Advertisement

Euphytica

, Volume 163, Issue 1, pp 45–56 | Cite as

Breeding against Dutch elm disease adapted to the Mediterranean climate

  • Alberto Santini
  • Nicola La Porta
  • Luisa Ghelardini
  • Lorenzo Mittempergher
Article

Abstract

Breeding for resistance was considered one of the possible ways to limit the damages caused by the epidemics of Dutch elm disease (DED) during the last century. The elm breeding program developed by CNR in Italy was based on the idea that the Mediterranean environment would need its own specific selections. A base broadening of the genetic resources was operated. A base of native elms with a set of good characters to act as parents was bred with different Asian elm species that showed the ability of acclimatization to the different climates in which elms have to be planted. For this aim a large collection of elm species was constituted, followed by hybridisation studies. Progenies were tested for DED resistance. The more resistant clones were planted in trial fields characterised by contrasting Mediterranean climates in order to select the best potential genotypes adapted either to coastal or to mountain environmental conditions. More than 60 clones resistant, fast-growing and showing remarkable aesthetic ornamental characters were obtained.

Keywords

Dutch elm disease Breeding Resistance Elm Mediterranean climate 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The C.N.R. elm collections could not have been constituted without the help and the sharing spirit of many colleagues from all over the world, to whom our warmest thanks are devoted. In particular we wish to thank Hans M. Heybroek, Eugene B. Smalley, Raymond P. Guries, Alden M. Townsend, and Frank S. Santamour Jr.. The unique technical assistance of Mr. Fabio Ferrini, Mr. Alberto Fagnani and Mr. Abdellah Dahmani made possible the realisation of this 30-year-long work. Authors wish to thank Dr. Stefano Vagniluca and Dr. Luciano Sammarone of the Corpo forestale dello Stato UTB Follonica (GR) and UTB Castel di Sangro (AQ) respectively, for having provided and taken care of the experimental fields.

Authors wish to thank Hans M. Heybroek and Eric Collin for the critical review of the paper, for their friendship and for all the useful suggestions along these years.

References

  1. Brasier CM (2000) Intercontinental spread and continuing evolution of the Dutch elm disease pathogens. In: Dunn CP (ed) The elms: breeding, conservation, and disease management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  2. Brasier CM, Kirk SA (2001) Designation of the EAN and NAN races of Ophiostoma ulmi as subspecies. Mycol Res 105:547–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cogolludo-Agustiân MA, Aguâ Ndezà D, Gil L (2000) Identification of native and hybrid elms in Spain using isozyme gene markers. Heredity 85:157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collin E, Bilger I, Eriksson G, Turok J (2000) The conservation of elm genetic resources in Europe. In: Dunn CP (ed) The elms: breeding, conservation and disease management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  5. Cox TS, Wood D (1999) The nature and role of crop biodiversity. In: Wood D, Lenne JM (eds) Agrobiodiversity: characterization, utilization, and management. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
  6. Diaz J, Schmiediche P, Austin DF (1996) Polygon of crossability between eleven species of Ipomoea: section Batatas (convolvulaceae). Euphytica 88:189–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goodall-Copestake WP, Hollingsworth ML, Hollingsworth PM, Jenkins GI, Collin E (2005) Molecular markers and ex situ conservation of the European elms (Ulmus spp.). Biol Cons 122:537–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grant V (1981) Plant speciation, 2nd edn. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Guries RP (2001) Elms: past, present, and future. In: Ash CL (ed) Proceeding of national conference on wilt diseases of shade trees. St. Paul, Minnesota 25–28 August 1999, USA, APS Press pp 29–36Google Scholar
  10. Heslop-Harrison J, Heslop-Harrison Y (1970) Evaluation of pollen viability by enzymatically induced fluorescence; intracellular hydrolysis of fluorescein diacetate. Stain Technol 45:115–120PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Heslop-Harrison J, Heslop-Harrison Y, Shivanna KR (1984) The evaluation of pollen quality and a further appraisal of the fluorochromatic (FCR) test procedure. Theor Appl Genet 67:367–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heybroek HM (1993) The Dutch elm breeding program. In: Sticklen MB, Sherald JL (eds) Dutch elm disease. Cellular and molecular approaches. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Heybroek HM (2000) Notes on elm breeding and genetics. In: Dunn CP (ed) The elms: breeding, conservation, and disease management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  14. Kobori S, Marubashi W (2004) Programmed cell death detected in interspecific hybrids of Nicotiana repanda × N tomentosiformis expressing hybrid lethality. Breed Sci 54:347–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lopez-Almansa JC, Yeung EC, Gil L (2004) Abortive seed development in Ulmus minor (Ulmaceae). Bot J Linn Soc 145:455–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mittempergher L, La Porta N (1991). Hybridisation studies in the Eurasian species of elm (Ulmus spp.). Silvae gen 40:237–243Google Scholar
  17. Mittempergher L (2000) Elm yellows in Europe. In: Dunn CP (ed) The elms: breeding, conservation, and disease management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  18. Mittempergher L, Santini A (2004) The history of elm breeding. Invest Agrar: Sist Recur For 13:161–177Google Scholar
  19. Phillips LL (1977) Interspecific incompatibility in Gossypium .4. Temperature-conditional lethality in hybrids of G-klotzschianum. Am J Bot 64:914–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Riesenberg LH, Ellstrand NC (1993) What can molecular and morphological markers tell us about plant hybridisation? Crit Rev Plant Sci 12:213–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rohring E (1996) Elms in Europe: ecology and Dutch elm disease. Forstarchiv 67:179–198Google Scholar
  22. Santini A, Fagnani A, Ferrini F, Mittempergher L (2002) San Zanobi and Plinio elmtrees. Hortscience 37:1139–1141Google Scholar
  23. Santini A, Fagnani A, Ferrini F, Ghelardini L, Mittempergher L (2007) ‘Fiorente’ and ‘Arno’ Elm trees. Hortscience 42(3):712–714Google Scholar
  24. Sholtz HF (1957) Rock elm (Ulmus thomasii). Lake States For Exp Sta Paper 47:16Google Scholar
  25. Simmonds NW (1993) Introgression and incorporation. Strategies for the use of crop genetic resources. Biol Rev 68:539–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Smalley EB, Guries RP (1993) Breeding elms for resistance to Dutch elm disease. Annu Rev Phytopathol 31:325–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tanksley SD, McCouch SR (1997) Seed banks and molecular maps: unlocking genetic potential from the wild. Science 277:1063–1066PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tezuka T, Marubashi W (2006) Hybrid lethality in interspecific hybrids between Nicotiana tabacum and N. suaveolens: evidence that the Q chromosome causes hybrid lethality based on Q-chromosome-specific DNA markers. Theor Appl Genet 112:1172–1178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thymer JM, Simberloff D (1996) Extinction by hybridisation. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 27:83–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alberto Santini
    • 1
  • Nicola La Porta
    • 2
  • Luisa Ghelardini
    • 1
  • Lorenzo Mittempergher
    • 1
  1. 1.Istituto per la Protezione delle Piante – C.N.RSesto fiorentinoItaly
  2. 2.IASMA Research Center Department of Natural ResourcesS. Michele a/AItaly

Personalised recommendations