UNIVERSITE DE BOURGOGNE THÈSE Yongbo LIU - Université de ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Transgenic F 1 hybrids (trF1) were formed between wild mustard (as female) and transgenic OSR ( GT). No n-transgenic F 1 hybrids ( ntrF1) were obt ained b y crossing wild m ustard ( as female) with the non-transgenic parent (Westar). The seeds of GT were sieved into three categories by seed diameter: larger than 1.6 mm (L), s maller t han 1.2 mm ( S), a nd m edium-sized be tween 1.2 a nd 1.6 m m ( M). T hese categories were the same as those used in previous studies on t he hybridization of B. napus with five wild relatives (Wei & Darmency 2008). The three seed categories of mustard were: larger than 1.2mm, smaller than 1.0mm and between 1.2-1.0 mm. Because of the seeds of trF1 and ntrF1 were smaller than 1.2 mm, they were separated by 1.0 and 0.9 mm. Monoculture experiment The three seed categories of mustard were directly sown in the field on March 19, 2008. The e xperimental de sign c onsisted i n t hree bl ocks, e ach ha ving t hree pl ots w ith a di fferent plant density: 400 plants /m 2 (high), 100 plants /m 2 (medium) and 25 plants /m 2 (low), i.e. the distance be tween s owing pos itions w as a rranged i n t hree l evels: 5 c m, 10 c m a nd 20 c m, respectively. Each plot had 60 sowing positions in 5 rows and 12 columns. Twenty positions per plot were taken at random for one seed category and sowed with five seeds each position. Emerged seedlings were counted, and then randomly thinned to one plant per position. Multi-culture experiment In o rder t o s tudy t he i nterspecific competition, t he f our t ypes of pl ants, B. j uncea (mustard), transgenic B. napus (GT), transgenic F1 (trF1), and non-transgenic F1 (ntrF1), were co-cultured together. Seeds of the three categories were directly sown in the field on March 31, 2008. T here were three blocks in this experiment and each block contained two plots of plant density: 100 pl ants /m 2 and 25 pl ants /m 2 , i.e. the distance between plants at these two densities was 10 cm and 20 cm, respectively. Five seeds of every plant type per seed category combination w ere s own a t 5 pos itions i n each plot, w ith 60 pos itions i n 10 r ows a nd 12 columns per plot. Emerged seedlings were recorded, and then randomly thinned to one plant per position as in the monoculture trial above. Measurements 39
These two experiments were kept weed-free by hand weeding, and every plant was labeled. Field management of the plants was performed identically to normal OSR cultivation. Open pollination was permitted during the flowering period. The num ber of f lowers w as r ecorded i n t he m onoculture t rial. F lowering da te, s eed number, seed weight and total dried aboveground biomass were measured at harvest for every plant in the two experiments. Thousand seeds weight (1000*seed weight/ seed number) was calculated. At harvest, the seeds of each plant type were sieved into three categories by seed diameter as described above. The number and weight of every seed category were recorded. The p ercentage o f s eed number f or ea ch s eed c ategory p er p lant w as calculated. T he s eed production pe r uni t bi omass ( Seed num ber/ biomass) w as c alculated a s r eproductive allocation. Statistic analysis A f our-way f ixed s plit-plot A NOVA m odel ( Y~D* C + B + E ) for m onoculture e xperiment including plant density as the main plot (D), seed category (C), block (B), and edge effect (E), and a five-way fixed split-plot ANOVA model (Y~D* C* T+ B+ E) was employed (T, plant type ). All data were log transformed for the normality of the residuals. In the monoculture experiment, as edge effect was significant, the plants in the plot border were omitted. In the multi-culture experiment, all plants in the plot border and center were included because the absence of s ignificant edge e ffect. S imilarly, s ome non -significant i nteraction e ffects w ere included in the residual. The resulting four and three-way ANOVA, respectively, were use to compare t he d ifferences among t he four p lant t ypes was t ested for emergence rate, d ays t o flowering, biomass, seed number and weight, reproductive allocation, thousand seeds weight and the descriptors of the three seed categories produced, using data of all seed-sized plants in both high and low densities. Tukey’s honestly significant difference (Tukey’s HSD) test was employed f or mu ltiple c omparison.. A ll s tatistic a nalysis w as c onducted in R s oftware (http://www.r-project.org/). Results Monoculture experiment 40
Page 1 and 2: UNIVERSITE DE BOURGOGNE THÈSE Pour
Page 3 and 4: REMERCIEMENTS My heartfelt thanks g
Page 5 and 6: forming many of the ideas I present
Page 7 and 8: Abstract In the framework of commer
Page 9 and 10: 2.3 A rticle 2: Les r étrocroiseme
Page 11 and 12: Table 3.2. Parameters of linear reg
Page 13 and 14: experiment. BC1NS is separated into
Page 15 and 16: Fig. 4.7. Mean and standard error (
Page 17 and 18: INTRODUCTION GENERALE Dans le cadre
Page 19 and 20: chapitre 1 dressant l’état des c
Page 21 and 22: CHAPTER 1 LITERATURE REVIEW ON THE
Page 23 and 24: oilseed rape and B. oleracea is ver
Page 25 and 26: populations is reduced as the dista
Page 27 and 28: into hybrids would affect the morph
Page 29 and 30: Snow e t a l. ( 1999) f ound no f i
Page 31 and 32: 1.5 Consequences of introgression I
Page 33 and 34: more flowers and larger plant size
Page 35 and 36: Moreover, beside the introgression
Page 37 and 38: their parental plants. Moon et al.
Page 39 and 40: 2.1 Introduction CHAPTER 2 CONDITIO
Page 41 and 42: ARTICLE 1 The effect of seed size o
Page 43: plant growth was evaluated without
Page 47 and 48: interactions were found among the t
Page 49 and 50: 2006) or m ore f it t han their pa
Page 51 and 52: they b ear b eneficial t ransgenes
Page 53 and 54: Diggle PK, Abrahamson NJ, Baker RL
Page 55 and 56: Ramachandran S , B untin G D, A ll
Page 57 and 58: Table 2.2. F -values f rom a f ive-
Page 59 and 60: Days to flowering Biomass Per. of s
Page 61 and 62: 2.3 Article 2: Les rétrocroisement
Page 63 and 64: Photo.2.3. S praying chlorsulfuron
Page 65 and 66: Introduction In t he f ramework o f
Page 67 and 68: eceived p ollens f rom wild B. j un
Page 69 and 70: Statistical analysis Mean values ar
Page 71 and 72: Characteristics of the backcrosses
Page 73 and 74: Table 2.7. Mean (±95% CL) of plant
Page 75 and 76: plants w ith B. napus morphology t
Page 77 and 78: Productivity of the resistant proge
Page 79 and 80: References [1] A .A. Snow, D .A. A
Page 81 and 82: insight into adaptive life-history
Page 83 and 84: CHAPTER 3 EFFETS DE LA RESISTANCE A
Page 85 and 86: 3.2 A rticle 3 : S imulation d e l
Page 87 and 88: compétition et le devenir des popu
Page 89 and 90: difficult to predict. Similarly, it
Page 91 and 92: Table 3.1: ANOVA results of the eff
Page 93 and 94: Table 3.2: Parameters of linear reg
Page 95 and 96:
herbivores than when exposed to Bt
Page 97 and 98:
esistant hybrid populations might i
Page 99 and 100:
Letourneau D .K., H agen J .A., 200
Page 101 and 102:
Germination rate 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.
Page 103 and 104:
3.3 Article 4: Compétition entre p
Page 105 and 106:
Introduction The invasion of transg
Page 107 and 108:
Whether a popul ation w ill e volve
Page 109 and 110:
while ensuring that the same ratio
Page 111 and 112:
silique number, seed number, seed w
Page 113 and 114:
Our ga rden e xperiments s howed t
Page 115 and 116:
experiment, harsh growth conditions
Page 117 and 118:
References Agrawal AA. 2004. R esis
Page 119 and 120:
density- dependent c osts of vi ral
Page 121 and 122:
Table 3.5. F values of the analysis
Page 123 and 124:
Table 3.7. Results of Helmert contr
Page 125 and 126:
Fig. 3.4. Examples of experimental
Page 127 and 128:
Flowering date Seed weight Biomass
Page 129 and 130:
No. viable seeds Biomass 50000 4000
Page 131 and 132:
Photo 3.3. Cotton bollworm (Helicov
Page 133 and 134:
Introduction Spontaneous introgress
Page 135 and 136:
screening as transgenic BC2 (trBC2)
Page 137 and 138:
2002), but certain studies showed n
Page 139 and 140:
Acknowledgements We t hank Z hixi T
Page 141 and 142:
92, 368-374. Rieseberg, LH, and Bur
Page 143 and 144:
Table 3.10. F-values of three-way A
Page 145 and 146:
Seed number Biomass 140 120 100 80
Page 147 and 148:
CHAPTER 4 RECHERCHE DES CONSEQUENCE
Page 149 and 150:
Photo 4.1. Wild radish in a herbici
Page 151 and 152:
Introduction Plant divergence is ge
Page 153 and 154:
or t he popul ation of wild r adish
Page 155 and 156:
estimated. All the seeds of every h
Page 157 and 158:
Field experiment Number of siliques
Page 159 and 160:
aphanistrum from hybrids and R. sat
Page 161 and 162:
competition diminished the differen
Page 163 and 164:
Conner, J. K., Rice A. M., Stewart
Page 165 and 166:
Rattenbury J A. 1962. C yclic h ybr
Page 167 and 168:
Fig. 4.1. Four r egions where w ild
Page 169 and 170:
Fig. 4.3. Flower phot os showing pe
Page 171 and 172:
Fig. 4.5. Plot of the first two axe
Page 173 and 174:
Plant weight No. of seeds per plant
Page 175 and 176:
Emergence rate Plant weight No.of a
Page 177 and 178:
CONCLUSION 172
Page 179 and 180:
véritable s uccès ad aptatif d an
Page 181 and 182:
Dans l e cas d es p remières gén
Page 183 and 184:
REFERENCES Abbott RJ, Comes HP.2007
Page 185 and 186:
Bing D J, D owney R K and R akow G
Page 187 and 188:
carinata and Brassica rapa. Plant B
Page 189 and 190:
Hybridisation within Brassica and a
Page 191 and 192:
etween weedy Brassica rapa and oils
Page 193 and 194:
Hybridization between oilseed rape
Page 195 and 196:
Nosil P. 2008. Speciation with gene
Page 197 and 198:
32:305-32 Schadler, M., R. Brandl,
Page 199 and 200:
Thalmann C, Guadagnuolo R, Felber F
Page 201 and 202:
Zheng XM and Ge S. 2010. Ecological
Page 203 and 204:
Therefore, after a review of the st
Page 205 and 206:
more easily sieved out by harvester
Page 207 and 208:
Transgenic F1 produced higher bioma
show all

UNIVERSITE DE BOURGOGNE THÈSE Yongbo LIU - Université de ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?