The morphological variability of Convallaria majalis L. in natural and cultivated populations in three regions of Poland

• Autorzy: Kosiński I. , Galera H. , Chwedorzewska K.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Introducing indigenous plants into cultivation and breeding programs in order to obtain new taxa can create the undesirable effects and pose a real threat to natural populations. The main problem of our study was to assess whether the phenotypic characters might allow distinguishing cultivated Convallaria majalis from plants occurring in natural habitats. The range of phenotype variability of Convallaria majalis L. shoots from forests and gardens growing in different edaphic factors was studied in 2005-2006 in north (Gdańsk), central (Warsaw) and south (Cracow) regions of Poland. Ten or eleven forest locations and the same number of garden locations were designated in each region. The soil at the forest sites was poorer in phosphorus and calcium and more acidic than at the garden sites from which the cultivated plants were obtained. Thirty flowering shoots were collected from each study site. The numbers as well as size of flowers, size of racemes and leaves were investigated. The following hypotheses were formulated: (a) due to conscious and unconscious selection, cultivated plants should have more numerous and larger flowers and a longer inflorescence (these characters are most significant for the ornamental appearance of the plant) than plants growing in forests; (b) cultivated plants exhibit less phenotype variability than do natural populations. The forest plants from all the three regions together had, in comparison with garden plants, significantly shorter racemes with fewer flowers, a narrower and shorter perianth, and a longer lower leaf with a narrower and longer leaf blade. In the forest plants raceme length exhibited the highest variability while the lowest was noted in perianth length. More morphological differences were noted between the forest and garden plants than among those from the three different regions. The results obtained indicate that the level of variability in the studied characters was similar in forest and cultivated plants. A high level of variability in some morphological characters of lily of the valley probably stems from the high phenotype plasticity of this plant and the diversified biotope conditions in which it occurs. The significant differences between forest and garden plants could have been related to differences in habitat conditions.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Convallaria majalis; cultivations; morphological traits; natural habitats; soil conditions

PL

cechy morfologiczne; Konwalia majowa; siedlisko naturalne; stan gleby; uprawa

• Wydawca: Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Ecology
• Rocznik: 2009
• Tom: Vol. 57, nr 3
• Strony: 473--482
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 48 poz.,Rys., tab.,

Twórcy

autor

Kosiński I.

autor

Galera H.

autor

Chwedorzewska K.

• Department of Biology and Pharmaceutical Botany, Medical University of Gdańsk, Al. Gen. J. Hallera 107, 80-416 Gdańsk, Poland,

Bibliografia

• 1. Barnes B.V., Zak D.R., Demton S.R., Spurr S.H. 1998 – Forest Ecology – Wiley, New York, 792 pp.
• 2. Bednarek R., Dziadowiec H., Pokojska U., Prusinkiewicz Z. 2004 – Badania ekologiczno-gleboznawcze (Ecology and soil studies) – Scientific Publisher PWN, Warszawa, 344 pp. (in Polish).
• 3. Chojnacki J. 1991 – Zróżicowanie przestrzenne roślinności Warszawy [Spatial differentiation of Warsaw vegetation] – Warsaw University Press, Warszawa, 227 pp. (in Polish).
• 4. Chmiel H. 1967 – Główne stanowiska konwalii (Convallaria majalis L.) w Polsce [Occurrence of the Lily of the Valley (Convallaria majalis L.) in natural habitats in Poland] – Acta Agrobot. 20: 5–69. (in Polish).
• 5. Chwedorzewska K.J., Galera H., Kosiński 2008 – Plantations of Convallaria majalis L. as a threat to the natural stands of the species: Genetic variability of the cultivated plants and natural populations – Biol. Conserv. 141: 2619–2624.
• 6. Czerepanov S.K. 1995 – Vascular plants of Russia and adjacent states (the former USSR) – Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 516 pp.
• 7. Freeman S., Herron J.C. 2001 – Evolutionary Analysis – Prentice Hall, New York, 834 pp.
• 8. Galera H. 2003 – Rośliny występujące spontanicznie w polskich ogrodach botanicznych – przegląd listy florystycznej [The spontaneous flora of Botanical Gardens in Poland: a review] – Biul. Ogr. Bot. Muz. Zbiorów, 12: 31–82. (in Polish).
• 9. Galera H., Puchalski J., Gawryś W. 1999 – Polskie kolekcje roślin chronionych i zagrożonych oraz endemitów i reliktów. Część 1. Gatunki objęte ochroną prawną [The Polish collections of protected, endangered, endemic and relict plants. Part 1. Plants under legal protection] – Biul. Ogr. Bot. Muz. Zbiorów, 8: 41–83. (in Polish).
• 10. Galera H., Sudnik-Wójcikowska B. 2004 – The structure and differentiation of the synanthropic flora of the botanical gardens in Poland – Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 73: 121–128.
• 11. Gawłowska J. 1984 – Analiza zasobów i stopnia zagrożenia badanych gatunków roślin leczniczych [An analysis of the resources and of the degree of endangerment of the medicinal plant species under investigation] (In: Stan zagrożenia oraz warunki zabezpieczenia naturalnych zasobów roślin leczniczych [The state of endangerment and conditions of safeguarding the natural resources of medicinal plants] Ed. J. Gawłowska) – Studia Naturae, Ser. A, 25: 137–165. (in Polish).
• 12. Griffiths M. 1997 – Index of Garden Plants – The Macmillan Press, London, Basingstoke, 1298 pp.
• 13. Grochowski W. 1990 – Uboczna produkcja leśna [Accessory production in forests] – PWN, Warszawa, 571 pp. (in Polish)
• 14. Hammer K. 1988 – Präadaptationen und die Domestikation von Kulturpflanzen und Unkräutern – Biol. Zent. bl. 107: 631–636.
• 15. Hanelt P. (ed.) 2001 – Mansfeld‘s Encyclopedia of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops, vol. 4 – Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Barcelona, Hong Kong, London, Milan, Paris, Singapore, Tokyo, 580 pp.
• 16. Hay R. (ed.) 1972 – Reader’s Digest Encyclopedia of Garden Plants and Flowers – The Reader’s Digest Association, London, 799 pp.
• 17. Hegi G. 1909 – Illustrierte Flora von Mitteleuropa, Bd. 2. – Aufl. 1. J.F.Lehman’s Verl., München, 405 pp.
• 18. Hulté E., Fries M. (Eds.) 1986 – Atlas of North European Vascular Plants, vol. 1, 3 – Koeltz Sc. Books, Königstein, 1172 pp.
• 19. Jackowiak B. 1999 – Modele ekspansji roślin synantropijnych i transgenicznych [Models of the expansion of synanthropic and transgenic plants] – Phytocoenosis 11, Semin. Geobot. 6: 3–14. (in Polish).
• 20. Kaźmierczakowa R., Zarzycki K. (ed.) 2001 – Polska czerwona księga roślin [Polish Red Data Book of Plants] – W. Szafer Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, 310 pp. (in Polish).
• 21. Komarov V.L. (ed.) 1935 – Flora SSSR, t. 4. – Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, Leningrad.
• 22. Kosiński I. 1996 – Content of cardenolide glycosides in Convallaria majalis L. from populations disturbed and not disturbed by cutting – Pol. ecol. Stud. 22: 17–28.
• 23. Kosiński I. 2003 – The influence of shoot harvesting on the age structure of Convallaria majalis L. – Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 72: 53–59.
• 24. Kowarik I. 1991 – Berücksichtigung anthropogener Standort- und Florenveränderungen bei der Aufstellung Roter Listen (In: Rote Listen der gefährderten Pflanzen und Tiere in Berlin Eds. A. Auchagen, H. Sukopp, R. Platen) – Landschaftsentw. Umweltforsch. 6: 25–56.
• 25. Kowarik I. 1992a – Einführung und Ausbreitung nichtcheimischer Gehölzarten in Berlin und Brandenburg – Verh. Bot. Ver. Berlin, Beih. 3: 1–188.
• 26. Kowarik I. 1992b – Berücksichtigung von nichtheimischen Pflanzenarten, von „Kulturflüchtlingen“ sowie Pflanzenvorkommen auf Sekundärstandorten bei der Aufstellung Roter Listen – Schriftenreihe Vegetationsk, 23: 175–190.
• 27. Kronenberg B., Kowarik I. 1989 – Naturverjüngung kultivierter Pflanzenarten in Gärten – Verh. Berl. Bot. Ver. 7: 3–30.
• 28. Leszczyńska M. 1969 – Morfologiczno-rozwojowe typy bylin w rezerwacie Dębina pod Wągrowcem [Morphological and developmental types of perennial plants in the Dębina Reserve near Wągrowiec] – Bad. Fizjogr. Pol. Zach. Ser. B, 23: 149–169. (in Polish).
• 29. Łomnicki A. 2005 – Wprowadzenie do statystyki dla przyrodników [Introduction to the statistic for naturalists] – Scientific Publisher PWN, Warszawa, 245 pp. (in Polish).
• 30. Łukasiewicz A. 1962 – Morfologiczno-rozwojowe typy bylin [Morphological and developmental types of perennial plants] – PTPN, Pr. Kom. Biol. 27: 1–398. (in Polish).
• 31. Marcinkowski J. 2002 – Byliny ogrodowe [Garden perennials] – PWRiL, Warszawa, 441 pp. (in Polish).
• 32. Meusel H., Jäger E., Weinert E. 1965 – Vergleichende Chorologie der Zentral-europäischen Flora, Bd. 1–2 – G. Fischer Verl. Jena, 841 pp.
• 33. Nowak T.J. (ed.) 2000 – Index Plantarum of outdoors cultivated herbaceous plants in Poland – Pr. Ogr. Bot. Uniw. Wrocł. 6: 5–399.
• 34. Phillips R., Rix M. 1991 – Perennials. Early perennials, vol. 1 – Pan Books, London, 240 pp.
• 35. Piękoś-Mirkowa H., Mirek Z. 2003 – Atlas roślin chronionych [Atlas of protected plants] – Multico, Warszawa, 584 pp. (in Polish).
• 36. Pohl-Orf M., Brand U., Schuphan I., Bartsch D. 1998 – What makes a transgenic plant an invasive alien? – Generally modified sugar beet and their potential impact on populations of the wild beet Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima Arcang. (In: Plant invasions: ecological mechanisms and human responses Eds. U. Starfinger, K. Edwards, I. Kowarik, M. Williamson) – Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp. 235–243.
• 37. Reimann-Philipp R. 1987 – Convallaria majalis L. (Lily of the Valley) improved as an ornamental plant after 35 years of breeding work – Acta Hort. 205: 65–69.
• 38. Sokal R .R., Rohlf F.J. 1995 – Biometry – New York, Freeman, 887 pp.
• 39. StatSoft, Inc. 2005 – STATISTICA (data analysis software system) – ver. 7.1. www.statsoft.com.
• 40. Sudnik-Wójcikowska B., Koźniewska B. 1988 – Słownik z zakresu synantropizacji szaty roślinnej [A dictionary of synanthropization of plant cover] – Warsaw University Press, Warszawa, 93 pp. (in Polish).
• 41. Sukopp H., Sukopp U. 1993 – Ecological long-term effects of cultigens becoming feral and of naturalization of non-native species – Experientia (Basel), 49: 21–218.
• 42. Tutin T.G., Heywood V.H., Burges N.A., Moore D.M., Valentine D.H., Walters S.M., Webb D.A. (Eds.) 1980 – Flora Europaea vol. 5 – Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, London, New York, New Rochelle, Melbourne, Sydney, 488 pp.
• 43. Verron P., Le Nard M. 1993 – Characterization of five improved varieties and one wild accession of Lily of the Valley (Convallaria majalis L.) by isozyme analysis and assessment of genetic distances – Euphytica, 70: 21–26.
• 44. Voltas J., Peman J., Fuste F. 2007 – Phenotypic diversity and delimitation between wild and cultivated forms of the genus Pyrus in North-eastern Spain based on morphometric analyses – Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 54: 1473–1487.
• 45. Walters S.M., Brady A., Brickel C.D., Cullen J., Green P.S., Lewis J., Matthews V.A., Webb D.A., Yeo P.F., Alexander J.C.M. 1986 – The European Garden Flora, vol. 1 – Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, London, New York, New Rochelle, Melbourne, Sydney.
• 46. Wojterski T., Wojterska H., Wojterska M. 1980 – Potencjalna roślinność naturalna Pomorza Gdańskiego [Potential natural vegetation of Pomorze Gdańskie] – Department of Plant Ecology and Environment Protection of Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, map. (in Polish).
• 47. Zarzycki K., Trzcińska-Tacik H., Różański W., Szeląg Z., Wołek J., Korzeniak U. 2002 – Ekologiczne liczby wskaźnikowe roślin naczyniowych Polski [Ecological indicator values of vascular plants of Poland] – W. Szafer Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, 183 pp. (in Polish).
• 48. Zemanek B. 1989 – Rośliny naczyniowe Bieszczadów Niskich i Otrytu (polskie Karpaty Wschodnie) [Vascular plants of Bieszczady Niskie and Otryt (Polish East Carpathians)] – Zesz. Nauk. UJ, Pr. bot. 20: 5–185 (in Polish).