New Forests

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 205–212 | Cite as

Inbreeding depression in Eucalyptus tereticornis Sm. due to cleistogamous flowering

  • H. S. Ginwal


A provenance cum progeny trial comprising 13 provenances and 91 families of Eucalyptus tereticornis Sm. of Australian and Papua New Guinean (PNG) origin was laid out in India in 2002. In one family emanating from CSIRO seed lot no. 13418, (tree no. DS000141) Sirinumu Sogeri Plat, PNG cleistogamy was observed earlier. This trait appears to be under genetic control, and presumably results in obligate selfing. In the present study, the effect of forced selfing, was examined in this family after 48 months of field planting. Severely depressed seed set, germination percent, field growth and survival in relative comparison to other out crossing families was noticed. Inbreeding depression was noticed in growth traits viz. height, clean stem height, DBH, branching and survival per cent, which increased with age. High coefficient of variation was observed in family bearing cleistogamous flowers than the other predominantly out-crossed families.


Cleistogamy Inbreeding depression Selfing Open-pollination Family Tree improvement Eucalyptus tereticornis 



The author is grateful to Dr. Chris Harwood, Australian Seed Center, CSIRO, Canberra, Australia for providing seed lots of Eucalyptus tereticornis for conducting the experiments.


  1. Chaturvedi AN (1973) Rotation in Eucalyptus hybrid plantations. Indian For 99:205–214Google Scholar
  2. Culley TM (2000) Inbreeding depression and floral type fitness differences in Viola canadensis (Violaceae), a species with chasmogamous and cleistogamous flowers. Can J Bot 78:1420–1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Eldridge KG (1978) Genetic improvement of eucalypts. Silvae Genet 27:205–209Google Scholar
  4. Eldridge KG, Griffin AR (1983) Selfing effects in Eucalyptus regnans. Silvae Genet 32:216–221Google Scholar
  5. Eldridge K, Davidson J, Harwood C, Wyk G (1994) Eucalypt domestication and breeding. Clarendon press, Oxford, pp 228–229Google Scholar
  6. Fryxell PA (1957) Mode of reproduction of higher plants. Bot Rev 23:135–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ginwal HS, Kumar P, Sharma VK, Mandal AK, Harwood CE (2004) Genetic variability and early growth performance of Eucalyptus tereticornis Sm. in provenance cum progeny trials in India. Silvae Genet 53(4–5):148–153Google Scholar
  8. Griffin AR (1989) Effects of inbreeding on growth of forest trees and implication for management of seed supplies for plantation programmes. In: Bawa KS, Hadley M (eds) Reproductive ecology of tropical forest plants. UNESCO and The Parthenon Publishing Group, Paris, pp 355–372Google Scholar
  9. Griffin AR, Cotterill PP (1988) Genetic variation in growth of outcrossed, selfed and open-pollinated progenies of Eucalyptus regnans and some implications for breeding strategy. Silvae Genet 37:124–131Google Scholar
  10. Griffin AR, Moran GF, Fripp YJ (1987) Preferential out crossing in Eucalyptus regnans F. Muell. Aust J Bot 35:465–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hardner CM, Potts BM (1995) Inbreeding depression and changes in variation after selfing in Eucalyptus globules ssp. globulus. Silvae Genet 44(1):46–54Google Scholar
  12. Hodgson LM (1976) Some aspects of flowering and reproductive behaviour in Eucalyptus grandis (Hill)) Maiden at J. D. M Keet forest research station. 3. Relative yield, breeding systems, barriers to selfing and general conclusions. S Afr For J 99:53–58Google Scholar
  13. Lopez GA, Potts BM, Tilyard PA (2000) F1 hybrid inviability in Eucalyptus: the case of E.ovata x E.globulus. Heredity 85:242–250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lundkvist K, Eriksson G, Norell L, Ekberg I (1987) Inbreeding depression in two field trials of young Pinus sylvestris (L.). Scand J For Res 2:281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Meskimen G (1983) Realized gain from breeding Eucalyptus grandis in Florida. USDA For Serv Gen Tech Rep PSW 69:121–128Google Scholar
  16. Morgan MT, Schoen DJ, Bataillon TM (1997) The evolution of self-fertilization in perennials. Am Nat 150:618–638CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Okley CG, Winn AA (2008) Population level and family level inbreeding depression in a cleistogamous perennial. Int J Plant Sci 169(4):523–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Potts BM, Sava M (1988) Self incompatibility in Eucalyptus. In: Pollination ‘88’. Plant Cell Biology Research Center, University of MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  19. Potts BM, Potts WC, Cauvin B (1987) Inbreeding and inter-specific hybridization in Eucalyptus gunnii. Silvae Genet 36:194–198Google Scholar
  20. Pryor LD (1976) The biology of Eucalyptus. Edward Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Sedgley M (1989) Ovule and seed development in Eucalyptus woodwardii Maiden (Symphyomyrtus). Bot Gaz 150:271–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sedgley M, Smith RM (1989) Pistil receptivity and pollen tube growth in relation to the breeding system of Eucalyptus woodwardii, (Symphyomyrtus: Myrtaceae). Ann Bot 64:21–32Google Scholar
  23. Sedgley M, Hand FC, Smith RM, Griffin AR (1989) Pollen tube growth and early seed development in Eucalyptus regnans F. Muell. (Myrtaceae) in relation to ovule structure and preferential out crossing. Aust J Bot 37:397–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sharma VK, Ginwal HS, Mandal AK (2005) Cleistogamy in Eucalyptus tereticornis Sm and its genetic implications. Silvae Genet 54(2):46–47Google Scholar
  25. Tibbits WN (1989) Controlled pollination studies with shining gum (Eucalyptus nitens). Forestry 62:111–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Trapp EJ, Hendrix SD (1988) Consequences of a mixed reproductive system in the hog peanut, Amphicarpaea bracteata (Fabaceae). Oecologia 75:285–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Venkatesan KR, Kumarvelu G, Somasundaram K (1986) Tree improvement of Eucalyptus species in Tamilnadu. In: Sharma JK, Nayar TS, Kedharnath S, Kondas SS (eds) Eucalyptus in India: past present and future. Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, pp 290–296Google Scholar
  28. Venkatesh CS (1971) Cleistogamy in Eucalyptus tereticornis Sm. Paper presented at IUFRO working group meeting, Gainesville, FL. USA, March, 14–20Google Scholar
  29. Venkatesh CS, Arya RS, Sharma VK (1973) Natural selfing in planted Eucalyptus and its estimation. J Plant Crops 1:23–25Google Scholar
  30. Wilcox MD (1983) Inbreeding depression and genetic variances estimated from self and cross pollinated families of Pinus radiata. Silvae Genet 32:89–96Google Scholar
  31. Williams ER, Matheson AC, Harwood CE (2002) Experimental design and analysis for tree improvement, 2nd edn. CSIRO Publishing, Canberra, pp 91–117Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Genetics and Tree PropagationForest Research InstituteDehradunIndia

Personalised recommendations