Categories

Glacial Lakes State Park

This past weekend a group of us went over to Glacial Lakes State Park for some hiking and a change of scenery (i.e. trees). During our hike we passed a few sections of remnant prairie, evident by the presence of lead plant (Amorpha canescens). One of these had what appeared to be a flowering Echinacea angustifolia. Due to a combination of curiosity and habit, I walked over to check the plant for aphids. Sure enough, there they were:

smallIMG_2005.jpg

They looked like Aphis echinaceae, though they were slightly bigger than the aphids I’ve seen around here. The reason I mention this is that the specimens for Aphis echinaceae were collected in our field sites throughout Douglas County. Glacial Lakes State Park is a little under 30 miles away. I didn’t collect any aphids, but I thought it was an observation worth sharing.

Monday July 18th

Monday was quite sultry, if I remember correctly. In the morning we divided forces to look at flowering phenology in C1 and to finish measuring the plants in Amy Dykstra’s experiment at Hegg Lake. She has two experimental plots there: one containing the offspring of inter-remnant crosses and the other containing seeds collected from source populations between Minnesota and South Dakota. She sowed seeds in 2008 and has been tracking their progress every year since. Once we finished finding and measuring plants, Stuart took GPS points for each experimental plot:

smallIMG_2016.jpg

While he was doing that, Shona trekked off into the prairie to check on the plants in her hybridization experiment.

smallIMG_2023.jpg

Meanwhile, Lydia and I waited by the truck and took advantage of the opportunity for an epic pose. I’d say it was successfully epic.

smallIMG_2021.jpg

Cabinet for Cornell Drawers

We just reorganized the bee collection into a cornell drawer, and need a cabinet to start storing drawers. Once we have better humidity control in the Hjelm house this is the cabinet we are considering.
cabinet

Welcome back!

Happily I am back in the Kensington Town Hall- all is well.
For the new in the crew – I teach 9-12 science at Great Plains Lutheran High in Watertown, SD. It is just over a 130 miles away. I am on my 2nd summer at Team Echinacea and will be here Mondays and Tuesdays (typically) to help the project and work on my own investigations.

I am amazed at the difference between the stages of growth throughout the several remnants and the SPP (Staffanson Prairie Preserve) this year compared to last. I would venture it is about 2-3 weeks farther along than it was last year at this time. It is different to see SPP without being burned this spring. The Hjelm house is seeing improvements as well.
GREG

The camera lives on…

I received the camera today so I had to test it out since the opportunity presented itself. The picture is taken through a stereomicroscope at 45x magnification of a live amphipod from the Big Sioux River. On a qualitative stream survey, we found our water to be very clean. So the camera isn’t just for live pollen anymore. School is going well. I find myself saying “protocol” instead of lab instructions sometimes. Must be a remnant from the prairie.Live amphipod (scud).jpg

Amorpha Pollen

Perplexed by Stuart’s question – a trip to the hilltop here in Watertown, and Mimi’s poster, I checked again on the amorpha pollen – it is NOT bean shaped. But I do have reliable pictures – (Amanda don’t bother getting its pollen tomorrow)

What keeps amorpha and medicago sativa from occupying the same locations? Legume wars underground? Does Andrea have insight?
Amorpha canescens g.jpg

pollen viability and identifying distinct plants in the recruitment expt (I)

I was glad to participate in assessing floral phenology Wed morning and, with Amy, checking to resolve uncertainties remaining from this year’s monitoring of the first recruitment experiment (not to mention a very fun lunch with the team!). We sampled tissue from closely neighboring rosettes, where it isn’t clear whether they are the same or different plants, for eventual molecular analysis in Chicago by Jennifer and her team. Resolution of those plant identities should certainly help reduce the problem of counts of survivors *increasing* between censuses. But, in retrospect, I wondered whether the info we recorded was crystal-clear in terms of how this year’s counts should be adjusted, depending on the outcome of the IDing, particularly for the zones where many seedlings were recorded. When the remaining double-checking is done, it would be good to keep this in mind…

Of the many, many other terrific things that I’m excited are being accomplished, I’ll just comment that I’m happy to see Megan’s post that she has sampled pollen and stored it in different conditions to check its long-term viability. Finding a way to keep pollen viable for a month to a year would pave the way for experiments I thought up while observing pollinators out at LF on July 7. I see that Megan noted the amount of pollen available for that sample wasn’t large, so it would be great if another set of samples could be taken, also so other plants are represented.

Observations on Thursday

This two-part entry includes one observation about pollination that struck me odd. I had a floral head (A) at Loeffler’s corner and as Agopostamas texanus approached – it stopped – flew backwards and away – and visited others nearby (all Echinacea). Did the presence of ants on the head – around the anthers have anything to do with the “I’ll just come back later” actions of the bee? Has anyone else observed a head NOT get visited even though it was ripe with pollen because of the presence of ants?
My second half is simply noting that a calico cat and two large kittens were at the end of the common garden yesterday as I left about 4PM. The mother slunk away and the gold/white kitten watched me while the other kitten mostly white/ some black was trying to consume a chipmunk! Are these cats known to inhabit the area?

Visitors to the Echinacea flog

The little map on the right shows the locations of recent visitors to the Echinacea flog (since 29 June 2009). I just noticed that Hong Kong caught up to Belize (2 visitors each). These countries are tied for third (behind USA and Australia). Which country is going to have the most visitors by the end of the summer?

Here are the standings today (12 July)…

United States	182
Australia (AU)	3
China (CN)	2
France (FR)	2
Hong Kong (HK)	2
Belize (BZ)	2
Canada (CA)	1
Romania (RO)	1
Norway (NO)	1
Austria (AT)	1
Israel (IL)	1
Ecuador (EC)	1
India (IN)	1
Afghanistan	1
Japan (JP)	1

You can view current tallies to see where you favorite country ranks. Note that Ecuador is in 4th place and Hungary isn’t yet on the list.

Are Echinacea siblings compatible?

I did some calculations of compatibility rates between pairs of half- and full-sibs while working on a revision of a paper about inbreeding depression in Echinacea. I started on the back on an envelope, but quickly moved to the flog because I did the calculations before, but lost the envelope. Here are the basic questions:

What proportion of matings between full-sib and half-sib Echinacea plants is compatible? Calculating a simple answer assuming no dominance in S-alleles is straightforward, but unrealistic. I think I started in the right direction toward a better answer. Comments appreciated.

Echinacea has a sporophytic self-incompatibility system. Plants don’t self because they have a self recognition mechanism that works like this: A plant produces pollen grains and stigmas that express products of two alleles at the S-locus. If either S-allele of a pollen grain is the same as either S-allele on the stigma, then the pollen grain won’t fertilize the ovule. To set seed an individual Echinacea plant needs pollen from another plant–and not just any plant.

If a pollen donor shares an S-allele with another plant, then its pollen grains won’t fertilize the ovules of the other plant. That pair is called “mating incompatible.” Mating incompatibility often occurs in pairs of related plants and sometimes between unrelated plants too. The extent of mating incompatibility among unrelated plants depends on how many total S-alleles are in a population.

So, here’s a basic question: What fraction of matings between full-sib Echinacea plants is compatible?

To answer it, designate each individual by its S-alleles: 12 is a plant with S-allele “1” and S-allele “2.”

The cross “12 x 12” represents selfing. It’s an incompatible cross.

The cross “12 x 34” represents mating between two plants that share no alleles. It’s a compatible cross.

The cross “12 x 13” represents mating between a pair that shares one allele. It’s an incompatible cross.

To designate some full-sibs, consider their parents first:
P: 12 X 34
There are four possible types of offspring resulting from this cross (F1s):
F1: 13, 14, 23, 24

Now, mate all possible combinations and note whether the cross is compatible. The below table summarizes the compatibility of all possible crosses. 13 x 13 in the upper left is mating incompatible. 13 X 24 is mating compatible.

F1 x F1
   13 14 23 24
13  N  N  N  Y
14  N  N  Y  N
23  N  Y  N  N
24  Y  N  N  N

4 of 16 mating combinations between pairs of full siblings are compatible, 25%.

The next basic question is What fraction of matings between half-sib Echinacea plants is compatible?

If the mom is S-genotype is 12 and the first dad (sire 1) is 34, then there are three types of pollen donors for the second dad (the dad of the other half sib): dads with the same S-alleles as the first dad (sire 2a = 34), dads sharing one S-allele with the first dad (sire 2b = 35), and dads sharing no alleles with the first dad (sire 2c = 56).

Represent the mating of mom and sire 1 and their progeny like this:
P: 12 X 34
F1.1: 13, 14, 23, 24

The mating of mom and sire 2a, yields the following progeny:
P: 12 X 34
F1.2a: 13, 14, 23, 24

The mating of mom and sire 2b, yields the following progeny:
P: 12 X 35
F1.2b: 13, 15, 23, 25

The mating of mom and sire 2c, yields the following progeny:
P: 12 X 56
F1.2c: 15, 16, 25, 26

The following tables represent all combinations of the three types of half-sib crosses possible:

F1.1 x F1.2a
   13 14 23 24
13  N  N  N  Y
14  N  N  Y  N
23  N  Y  N  N
24  Y  N  N  N

Just like full-sib crosses, 4 of 16 pairs are mating compatible, 25%.

F1.1 x F1.2b
   13 14 23 24
13  N  N  N  Y
15  N  N  Y  Y
23  N  Y  N  N
25  Y  Y  N  N

6 of 16 mating combinations between these pairs of half siblings are compatible, 37.5%.

F1.1 x F1.2c
   13 14 23 24
15  N  N  Y  Y
16  N  N  Y  Y
25  Y  Y  N  N
26  Y  Y  N  N

8 of 16 mating combinations between these pairs of half siblings are compatible, 50%.

So, 25 – 50% of pairs of half sib are mating compatible. As total S-allele diversity increases, half-sib compatibility would tend toward 50%.

These number don’t jibe with mate compatibility rates we’ve observed when crossing Echinacea siblings. In 1999 & 2000 we found that 68% of sib pairs (sibs from open pollinated materal plants) we attempted to cross were mating compatible, only 32% were incompatible.

The difference in theoretical and actual mating compatibility rates probably results from a bad assumption. The calculations above assume that there is no dominance among S-alleles. If one allele masks the expression of another, then it is much harder to answer the question. However, my first thought is that dominance will just increase the overall fraction of compatible mating pairs among siblings. It must be true for full siblings… I think.

Suppose that S-allele 1 is dominant to 3 (i.e. it masks the effect of allele 3), then for the original full sib scenario the 13 S-genotype behaves the same as a 11 S-genotype.

P: 12 X 34
F1: 13, 14, 23, 24

F1 x F1
   13 14 23 24
13  N  N  Y  Y
14  N  N  Y  N
23  Y  Y  N  N
24  Y  N  N  N

6 of 16 mating combinations between these pairs of full siblings are compatible, 37.5%. Ah hah–a greater fraction of compatible mate pairs with one dominant S-allele!

Wait, it’s not so clear-cut because with dominance there are other possible combinations of parental S-genotypes that can generate full-sib progeny: 13 X 34, 13 X 33, and 12 X 33. Notice that homozygous S-genotypes become possible with dominance.

P: 13 X 34
F1: 13, 14, 33, 34

F1 x F1
   13 14 33 34
13  N  N  Y  Y
14  N  N  Y  N
33  Y  Y  N  N
34  Y  N  N  N

6 of 16 mating combinations between these pairs of full siblings are compatible, 37.5%.

P: 13 X 33
F1: 13, 13, 33, 33

F1 x F1
   13 13 33 33
13  N  N  Y  Y
13  N  N  Y  Y
33  Y  Y  N  N
33  Y  Y  N  N

8 of 16 mating combinations between these pairs of full siblings are compatible, 50%.

P: 12 X 33
F1: 13, 13, 23, 23

F1 x F1
   13 13 23 23
13  N  N  Y  Y
13  N  N  Y  Y
23  Y  Y  N  N
23  Y  Y  N  N

8 of 16 mating combinations between these pairs of full siblings are compatible, 50%.

Ok, the introduction of one dominant allele does increase the overall fraction of compatible mating pairs among full siblings. I guess that adding more dominant S-alleles to a population would increase the proportion of full sib pairs that is compatible.

I’m guessing adding dominant S-alleles would increase the proportion of compatible matings between pairs of half-sibs too, but I am not sure. It’s too complicated for now.

One last thought, the dominance relationships among alleles may differ in pollen grains and stigmas. This probably occurs in Echinacea because we have observed the following non-reciprocal mating incompatibility: Pollen from plant A is mating compatible with plant B, but pollen from plant B is not mating compatible with plant A. Complicated, eh?

It was helpful for me to think through this. Please let me know if my reasoning is flawed. I’m sure folks have figured this out before. If you know who/where, please send me a reference!