| Literature DB >> 32357896 |
Guadalupe Carrillo-Galván1, Robert Bye2, Luis E Eguiarte3, Sol Cristians4, Pablo Pérez-López5, Francisco Vergara-Silva4, Mario Luna-Cavazos6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most reports of domesticated plants that involve a domestication gradient or inter-specific hybridization in Mexico have focused on those used as food. This study provides knowledge about these processes in two aromatic medicinal plants, Agastache mexicana (Lamiaceae) and A. m. subsp. xolocotziana, widely used in Mexican traditional medicine for the treatment of gastrointestinal ailments and for their sedative effect. Different populations of A. mexicana along a gradient of domestication are found in the foothills of the Popocatepetl volcano of central Mexico, while in this same area the subsp. xolocotziana grows only in the cultivation, possibly a product of hybridization between A. mexicana and Agastache palmeri. This study links ethnobotanical, morpho-physiological, and phytochemical evidence to document the domestication of both taxa as well as elucidates the possible hybrid origin of the subsp. xolocotziana.Entities:
Keywords: Agastache; Aromatic medicinal plant; Domestication; Ethnobotany
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32357896 PMCID: PMC7193375 DOI: 10.1186/s13002-020-00368-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ethnobiol Ethnomed ISSN: 1746-4269 Impact factor: 2.733
Fig. 1Geographic location, study sites and management categories of A. mexicana, A. m. subsp. xolocotziana, and A. palmeri in central Mexico. The images of the inflorescences illustrate the color variation according to the taxon and the management category
Taxa, management category, number of populations, number of individuals per population, total individuals, and sites considered in the morphological variation analysis. Initially, ten individuals were included in each population, however some did not survive
| Taxa | Category | No. of populations | No. of ind. per population | Total no. of ind. | Locality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Encouraged | 4 | 9, 7, 7, 6 | 29 | San Pablo Oztotepec, Milpa Alta, CDMX | |
| Cultivated | 3 | 9, 8, 7 | 24 | Santiago Mamalhuazuca, Ozumba, Edomex | |
| Cultivated | 3 | 8, 7, 7 | 22 | Santiago Mamalhuazuca, Ozumba, Edomex | |
| Tolerated | 3 | 8, 7, 7 | 22 | Puerto de Piedra, Nicolás Flores, Hgo. |
Characters evaluated in the analysis of principal components and eigenvectors of the first and second principal components
| Character | Units | PC1 | PC2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total height | cm | − | − 0.25309168 |
| Leaf area | cm2 | − 0.20287308 | − 0.19621089 |
| Leaf color | pxs | 0.10959718 | 0.012094649 |
| Number of leaves | quantity | − 0.14272378 | − 0.005930697 |
| Number of teeth | quantity | − | − 0.084785244 |
| Number of stem nodes | quantity | − 0.12264778 | − |
| Inflorescence Length | cm | − 0.14389938 | − 0.233460479 |
| Number of inflorescence nodes | quantity | 0.21010157 | − 0.114973125 |
| Number of flowers produced | quantity | − | − 0.128068981 |
| Style length | cm | − 0.20260069 | |
| Length of lower stamens | cm | − 0.225227546 | |
| Length of upper stamens | cm | − 0.224199747 | |
| Flower tube length | cm | − 0.293324118 | |
| Flower length | cm | − 0.223206556 | |
| Corolla color | pxs | 0.11529446 | |
| Rhizome length | cm | 0.11838912 | |
| Rhizome diameter | cm | 0.01026666 | 0.043661684 |
| Number of rhizome nodes | quantity | 0.21010157 | 0.23809349 |
| Seed length | cm | − 0.138544241 | |
| Seed diameter | cm | 0.16784207 | − 0.064307995 |
Bold values indicate the dominant characters in each component
Fig. 2UPGMA dendrogram of the evaluated populations of A. mexicana and A. palmeri. F encouraged, C cultivated, and T tolerated
Fig. 3Graph of the first and second principal component derived from the evaluation of 20 morphological characters in the 97 individuals evaluated. Table 2 shows the vectors with the highest weight in each component
Averages and standard error of 12 characters that presented significant differences when comparing categories 1 (= encouraged) and 2 (= cultivated) in A. mexicana. Domestication trends that indicate these characters are presented
| Characters | Domestication trend | Category | Mean/SE | Student | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Floral | Corolla color | More pigmented flowers | 1 | 133.3 ± 1.72 | 4.28 | 0.000* |
| 2 | 120.1 ± 2.66 | |||||
| Inflorescence length | – | 1 | 19.73 ± 1.91 | 3.02 | 0.003** | |
| 2 | 12.15 ± 1.48 | |||||
| Style length | Longest style, gigantism | 1 | 3.49 ± 0.05 | 3.58 | 0.000* | |
| 2 | 3.74 ± 0.03 | |||||
| Length of lower stamens | Longer stamens, gigantism | 1 | 2.74 ± 0.05 | 5.57 | 0.000* | |
| 2 | 3.13 ± 0.03 | |||||
| Length of upper stamens | 1 | 3.08 ± 0.06 | 5.06 | 0.000* | ||
| 2 | 3.47 ± 0.04 | |||||
| Flower tube length | Longest flower tube, gigantism | 1 | 2.24 ± 0.04 | 5.47 | 0.000* | |
| 2 | 2.59 ± 0.03 | |||||
| Flower length | Larger flowers, gigantism | 1 | 2.74 ± 0.05 | 7.61 | 0.000* | |
| 2 | 3.21 ± 0.02 | |||||
| Seeds | Seed length | Longer and wider seeds, gigantism | 1 | 1.8 ± 0.02 | 5.76 | 0.000* |
| 2 | 2.04 ± 0.03 | |||||
| Seed diameter | 1 | 0.87 ± 0.02 | 4.09 | 0.000* | ||
| 2 | 1.02 ± 0.02 | |||||
| Vegetative | Total height | - | 1 | 98.83 ± 3.59 | 1.63 | 0.000* |
| 2 | 90.53 ± 3.48 | |||||
| Leaf area | Larger leaves, gigantism | 1 | 7.74 ± 0.29 | 2.47 | 0.016*** | |
| 2 | 8.92 ± 0.38 | |||||
| Number of rhizome nodes | More nodes in the rhizome, greater asexual reproductive capacity | 1 | 1.86 ± 0.12 | 2.69 | 0.009** | |
| 2 | 2.5 ± 0.20 | |||||
* Significant level 0.001, ** significant level 0.01 and *** significant level 0.05
Means and standard error of 19 characters that presented significant differences when comparing the plants of (1) A. m. subsp. xolocotziana with (2) A. mexicana (encouraged) and (3) A. palmeri. Domestication trends of the subsp. xolocotziana are shown
| Characters | Trend | Domestication | Category | Mean/SE | F/ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Floral | Corolla color | White | White flowers | 1 | 193.6 ± 15a | 403.7 | 0.000 |
| 2 | 133.3 ± 1.72b | ||||||
| 3 | 146.01 ± 1.2c | ||||||
| Style length | Longer style | Gigantism in flowers and correlated structures | 1 | 4.08 ± 0.04a | 59.0 | 0.000 | |
| 2 | 3.49 ± 0.05b | ||||||
| 3 | 1.62 ± 0.01c | ||||||
| Length of lower stamens | Longer stamens | 1 | 3.22 ± 0.04a | 58.6^ | 0.000 | ||
| 2 | 2.74 ± 0.05b | ||||||
| 3 | 1.34 ± 0.01c | ||||||
| Length of upper stamens | 1 | 3.6 ± 0.05a | 58.6^ | 0.000 | |||
| 2 | 3.08 ± 0.06b | ||||||
| 3 | 1.53 ± 0.02c | ||||||
| Flower tube length | Longer tube | 1 | 2.43 ± 0.07a | 48.9^ | 0.000 | ||
| 2 | 2.24 ± 0.04b | ||||||
| 3 | 1.10 ± 0.02c | ||||||
| Flower length | Largest flower | 1 | 3.26 ± 0.03a | 60.0^ | 0.000 | ||
| 2 | 2.74 ± 0.05b | ||||||
| 3 | 1.52 ± 0.02c | ||||||
| Inflorescence length | Shorter inflorescence length | – | 1 | 10.88 ± 1.07b | 8.3^ | 0.01* | |
| 2 | 19.73 ± 1.91a | ||||||
| 3 | 16.45 ± 2.22ab | ||||||
| Number of nodes in the inflorescence | Smaller number of nodes | – | 1 | 4.63 ± 0.24b | 12.7^ | 0.000 | |
| 2 | 4.89 ± 0.3b | ||||||
| 3 | 7.90 ± 0.73a | ||||||
| Number of flowers produced | Fewer flowers produced | – | 1 | 46 ± 4.14c | 18.3^ | 0.000 | |
| 2 | 86.2 ± 10b | ||||||
| 3 | 185.6 ± 29c | ||||||
| Seeds | Seed length | Longer and wider seeds | Seed in gigantism | 1 | 2.08 ± 0.02a | 84.68 | 0.000 |
| 2 | 1.8 ±0.02b | ||||||
| 3 | 1.5 ± 0.02c | ||||||
| Seed diameter | 1 | 1.08 ± 0.03a | 24.14 | 0.000 | |||
| 2 | 0.8 ± 0.02b | ||||||
| 3 | 0.86 ± 0.01b | ||||||
| Germination | Low percentage | Less sexual reproduction | 1 | 30b | 118 | 0.000 | |
| 2 | 90a | ||||||
| 3 | 90a | ||||||
| 3 | 111.02 ± 5.2a | ||||||
| Number of nodes in the stem | Smaller stem nodes | – | 1 | 11 ± 0.27b | 20.94^ | 0.000 | |
| 2 | 13.75 ± 0.31a | ||||||
| 3 | 13.04 ± 0.72a | ||||||
| Leaf color | Less pigmentation in the leaf | Differentiation in leaf color | 1 | 67.73 ± 1.03a | 4.13 | 0.02* | |
| 2 | 63.14 ± 2.7ab | ||||||
| 3 | 59.04 ± 1.04b | ||||||
| Leaf area | Smaller leaf area | – | 1 | 6.59 ± 0.32a | 21.35 | 0.000 | |
| 2 | 7.74 ± 0.29a | ||||||
| 3 | 10.03 ± 0.47b | ||||||
| Number of teeth on the leaf | Less teeth | – | 1 | 11 ± 0.27b | 35.54 | 0.000 | |
| 2 | 13.63 ± 0.38a | ||||||
| 3 | 16.17 ± 0.53a | ||||||
| Rhizome Length | Longest rhizome with greater number of nodes | Gigantism in rhizome, greater asexual reproductive capacity | 1 | 3.96 ± 0.28a | 32.54 | 0.000 | |
| Number of rhizome nodes | 2 | 2.08 ± 0.23b | |||||
| 3 | 2.3 ± 0.21b | ||||||
| 1 | 4.72 ± 0.26a | 79.16 | 0.000 | ||||
| 2 | 2.51 ± 0.20b | ||||||
| 3 | 1.72 ± 0.16c | ||||||
Different letters indicate significant differences. Significant level 0.001, * significant level 0.05
Compounds, taxa, and management category considered in the study. (+) presence or (−) absence of the compounds
| Compounds | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cultivated | Encouraged | Cultivated | Tolerated | |
| Estragole | + | − | + | − |
| Geraniol | + | + | + | + |
| Linalool | + | − | + | − |
| Menthone | + | − | + | + |
| Pulegone | + | + | + | + |
Domestication indicators in A. mexicana and A. m. subsp. xolocotziana
| Evidences | Domestication Indicator | |
|---|---|---|
| Ethnobotany: traditional knowledge and selection criteria according to human use and management: | ||
| Traditional recognition | ♦♦♦♦ | ♦♦♦♦ |
| Plants known in cultivationas | ♦♦♦♦ | ♦♦♦♦ |
| Distinguished by smell and taste | ♦♦♦ | ♦♦♦ |
| Morpho-physiologically distinguished | ♦♦ | ♦♦♦♦ |
| Preferred to treat ailments | ♦♦♦♦ | ♦♦♦♦ |
| Mainly vegetative propagation | ♦♦♦♦ | ♦♦♦♦ |
| Morpho-physiological: | ||
| Significant differences | Yes | Yes |
| Gigantism in used parts | Yes | Yes |
| Gigantism in correlated structures | Yes | Yes |
| Phytochemicals: | ||
| Differentiation in the composition of compounds in the essential oil | Yes | Yes |
| Differentiation related to human use and management | Yes | Yes |
The symbols represent the portion of respondents who positively associated each factor: ♦♦ = 40%; ♦♦♦ = 60%; ♦♦♦♦ ≥ 80%