Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 3 – uploaded by Zlatko Satovic

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Fig. 3. UPGMA dendrograms based on (A) qualitative morphological data, (B) quantitative agronomic data, and (C) molecular data distance matrix. Legend: P1-P8 indicates the population to which belongs each of the 48 wild olive trees (here shown in increasing order after the name of the population).

Figure 3 UPGMA dendrograms based on (A) qualitative morphological data, (B) quantitative agronomic data, and (C) molecular data distance matrix. Legend: P1-P8 indicates the population to which belongs each of the 48 wild olive trees (here shown in increasing order after the name of the population).

Related Figures (8)

* Monomorphic traits. b Underlined the trait states found for monomorphic traits. © In italics trait states absent in 48 wild trees. Trait state, number of observed states (Kj), Shannon’s information index (H;) and discriminating power (D;) of 23 qualitative morphological traits used in the analysis of 48 wild olive trees.
* Monomorphic traits. b Underlined the trait states found for monomorphic traits. © In italics trait states absent in 48 wild trees. Trait state, number of observed states (Kj), Shannon’s information index (H;) and discriminating power (D;) of 23 qualitative morphological traits used in the analysis of 48 wild olive trees.
Fig. 1. Plot illustrating the relationships among 20 polymorphic qualitative mor- phological traits assessed via correspondence analysis of 48 wild olive trees. Abbreviations are indicated in Table 1.
Fig. 1. Plot illustrating the relationships among 20 polymorphic qualitative mor- phological traits assessed via correspondence analysis of 48 wild olive trees. Abbreviations are indicated in Table 1.
Overall mean, standard deviation, range and the coefficient of variation (CV) of 10 quantitative agronomic traits in 48 wild olive trees measured in two years (2007 and 2008). Table 2
Overall mean, standard deviation, range and the coefficient of variation (CV) of 10 quantitative agronomic traits in 48 wild olive trees measured in two years (2007 and 2008). Table 2
Correlation coefficients for 10 quantitative agronomic traits obtained from 48 wild olive trees based on individual tree averages Table 3
Correlation coefficients for 10 quantitative agronomic traits obtained from 48 wild olive trees based on individual tree averages Table 3
Fig. 2. Variance components of each quantitative agronomic trait in 48 wild olive trees. Abbreviations are explained in Table 2.
Fig. 2. Variance components of each quantitative agronomic trait in 48 wild olive trees. Abbreviations are explained in Table 2.
Source, repeat motifs, size ranges, the total number of alleles (N,), the total number of genotypes (Ng), discriminating power (D;) and polymorphic information content (PIC for eight microsatellite loci analyzed in 48 wild olive trees.
Source, repeat motifs, size ranges, the total number of alleles (N,), the total number of genotypes (Ng), discriminating power (D;) and polymorphic information content (PIC for eight microsatellite loci analyzed in 48 wild olive trees.
n, number of individuals per population; Navg, number of alleles per locus; Ng-, number of alleles per locus independent of sample size (allelic richness); Npr, number of private alleles per population; Ho, observed heterozygosity; Hg, expected heterozygosity; Fis, inbreeding coefficient. #Probabilities of heterozygote deficiency: “***” corresponds to significance at the 0.1% nominal level, “**” corresponds to significance at the 1% nominal level, “*” significance at the 5% nominal level and “ns” depicts non-significant values. Population, sample size and genetic variability estimates based on data from eight microsatellite loci in 48 wild olive trees from eight populations. Table 5
n, number of individuals per population; Navg, number of alleles per locus; Ng-, number of alleles per locus independent of sample size (allelic richness); Npr, number of private alleles per population; Ho, observed heterozygosity; Hg, expected heterozygosity; Fis, inbreeding coefficient. #Probabilities of heterozygote deficiency: “***” corresponds to significance at the 0.1% nominal level, “**” corresponds to significance at the 1% nominal level, “*” significance at the 5% nominal level and “ns” depicts non-significant values. Population, sample size and genetic variability estimates based on data from eight microsatellite loci in 48 wild olive trees from eight populations. Table 5
AMOVA analyses for the partitioning of morphological diversity (A) among and within eight wild olive populations, and (B) between provinces (Cadiz vs. Jaen), betwee populations within provinces and within population, and molecular diversity (C) among and within eight wild olive populations, and (D) between provinces (Cadiz vs. Jaer between populations within provinces and within population. Hannachi et al. (2008) and in total agreement with those obtained by Garcia-Donas (2001) we found that the wild olive genotypes under study showed only smooth stone surfaces. although a possible feral origin of these trees cannot be excluded (Sedgley, 2000; Hannachi et al., 2008). The increase of fruit size and the improvement of olive oil production might have been impor- tant criteria of multilocal selection during domestication process (Besnard et al., 2001; Belaj et al., 2002; Hagidimitirou et al., 2005; Breton et al., 2006). In addition, leaves of wild olive trees in our study would be classified of short length and medium width in comparison to the cultivated germplasm (Barranco et al., 2005).
AMOVA analyses for the partitioning of morphological diversity (A) among and within eight wild olive populations, and (B) between provinces (Cadiz vs. Jaen), betwee populations within provinces and within population, and molecular diversity (C) among and within eight wild olive populations, and (D) between provinces (Cadiz vs. Jaer between populations within provinces and within population. Hannachi et al. (2008) and in total agreement with those obtained by Garcia-Donas (2001) we found that the wild olive genotypes under study showed only smooth stone surfaces. although a possible feral origin of these trees cannot be excluded (Sedgley, 2000; Hannachi et al., 2008). The increase of fruit size and the improvement of olive oil production might have been impor- tant criteria of multilocal selection during domestication process (Besnard et al., 2001; Belaj et al., 2002; Hagidimitirou et al., 2005; Breton et al., 2006). In addition, leaves of wild olive trees in our study would be classified of short length and medium width in comparison to the cultivated germplasm (Barranco et al., 2005).
Related topics:
Olive Tree
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved