Genome size variation in some cultivated and wild species of Chenopodium (Chenopodiaceae)

REFERENCES

• Aellen P., 1929—Beitrag zur Systematik der Chenopodium- Arten Amerikas, vor-wiegend auf Grund der Sammlung des United States National Museum in Washington, D.C. Feddes Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg., 26: 31–64, 119–160.
   Google Scholar
• Bassett I. J. and Crompton C. W., 1982—The genus Chenopodium in Canada. Canadian Journal of Botany, 60: 586–610.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett M. D. and Smith J. B., 1991—Nuclear DNA amounts in angiosperms. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B 334: 309–345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhargava A., Shukla S. and Ohri D., 2006—Karyotypic studies on some cultivated and wild species of Chenopodium (Chenopodiaceae). Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 53: 1309–1320.
   Google Scholar
• Bhargava A., Rana T. S., Shukla S. and Ohri D., 2005—Seed protein electrophoresis of some cultivated and wild species of Chenopodium (Chenopodiaceae). Biologia Plantarum, 49: 505–511.
   Google Scholar
• Cavalier-Smith T., 1985—The evolution of genome size. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
   Google Scholar
• Dostalek J., 1987—Influence of the mode of pollination on offspring of some species of the genus Chenopodium. Preslia, 59: 263–269.
   Google Scholar
• Gangopadhyay G., Das S. and Mukherjee K. K., 2002—Speciation in Chenopodium in West Bengal, India. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 49: 503–510.
   Google Scholar
• Giusti L., 1970—El genero Chenopodium en Argentina 1: Numeros de cromosomas. Darwiniana, 16: 98–105.
   Google Scholar
• Greilhuber J., 1988—‘Self-tanning’- a new and important source of stoichiometric error in cytophotometric determination of nuclear DNA content in plants. Plant Systematics and Evolution, 158: 87–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greilhuber J., 1998—Intraspecific variation in genome size: a critical assessment. Annals of Botany, 82: 27–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greilhuber J., Dolezel J., Lysak M. and Bennett M. D., 2005—The origin, evolution and proposed stabilization of the term ‘genome size’ and ‘C-value’ to describe nuclear DNA contents. Annals of Botany, 95: 255–260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heiser C. B. and Nelson D. C., 1974—On the origin of cultivated chenopods (Chenopodium). Genetics, 78: 503–505.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Keener C. S., 1970—Documented plant chromosome numbers 70: 1 Chenopodiaceae. Sida, 3: 533–536.
   Google Scholar
• Kirtikar K. R. and Basu B. D., 2001—Indian Medicinal Plants Vol. 9. Oriental Publishers, Dehradun, India.
   Google Scholar
• Mosyakin S. L. and Clemants S. E., 1996—New infrageneric taxa and combinations in Chenopodium L. (Chenopodiaceae). Novon, 6: 398–403.
   Google Scholar
• Ohri D., 1998—Genome size variation and plant systematics. Annals of Botany, 82: 75–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohri D. and Khoshoo T. N., 1986—Plant DNA contents and systematics. In: DNA systematics Vol II Plants 1–19. (Ed.) Dutta, S K., CRC Press Ine, Florida.
   Google Scholar
• Partap T., Joshi B.D and Galwey N. W., 1998—Chenopods. Chenopodium spp. Promoting the conservation and use of underutilized and neglected crops. 22. Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research, Gatersleben International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy.
   Google Scholar
• Rahiminejad M. R. and Gornall R. J., 2004—Flavonoid evidence for allopolyploidy in the Chenopodium album aggregate (Amaranthaceae). Plant Systematics and Evolution, 246: 77–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raina S. N., 1990—Genome organization and evolution in the genus Vicia. In: Kawano S. (Ed.) “Biological Approaches and Evolutionary Trends in Plants”, p. 183–201. Academic Press, London.
   Google Scholar
• Risi J. and Galwey N. W., 1984—The Chenopodium Grains of the Andes: Inca Crops for Modern Agriculture. Advances in Applied Biology, 10: 145–216.
   Google Scholar
• Ruas P.M., Bonifacio A., Ruas C. F., Fairbanks D. J. and Anderson W. R., 1999—Genetic relationships among 19 accessions of six species of Chenopodium L. by random amplified polymorphic DNA fragments (RAPD). Euphytica, 105: 25–32.
   Google Scholar
• Scott A. J., 1978—A review of the classification of Chenopodium L. and related genera (Chenopodiaceae). Bot. Jahrb. Syst.,100: 205–220.
   Google Scholar
• Simmonds N. W., 1976—Quinoa and relatives. In:, Evolution of Crop Plants 29–30. (Ed.) Simmonds N.W., Longman, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Walters T. W., 1987—Electrophoretic evidence for the evolutionary relationship of the tetraploid Chenopodium berlandieri to its putative diploid progenitors. Selbyana, 10: 36–55.
   Google Scholar
• West G. C., 1967—Nutrition of tree sparrows during winter in central Illinois. Ecology, 48: 58–67.
   Google Scholar
• Williams J. T. and Harper J. L., 1965—Seed polymorphism and germination. I. The influence of nitrates and low temperatures on the germination of Chenopodium album. Weed Research, 5: 141–150.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson H. D., 1980—Artificial hybridization among species of Chenopodium sect. Chenopodium. Systematic Botany, 5: 253–263.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson H. D., 1990—Quinua and relatives (Chenopodium sect. Chenopodium subsect. Cellulata. Economic Botany, 44: 92–110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson H. D. and Heiser C. B., 1979—The origin and evolutionary relationships of ‘Huazontle’ (Chenopodium nuttalliae Safford) domesticated chenopod of Mexico. American Journal of Botany, 66: 198–206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar