype crosses between diploids and tetraploids was observed, suggesting the absence of postzygotic reproductive barriers among cytotypes.


Hieracium subgen Pilosella Pollen competition Reproductive barriers Unreduced gametes 


  1. Averett J.E. (1980): Polyploidy in plant taxa: summary. In:Lewis W.H. (ed.),Polyploidy, biological relevance, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 269–273.Google Scholar
  2. Bräutigam S. (1992):Hieracium L. In:Meusel H. &JäGER E.J. (eds.),Vergleichende Chorologie der zentraleuropäischen Flora 3, Gustav Fischer, Jena, Stuttgart et New York, pp. 325–333, 550–560.Google Scholar
  3. Bräutigam S. &Bräutigam E. (1996): Determination of the ploidy level in the genusHieracium subgenusPilosella (HILL)S.F. Gray by flow cytometric DNA analysis.Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 31: 315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bretagnolle F. &Thompson J.D. (1995): Tansley review no. 78. Gametes with the somatic chromosome number: mechanisms of their formation and role in the evolution of autopolyploid plants.New Phytol. 129: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bretagnolle F. &Thompson J.D. (1996): An experimental study of ecological differences in winter growth between sympatric diploid and autotetraploidDactylis glomerata.J. Ecol. 84: 343–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burton T.L. &Husband B.C. (2000): Fitness differences among diploids, tetraploids, and their triploid progeny inChamerion angustifolium: Mechanisms of inviability and implications for polyploid evolution.Evolution 54: 1182–1191.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Burton T.L. &Husband B.C. (2001): Fecundity and offspring ploidy in matings among diploid, triploid and tetraploidChamerion angustifolium (Onagraceae): consequences for tetraploid establishment.Heredity 87: 573–582.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Wet J.M.J. (1980): Origins of polyploids. In:Lewis W.H. (ed.),Polyploidy, biological relevance, Plenum, New York, pp. 3–16.Google Scholar
  9. Dyer A.F. (1963): The use of lacto-propionic orcein in rapid squash methods for chromosome preparations.Stain Technol. 38: 85–90.Google Scholar
  10. Felber F. (1991): Establishment of a tetraploid cytotype in a diploid population: effect of relative fitness of the cytotypes.J. Evol. Biol. 4: 195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fowler N.L. &Levin D.A. (1984): Ecological constraints on the establishment of a novel polyploid in competition with its diploid progenitor.Amer. Naturalist 124: 703–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gadella T.W.J. (1987): Sexual tetraploid and apomictic pentaploid populations ofHieracium pilosella (Compositae).Pl. Syst. Evol. 157: 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gadella T.W.J. (1988): Some notes on the origin of polyploidy inHieracium pilosella aggr.Acta Bot. Neerl. 37: 515–522.Google Scholar
  14. Gadella T.W.J. (1991): Variation, hybridization and reproductive biology ofHieracium pilosella L.Proc. Kon. Ned. Akad. Wetensch., Ser.C., Biol. Med. Sci. 94: 455–488.Google Scholar
  15. Hardy O.J., Loose M., Vekemans X. &Meerts P. (2001): Allozyme segregation and inter-cytotype reproductive barriers in the polyploid complexCentaurea jacea.Heredity 87: 136–145.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hardy O.J., Vanderhoeven S., de Loose M. &Meerts P. (2000): Ecological, morphological and allozymic differentiation between diploid and tetraploid knapweeds (Centaurea jacea) from a contact zone in the Belgian Ardennes.New Phytol. 146: 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harlan J.R. &De Wet J.M.J. (1975): On Ö. Winge and a prayer: the origins of polyploidy.Bot. Rev. 41: 361–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Husband B.C. (2000): Constraints on polyploid evolution: a test of the minority cytotype exclusion principle.Proc. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. B, Biol. Sci. 267: 217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Husband B.C. (2004): The role of triploid hybrids in the evolutionary dynamics of mixed-ploidy populations.Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 82: 537–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Husband B.C. &Schemske D.W. (1998): Cytotype distribution at a diploid-tetraploid contact zone inChamerion (Epilobium) angustifolium (Onagraceae).Amer. J. Bot. 85: 1688–1694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Husband B.C., Schemske D.W., Burton T.L. &Goodwillie C. (2002): Pollen competition as a unilateral reproductive barrier between sympatric diploid and tetraploidChamerion angustifolium.Proc. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. B, Biol. Sci. 269: 2565–2571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jay M., Reynaud J., Blaise S. &Cartier D. (1991): Evolution and differentiation ofLotus corniculatus/Lotus alpinus populations from French south-western Aps. III. Conclusions.Evol. Trends Pl. 5: 157–160.Google Scholar
  23. Kashin A.S. &Chernishova M.P. (1997): Chastota apomiksisa v populyatsiyakh nekotorykh vidovTaraxacum iHieracium (Asteraceae) (The frequency of apomixis in populations of someTaraxacum andHieracium species (Asteraceae).Bot. Zhurn. 82: 14–24.Google Scholar
  24. Krahulcová A. &Krahulec F. (2000): Offspring diversity inHieracium subgen.Pilosella (Asteraceae): new cytotypes from hybridization experiments and from open pollination.Fragm. Florist. Geobot. 45: 239–255.Google Scholar
  25. Krahulcov’a A., Chrtek J. &Krahulec F. (1999): Autogamy inHieracium subgen.Pilosella. Folia Geobot. 34: 377–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krahulcová A., Krahulec F. &Chapman H.M. (2000): Variation inHieracium subgen.Pilosella (Asteraceae): what do we know about its sources?Folia Geobot. 35: 319–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krahulcová A., Papoušková S. &Krahulec F. (2004): Reproduction mode in the allopolyploid facultatively apomictic hawkweedHieracium rubrum (Asteraceae, H. subgen.Pilosella).Hereditas 141: 19–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levin D.A. (1975): Minority cytotype exclusion in local plant populations.Taxon 24: 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lumaret R. &Barrientos E. (1990): Phylogenetic relationships and gene flow between sympatric diploid and tetraploid plants ofDactylis glomerata (Gramineae).Pl. Syst. Evol. 169: 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lysák M.A. &Dolezel J. (1998): Estimation of nuclear DNA content inSesleria (Poaceae).Caryologia 51: 123–132.Google Scholar
  31. Májovský et al. (1970): Index of chromosome numbers of Slovakian Flóra. Part 2.Acta Fac. Rerum Nat. Univ. Comenianae, Bot. 18: 45–60.Google Scholar
  32. Májovský J., Uhríková A., Javorčíková D., Mičieta K., Králik E., Dúbravcová Z., Feráková V., Murín A., Černušáková D., Hindáková M., Schwarzová T. &Záborský J. (2000): Prvý doplnok karyotaxonomického prehl’adu flóry Slovenska (First supplement to the karyotaxonomical survey of the flora of Slovakia).Acta Fac. Rerum Nat. Univ. Comenianae, Bot. Suppl. 1: 1–127.Google Scholar
  33. Marks G.E. (1966): The origin and significance of intraspecific polyploidy: experimental evidence fromSolanum chacoense.Evolution 20: 552–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Masterson J. (1994): Stomatal size in fossil plants: evidence for polyploidy in majority of angiosperms.Science 264: 421–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Otto F. (1990): DAPi staining of fixed cells for high-resolution flow cytometry of nuclear DNA. In:Crissman H.A. &Darzynkiewicz Z. (eds.),Methods in cell biology 33, Academic Press, New York, pp. 105–110.Google Scholar
  36. Peckert T. (2001): Hieracium echioidesa H. rothianumve střední Evropě (Hieracium echioidesand H. rothianumin Central Europe). Diploma thesis, Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague.Google Scholar
  37. Peckert T., Chrtek J. jun. &Plačková I. (2005): Genetic variation in agamospermous populations ofHieracium echioides (Compositae) in southern Slovakia and northern Hungary (Danube Basin).Preslia 77: 307–315.Google Scholar
  38. Petit C., Bretagnolle F. &Felber F. (1999): Evolutionary consequences of diploid-polyploid hybrid zones in wild species.Trends Ecol. Evol. 14: 306–311.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ramsey J. &Schemske D.W. (1998): Pathways, mechanisms, and rates of polyploid formation in flowering plants.Annual Rev. Ecol. Syst. 29: 467–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Richards A.J. (1997):Plant breeding systems. Ed. 2. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  41. Rodríguez D.J. (1996): A model for the establishment of polyploidy in plants.Amer. Naturalist 147: 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rotreklová O., Krahulcová A., Mráz P., Mrázová V., MáRTONFIOVá L., Peckert T. &Šingliarová B. (2005): Chromosome numbers and breeding systems in some species ofHieracium subgen.Pilosella from Europe.Preslia 77: 177–195.Google Scholar
  43. Rotreklová O., Krahulcová A., Vaňková D., Peckert T. &Mráz P. (2002): Chromosome numbers and breeding systems in some species ofHieracium subgen.Pilosella from Central Europe.Preslia 74: 27–44.Google Scholar
  44. Segraves K.A., Thompson J.N., Soltis P.S. &Soltis D.E. (1999): Multiple origins of polyploidy and the geographic structure ofHeuchera grossulariifolia.Molec. Ecol. 8: 253–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schuhwerk F. &Lippert W. (1997): Chromosomenzahlen vonHieracium (Compositae, Lactuceae) Teil 1.Sendtnera 4: 181–206.Google Scholar
  46. Skalińska M. (1971): Experimental and embryological studies inHieracium aurantiacum L.Acta Biol. Cracov., Ser. Bot. 14: 139–159.Google Scholar
  47. Skalińska M. (1973): Further studies in facultative apomixis ofHieracium aurantiacum L.Acta Biol. Cracov., Ser. Bot. 16: 121–133.Google Scholar
  48. Skalińska M. (1976): Cytological diversity in the progeny of octoploid facultative apomicts ofHieracium aurantiacum L.Acta Biol. Cracov., Ser. Bot. 19: 39–46.Google Scholar
  49. Soltis D.E. (1984): Autopolyploidy inTolmiea menziesii (Saxifragaceae).Amer. J. Bot. 71: 1171–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stebbins G.L. (1950):Variation and evolution in plants. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  51. Thompson J.D. &Lumaret R. (1992): The evolutionary dynamics of polyploid plants: origins, establishment and persistence.Trends Ecol. Evol. 7: 302–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Van Dijk P. &Bakx-Schotman T. (1997): Chloroplast DNA phylogeography and cytotype geography in autopolyploidPlantago media.Molec. Ecol. 6: 345–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yahara T. (1990): Evolution of agamospermous races inBoehmeria andEupatorium.Pl. Spec. Biol. 5: 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Botany, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BotanyCharles UniversityPraha 2Czech Republic
  2. 2.Institute of BotanyAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicPrůhoniceCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations