| Literature DB >> 32194580 |
Lisa Kissing Kucek1, Heathcliffe Riday1, Bryce P Rufener1, Allen N Burke2, Sarah Seehaver Eagen3, Nancy Ehlke4, Sarah Krogman5, Steven B Mirsky2, Chris Reberg-Horton3, Matthew R Ryan6, Sandra Wayman6, Nick P Wiering4.
Abstract
Hairy vetch, Vicia villosa (Roth), is a cover crop that does not exhibit a typical domestication syndrome. Pod dehiscence reduces seed yield and creates weed problems for subsequent crops. Breeding efforts aim to reduce pod dehiscence in hairy vetch. To characterize pod dehiscence in the species, we quantified visual dehiscence and force required to cause dehiscence among 606 genotypes grown among seven environments of the United States. To identify potential secondary selection traits, we correlated pod dehiscence with various morphological pod characteristics and field measurements. Genotypes of hairy vetch exhibited wide variation in pod dehiscence, from completely indehiscent to completely dehiscent ratings. Mean force to dehiscence also varied widely, from 0.279 to 8.97 N among genotypes. No morphological traits were consistently correlated with pod dehiscence among environments where plants were grown. Results indicated that visual ratings of dehiscence would efficiently screen against genotypes with high pod dehiscence early in the breeding process. Force to dehiscence may be necessary to identify the indehiscent genotypes during advanced stages of selection.Entities:
Keywords: domestication syndrome; germplasm characterization; legumes (Fabaceae); phenotyping; pod dehiscence; vetch
Year: 2020 PMID: 32194580 PMCID: PMC7063115 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00082
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Metrics of pod dehiscence evaluation, including photos of pods exemplifying the maximum and minimum of rating scales.
| Type | Metric | Rating Scale | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dehiscence Metric | Visual Dehiscence | 0 = fully intact pod (no openings along sutures), |
|
|
| Force to Dehiscence | peak force (N) applied to create a break in the pod suture | |||
| Spiraling | 0 = no spiraling of pod, |
|
| |
| Morphology Metric | Corrugation | 0 = smooth on the surface of the pod, |
|
|
| Fracture | 0 = nonlinear fracturing of pod wall when broken, |
|
| |
| Flexibility | 1 = flexible, | |||
| Pith Tissue | 0 = absence of pith tissue inside of pod, |
|
|
Figure 1Boxplots of variation in vetch genotypes for (A) mean visual dehiscence (B) force necessary to cause dehiscence. Environments are listed as 18CL (Clayton, NC), 18GB (Goldsboro, NC), 18MD (Beltsville, MD), 18MN (St. Paul, MN), 18NYE (Ithaca, NY), 18NYR (Varna, NY), 18WI (Prairie Du Sac, WI). There is a strong outlier for force to dehiscence at 18CL. Visual dehiscence was scored on a 0–3 scale, with “0” indicating a pod fully intact pod (no openings along sutures), “1” indicating one suture was partially opened (one side of pod), “2” indicating two sutures were partially opened (both sides of pod), and “3” indicating that the pod had opened fully or partially.
Figure 2The fitted spline shows the relationship between visual rating of dehiscence and the force required to cause dehiscence, excluding (A) and including (B) an extreme outlier for force to dehiscence. When excluding the outlier, there was a moderate linear relationship (r = −0.33) between visual dehiscence and force to dehiscence. The linear relationship broke down at low levels of visual dehiscence and high force required to cause pod dehiscence. Both traits may be necessary to identify lines most resistant to dehiscence. Visual dehiscence was scored on a 0–3 scale, with “0” indicating a pod fully intact pod (no openings along sutures), “1” indicating one suture was partially opened (one side of pod), “2” indicating two sutures were partially opened (both sides of pod), and “3” indicating that the pod had opened fully or partially.
Strength, significance, and consistency of association between pod dehiscence, morphology, and field data.
| Visual Dehiscence | Force to Dehiscence | Spiraling | Corrugation | Fracture | Flexibility | Pith Tissue | Flowering Maturity | Fall Vigor | Spring Vigor | Plant Weight | Seed Weight | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visual Dehiscence | Pearson | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Pearson | Pearson | Pearson | Pearson | Pearson | |
| Force to Dehiscence | −0.33 *** | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Pearson | Pearson | Pearson | Pearson | Pearson | |
| Spiraling | 0.79 *** | −0.47 *** | Polychoric/χ2 | Polychoric/χ2 | Polychoric/χ2 | Polychoric/χ2 | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | |
| Corrugation | −0.56 ¥ *** | 0.35 ¥ *** | −0.73 ¥ *** | Polychoric/χ2 | Polychoric/χ2 | Polychoric/χ2 | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | |
| Fracture | 0.39 *** | −0.041 NS | 0.47 *** | −0.045 ¥ NS | Polychoric/χ2 | Polychoric/χ2 | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | |
| Flexibility | −0.44 *** | 0.023 NS | −0.51 *** | 0.26 ¥ *** | −0.61 *** | Polychoric/χ2 | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | |
| Pith Tissue | −0.12 ¥ * | 0.44 *** | −0.39 ¥ *** | 0.35 ¥ *** | 0.15 ¥ * | 0.010 ¥ NS | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | Polyserial/Kruskal-Wallis | |
| Flowering Maturity | −0.11 ** | −0.09 * | −0.01 NS | 0.06 † NS | 0.073 NS | 0.10 * | −0.10 † | Pearson | Pearson | Pearson | Pearson | |
| Fall Vigor | −0.02 | 0.03 | 0.03 | −0.02 ¥ | 0.00 | −0.08 | 0.06 ¥ | 0.08 | Pearson | Pearson | Pearson | |
| Spring Vigor | −0.13 ** | 0.22 *** | −0.30 *** | 0.18 ¥ ** | −0.06 | −0.05 | 0.40 ¥ *** | −0.14 ** | 0.28 *** | Pearson | Pearson | |
| Plant Weight | −0.06 | 0.07 ¥ | −0.14 *** | 0.05 † | −0.10 | −0.03 | 0.28 † *** | −0.44 ¥ *** | −0.12 ** | 0.28 *** | Pearson | |
| Seed Weight | 0.12 ** | −0.37 *** | 0.38 *** | −0.30 ¥ *** | 0.13 * | −0.14 * | −0.37 ¥ *** | 0.20 *** | 0.13 ** | −0.18 *** | 0.29 *** |
*, **, and *** indicate significance of correlations at the 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 probability level, respectively.
NS indicates that correlations are not significant at the α < 0.05 threshold.
† indicates only one observed paired environment comparison.
¥ indicates only three observed paired environment comparisons.
Numbers show Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient for continuous vs. continuous metrics, polyserial maximum likelihood estimates for dichotomous vs. ordinal or dichotomous metrics, and polychoric maximum likelihood estimates for dichotomous vs. dichotomous or ordinal metrics across environments. Significance values were calculated through Pearson's product-moment correlation for continuous vs. continuous metrics, chi-squared test of independence for dichotomous or ordinal vs. dichotomous or ordinal metrics, and Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance for continuous vs. dichotomous or ordinal metrics. Shading indicates consistency of the correlation among environments. Dark grey indicates significant differences in correlations among environments, with change in direction; light grey indicates significant differences in correlations among environments, but no change in direction; and white indicates no significant differences among environments).
Variance contribution of environment, pod morphology, and flowering maturity on metrics of dehiscence.
| Visual Dehiscence | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Groups | Variance | Standard Deviation | % of Total Variance |
| Environment | 0.068 | 0.26 | 7.63% |
| Corrugation | 0.407 | 0.64 | 45.70% |
| Fracture | 0.040 | 0.20 | 4.49% |
| Flexibility | 0.021 | 0.15 | 2.41% |
| Pith Tissue | 0.000 | 0.00 | 0.00% |
| Flowering Maturity | 0.004 | 0.06 | 0.45% |
| Residual | 0.350 | 0.59 | 39.32% |
|
| |||
| Groups | Variance | Standard Deviation | % of Total Variance |
| Environment | 0.120 | 0.35 | 13.27% |
| Corrugation | 0.035 | 0.19 | 3.85% |
| Fracture | 0.000 | 0.00 | 0.00% |
| Flexibility | 0.000 | 0.00 | 0.00% |
| Pith Tissue | 0.077 | 0.28 | 8.51% |
| Flowering Maturity | 0.000 | 0.00 | 0.00% |
| Residual | 0.673 | 0.82 | 74.37% |
Visual dehiscence was most explained by corrugation, while force to dehiscence was explained by pith tissue, followed by corrugation.