Reply to Saumitou-Laprade etal. (2017) "Controlling for genetic identity of varieties, pollen contamination and stigma receptivity is essential to characterize the self-incompatibility system of Olea europaea L.". Eva:https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12498.

Daniela Farinelli,Franco Famiani,Georgios Koubouris,André Bervillé,Pierre Villemur,Catherine Breton

doi:10.1111/eva.12633

Abstract

This study was carried out to examine the validity of previous studies on the intercompatibility of olive and to compare the approach and techniques used for proposing the diallelic self‐incompatibility system and the sporophytic self‐incompatibility system. Analysis of the literature indicates that the mating system of the olive tree is a controversial issue and requires further studies to clearly and fully comprehend it. All possible approaches should be used to maximize reliability of the final conclusions on the olive mating system.

Highlights

Most of the studies on the intercompatibility of olive varieties carried out in recent decades have been reported to be debatable (Saumitou-Laprade, Vernet, Vekemans, Billiard et al, 2017; Saumitou-Laprade, Vernet, Vekemans, Castric et al, 2017), because of (i) “the vast uncertainty around the genetic identity of vernacular varieties,” (ii) “the massive risk of contamination associated with commonly used pollination protocols,” and (iii) proper attention not given to stigma receptivity
On the basis of new data showing no asymmetry on the varieties they used, Saumitou-Laprade, Vernet, Vekemans, Castric et al (2017) claimed that discrepancies with cases of asymmetry asserted in previous studies were due to the above reported three factors and so they expressed concern about the sporophytic self-incompatibility (SSI) system proposed by Breton et al (2014)
As reported in the introduction, Saumitou-Laprade, Vernet, Vekemans, Castric et al (2017) explained discrepancies between their results and other studies by referring to (i) “the vast uncertainty around the genetic identity of vernacular varieties,” (ii) “the massive risk of contamination associated with commonly used pollination protocols,” and (iii) “the importance of checking for stigma receptivity in controlled crosses.”

Summary

| INTRODUCTION

Perri, & Tocci, 1999; Koubouris, Breton, Metzidakis, & Vasilakakis, 2014; Lavee & Datt, 1978; Morettini, Bini, & Bellini, 1972; Moutier, 2002; Moutier, Garcia, Féral, & Salles, 2001; Seifi, Guerina, Kaiser, & Sedgley, 2011; Sharma, Thakur, & Sharm, 1976; Spinardi & Bassi, 2012; Taslimpour, Bonyampour, & Rahemi, 2008; Tombesi, 1978; Tombesi, Cartechini, & Preziosi, 1982; Vuletin Selak, Perica, Goreta Ban, Radunic, & Poljak, 2011), and to analyze the techniques and data used by (Saumitou-Laprade, Vernet, Vekemans, Billiard et al (2017); Saumitou-Laprade, Vernet, Vekemans, Castric et al (2017)), which are at the basis of the concern about the SSI system proposed by Breton et al (2014). As reported in the introduction, Saumitou-Laprade, Vernet, Vekemans, Castric et al (2017) explained discrepancies between their results and other studies by referring to (i) “the vast uncertainty around the genetic identity of vernacular varieties,” (ii) “the massive risk of contamination associated with commonly used pollination protocols,” and (iii) “the importance of checking for stigma receptivity in controlled crosses.”. Particular importance should be given to the number of hermaphroditic flowers

| CONCLUSION

Findings

CONFLICT OF INTEREST