Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Early Access

Integrating karyotypic diversity and pollen morphology to assess taxonomic relationships among Pisum sativum L. varieties

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.13384
Submitted
1 January 2026
Published
29-08-2026
Versions

Abstract

This study, conducted on pea (Pisum sativum L.) varieties from different origins and widely used by farmers in Algeria, aims to determine chromosomal characteristics, assess karyotype asymmetry and analyse pollen morphology to establish taxonomic relationships among the studied pea varieties. This research addresses the lack of cytogenetic and palynological data on pea varieties, which limits their classification and use in breeding programs. All studied varieties shared a basic chromosome number of  x = 7. Chromosome size ranged from 2.96 µm in the variety Aroubia to 6.2 µm in Sirma, with total chromosome length varying from 51.5 µm in Aroubia to 70.16 µm in Sirma. Karyotype formulas of the studied varieties were 2n = 6m + 8sm for Aroubia and Kelvedon, 2n = 4m + 2m (sat) + 8sm for Onward, 2n = 6m + 2m (sat) + 6sm for Séfrou, 2n = 10m + 2sm + 2sm (sat) for Utrillo and 2n = 10sm + 2sm (sat) + 2st for Sirma. Aroubia, Kelvedon, Onward and Sirma belong to the 2A class, while Séfrou and Utrillo belong to the 3A class. Pollen grains were euprolate and tricolporate. The largest P value was observed in Onward (50.94 µm), while the smallest value was recorded in Kelvedon (44.74 µm). In the principal component analysis (PCA), the first principal component (PC1) and the second principal component (PC2) accounted for 71.63 % of the cumulative variance based on karyological and palynological traits. The combination with hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) distinguished the varieties into three distinct groups, reinforcing their taxonomic relationships. The results highlight notable variations in chromosomal characteristics, karyotype asymmetry and pollen morphology among the studied varieties. These findings contribute to a better understanding of pea genetic diversity and may serve as a basis for future breeding and conservation strategies.

References

  1. 1. Kreplak J, Madoui MA, Cápal P, Novák P, Labadie K, Aubert G, et al. A reference genome for pea provides insight into legume genome evolution. Nat Genet. 2019;51(11):1411–22. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-019-0480-1
  2. 2. Tayeh N, Klein A, Le Paslier MC, Jacquin F, Houtin H, Rond C, et al. Genomic prediction in pea: Effect of marker density and training population size and composition on prediction accuracy. Front Plant Sci. 2015;6:941. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00941
  3. 3. Peruzzi L, Leitch IJ, Caparelli KF. Chromosome diversity and evolution in Liliaceae. Ann Bot. 2009;103(3):459–75. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcn230
  4. 4. Astuti G, Roma-Marzio F, Peruzzi L. Traditional karyomorphological studies: Can they still provide a solid basis in plant systematics? Flora Mediterr. 2017;27:91–98. https://doi.org/10.7320/FlMedit27.091
  5. 5. Stebbins GL. Chromosomal evolution in higher plants. London: Edward Arnold; 1971. p. 43–46.
  6. 6. Guerra M. Cytotaxonomy: The end of childhood. Plant Biosyst. 2012;146(3):703–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2012.717973
  7. 7. Caputo P, Frediani M, Gelati MT, Venora G, Cremonini R, Ruffini Castiglione M. Karyological and molecular characterisation of subgenus Vicia (Fabaceae). Plant Biosyst. 2013;147(4):1242–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2013.777473
  8. 8. Harpke D, Carta A, Tomović G, Ranđelović V, Ranđelović N, Blattner FR, et al. Phylogeny, karyotype evolution and taxonomy of Crocus series Verni (Iridaceae). Plant Syst Evol. 2015;301(2):309–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00606-014-1074-0
  9. 9. de Souza FC, Meireles JE, Mendonça CBF, Gonçalves-Esteves V. Pollen diversity and its implications to the systematics of Poecilanthe (Fabaceae). Plant Syst Evol. 2014;300(8):1759–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00606-014-1003-2
  10. 10. Zhao XL, Gao XF, Xu B. Pollen morphology of Indigofera (Fabaceae) in China and its taxonomic implications. Plant Syst Evol. 2016;302(5):469–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00606-015-1275-1
  11. 11. Antonio-Domingues H, De Queiroz RT, Rossi ML, Martinelli AP, Da Luz CF. Pollen morphology and ultrastructure of Tephrosia Pers.: A taxonomic approach. Grana. 2019;58(3):159–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00173134.2019.1571626
  12. 12. Bagheri A, Akhavan Roofigar A, Abbasi S, Maassoumi AA, Rutten T, Blattner FR. Pollen morphology of Astragalus section Hymenostegis (Fabaceae) and evaluation of its systematic implications. Grana. 2019;58(5):328–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00173134.2019.1621931
  13. 13. Weryszko-Chmielewska E, Stpiczyńska M, Michońska M. Morphological anomalies in pea pollen grains under high zinc doses. Acta Soc Bot Pol. 1991;60(3–4):259–72. https://doi.org/10.5586/asbp.1991.019
  14. 14. Jiang Y, Lahlali R, Karunakaran C, Kumar S, Davis AR, Bueckert RA. Seed set, pollen morphology and pollen surface composition response to heat stress in field pea. Plant Cell Environ. 2015;38(11):2387–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12589
  15. 15. Levan A, Fredga K, Sandberg AA. Nomenclature for centromeric position on chromosomes. Hereditas. 1964;52:201–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-5223.1964.tb01953.x
  16. 16. Paszko B. A critical review and a new proposal of karyotype asymmetry indices. Plant Syst Evol. 2006;258:39–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00606-005-0389-2
  17. 17. Peruzzi L, Eroğlu HE. Karyotype asymmetry: How to measure and what to measure? Comp Cytogenet. 2013;7(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.3897/CompCytogen.v7i1.4431
  18. 18. Romero-Zarco C. A new method for estimating karyotype asymmetry. Taxon. 1986;35(3):526–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/1221906
  19. 19. Huziwara Y. Karyotype analysis in some genera of Compositae. Am J Bot. 1962;49(2):116–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1537-2197.1962.tb14916.x
  20. 20. Arano H. Cytological studies in subfamily Carduoideae of Japan. Bot Mag Tokyo. 1963;76(895):32–39. https://doi.org/10.15281/jplantres1887.76.32
  21. 21. Greilhuber J, Speta F. Giemsa karyotypes and their evolutionary significance in Scilla. Plant Syst Evol. 1977;127:171–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00984148
  22. 22. Wodehouse RP. Pollen Grains. 3rd ed. New York: Hafner; 1965.
  23. 23. Erdtman G. Pollen morphology and plant taxonomy IV. Svensk Bot Tidskr. 1945;39:279–85.
  24. 24. Erdtman G. Pollen Morphology and Plant Taxonomy: Angiosperms. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell; 1952. https://doi.org/10.1080/11035895209453507
  25. 25. Mukherjee S. Cryptic structural differences in Pisum sativum. Cytologia. 1987;52(4):793–800. https://doi.org/10.1508/cytologia.52.793
  26. 26. Praça-Fontes MM, Carvalho CR, Ronildo WR. Karyotype revised of Pisum sativum. Plant Syst Evol. 2014;300(8):1621–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00606-014-0989-9
  27. 27. Paul S, Banik B, Dholakia BB, Datta BK. Assessing karyotype diversity in Lathyrus. Feddes Repert. 2022;133(3):199–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/fedr.202200015
  28. 28. Basu S. Elucidating karyotype structure in legumes. Nucleus. 2023;66(1):39–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13237-023-00405-3
  29. 29. Fouzdar A, TSL T. Cytogenetical evolution in Pisum. Cytologia. 1976;41(1):91–104. https://doi.org/10.1508/cytologia.41.91
  30. 30. Weiss-Schneeweiss H, Schneeweiss GM. Karyotype diversity in angiosperms. In: Leitch IJ, ed. Plant Genome Diversity, Vol. 2. Vienna: Springer; 2013. p. 209–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-1160-4_14
  31. 31. Palomino G, Hernández LT, Torres EDLC. Genome size and chromosome analysis in Chenopodium. Euphytica. 2008;164(1):221–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-008-9712-3
  32. 32. Blixt S. Cytology of Pisum: II. Agric Hort Genet. 1958;16:221–37.
  33. 33. Blixt S. Cytology of Pisum: III. Agric Hort Genet. 1959;17:47–75.
  34. 34. Hall KJ, Parker JS, Ellis THN. Genetic and cytogenetic maps of pea. Genome. 1997;40(5):744–54. https://doi.org/10.1139/g97-100
  35. 35. Samatadze TE, Muravenko OV, Zelenin AV, Gostimskii AS. Identification of pea chromosomes using C-banding. Dokl Biol Sci. 2002;387:577–80. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021948026059
  36. 36. Murtaza G, Ahmed N, Majid SA. Karyotype analysis of Pisum sativum. Int J Agric Biol. 2005;7(1):118–120.
  37. 37. Benlioğlu B. Cytogenetic diversity of Vicia sativa. Legum Res. 2021;44(4):501–07. https://doi.org/10.18805/LR-4723
  38. 38. Zuo L, Yuan Q. Centromeric index heterogeneity and intrachromosomal asymmetry. Plant Syst Evol. 2011;297(1–2):141–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00606-011-0523-7
  39. 39. Moscone EA, Scaldaferro MA, Grabiele M, Cecchini NM, Sánchez García Y, Jarret R, et al. The evolution of chilli peppers (Capsicum - Solanaceae): A cytogenetic perspective. Acta Hortic. 2007;745:137–70. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2007.745.5
  40. 40. Jarret RL, Barboza GE, da Costa Batista FR, Berke T, Chou YY, Hulse-Kemp A, et al. Capsicum—An abbreviated compendium. J Am Soc Hortic Sci. 2019;144(1):3–22. https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS04649-18
  41. 41. Klamt A, Schifino-Wittmann MT. Karyotype evolution in Lathyrus. Genet Mol Biol. 2000;23(2):463–67. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-47572000000200033
  42. 42. Baziz K, Benamara-Bellagha M, Pustahija F, Brown SC, Siljak-Yakovlev S, Khalfallah N. First karyotype analysis, physical rDNA mapping and genome size assessment in 4 North African Astragalus taxa (Fabaceae). Turk J Bot. 2014;38(6):1248–58. https://doi.org/10.3906/bot-1405-40
  43. 43. Hammouda D, Khalfallah N. Caryomorphological study of Lens culinaris. Eur Sci J. 2015;11(24).
  44. 44. Shamsolshoara Y, Javadi H, Miri SM. Karyomorphological study of Astragalus species. Iran J Bot. 2020;26(2):172–78. https://doi.org/10.22092/ijb.2020.341321.1271
  45. 45. Martin E, Yıldız HK, Kahraman A, Binzat OK, Eroğlu HE. Detailed chromosome measurements and karyotype asymmetry of some Vicia (Fabaceae) taxa from Turkey. Caryologia. 2018;71(3):224–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00087114.2018.1460058
  46. 46. Altay D, Eroğlu HE, Hamzaoğlu E, Koç M. Karyotype analysis of Dianthus. Turk J Bot. 2017;41(4):1–9. https://doi.org/10.3906/bot-1612-30
  47. 47. De Resende KFM. Karyotype evolution: Concepts and applications. In: Bhat TA, Wani AA, eds. Chromosome Structure and Aberrations. New Delhi: Springer; 2017. p. 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-3673-3_9
  48. 48. Hamani H, Hammouda D, Bellil I. Cytogenetic characterisation and protein polymorphism in ten Vicia faba L. subvarieties (var. minor, var. equina and var. major): Correlation between botanical type and chromosome size. Afr J Biol Sci. 2024;6(16):337–56. https://doi.org/10.48047/AFJBS.6.16.2024.337-356
  49. 49. Hammadi H, Hammouda D, Djeghar R. Distribution of heterochromatic variability in several genotypes of Lens culinaris Medik (ssp Microsperma and Macrosperma). Int J Sci Res. 2018;7(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.21275/ART20178906
  50. 50. Trivedi A, Srivastava A, Farooqui A, Khan S, Pokharia AK, Ferguson DK, et al. Pollen morphological study in subfamily Papilionoideae using confocal laser scanning microscopy. J Palaeosci. 2022;71(2):123–42. https://doi.org/10.54991/jop.2022.538
  51. 51. Aydin H, Sari D, Sari H, Eker T, Aykurt C, Toker C. Phylogenetic relationships among Pisum L. species from Asia Minor inferred from pollen and seed coat morphology. Grana. 2021;60(5):347–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00173134.2021.1912820
  52. 52. Manten AA. History of the microscope and palynology. Rev Palaeobot Palynol. 1969;9(3–4):137–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-6667(69)90001-3
  53. 53. Riding JB. A guide to preparation protocols in palynology. Palynology. 2021;45(sup1):1–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/01916122.2021.1878305
  54. 54. Nazish M, Kamal A, Zafar M, Ahmad M, Shah GM, Alkahtani J, et al. Pollen patterns and morphological variability unravelling taxonomic relevance and evolutionary relationship in salt-tolerant species. Genet Resour Crop Evol. 2025;72(5):5979–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-024-02316-5

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.