Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Characterization of Waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) × Smooth Pigweed (A. hybridus) F1 Hybrids

  • Federico Trucco (a1), Tatiana Tatum (a1), Kenneth R. Robertson (a2), A. Lane Rayburn (a1) and Patrick J. Tranel (a1)...

In the state of Illinois, waterhemp and smooth pigweed are among the worst agricultural weeds. Previous research shows high potential for hybridization between these two species. However, the actual occurrence of hybrids in natural settings is still uncertain. Morphological similarity between hybrids and waterhemp makes field surveys of hybrids difficult to conduct. The main purpose of this study was to characterize the morphology of waterhemp × smooth pigweed F1 hybrids, emphasizing evaluation of characters that may allow for hybrid discrimination in field Amaranthus communities. Concurrently, the study characterized hybrid reproductive fitness, chromosome number, and DNA content. To accomplish this, hybrids were obtained from field crosses. A species-specific polymorphism in the ALS gene was used to verify hybrid identity. Significant differences (α = 0.05) between hybrids and individuals of the parental species were observed for five staminate and five carpellate characters. Of these, five characters differentiated hybrids from waterhemp. However, clustering analyses using these characters indicated that morphological differences were not reliable enough, by themselves, for unambiguous hybrid identification. Also, hybrid homoploidy (2n = 32) with respect to parental species excluded chromosome counts in hybridity determinations. However, DNA content analysis may be used for such purpose. Hybrids had an average of 1.21 pg of DNA per 2C nucleus, a value intermediate to that of parental species. Hybrids produced 3.3 or 0.7% the seed output of parental and sibling waterhemp individuals, respectively. Percent micropollen in hybrids was 95-times greater than in parental species. Hybrid sterility appears to be the most reliable feature for hybrid discrimination when conducting field surveys. However, molecular and cytogenetic analyses as employed in this study may be desired for ultimate identity corroboration.

Corresponding author
Corresponding author's E-mail:
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

E. Anderson and G. L. Stebbins 1954. Hybridization as an evolutionary stimulus. Evolution 8:378388.

M. L. Arnold 1992. Natural hybridization as an evolutionary process. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23:237261.

N. H. Barton 2001. The role of hybridization in evolution. Mol. Ecol. 10:551568.

D. P. Biradar and A. L. Rayburn 1993. Heterosis and nuclear DNA content in maize. Heredity 71:300304.

A. S. Franssen , D. Z. Skinner , K. Al-Khatib , and M. J. Horak 2001a. Pollen morphological differences in Amaranthus species and interspecific hybrids. Weed Sci. 49:732737.

A. S. Franssen , D. Z. Skinner , K. Al-Khatib , M. J. Horak , and P. A. Kulakow 2001b. Interspecific hybridization and gene flow of ALS resistance in Amaranthus species. Weed Sci. 49:598606.

W. F. Grant 1959. Cytogenetic studies in Amaranthus III. Chromosome numbers and phylogenetic aspects. Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 1:313328.

E. J. Greizerstein , C. A. Naranjo , and L. Poggio 1997. Karyological studies in five wild species of amaranths. Cytologia 62:115120.

A. G. Hager , L. M. Wax , G. A. Bollero , and F. W. Simmons 2002. Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis Sauer) management with soil-applied herbicides in soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr). Crop Prot. 21:277283.

M. R. Jeschke , P. J. Tranel , and A. L. Rayburn 2003. DNA content analysis of smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) and tall waterhemp (A. tuberculatus): implications for hybrid detection. Weed Sci. 51:13.

G. N. Jones 1957. The number of seeds produced by certain plants. Am. Biol. Teacher 19:21.

M. Pal and T. N. Khoshoo 1972. Evolution and improvement of cultivated amaranths IV. Variation in pollen mitosis in the F1 Amaranthus spinosus × A. dubius . Genetica 43:119129.

D. B. Pratt and L. G. Clark 2001. Amaranthus rudis and A. tuberculatus— one species or two? J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 128:282296.

A. L. Rayburn , J. A. Auger , and L. M. McMurphy 1992. Estimated percentage constitutive heterochromatin by flow cytometry. Exp. Cell Res. 198:175178.

L. H. Rieseberg , O. Raymond , and D. M. Rosenthal et al. 2003. Major ecological transitions in wild sunflowers facilitated by hybridization. Science 301:12111216.

K. R. Robertson 1981. The genera of Amaranthaceae in the Southeastern United States. J. Arnold Arb. 62:267314.

J. D. Sauer 1957. Recent migration and evolution of the dioecious amaranths. Evolution 11:1131.

V. Srivastava , M. Pal , and P. K. Nair 1977. A study of the pollen grains of Amaranthus spinosus Linne and A. dubius Mart Ex Thellung and their hybrids. Rev. Paleobot. Palynol. 23:287291.

F. Trucco , M. R. Jeschke , A. L. Rayburn , and P. J. Tranel 2005a. Frequency of Amaranthus hybridus hybridization by A. tuberculatus under field conditions. Heredity 94:6470.

M. J. Wilkinson , L. J. Elliott , and J. Allainguillaume et al. 2003. Hybridization between Brassica napus and B. rapa on a national scale in the United Kingdom. Science 302:457459.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Weed Technology
  • ISSN: 0890-037X
  • EISSN: 1550-2740
  • URL: /core/journals/weed-technology
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 2 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 36 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 27th April 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.