Identification of Turf Bermudagrasses on the Oklahoma State University Baseball Field and Three Experimental Clones as Revealed with Simple Sequence Repeat Markers

Abstract

<jats:p>Turfgrass varietal identification is critical and allows turfgrass professionals to manage the turf based on the cultural requirements of the variety. On the Oklahoma State University (OSU) Baseball Field (OSUBF) in Stillwater, OK, some bermudagrass (<jats:italic>Cynodon</jats:italic> sp.) plants exhibited desirable traits but their exact identities were unknown due to the installation of multiple varieties over time. Accordingly, the major objective of this study was to identify if the desirable bermudagrass plants were from commercially available known varieties. Recently, the OSU turf bermudagrass breeding program developed and entered three fairway-type clonal bermudagrasses in the 2013 National Turfgrass Evaluation Program (NTEP) bermudagrass trial: OKC 1131, OKC 1163, and OKC 1302. The secondary objective was to create molecular marker profiles for these three experimental lines. Five OSUBF samples were analyzed using simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers, along with 24 clonal, commercially available turf bermudagrass varieties widely used in Oklahoma, the three OSU experimental clones, six randomly selected single plants from ‘Riviera’, and two controls for common bermudagrass (<jats:italic>Cynodon dactylon</jats:italic>) and african bermudagrass (<jats:italic>Cynodon transvaalensis</jats:italic>). SSR marker genotyping data indicated that the five OSUBF plants were clones of an identical bermudagrass. The OSUBF bermudagrass had the same fingerprint as ‘Astro-DLM’ bermudagrass for 14 out of 16 SSRs genotyped. Fifteen out of 30 additional SSR markers also showed differences between the OSUBF bermudagrass and ‘Astro-DLM’. The three OSU experimental clones were different from each other and had different fingerprints from the other tested varieties based on SSR profiles, indicating they are new breeding lines. These four distinct lines have potential to be released as new varieties if they demonstrate superior turf quality traits and adaptation over time.</jats:p>

Genetic Diversity of Greens‐type Bermudagrass Genotypes as Assessed with Simple Sequence Repeat Markers

“…The 45 SSR markers used to screen the 19 genotypes of bermudagrass in this study will also be a useful genetic tool for bermudagrass cultivar identification in the future. These markers are more reliable than those used in previous publications (Fang et al, 2015; Wang et al, 2010) in that they were selected from the linkage map and cover the major portion of the tetraploid bermudagrass whole genome. In addition, the DNA profiles indicated that the 15 experimental genotypes used in this study are new genotypes that differ from the ultradwarf greens‐type bermudagrass cultivars currently used on golf courses.…”

“…Fifteen elite OSU greens‐type experimental bermudagrass entries (11 × 1, 12 × 11, 12 × 17, 13 × 13, 14 × 10, 14 × 22, 1 × 10, 1 × 20, 3m3, 3 × 15, 63 × 18, 77 × 16, 7 × 19, 80 × 18, and 8 × 12) were genotyped together with four industry‐standard cultivars (Tifdwarf, TifEagle, Champion, and Mini Verde). Healthy leaf tissue was sampled from each of the 19 plants grown in a greenhouse at the OSU Agronomy Research Station, Stillwater, OK. DNA was isolated from fresh leaf tissue following a phenol‐chloroform extraction method with minor modifications (Fang et al, 2015; Nalini et al, 2004). Each DNA sample was quantified by a spectrophotometer (NanoDrop ND‐1000, Thermo Fisher Scientific) and diluted to 10 ng μL −1 for polymerase chain reaction.…”

“…Forty‐five SSR primer pairs (PPs) (Table 1) worked well and amplified clear bands on most of the 19 genotypes. Polymerase chain reaction was conducted following the procedure described by Fang et al (2015).…”

Genetic and QTL mapping in African bermudagrass

“…The PCR and gel electrophoresis were conducted following the procedures described by Fang et al. (2015). Progeny with different bands from the parent were identified as cross‐pollinated, which were excluded from the study.…”

“…Eleven C. transvaalensis SSR primer pairs (PPs) (CTGA7-1983/1984, CTGA7-1987/1988, CTGA7-1993/1994, CTGA7-1995/1996, CTAAG8-2499/2500, CTAAG8-2501/2502, CTAAG8-2503/2504, CTAAG8-2505/2506, CTAAG8-2507/2508, CTAAT1-2509/2510, CTAAT1-2513/2514) developed by Tan et al (2012) were employed to genotype the progeny. The PCR and gel electrophoresis were conducted following the procedures described by Fang et al (2015). Progeny with different bands from the parent were identified as cross-pollinated, which were excluded from the study.…”