Evaluating the representativeness of the bentgrass (Agrostis L.) gene pool collected across the Russian Federation and neighboring countries in the VIR collection

Various species of bentgrass (Agrostis L.) are an important component of natural pastures. They are used to prepare forage grass mixtures or set up lawns; there are released cultivars. The collection of bentgrass held by VIR currently consists of 576 accessions. A. gigantea Roth is represented mainly by wild accessions; A. stolonifera L., A. canina L., and A. tenuis Sibth. by cultivars and breeding material of foreign origin. The representativeness of the gene pool and the distribution of germplasm collecting sites over the territory of the ex-USSR have been evaluated, and the species diversity has been analyzed within the collection. The regions have been identified that need to be addressed by collecting missions to fill ‘the gaps’ in the geographic, environmental and taxonomic range of bentgrass species. The passport database of VIR’s bentgrass collection and electronic maps of the ex-USSR administrative subdivisions served as the material for the research. A total of 176 administrative subdivisions were accepted as operational units and studied. For each of them, the total number of Agrostis spp. and the total number of accessions collected in its territory were taken into account. Among the eleven species collected, A. gigantea was analyzed in more detail. It appeared that the Northwest of the European part of Russia, Western Siberia, Sakhalin Province, and the Republic of Yakutia were most fully explored by collecting teams. However, the taxonomic and population diversity of bentgrass has not practically been mobilized so far in the southern parts of the Non-Black-Soil and Black-Soil zones, Middle and Lower Volga regions, North Caucasus, Eastern Siberia, and the Far East of Russia. Poorly represented in the collection is the taxonomic diversity of wild bentgrass accessions. The Russian Far East, mountainous areas of the Central Asian Republics, and the Northern and Central Urals are of the greatest interest for filling this gap.

1. Afonin A.N., Greene S.L., Dzyubenko N.I., Frolov A.N. (eds). Interactive Agricultural Ecological Atlas of Russia and Neighboring Countries. Economic Plants and their Diseases, Pests and Weeds [Online]. 2008. [in Russian] URL: http://www.agroatlas.ru [Аccessed on: 19.12.2019].

2. Cherepanov S.K. Vascular plants of Russia and neighboring countries (within the boundaries of the former USSR) (Sosudistye rasteniya Rossii i sopredelnykh gosudarstv [v predelakh byvshego SSSR]). St. Petersburg: Mir i Semya; 1995. [in Russian]

3. Dzyubenko N.I., Malyshev L.L. The taxonomic and ecological diversity of amenity grasses in Russia and other former Soviet Union states. In: Proceedings of the 22nd EUCARPIA Fodder Crops and Amenity Grasses Section. 2000. p.46-47.

4. Maxted N., Guarino L. Planning plant genetic conservation. In: R.D. Smith, J.B. Dickie, S.H. Linington, H.W. Pritchard, R.J. Probert (eds). Seed Conservation: Turning Science into Practice. Kew: Royal Botanic Gardens; 2003. p.37-78.

5. Maxted N., Van Slageren M.W., Rihan J. Ecogeographic surveys. In: L. Guarino, V. Ramanatha Rao, R. Reid (eds). Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity: Technical Guidelines. Wallingford: CAB International; 1995. p.255-286.