Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 21 items for :

Clear All
Free access

Sandra M. Reed and Timothy A. Rinehart

). The taxonomic treatment of Hydrangea subsection Macrophyllae E.M. McClint. has long been disputed. Hydrangea macrophylla and H. serrata (Thunb.) Ser., the sole members of the subsection, were initially considered to be closely related species

Full access

Xingbo Wu and Lisa W. Alexander

, and a long juvenile period before selection can occur. The taxonomy classification of the two most important H. macrophylla subspecies, ssp. macrophylla and ssp. serrata , has been disputed due to the lack of strong classification tools and

Free access

Keri D. Jones, Sandra M. Reed and Timothy A. Rinehart

Easter and Mother's Day sales ( Bailey, 1989 ). Although only H. macrophylla ssp. macrophylla is used in the florist's trade, both H. macrophylla ssp. macrophylla (bigleaf hydrangea) and H. macrophylla ssp. serrata (mountain hydrangea) are

Free access

Tim Rinehart and Sandy Reed

Hydrangea popularity and use in the landscape has expanded rapidly in recent years with the addition of remontant varieties. Most cultivars in production belong to the species Hydrangea macrophylla but H. paniculata, H. arborescens, H. serrata, H. aspera, H. heteromalla, H. integrifolia, H. anomala, H. seemanii, and H. quercifolia are also commercially available. In addition to species diversity there is high intra-species variation, particularly in H. macrophylla, which includes mopheads, lacecaps, French, Japanese, dwarf, and variegated varieties. Relatively little is known about the genetic background or combinability of these plants. DNA sequence data, genome size, RAPD, AFLP, and ISSR markers have been used for taxonomic identification and to estimate diversity within the genus. All of these methods have limited usefulness in a large scale breeding program. We recently established microsatellite markers for Hydrangea and evaluated their utility for estimating species diversity and identifying cultivars within H. macrophylla and H. paniculata. We also verified an inter-specific cross between H. macrophylla and H. paniculata using these markers. Future research includes marker assisted breeding, particularly with respect to remontant flowering traits.

Free access

Timothy A. Rinehart, Brian E. Scheffler and Sandra M. Reed

Using 14 codominant microsatellite markers that amplify loci across 14 different Hydrangea L. species, we analyzed gene diversity and genetic similarity within Hydrangea. Samples also included Dichroa Lour., Platycrater Sieb. and Zucc., and Schizophragma Sieb. and Zucc. genera to establish their relatedness to Hydrangea species since previous work suggests they may be closely related. Our results support the close affiliation between Macrophyllae E.M. McClint. and Petalanthe (Maxim.) Rehder subsections and their separation from the other Hydrangea species. Most of the Hydrangea species analyzed cluster within their designated sections and subsections; however, genetic distance between species within each subsection varied considerably. Our data suggest that morphological analyses which labeled H. serrata (Thunb.) Ser. as a subspecies of H. macrophylla (Thunb. Ex J.A. Murr.) Ser. are probably more accurate than recent genome size data suggesting H. macrophylla ssp. macrophylla (Thunb.) Ser. and H. macrophylla ssp. serrata (Thunb.) Makino are separate species. Gene diversity estimates indicate that 64.7% of the total diversity is due to differences between species and 49.7% of the overall variation is due to differences between subsections. Low diversity suggests a lack of gene flow between species and subsections and underscores the difficulty in making wide hybrids. Since only 35.3% of the genetic variation is common to all species, unique alleles were used to develop a molecular key for unambiguous species identification and interspecific hybrid verification. Genetic similarity estimates for all 85 samples suggests a roadmap for introgressing horticulturally important traits from different Hydrangea species.

Free access

Joshua H. Kardos, Carol D. Robacker, Michael A. Dirr and Timothy A. Rinehart

Siebold ( Reed, 2004 ; Reed et al., 2001 ), H. quercifolia Bartram ( Kudo et al., 2002 ; Reed, 2000 ), H. serrata (Thunberg) Seringe ( Dirr, 2004 ; Zonneveld, 2004 ), and Dichroa febrifuga Loureiro ( Jones et al., 2006 ; Kardos et al., 2006

Free access

Xiaoling Jin, Xijun Hu, Youping Sun, Donglin Zhang and Ping He

Biotechnol. 20 291 296 Fu, L.G. Jin, J.M. 1992 Plants red book of China—Rare and endangered plants. Vol. I. Science Press, Beijing, China Gao, Y.Y. Wang, Y.N. Jiang, J.H. 1996 Tissue culture of Z. serrata Quarterly J. Chinese For. 29 171 186 Ghimire, B

Free access

Ming Cai, Ke Wang, Le Luo, Hui-tang Pan, Qi-xiang Zhang and Yu-yong Yang

that are ornamentally attractive and commonly cultivated ( Kudo et al., 2008 ). Bigleaf hydrangea ( H . macrophylla ) is the most commonly cultivated member of the Hydrangeaceae family and is native to southern China and Japan ( McClintock, 1957

Full access

Bo-Ling Liu, Zhi-Bin Fan, Ze-Qun Liu, Xun-Hong Qiu and Yan-Hong Jiang

Tissue Organ Cult. 101 359 363 Gould, K.S. Markham, K.R. Smith, R.H. Goris, J.J. 2000 Functional role of anthocyanins in the leaves of Quintinia serrata A Cunn. J. Expt. Bot. 51 1107 1115 Halliwell, B. Gutteridge, J.M.C. 2007 Free radicals in biology

Free access

Stephen Patrick Greer and Timothy A. Rinehart

cultivars of H. macrophylla subsp. serrata Makino ‘Blue Bird’, ‘Beni Gaku’, ‘Intermedia’, ‘Omacha’, and H. macrophylla subsp. macrophylla ‘Coerulea’, ‘Lady in Red’, ‘Nikko Blue’, ‘Seafoam’, ‘Tokyo Delight’, and ‘Veitchii’ were obtained from Amethyst