Difference in Pollen Donor Composition During the Early Phases of Reproduction as Revealed by DNA Analysis of Pollen Grains and Seeds in the Monoecious Tree Castanea crenata

Part of the Ecological Research Monographs book series (ECOLOGICAL)


In plants, pollen donor composition can differ during the early phases of reproduction through various selection mechanisms favoring self-pollen, related-pollen, or nonrelated-pollen donors, but such differences have not been examined under natural conditions because paternity is difficult to analyze in a natural setting. Therefore, we performed paternity analyses based on the relatively simple technique of microsatellite genotyping by amplifying the DNA from individual pollen grains deposited on female flowers and seeds to evaluate pollen donor composition from three individual trees of the insect-pollinated monoecious tree Castanea crenata in a natural forest. Spatial genetic structure was also investigated. A mean self-pollen rate of 90.2% was observed at the pollination stage, but a low selfing rate of 0.3% was observed at the seed stage. In outcross events, however, pairwise distance and relatedness between maternal and paternal parents were not different between the pollination and seed stages. In our natural population, we observed significant positive relatedness, based on clear fine-scale genetic structure, of individual trees within 80 m of one another, and 71% of the seeds were derived using pollen grains of related trees within 80 m. The results suggest that the mechanism of self-incompatibility strongly avoids self-pollen before seed production. On the other hand, the avoidance of biparental inbreeding was not obvious between the pollination and seed stages.


Female Flower Inbreeding Depression Pollen Donor Maternal Tree Paternity Analysis 


  1. Ashman TL, Knight TM, Steets JA, Amarasekare P, Burd M, Campbell DR, Dudash MR, Johnston MO, Mazer SJ, Mitchell RJ, Morgan MT, Wilson WG (2004) Pollen limitation of plant reproduction: ecological and evolutionary causes and consequences. Ecology 85:2408–2421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aziz AN, Sauve RJ (2008) Genetic mapping of Echinacea purpurea via individual pollen DNA fingerprinting. Mol Breed 21:227–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aziz AN, Seabrook JEA, Tai GCC (1999) Amplification of RAPD markers from single pollen grains of diploid (2N=2X=24) potato. Am J Potato Res 76:179–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateman AJ (1956) Cryptic self-incompatibility in the wallflower: Cheiranthus cheiri L. Heredity 10:257–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buck EJ, Hadonou M, James CJ, Blakesley D, Russell K (2003) Isolation and characterization of polymorphic microsatellites in European chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.). Mol Ecol Notes 3:239–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burd M (1994) Bateman’s principle and plant reproduction: the role of pollen limitation in fruit and seed set. Bot Rev 60:83–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen PH, Pan YB, Chen RK (2008) High-throughput procedure for single pollen grain collection and polymerase chain reaction in plants. J Integr Plant Biol 50:375–383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cozzolino S, Schiestl FP, Muller A, De Castro O, Nardella AM, Widmer A (2005) Evidence for pollinator sharing in Mediterranean nectar-mimic orchids: absence of premating barriers? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 272:1271–1278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Jong TJ, Waser NM, Klinkhamer PGL (1993) Geitonogamy: the neglected side of selfing. Trends Ecol Evol 8:321–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Nettancourt D (1997) Incompatibility in angiosperms. Sex Plant Reprod 10:185–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Oliveira D, Gomes A, Ilharco FA, Manteigas AM, Pinto J, Ramalho J (2001) Importance of insect pollinators for the production in the chestnut, Castanea sativa. Acta Hortic 561:269–273Google Scholar
  12. Frankie GW, Opler PA, Bawa KS (1976) Foraging behavior of solitary bees: implications for outcrossing of a Neotropical forest tree species. J Ecol 64:1049–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glaettli M, Pescatore L, Goudet J (2006) Proximity-dependent pollen performance in Silene vulgaris. Ann Bot 98:431–437CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hardy OJ, Vekemans X (2002) SPAGeDi: a versatile computer program to analyse spatial genetic structure at the individual or population levels. Mol Ecol Notes 2:618–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hasegawa Y, Suyama Y, Seiwa K (2009) Pollen donor composition during the early phases of reproduction revealed by DNA genotyping of pollen grains and seeds of Castanea crenata. New Phytol 182:994–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Herlihy CR, Eckert CG (2004) Experimental dissection of inbreeding and its adaptive significance in a flowering plant, Aquilegia canadensis (Ranunculaceae). Evolution 58:2693–2703PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Heschel MS, Paige KN (1995) Inbreeding depression, environmental stress, and population size variation in scarlet gilia (Ipomopsis aggregata). Conserv Biol 9:126–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heywood JS (1993) Biparental inbreeding depression in the self-incompatible annual plant Gaillardia pulchella (Asteraceae). Am J Bot 80:545–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Isagi Y, Saito D, Kawaguchi H, Tateno R, Watanabe S (2007) Effective pollen dispersal is enhanced by the genetic structure of an Aesculus turbinata population. J Ecol 95:983–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ishida K (2006) Maintenance of inbreeding depression in a highly self-fertilizing tree, Magnolia obovata Thunb. Evol Ecol 20:173–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ito M, Suyama Y, Ohsawa TA, Watano Y (2008) Airborne-pollen pool and mating pattern in a hybrid zone between Pinus pumila and P. parviflora var. pentaphylla. Mol Ecol 17:5092–5103CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jaynes RA (1975) Chestnuts. In: Janick J, Moore JN (eds) Advances in fruit breeding. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, IN, pp 490–499Google Scholar
  23. Kawagoe T, Suzuki N (2005) Self-pollen on a stigma interferes with outcrossed seed production in a self-incompatible monoecious plant, Akebia quinata (Lardizabalaceae). Funct Ecol 19:49–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klinac DJ, Lelieveld JF, Knowles RD (1995) Time of flowering and pollination in some New Zealand chestnut selections, and introduced cultivars. N Z J Crop Hortic Sci 23:331–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koelewijn HP, Koski V, Savolainen O (1999) Magnitude and timing of inbreeding depression in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). Evolution 53:758–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Larson BMH, Barrett SCH (2000) A comparative analysis of pollen limitation in flowering plants. Biol J Linn Soc 69:503–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marinoni D, Akkak A, Bounous G, Edwards KJ, Botta R (2003) Development and characterization of microsatellite markers in Castanea sativa (Mill.). Mol Breed 11:127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marshall DL, Folsom MW (1991) Mate choice in plants: an anatomical to population perspective. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 22:37–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marshall TC, Slate J, Kruuk LEB, Pemberton JM (1998) Statistical confidence for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Mol Ecol 7:639–655CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Matsuki Y, Isagi Y, Suyama Y (2007) The determination of multiple microsatellite genotypes and DNA sequences from a single pollen grain. Mol Ecol Notes 7:194–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Matsuki Y, Tateno R, Shibata M, Isagi Y (2008) Pollination efficiencies of flower-visiting insects as determined by direct genetic analysis of pollen origin. Am J Bot 95:925–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Matsumoto T, Takakura K, Nishida T (2010) Alien pollen grains interfere with the reproductive success of native congener. Biol Invasions 12:1617–1626Google Scholar
  33. Matsunaga S, Schutze K, Donnison IS, Grant SR, Kuroiwa T, Kawano S (1999) Single pollen typing combined with laser-mediated manipulation. Plant J 20:371–378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Morgan MT (2001) Consequences of life history for inbreeding depression and mating system evolution in plants. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 268:1817–1824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nakamura M (1992) Structure of stigma and germination of pollen in Japanese chestnut (Castanea crenata Sieb. et Zucc.). J Jpn Soc Hortic Sci 61:295–302 (in Japanese with English abstract)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nakamura M (2003) Fertilization and in vitro growth of ovules in Japanese chestnut (Castanea crenata Sieb. et Zucc.). J Jpn Soc Hortic Sci 72:482–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nason JD, Ellstrand NC (1995) Lifetime estimates of biparental inbreeding depression in the self-incompatible annual plant Raphanus sativus. Evolution 49:307–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Paffetti D, Vettori C, Caramelli D, Vernesi C, Lari M, Paganelli A, Paule L, Giannini R (2007) Unexpected presence of Fagus orientalis complex in Italy as inferred from 45,000-year-old DNA pollen samples from Venice lagoon. BMC Evol Biol 7:S6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Parducci L, Suyama Y, Lascoux M, Bennett KD (2005) Ancient DNA from pollen: a genetic record of population history in Scots pine. Mol Ecol 14:2873–2882CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Petersen G, Johansen B, Seberg O (1996) PCR and sequencing from a single pollen grain. Plant Mol Biol 31:189–191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. R Development Core Team (2006) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  42. Richards CM (2000) Inbreeding depression and genetic rescue in a plant metapopulation. Am Nat 155:383–394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Sakai S (2007) A new hypothesis for the evolution of overproduction of ovules: an advantage of selective abortion for females not associated with variation in genetic quality of the resulting seeds. Evolution 61:984–993CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Seavey SR, Bawa KS (1986) Late-acting self-incompatibility in angiosperms. Bot Rev 52:195–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Seiwa K, Watanabe A, Irie K, Kanno H, Saitoh T, Akasaka S (2002) Impact of site-induced mouse caching and transport behaviour on regeneration in Castanea crenata. J Veg Sci 13:517–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Souto CP, Aizen MA, Premoli AC (2002) Effects of crossing distance and genetic relatedness on pollen performance in Alstroemeria aurea (Alstroemeriaceae). Am J Bot 89:427–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Suyama Y, Kawamuro K, Kinoshita I, Yoshimura K, Tsumura Y, Takahara H (1996) DNA sequence from a fossil pollen of Abies spp. from Pleistocene peat. Genes Genet Syst 71:145–149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Terabaru M, Yamazaki M, Kanou K, Suyama Y, Seiwa K (2004) Influence of topographic positions on tree distribution patterns in a temperate broad-leaved deciduous forest. Bull Integr Field Sci Cent 20:21–26 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  49. Ubukata M, Itahana N, Kohono K (1999) Examination of the mating system of Mizunara (Quercus mongolica var. grosseserrata) in a natural stand based on spatial genetic structure and inbreeding depression. J Jpn For Soc 81:280–285 (in Japanese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  50. Wang JL (2002) An estimator for pairwise relatedness using molecular markers. Genetics 160:1203–1215PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Waser NM, Price MV (1993) Crossing distance effects on prezygotic performance in plants: an argument for female choice. Oikos 68:303–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Widmer A, Cozzolino S, Pellegrino G, Soliva M, Dafni A (2000) Molecular analysis of orchid pollinaria and pollinaria-remains found on insects. Mol Ecol 9:1911–1914CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Wilcock C, Neiland R (2002) Pollination failure in plants: why it happens and when it matters. Trends Plant Sci 7:270–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Yamamoto T, Tanaka T, Kotobuki K, Matsuta N, Suzuki M, Hayashi T (2003) Characterization of simple sequence repeats in Japanese chestnut. J Hortic Sci Biotechnol 78:197–203Google Scholar
  55. Zhou LJ, Pei KQ, Zhou B, Ma KP (2007) A molecular approach to species identification of Chenopodiaceae pollen grains in surface soil. Am J Bot 94:477–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ziegenhagen B, Schauerte M, Kormutak A, Scholz F (1996) Plastid DNA polymorphism of megagametophytes and pollen in two Abies species. Silvae Genet 45:355–358Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yoichi Hasegawa
    • 1
  • Yoshihisa Suyama
    • 2
  • Kenji Seiwa
    • 2
  1. 1.Rice Quality Team, National Institute of Crop Science (NICS)National Agriculture and Food Research Organization (NARO)TsukubaJapan
  2. 2.Laboratory of Forest Ecology, Graduate School of Agricultural ScienceTohoku UniversityOsakiJapan

Personalised recommendations