Journal of Life Science (생명과학회지)

Korean Society of Life Science (한국생명과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Phenetic Variability in Leaf Morphological Characteristics of the Korean Rubus crataegifolius Populations

한국 산딸기 집단에서 잎 형태 특성에 나타난 표현형 변이

  • Cho, Min-Cheol (Department Molecular Biology, Dongeui University) ;
  • Huh, Man-Kyu (Department Molecular Biology, Dongeui University) ;
  • Kim, Sea-Hyun (Tree Breeding Division, Korea Forest Research Institute) ;
  • Cho, Kye-Joong (Dept. of Forest Resources, Sunchon National University) ;
  • Kang, Chang-Wan (Dept. of Data Information, Dongeui University)
  • Published : 2009.10.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Rubus crataegifolius is a shrub species and is primarily distributed throughout Asia and Europe. We collected 550 representative samples of the eleven populations in Korea to estimate leaf variation within species. The 35 morphological characteristics allowed us to resolve well-supported fixed characteristics and variable characteristics. Sixteen of twenty-three quantitative characteristics and five of twelve qualitative characteristics showed significant differences among populations. We argued that the population differentiation can accounted for the variation in phenetic characteristics such as spine in this species, but were less successful in accounting for variation in other traits. Within a polystatistic leaf structure, their morphological differences could be modulated by ecological pressure such as temperature, altitude, duration of sunshine, and solar radiation. The phenogram showed two distinct clades. One was a group in central Korea and the other was a group in the southern regions of Korea. If morphological characteristics in R. crataegifolius populations reflect their ecological niche, morphology should be regarded with caution as the main criterion for population studies in R. crataegifolius.

Keywords

References

  1. Ackerly, D. D. and M. J. Donoghue. 1998. Leaf size, sapling allometry, and corner's rules: Phylogeny and correlated evolution in maples (Acer). Am. Nat. 152, 767-791 https://doi.org/10.1086/286208
  2. Chittendon, F. 1956. RHS Dictionary of Plants plus Supplement. Oxford University Press, UK
  3. Christophel, D. C. and D. G. Greewood. 1989. Changes in climate and vegetation in Australia during the Tertiary. Rev. Paleobot. Palynol. 58, 95-109 https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-6667(89)90079-1
  4. Czapik, R. 1981. Elementary apomictic processes in Rubus 1. Acta Soc. Bot. Poloniae 50, 201-204 https://doi.org/10.5586/asbp.1981.032
  5. Felsenstein, J. 1993. PHYLIP (Phylogeny Inference Package) ver. 3.5s. Distributed by the author. University of Washington, Seattle, USA
  6. Givnish, T. J. 1987. Comparative studies of leaf from: assessing the relative roles of selected pressures and phylogenetic constraints. New Phytologists 106, 131-161
  7. Hedrick, U. P. 1972. Sturtevant's Edible Plants of the World. Dover Publications, NY
  8. Huxley, A. 1992. The New RHS Dictionary of Gardening. MacMillan Press, UK
  9. Kuehl, R. O. 2000. Design of Experiments. Statisticalre Principles of Research Design and Analysis. 2nd, Duxbury Press, USA
  10. Lee, C. B. 2006. Coloured Flora of Korea. Hyungmoonsa, Seout Korea
  11. Lee, Y. N. 2007. New Flora of Korea. Kyo-Hak Publishing Co, Seoul Korea
  12. Nei, M. 1972. Genetic distance between populations. Am. Nat. 106, 282-292
  13. Nybom, H. 1995. Evaluation of interspecific crossing experiments in facultatively apomictic blackberries (Rubus subgen. Rubus) using DNA fingerprinting. Hereditas 122, 57-65 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-5223.1995.00057.x
  14. Royer, D. L., P. Wilf, D. A. Janesko, E. A. Kowalski, and D. L. Dilcher. 2005. Correlations of climate and plant ecology to leaf size and shape: potential proxies for the fossil record. Am. J. Bot. 92, 1141-1151 https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.92.7.1141
  15. Sack, L., P. J. Melcher, W. H. Liu, E. Middleton, and T. Pardee. 2006. How strong is intracanopy leaf plasticity in temperate deciduous trees? Am. J. Bot. 93, 829-839 https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.93.6.829
  16. SAS Institute Inc. 1989. SAS/STAT user's guide: Ver. 6. SAS Institute, Cary NC.
  17. Weber, H. E. 1996. Former and modern taxonomic treatment of the apomictic Rubus complex. Folia Geobot. Phytotaxon. 31, 373-380 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02815381
  18. Wiemann, M. C., S. R. Manchester, D. L. Dilcher, L. F. Hinojosa, and E. A. Wheeler. 1998. Estimation of temperature and precipitation from morphological characters of dicotyledonous leaves. Am. J. Bot. 85, 1796-1802 https://doi.org/10.2307/2446514
  19. Wolfe, J. A. and G. R. Upchurch. 1987. North American nonmarine climates and vegetation during the Late Cretaceous. Paleogeog. Paleoclim. Paleoecol. 61, 33-77

Cited by

  1. Analysis of Morphological Characteristics and Variation among Six Populations of Pourthiaea villosa (Thunb.) Decne. var. villosa in Korea vol.28, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7732/kjpr.2015.28.1.026