| Literature DB >> 25227277 |
Carmen Julia Figueredo, Alejandro Casas1, Patricia Colunga-GarcíaMarín, Jafet M Nassar, Antonio González-Rodríguez.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Agave inaequidens and A. hookeri are anciently used species for producing the fermented beverage 'pulque', food and fiber in central Mexico. A. inaequidens is wild and cultivated and A. hookeri only cultivated, A. inaequidens being its putative wild relative. We analysed purposes and mechanisms of artificial selection and phenotypic divergences between wild and managed populations of A. inaequidens and between them and A. hookeri, hypothesizing phenotypic divergence between wild and domesticated populations of A. inaequidens in characters associated to domestication, and that A. hookeri would be phenotypically similar to cultivated A. inaequidens.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25227277 PMCID: PMC4177152 DOI: 10.1186/1746-4269-10-66
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ethnobiol Ethnomed ISSN: 1746-4269 Impact factor: 2.733
Figure 1Localization of the populations of (green triangle symbol are wild, red down pointing triangle symbol are cultivated) and A. (grey square symbol) tudied in Central Occidental Mexico.
Figure 2Aspects of the populations of and studied. A) Wild population of A. inaequidens in oak forest B) In situ managed population of A. inaequidens in disturbed pine-oak forest, C) Cultivated population of A. inaequidens and D) Population of A. hookeri in live fence (photos by Ignacio Torres).
Characters evaluated in the variation analysis, mean values ± s. e in wild and cultivated population of and population of
| Character |
| | PC1 | PC2 | DF1 | DF2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wild populations | Cultivated populations | ||||||
| Plant total lenght (PTL)** | 126.348 ± 3.624 | 148.327 ± 2.962 | 196.417 ± 5.003 |
| 0.157 |
| 0.229 |
| Stem lenght (SL)* | 44.941 ± 1.183 | 47.008 ± 1.407 | 53.1500 ± 2.0638 | 0.460 | 0.219 | 0.099* | -0.004 |
| Diameter of the plant 1 (D1)** | 221.373 ± 5.836 | 199.990 ± 5.560 | 291.333 ± 7.297 |
| -0.273 | 0.124 |
|
| Diameter of the plant 2 (D2)** | 220.246 ± 5.682 | 203.092 ± 5.372 | 279.333 ± 6.518 |
| -0.286 | 0.084 | 0.355 |
| Leaf lenght (LL)** | 97.997 ± 2.540 | 106.385 ± 2.220 | 156.784 ± 4.132 |
| 0.058 |
|
|
| Leaf width at middle (LW)** | 16.522 ± 0.422 | 20.861 ± 0.383 | 20.783 ± 0.450 | 0.595 | 0.471 |
| -0.136 |
| LL/LW** | 6.076 ± 0.130 | 5.187 ± 0.112 | 7.846 ± 0.349 | 0.538 | -0.332 | 0.043 |
|
| LL/SL** | 2.246 ± 0.055 | 2.453 ± 0.087 | 3.121 ± 0.099 |
| 0.034 |
| 0.312 |
| Terminal thorn length (TTL)** | 3.405 ± 0.060 | 4.039 ± 0.086 | 5.038 ± 0.157 | 0.446 | 0.466 |
| 0.229 |
| Terminal thorn width at the base (TTW)** | 0.588 ± 0.013 | 0.732 ± 0.017 | 0.761 ± 0.028 | -0.356 | -0.213 |
| -0.099 |
| TTL/TTW** | 5.993 ± 0.154 | 5.756 ± 0.160 | 7.132 ± 0.345 | 0.003 | 0.108 | 0.063 | 0.245 |
| TTL/LL* | 0.038 ± 0.001 | 0.039 ± 0.001 | 0.033 ± 0.001 |
| 0.216 | -0.091 | -0.142 |
| Total number of teeth (TEE)** | 60.154 ± 2.059 | 61.153 ± 2.008 | 74.108 ± 1.682 |
| -0.269 | 0.165 | 0.177* |
| TEE/LL** | 0.621 ± 0.014 | 0.584 ± 0.018 | 0.483 ± 0.012 | -0.591 | -0.477 | -0.187 | -0.125 |
| Number of teeth in 10 cm2 (TEE10)** | 6.244 ± 0.190 | 5.138 ± 0.193 | 4.517 ± 0.180 |
| -0.611 | -0.276 | 0.044 |
| Teeth length 1 (LTEE1)** | 0.572 ± 0.016 | 0.752 ± 0.020 | 0.660 ± 0.028 | -0.013 |
|
| -0.232 |
| Teeth length 2 (LTEE2)* | 0.306 ± 0.014 | 0.388 ± 0.020 | 0.385 ± 0.023 | 0.128 |
| 0.206 | -0.063 |
| LTEE1/LL** | 0.006 ± 0.0003 | 0.007 ± 0.0003 | 0.004 ± 0.0002 |
| 0.495 | -0.05 | -0.348 |
| LTEE2/LL* | 0.003 ± 0.0001 | 0.004 ± 0.0002 | 0.003 ± 0.0002 |
| 0.477 | -0.028 | -0.202 |
| Teeth width 1 (WTEE1)** | 0.842 ± 0.021 | 1.065 ± 0.031 | 1.086 ± 0.038 | 0.504 |
|
| -0.082 |
| Teeth width 2 (WTEE2)* | 0.454 ± 0.021 | 0.569 ± 0.036 | 0.556 ± 0.038 | 0.076 |
| 0.188 | -0.039 |
| LTEE1/WTEE1* | 0.694 ± 0.015 | 0.725 ± 0.016 | 0.629 ± 0.037 |
| 0.139 | -0.039 | -0.089 |
| LTEE2/WTEE2 | 0.732 ± 0.024 | 0.756 ± 0.031 | 0.678 ± 0.033 |
| 0.288 | -0.015 | -0.092 |
| Distance between teeth (DTEE)* | 0.964 ± 0.048 | 1.214 ± 0.081 | 1.343 ± 0.080 | 0.420 | 0.523 | 0.164 | -0.055 |
| DTEE/LL* | 0.011 ± 0.0005 | 0.0117 ± 0.0008 | 0.0088 ± 0.0006 | -0.390 | 0.463 | -0.033 | -0.182 |
All measurements in cm except Total number of teeth (TEE) and Number of teeth in 10 cm2 (TEE10) these amount. Different capital letters in bold among populations indicate significant differences according to ANOVA and Tukey test (*p ≤ 0.05, (**p ≤ 0.01). The last columns show eigenvectors of the first (PC1) and second (PC2) principal components according to PCA, and the Discriminant Functions 1 and 2.
Varieties of recognized by people of Michoacán, Mexico
| Variety name | Main features | Habitat |
|---|---|---|
| ‘Maguey chico’ | Produce good mescal, but high dermatitis because it has higher concentration of saponins. Its cooked tissue is sweeter than other varieties. | Grow in cleared sunny areas of pine-oak forest (Queréndaro) |
| ‘Maguey grande’ | The cooked stem has higher amount of water than other varieties, cause low dermatitis (lower concentration of saponins), less sweet than other varieties | Grow in shaded areas of the pine-oak forests (Queréndaro) |
| ‘Maguey verde’ | Small size with light Green leaves | Pine-oak forest (Queréndaro and Quiroga), |
| ‘Maguey cenizo o negro’ | Large size with dark green leaves. | Pine-oak forest (Queréndaro and Quiroga), |
| ‘Maguey hoja ancha’ | Leaves notoriously wider than other varieties | Pine-oak forest (Queréndaro) |
| ‘Maguey hoja angosta’ | Leaves notoriously narrower than other varieties | Pine-oak forest (Queréndaro) |
| ‘Maguey de hojas largas y espina chica’ | Leaves long but with smaller terminal spines | Pine-oak forest (Queréndaro) |
| ‘Maguey de hojas cortas y espina grande’ | Leaves short but with longer terminal pines | Pine-oak forest (Queréndaro) |
| ‘Maguey bruto mezcal’ | Plants with fewer narrower and plain leaves. Produce good mescal | Tropical dry forest (Sahuayo) |
| ‘Maguey bruto chapín’ | Plants with abundant, wider chaneled leaves. Used for producing good mescal, and in the process of distillation used as condenser and collector of the distilled mescal | Tropical dry forest (Sahuayo) |
Figure 3Classifcation of populations of and according to the multivariate morphological variation analysed. (A) Projection of wild (▲ wild) and cultivated (▼ cultivated) populations of Agave inaequidens and the populations of A. hookeri (■) in the space of the first and second principal components. (B) Classification of population wild and cultivated Agave inaequidens and population of A. hookeri using Cluster Analysis (CA), r value 0.8451.
Figure 4Classification of individual plants of according to their type of management and (A) through principal component analysis, (B) through discriminant function analysis (DFA). ▲ wild; ▼cultivated ■ A. hookeri, + centroid group.
Significance test of the Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) among wild and cultivated population of and population of
| Discriminant function | Auto value | % of variance | Canonic correlation | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.509 | 57.80 | 0.776 | ||
| 2 | 1.100 | 42.20 | 0.724 | ||
| Contrast of function | Wilks’ Lambda |
|
|
| Significance |
| 1 to 2 | 0.190 | 335.703 | 3.017 | 50 | <0.001 |
| 2 | 0.476 | 149.851 | 24 | <0.001 |
Classification of wild, cultivated of and individuals according to the Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA)
| Actual group | Predicted group | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||||
| N | % | N | % | N | % | |
|
| 92 | 92 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 8 | 9.3 | 75 | 87.2 | 3 | 3.5 |
|
| 2 | 6.3 | 4 | 12.5 | 26 | 81.3 |