| Literature DB >> 26162097 |
Baltazar M Baltazar1, Luciano Castro Espinoza2, Armando Espinoza Banda3, Juan Manuel de la Fuente Martínez4, José Antonio Garzón Tiznado5, Juvencio González García6, Marco Antonio Gutiérrez2, José Luis Guzmán Rodríguez7, Oscar Heredia Díaz4, Michael J Horak1, Jesús Ignacio Madueño Martínez5, Adam W Schapaugh1, Duška Stojšin1, Hugo Raúl Uribe Montes6, Francisco Zavala García7.
Abstract
Mexico, the center of origin of maize (Zea mays L.), has taken actions to preserve the identity and diversity of maize landraces and wild relatives. Historically, spatial isolation has been used in seed production to maintain seed purity. Spatial isolation can also be a key component for a strategy to minimize pollen-mediated gene flow in Mexico between transgenic maize and sexually compatible plants of maize conventional hybrids, landraces, and wild relatives. The objective of this research was to generate field maize-to-maize outcrossing data to help guide coexistence discussions in Mexico. In this study, outcrossing rates were determined and modeled from eight locations in six northern states, which represent the most economically important areas for the cultivation of hybrid maize in Mexico. At each site, pollen source plots were planted with a yellow-kernel maize hybrid and surrounded by plots with a white-kernel conventional maize hybrid (pollen recipient) of the same maturity. Outcrossing rates were then quantified by assessing the number of yellow kernels harvested from white-kernel hybrid plots. The highest outcrossing values were observed near the pollen source (12.9% at 1 m distance). The outcrossing levels declined sharply to 4.6, 2.7, 1.4, 1.0, 0.9, 0.5, and 0.5% as the distance from the pollen source increased to 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 25 m, respectively. At distances beyond 20 m outcrossing values at all locations were below 1%. These trends are consistent with studies conducted in other world regions. The results suggest that coexistence measures that have been implemented in other geographies, such as spatial isolation, would be successful in Mexico to minimize transgenic maize pollen flow to conventional maize hybrids, landraces and wild relatives.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26162097 PMCID: PMC4498909 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131549
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Planting dates, pollen source and pollen recipient areas, and geographic coordinates of each study site.
| Coordinates | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| City and State | Planting date m/d/y | Pollen source area (ha) | Pollen recipient area (ha) | Latitude (N) | Longitude (W) |
| Ciudad Constitución, Baja California Sur | 03/28/2012 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 25° 0' 36" | 111° 39' 48" |
| Mocorito-Pericos, Sinaloa | 03/01/2011 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 24° 59' 51" | 107° 40' 23" |
| Ciudad Obregón, Sonora | 03/12/2011 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 27° 23' 2" | 110° 2' 41" |
| Las Bombas, Chihuahua | 07/09/2011 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 28° 52' 15" | 104° 47' 6" |
| Francisco I Madero, Coahuila | 07/23/2011 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 25° 31' 57'' | 103° 14' 36'' |
| Valle Hermoso, Tamaulipas | 03/18/2012 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 25° 45' 1'' | 97° 47' 42'' |
| Culiacancito, Sinaloa | 01/27/2012 | 5.0 | 0.9 | 24° 49' 13" | 107° 32' 39" |
| Guasave, Sinaloa | 01/25/2013 | 3.9 | 1.2 | 25° 40' 43" | 108° 35' 14" |
1 m/d/y = month/day/year.
2 Experimental trials.
3Pilot trials.
Fig 1Field layout.
(a) An aerial photograph from one of the sites (La Bombas, Chihuahua) and (b) Graphic representation of field layout used across sites to measure outcrossing rates (%) as a function of distance (m).
Average days to flowering of pollen donor (yellow-kernel maize) and pollen recipient (white-kernel maize) during pollination at each site.
| City and State | Pollen donor | Pollen recipient | Anthesis/silking overlap (days) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Days to anthesis | Duration of anthesis | Days to silking | Duration of silking | ||
| Ciudad Constitución, Baja California Sur | 93 | 12 | 94 | 21 | 11 |
| Mocorito-Pericos, Sinaloa | 85 | 10 | 84 | 12 | 10 |
| Ciudad Obregón, Sonora | 80 | 12 | 80 | 7 | 7 |
| Las Bombas, Chihuahua | 49 | 14 | 49 | 7 | 7 |
| Francisco I Madero, Coahuila | 57 | 12 | 60 | 12 | 9 |
| Valle Hermoso, Tamaulipas | 58 | 11 | 59 | 11 | 10 |
| Culiacancito, Sinaloa | 89 | 12 | 90 | 12 | 11 |
| Guasave, Sinaloa | 88 | 9 | 89 | 11 | 8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wind speed, prevailing wind direction, average temperatures, precipitation and relative humidity during pollination at each site.
| City or Site, State | Wind speed (km/h) | Prevailing wind direction | Average Temperature (°C) | Precipitation (mm) | Relative Humidity (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average (Range) | Max (Range) | Min | Max | ||||
| Ciudad Constitución, Baja California Sur | 10.4 (6.1–17.3) | 23.5 (9.7–33.1) | W | 14.0 | 40.1 | 1.8 | 63.0 |
| Mocorito-Pericos, Sinaloa | 2.7 (1.8–3.9) | 19.3 (14.1–27.2) | N, W | 15.5 | 31.1 | 0.0 | 61.6 |
| Ciudad Obregón, Sonora | 3.2 (2.8–5.3) | 4.7 (3.2–7.9) | S, SE | 15.6 | 39.2 | 0.0 | 71.0 |
| Las Bombas, Chihuahua | 10.9 (8.2–16.6) | 21.8 (16.7–29.9) | - | 10.4 | 37.3 | 29.3 | 43.8 |
| Francisco I Madero, Coahuila | 6.2 (1.8–11.5) | 17.6 | - | 7.7 | 26.5 | 0.0 | 44.7 |
| Valle Hermoso, Tamaulipas | 16.5 (12.9–26.3) | 23.9 (19.6–36.7) | - | 21.3 | 32.1 | 12.4 | 77.3 |
| Culiacancito, Sinaloa | 1.0 (0.5–2.0) | 14.0 (9.6–20.9) | S, W | 15.3 | 34.7 | 1.3 | 61.9 |
| Guasave, Sinaloa | 4.9 (3.0–8.5) | 23.7 (19.0–30.3) | N, W | 12.7 | 32.7 | 0.1 | 62.5 |
1Range of daily wind speed (average and maximum) during flowering.
2N, E, W and S = North, East, West and South, respectively.
3No data available.
4No prevailing winds.
Outcrossing rates (%) observed for different distances between pollen source and pollen recipient plots at each site.
| City and State | Outcrossing rates at each distance (m) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 12 | 16 | 20 | 25 | |
| Ciudad Constitución, Baja California Sur | 14.8 (1.73) | 6.0 (0.75) | 3.5 (0.48) | 2.2 (0.37) | 1.5 (0.24) | 1.1 (0.14) | 0.7 (0.12) | 0.6 (0.10) |
| Mocorito-Pericos, Sinaloa | 21.5 (2.41) | 5.2 (0.71) | 2.9 (0.39) | 1.5 (0.22) | 1.1 (0.14) | 0.6 (0.08) | 0.5 (0.08) | 0.4 (0.07) |
| Ciudad Obregón, Sonora | 10.3 (1.45) | 4.6 (0.59) | 2.5 (0.28) | 1.4 (0.14) | 0.9 (0.11) | 0.7 (0.12) | 0.7 (0.09) | 0.7 (0.12) |
| Las Bombas, Chihuahua | 9.5 (1.64) | 4.0 (0.84) | 1.3 (0.41) | 0.9 (0.16) | 0.7 (0.18) | 0.8 (0.22) | 0.5 (0.14) | 0.3 (0.07) |
| Francisco I Madero, Coahuila | 19.5 (1.99) | 6.1 (0.67) | 3.7 (0.43) | 1.6 (0.22) | 1.2 (0.17) | 0.7 (0.10) | 0.6 (0.12) | 0.7 (0.15) |
| Valle Hermoso, Tamaulipas | 6.5 (0.79) | 3.1 (0.33) | 2.8 (0.35) | 1.5 (0.14) | 0.8 (0.12) | 0.7 (0.11) | 0.4 (0.08) | 0.6 (0.07) |
| Culiacancito, Sinaloa | 14.6 (1.43) | 5.3 (0.45) | 2.8 (0.30) | 1.2 (0.13) | 0.8 (0.10) | 0.7 (0.08) | 0.5 (0.06) | 0.5 (0.06) |
| Guasave, Sinaloa | 6.4 (0.60) | 2.7 (0.37) | 2.0 (0.24) | 1.1 (0.14) | 0.9 (0.16) | 0.7 (0.12) | 0.5 (0.07) | 0.4 (0.10) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1Mean and Standard Errors.
2Total number of ears sampled across all sites at each distance.
Fig 2Modeled outcrossing rates (%) per site as a function of distance (m).
Note the site-specific equations for predicting outcrossing are shown in Table 5.
Site-specific equations for predicting outcrossing rates based on model (1).
| City and State | Model Equation |
|---|---|
| Ciudad Constitución, Baja California Sur | Outcrossing Rate = |
| Mocorito-Pericos, Sinaloa | Outcrossing Rate = |
| Ciudad Obregón, Sonora | Outcrossing Rate = |
| Las Bombas, Chihuahua | Outcrossing Rate = |
| Francisco I Madero, Coahuila | Outcrossing Rate = |
| Valle Hermoso, Tamaulipas | Outcrossing Rate = |
| Culiacancito, Sinaloa | Outcrossing Rate = |
| Guasave, Sinaloa | Outcrossing Rate = |
|
|
|
Fig 3Observed and predicted outcrossing rates (%) across sites as a function of distance (m).
Observed values (circles) and predicted values (line) based on model (1) with 95% confidence interval (shaded region).
Fig 4Predicted outcrossing rates (%) for distances beyond 25 m.
Outcrossing rates (%) reported in different world regions and compared to observed or predicted outcrossing rates in this study.
| Country | Distances | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1–5 m | 5–10 m | 10–25 m | 25–50 m | 50–100 m | >100 m | |
| US[ | 6.5–30.1 | 1.5 | 0.8–2.4 | 0.4–0.6 | 0.2 | 0.0 |
| Mexico[ | 17.0 | 3.7 | 0.9 | 0.2 | - | 0.0 |
| Canada[ | 14.4 | 2.0 | 0.6 | 0.2 | - | - |
| Spain[ | 6.9–7.0 | 2.4–5.2 | 1.7–1.9 | 0.5 | 0.1–0.4 | 0.0 |
| UK[ | 20.5 | 5.6 | 0.8 | 0.3 | - | - |
| Switzerland[ | - | - | - | - | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| China[ | 14.5 | 9.3 | 1.7 | 0.6 | 0.2 | - |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1Excluding the maximum distance for each range (e.g., 5 m distance is included in 5–10 m range, but excluded from 1–5 m range).
2Average observed values (for 1–5 m, 5–10 m, 10–25 m, and 25–50 m distances) and estimated values based on predicted model (for 50–100 m and >100 m distances).
Note: Outcrossing values reported by Messeguer et al. were averaged over fields and distances within the range.
Also, reported values were doubled to adjust for hemizygosity of tested material [26]. Outcrossing values reported by Bateman were averaged over fields and distances within the range [41].