HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (24) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Belanger, F. C. Articles by Meyer, W. A. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Belanger, F. C. Articles by Meyer, W. A. Agricola Articles by Belanger, F. C. Articles by Meyer, W. A. Related Collections Ecological Risk Assessment

Interspecific Hybridization between Agrostis stolonifera and Related Agrostis Species under Field Conditions

^a Dep. of Plant Biology and Pathology, Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520
^b Biotechnology Center for Agriculture and the Environment, Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520
^c Inst. of Environmental and Evolutionary Biology, Univ. of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, Scotland

View larger version (29K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. (A) Diagram of experimental plot design. At the center point were five transgenic creeping bentgrass plants. At each of the 90 surrounding points were one plant of nontransgenic creeping bentgrass and one plant of each of the four related species. The distance between each sample point was 3 m. (B) Photograph of one of the sample points. The plants are (1) creeping bentgrass, (2) A. capillaris, (3) A. gigantea, (4) A. canina, and (5) A. castellana.

View larger version (11K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Number of transgenic creeping bentgrass progeny recovered from nontransgenic creeping bentgrass parents at each sampling point from Plots 1 and 2 in 2000. Arrow indicates the direction of the prevailing winds.

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Percentage of transgenic creeping bentgrass progeny recovered from nontransgenic creeping bentgrass parents at each sampling distance from the central transgenic creeping bentgrass pollen source.

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Percentage of transgenic interspecific hybrid progeny recovered from nontransgenic A. capillaris and A. castellana at each sampling distance from the central transgenic creeping bentgrass pollen source.

View larger version (78K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Gel blot of DNA isolated from transgenic and nontransgenic Agrostis plants. The DNA was digested with EcoRI and BamHI and probed with the bar coding region. Lane 1, nontransgenic creeping bentgrass; Lane 2, transgenic creeping bentgrass Line 4475; Lane 3, transgenic creeping bentgrass progeny from Plot 1; Lane 4, transgenic creeping bentgrass Line 5061; Lane 5, transgenic creeping bentgrass progeny from Plot 2; Lane 6, nontransgenic A. capillaris; Lane 7, transgenic A. capillaris hybrid progeny from Plot 1; Lane 8, transgenic A. capillaris hybrid progeny from Plot 2; Lane 9, nontransgsenic A. castellana; Lane 10, transgenic A. castellana hybrid progeny from Plot 1; Lane 11, transgenic A. castellana hybrid progeny from Plot 2. The positions of size markers, in kb, are indicated.