| Literature DB >> 36235361 |
Franca Marcelle Meguem Mboujda1,2, Marie-Louise Avana-Tientcheu1, Stéphane Takoudjou Momo3,4, Alix Mboukap Ntongme5, Virginie Vaissayre2, Laura N Azandi3,6, Stéphane Dussert2, Hilaire Womeni5, Jean-Michel Onana7, Bonaventure Sonké3, Christopher Tankou8, Jérôme Duminil2.
Abstract
For millennia, people have harvested fruits from the wild for their alimentation. Gradually, they have started selecting wild individuals presenting traits of interest, protecting and cultivating them. This was the starting point of their domestication. The passage from a wild to a cultivated status is accompanied by a modification of a number of morphological and genetic traits, commonly known as the domestication syndrome. We studied the domestication syndrome in Dacryodes edulis (G.Don) H.J.Lam (known as 'African plum' or 'safoutier/prunier'), a socio-economically important indigenous fruit tree species in West and Central Africa. We compared wild and cultivated individuals for their sex distribution; flower, fruit and seed morphometric characteristics; seed germination temporal dynamic and fruit lipid composition. We found a higher percentage of male and male-hermaphrodite sexual types in wild populations than in cultivated ones; a lower fruit and seed mass in wild individuals; and similar mean time of germination, oil content and fatty acid composition between wild and cultivated individuals. Our results are interpreted in light of the presence of a domestication syndrome in D. edulis.Entities:
Keywords: African plum tree; domestication syndrome; evolutionary history; fruit tree species; non-timber forest products
Year: 2022 PMID: 36235361 PMCID: PMC9571564 DOI: 10.3390/plants11192496
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Distribution of sexes among cultivated and wild individuals.
| Cultivated Individuals | Wild Individuals | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sexual Type | Eseka (N = 30) | Makak (N = 16) | Total | Messock (N = 28) | Somalomo (N = 10) | Total (N = 38) |
| Male | 5 (16.7%) | 3 (18.7%) |
| 11 (39.3%) | 7 (70.0%) |
|
| Female | 12 (40.0%) | 4 (25.0%) |
| 7 (25.0%) | 1 (10.0%) |
|
| Male-hermaphrodite | 5 (16.7%) | 7 (43.8%) |
| 10 (35.7%) | 2 (20.0%) |
|
| Hermaphrodite | 8 (26.6%) | 2 (12.5%) |
| 0 | 0 |
|
Figure 1Study sites in the Centre, South and East regions of Cameroon and list of traits studied in each site to assess the domestication syndrome in D. edulis (R-sexes: sex distribution; fruits and seeds: fruit and seed morphometrics; germination: seed germination tests; safou oil: mesocarp lipid content and fatty acid composition).
Comparison of flower morphometric parameters in D. edulis according to the sexual type, status of individuals and sites.
| Factors | Modalities | N | Flower Length (mm) | Stamen Length (mm) | Peduncle Length (mm) | Ovary Length (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Status of individuals | Cultivated | 240 | 5.36 ± 1.34 a | 2.05 ± 0.59 a | 1.41 ± 0.68 a | 0.05 ± 0.19 a |
| Wild | 540 | 5.52 ± 1.42 a | 1.90 ± 0.58 b | 1.68 ± 0.78 b | 0.05 ± 0.18 a | |
| Sites | Eseka (C) | 150 | 5.27 ± 1.12 a | 2.06 ± 0.57 a | 1.25 ± 0.51 c | 0.07 ± 0.24 a |
| Makak (C) | 90 | 5.51 ± 1.63 a | 2.03 ± 0.62 a | 1.68 ± 0.83 ab | 0.00 ± 0.0 b | |
| Messock (W) | 330 | 5.21 ± 1.14 a | 2.03 ± 0.51 a | 1.59 ± 0.71 b | 0.08 ± 0.22 a | |
| Somalomo (W) | 210 | 6.01 ± 1.66 b | 1.69 ± 0.62 b | 1.82 ± 0.87 a | 0.00 ± 0.00 b | |
|
| ||||||
| Status of individuals | Cultivated | 530 | 7.40 ± 1.42 a | 1.47 ± 0.77 a | 2.86 ± 1.02 a | 2.36 ± 0.70 a |
| Wild | 270 | 7.43 ± 1.42 a | 1.36 ± 0.5 b | 2.81 ± 0.96 a | 2.23 ± 0.63 b | |
| Sites | Eseka (C) | 350 | 7.54 ± 1.51 a | 1.53 ± 0.86 a | 3.01 ± 1.01 a | 2.46 ± 0.63 a |
| Makak (C) | 120 | 7.25 ± 1.83 ab | 1.23 ± 0.58 b | 2.78 ± 1.13 a | 2.11 ± 0.91 b | |
| Messock (C) | 60 | 6.81 ± 1.04 b | 1.57 ± 0.35 a | 2.23 ± 0.54 b | 2.31 ± 0.40 ab | |
| Messock (W) | 240 | 7.47 ± 1.75 a | 1.43 ± 0.5 ab | 2.85 ± 0.96 a | 2.34 ± 0.56 a | |
| Somalomo (W) | 30 | 7.13 ± 1.22 ab | 0.85 ± 0.45 c | 2.50 ± 0.90 ab | 1.38 ± 0.44 c | |
Mean ± standard deviation (based on measurements of flower) followed by the letter are significantly different at the 5% probability level; (C) indicates cultivated individuals; (W) wild individuals.
Fruits and seeds morphometric characteristics in wild and cultivated populations of D. edulis.
| Status of Individuals | Morphometric Parameters | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| N | Mass (g) | Length (mm) | Width (mm) | Thickness (mm) | Mass of pulp (g) | |
| Cultivated | 1896 | 49.10 ± 17.52 a | 68.24 ± 14.0 a | 36.20 ± 7.74 a | 5.70 ± 1.42 a | 36.60 ± 15.70 a | |
| Wild | 650 | 15.60 ± 7.30 b | 42.04 ± 8.41 b | 23.00 ± 4.41 b | 2.72 ± 1.30 b | 9.72 ± 5.01b | |
|
| N | Mass (g) | Length (mm) | Width (mm) | N cotyledon lobes | ||
| Cultivated | 1896 | 12.32 ± 4.07 a | 40.60 ± 12.80 a | 21.56 ± 5.95 a | 9.6 ± 1.04 a | ||
| Wild | 650 | 6.05 ± 2.63 b | 32.30 ± 5.83 b | 15.40 ± 3.45 b | 9.34 ± 1.46 b | ||
Mean and ± standard deviations measurements of fruits and seeds. For the same columns, different letters represent a significant difference at the 5% risk level.
Figure 2Morphological differences between wild and cultivated fruits and seeds of D. edulis. (A) Wild (squared in green) and cultivated fruits (squared in red); (B) a cultivated (left) and a wild seed (right).
Figure 3Correlation between fruit and seed mass for wild (in green) and cultivated (in red) individuals.
Figure 4Cumulative germination frequencies of wild and cultivated seeds (* significantly different at p = 0.05; t-test).
Figure 5Classification of wild and cultivated seeds by FAMD analyses. (A) Discrimination of wild and cultivated seeds from the FAMD according to axes 1 and 2. (B) Correlation and contribution of variables to the formation of axes 1 and 2. (C) Clustering of seeds based on the wild and cultivated status of their mother’ trees.
Figure 6Distribution of the mesocarp oil content and fatty acid composition in cultivated (red lines) and wild (green lines) D. edulis individuals.
Fruit mesocarp total oil content and fatty acid composition in cultivated and wild D. edulis.
| Status of Individuals | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Compounds | Cultivated | Wild | F Value |
| %Oil | 67.10 ± 11.80 | 64.30 ± 11.30 | 0.8 |
| %Palmitic acid | 39.62 ± 4.05 | 41.96 ± 2.64 | 6.5 * |
| %Palmitoleic acid | 0.17 ± 0.07 | 0.15 ± 0.05 | 0.9 |
| %Stearic acid | 2.64 ± 0.75 | 2.46 ± 0.75 | 0.6 |
| %Oleic acid | 32.52 ± 6.15 | 32.62 ± 6.04 | 0.01 |
| %Vaccenic acid | 0.95 ± 0.25 | 0.98 ± 0.34 | 0.2 |
| %Linoleic acid | 23.11 ± 20.76 | 20.76 ± 5.42 | 3.1 |
| %Linolenic acid | 0.82 ± 0.25 | 0.91 ± 0.17 | 1.7 |
* Significantly different at p = 0.05 (Tukey test).