Please wait a minute...

大连海洋大学学报  2008, Vol. 23 Issue (2): 92-97    DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-9957.2008.02.003
  |
三角帆蚌3个地理种群自交与杂交F1代的形态差异分析
董志国,李家乐,郑汉丰
Morphological variability in original parents and their reciprocal hybrids F1 of fresh water mussel Hyriopsis cumingii from three geographical populations in China
DONG Zhi-guo, LI Jia-le , ZHENG Han-feng
1. The Key Laboratory of Aquatic Genetic Resources and Aquacultural Ecology Certificated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Shanghai Fisheries University, Shanghai 200090, China; 2. Key Constructing Laboratory of Marine Biotechnology of Jiangso Province, Huaihai Institute of Technology, Lianyungang 222005, China; 3. East China Sea Fisheries Institute, Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, Shanghai 200090, China
下载:  PDF (956KB) 
输出:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 运用3种多元分析方法,对三角帆蚌Hyriopsis cumingii 3个地理种群杂交与自交后的9个群体的10个形态比例性状进行了比较研究。聚类分析结果表明,DP(洞庭湖♀×鄱阳湖♂)与PD(鄱阳湖♀×洞庭湖♂)的形态距离最短,分为一支,其次为DD(洞庭湖♀×洞庭湖♂)和PP(鄱阳湖♀×鄱阳湖♂),分为另一支,而,IT(太湖♀×太湖♂)与W(鄱阳湖♀×太湖♂)、TY与DP的遗传距离最大。主成分分析构建了3个主成分,主成分1为21.13%,主成分2为15.33%,主成分3为17.59%,累积贡献率为54.05%。在第一主成分中,FG(全高)与FB(帆状顶点到后端)的影响最大(77.88%、73.46%);第二主成分中,OB(顶点到后端)与OD(顶点到铰合部后缘)的影响最大(85.38%、88.06%);第三主成分中,OH(壳高)与OC(顶点到铰合部前缘)的影响最大(70.32%、78.14%)。判别分析结果表明:9群体三角帆蚌形态差异极显著(P〈0.01);对这9个群体按杂交组合分成A、B、C3组,建立了判别函数,其判别准确率P1为56.41%-90.24%,P2为61.22%-97.30%,综合判别率为68.75%-79.78%,判别效果较为理想。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
董志国
李家乐
郑汉丰
关键词:  三角帆蚌  杂种  形态变异  多元分析    
Abstract: Three multivariation analyThree muhivariation analysis methods (cluster analysis, principal component analysis and discriminant analysis) were used to investigate the morphological variations among three self- bred (DD, PP and TT) and six corresponding hybrids (DP, PD, PT, TP, TD and DT) in fresh water mussel Hyriopsis cumingii from three geographical populations of Dongtinghu Lake (DD), Poyanghu Lake (PP) and Taihu Lake(TT) based on ten morphological indexes. The cluster analysis indicated that there were most similar morphological characters between the stocks of DP and PD, and between DD and PP while TT had quite different morphological character from PT and DP. In the principal component analysis, three principal components were constructed, with the contributory ratio of the Factor 1, Factor 2 and Factor 3 of 21.13%, 15.33%, and 17.59%, respectively and the cumulative contributory ratio of 54.05%. In Factor 1, FG and FB contributory ratio was 77.88% and 73.46%, Factor 2,OB and OD contributory ratio was 85.38% and 88.06% and OH and OC contributory ratio was 70.32% and 78.14% in Factor 3. The discriminant analysis revealed that there were significant differences among the 9 stocks( P 〈 0. 01 ). According to crossing group, the 9 stocks were divided into 3 groups ( A, B and C) to construct discriminant functions. The identification accuracy was 56. 41% - 90.24% (P1) and 61.22% - 97.30% (P2), and the total identification accuracy was 68.75% - 79.78%. Therefore, the discriminant functions were somewhat effective distinguishing the stocks among these hybridization groups.sis methods (cluster analysis, principal component analysis and discriminant analysis) were used to investigate the morphological variations among three self-bred (DD, PP and TT) and six corresponding hybrids (DP,PD, PT, TP, TD and DT) in fresh water mussel Hyriopsis cumingii from three geographical populations of Dongtinghu Lake (DD),Poyanghu Lake (PP) and Taihu Lake(TT) based on ten morphological indexes. The cluster analysis indicated that there were most similar morphological characters between the stocks of DP and PD, and between DD and PP while TT had quite different morphological character from PT and DP. In the principal component analysis, three principal components were constructed, with the contributory ratio of the Factor 1, Factor 2 and Factor 3 of 2113%, 1533%, and 1759%,respectively and the cumulative contributory ratio of 5405%. In Factor 1, FG and FB contributory ratio was 7788% and 7346%, Factor 2,OB and OD contributory ratio was 8538% and 8806% and OH and OC contributory ratio was 7032% and 7814% in Factor 3. The discriminant analysis revealed that there were significant differences among the 9 stocks(P< 001). According to crossing group, the 9 stocks were divided into 3 groups (A, B and C) to construct discriminant functions. The identification accuracy was 5641%-9024%(P1) and 6122%-9730%(P2), and the total identification accuracy was 6875%-7978%. Therefore, the discriminant functions were somewhat effective distinguishing the stocks among these hybridization groups.
Key words:  Hyriopsis cumingii    hybrid    morphological variation    multivariation analysis
               出版日期:  2008-04-21      发布日期:  2016-12-30      期的出版日期:  2008-04-21
中图分类号:  S917%Q95  
引用本文:    
董志国, 李家乐, 郑汉丰. 三角帆蚌3个地理种群自交与杂交F1代的形态差异分析[J]. 大连海洋大学学报, 2008, 23(2): 92-97.
DONG Zhi-guo, LI Jia-le , ZHENG Han-feng. Morphological variability in original parents and their reciprocal hybrids F1 of fresh water mussel Hyriopsis cumingii from three geographical populations in China. Journal of Dalian Ocean University, 2008, 23(2): 92-97.
链接本文:  
https://xuebao.dlou.edu.cn/CN/10.3969/j.issn.1000-9957.2008.02.003  或          https://xuebao.dlou.edu.cn/CN/Y2008/V23/I2/92
[1] 何志然, 胡宏辉, 冯上乐, 李家乐, 白志毅, . 三角帆蚌金色品系生长性状遗传参数及基因型与环境互作效应分析[J]. 大连海洋大学学报, 2021, 36(2): 254-259.
[2] 李金龙, 刘越, 车宗豪, 田园, 刘杰, 闫喜武、, 霍忠明、. 菲律宾蛤仔中国莱州群体与朝鲜新义州群体杂交子代早期生长发育[J]. 大连海洋大学学报, 2020, 35(2): 190-196.
[3] 韩奋杰, 张伟杰, 王中, 江会杰, 陈小慧, 刘明泰, 常亚青. 中间球海胆与马粪海胆杂交后代幼胆期耐热性研究[J]. 大连海洋大学学报, 2019, 34(6): 811-816.
[4] 古倩怡, 岑黔鸿, 李袁源, 何凯, 陈研茹, 陶吉鸿, 殷安齐, 李洪武. 用卤虫与小球藻联合培养法净化养殖废水的研究[J]. 大连海洋大学学报, 2018, 33(6): 749-754.
[5] 马学艳, 杜兴伟, 闻海波, 金武, 徐跑, 华丹, 顾若波. 三角帆蚌钩介幼虫寄生胁迫对黄颡鱼营养指标的影响[J]. 大连海洋大学学报, 2018, 33(4): 472-476.
[6] 邹军, 张呈祥, 闻海波, 马学艳, 徐良, 华丹, 顾若波. 三角帆蚌钩介幼虫寄生包囊在3种鱼鳃丝上的形成规律[J]. 大连海洋大学学报, 2017, 32(6): 637-642.
[7] 张佳康, 马学艳, 闻海波, 邹军, 徐跑, 华丹, 顾若波. 饵料与底质对三角帆蚌稚蚌早期生长的影响[J]. 大连海洋大学学报, 2017, 32(2): 155-160.
[8] 张雪, 栾青杉, 孙坚强, 杜美荣, 梁峻, 臧有才, 张媛, 王俊. 獐子岛海域浮游植物群落周年变化及其与环境因子的关系[J]. 大连海洋大学学报, 2016, 31(3): 315-323.
[9] 梁健, 董克逊, 闫喜武, 霍忠明, 吴云霞, 杨凤. 蛤仔橙色和白色背景壳色的遗传分析及杂种优势的研究[J]. 大连海洋大学学报, 2014, 29(6): 588-595.
[10] 刘阳, 赵建, 朱新平, 史燕, 洪孝友. 中华鳖5个不同群体的形态差异分析[J]. 大连海洋大学学报, 2013, 28(2): 174-178.
[11] 高鑫, 闫喜武, 张辉, 张国范. 蛤仔南北方养殖群体杂交子代早期生长发育的研究[J]. 大连海洋大学学报, 2013, 28(1): 39-43.
[12] 闻海波, 聂志娟, 曹哲明, 华丹, 顾若波, 徐跑. 不同颜色珍珠层的三角帆蚌组织中类胡萝卜素含量的分析[J]. 大连海洋大学学报, 2012, 27(3): 265-268.
[13] 许巧情, 郝立平. 不同育龄三角帆蚌血细胞吞噬率和血浆抗菌活力的比较[J]. 大连海洋大学学报, 2011, 26(5): 442-445.
[14] 霍堂斌, 袁美云, 马波, 蔡林刚, 阿达可白克·可尔江, 姜作发. 白斑狗鱼与黑斑狗鱼的形态差异与判别分析[J]. 大连海洋大学学报, 2011, 26(3): 253-259.
[15] 赵鹏, 丁君, 常亚青. 两种壳色虾夷扇贝壳体尺性状对活体重影响效果的分析[J]. 大连海洋大学学报, 2011, 26(1): 1-5.
No Suggested Reading articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed