Success of wild pear Pyrus pyraster (L.) Burgsd. in colonization of steep sunny slopes : an interdisciplinary study in the Bielinek Reserve (NW Poland)

Antkowiak, W.; Cedro, A.; Prajs, B.; Wolko, Ł.; Michalak, M.

Artykuł - szczegóły

Tytuł artykułu

Success of wild pear Pyrus pyraster (L.) Burgsd. in colonization of steep sunny slopes : an interdisciplinary study in the Bielinek Reserve (NW Poland)

Autorzy

Antkowiak W. , Cedro A. , Prajs B. , Wolko Ł. , Michalak M.

Wybrane pełne teksty z tego czasopisma

http://www.miiz.waw.pl/index.php/pl/wydawnictwa/polish-journal-of-ecology

Identyfikatory

Warianty tytułu

Języki publikacji

Abstrakty

A local population of Pyrus pyraster was studied in dry and warm habitats: xerothermic grasslands Potentillo-Stipetum capillatae and Adonido-Brachypodietum, as well as thermophilous oak forest Quercetum pubescentipetraeae in the forest-steppe Bielinek Reserve (NW Poland). Our aims were to assess: (1) the ability of this species to adapt to extremely dry sites, as a pioneer woody plant; (2) its phytosociological position; and (3) morphological variation and genetic diversity of the local population. The pear trees in Bielinek Reserve seem to reach an optimum in shrub communities of the class Rhamno-Prunetea, but tree age clearly indicates that the grasslands were colonized by wild pear trees already before the shrub communities developed. This indicates that P. pyraster can colonize very dry, eroded sites, such as steep sunny slopes covered by xerothermic grasslands. Wild pear trees form plant communities that are a seral stage followed by forest-shrub communities or thermophilous forests. The species in xerothermic shrub communities of the reserve shows a high constancy. It is also very resistant to extreme temperatures, insolation, drought, and erosion. Its tree-ring width (on average 1.1 mm per year) was strongly related to precipitation and temperature in spring and summer. High precipitation resulted in wider tree rings, while dry years (associated with high air temperature) caused a decrease in tree-ring width. Another significant factor is precipitation in winter, which had a positive influence on tree-ring width. Microsatellite markers revealed a high level of genetic diversity in this population. Our results suggest that wild pear can be recommended for afforestation of areas affected by droughts and disturbed sites in Central Europe. It can be used to increase the heterogeneity of the landscape, e.g. by creation of forest ecotones and for planting along roads and field margins, especially considering the predicted climate change.

Słowa kluczowe

Bielinek Reserve ecological restoration genetic diversity morphological variability Pyrus pyraster dendrochronology

dendrochronologia grusza polna odnowa ekologiczna Rezerwat przyrody Bielinek różnorodność genetyczna zmienność morfologiczna

Wydawca

Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences

Czasopismo

Polish Journal of Ecology

Rocznik

2012

Tom

Vol. 60, nr 1

Strony

57--78

Opis fizyczny

Bibliogr. 82 poz.,Rys., tab.,

Twórcy

autor

Antkowiak W.

autor

Cedro A.

autor

Prajs B.

autor

Wolko Ł.

autor

Michalak M.

University of Life Sciences in Poznań, Department of Botany, Wojska Polskiego 71c, 60-625 Poznań, Poland, wojtas@au.poznan.pl

Bibliografia

1. Ascherson P., Graebner P. 1906 – Synopsis der mitteleuropäische Flora. VI. 2. – Leipzig, Wilhelm Engelmann, 844 pp.
2. Balcerkiewicz S. 1990 – Udział w zbiorowiskach leśnych [Contribution to forest communities] (In: Dzikie drzewa owocowe. Czereśnia ptasia Cerasus avium (L.) Moench, jabłoń płonka Malus sylvestris (L.) Miller, grusza dzika Pyrus communis L. [Wild fruit trees. Bird cherry Cerasus avium (L.) Moench, wild apple Malus sylvestris (L.) Miller, common pear Pyrus communis L.] Ed. S. Białobok) – Nasze Drzewa Leśne, Monografie popularnonaukowe, Poznań, Arkadia, T. 18: 283–320 (in Polish, English summary).
3. Bell R.L. 1986 – Interspecific and intergeneric hybridization of Pyrus – Inter. J. of Hort. Science, 21: 62–64.
4. Blasing T.J., Solomon A.M., Duvick D.N. 1984 – Response functions revisited – TreeRing Bulletin, 44: 1–15.
5. Boratyńska K. 1990 – Systematyka, and geograficzne rozmieszczenie. Grusza pospolita Pyrus communis L. [Systematics and geographic distribution: European pear Pyrus communis L.] (In: Dzikie drzewa owocowe. Czereśnia ptasia Cerasus avium (L.) Moench, jabłoń płonka Malus sylvestris (L.) Miller, grusza dzika Pyrus communis L. [Wild fruit trees. Bird cherry Cerasus avium (L.) Moench, wild apple Malus sylvestris (L.) Miller, common pear Pyrus communis L.] Ed. S. Białobok) – Nasze Drzewa Leśne, Monografie popularnonaukowe, Poznań, Arkadia, T. 18: 81–91 (in Polish, English summary).
6. Bouček B. 1954 – Hrušeň – Lesnícka práce, 33: 57–62.
7. Braun-Blanquet J. 1951 – Pflanzensoziologie. Grundzüge der Vegetationskunde – Springer Verlag, Wien.
8. Browicz K. 1982 – Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and adjacent regions, 1 – PWN, Warszawa-Poznań.
9. Browicz K. 1993 – Conspect and chorology of the genus Pyrus L. – Arbor. Kórnickie, 38: 17–33.
10. Brzoska F. 1937 – Ökologische Untersuchungen im v. Keudellschen Naturschutzgebiet Bellinchen a. d. O. und Umgebung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der osmotischen Werte. Beitr. zur Naturdenkmalpfl. Bd XVI, H. 3. Berlin.
11. Castric V., Vekemans X. 2004 – Plant self-incompatibility in natural populations: a critical assessment of recent theoretical and empirical advances – Molecular Ecology, 13: 2873–2889.
12. Celiński F., Filipek M. 1958 – Flora i zespoły roślinne leśno-stepowego rezerwatu w Bielinku nad Odrą [The flora and plant communities of the forest-steppe reserve in Bielinek on the Oder] – Badania fizjograficzne nad Polską Zachodnią, 4: 5–198 (in Polish, Russian and German summary).
13. Challice J.S., Westwood M.N. 1973 – Numerical taxonomic studies of the genus Pyrus using both chemical and botanical characters - Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 67: 121–148.
14. Chytrý M. 1997 – Thermophilous oak forests in the Czech Republic: Syntaxonomical revision of the Quercetalia pubescenti-petraeae – Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 32: 221–258.
15. Chytrý M., Horák J. 1997 – Plant communities of the thermophilous oak forests in Moravia – Preslia, 68: 193–240.
16. Cook E.R., Kairiukstis L.A. 1990 – Methods of dendrochronology; chapter 3, Data analysis - Kluwer Academic Publisher, pp. 97–162.
17. Domin K. 1917 – Kritické poznámky o původu některých našich ovocných stromů a keřů – Zemědělský archiv, 8: 284–287 (in Czech).
18. Dostálek J. 1989 – Pyrus x amphigenea, seine Taxonomie und Nomenklatur – Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 24: 103–108.
19. Fady B. 2008 – Influence of climate change on the natural distribution of tree species. Ad aptation to Climate Change in Mediterranean Forests Conservation and Management - IUCN/WWF Workshop, Athens, Greece, April 14–16 2008.
20. Faliński B.J., Hrynkiewicz-Sudnik J., Fabiszewski J. 1963 – Śródpolne zarośla z rzędu Prunetalia (czyżnie) Równiny Kutnowskiej jako wskaźnik dzisiejszej potencjalnej roślinności potencjalnej [Broussailles champêtres (ordere Prunetalia) de la Plaine de Kutne comme indicateur de la végétation potentielle de cette region] – Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 32: 695–713 (in Polish, French summary).
21. Fedorov An.A. 1954 – Gruša – Pyrus L. (In: Dereva i kustarniki SSSR. Vol.3, Ed. S. Sokolov - Izd. Akadémii náuk SSSR, Moskva-Leningrad, pp. 378–414 (in Russian).
22. Fernandez-Fernandez F., Harvey N.G., James C.M. 2006 – Isolation and characterization of polymorphic microsatellite markers from European pear (Pyrus communis L.) – Molecular Ecology Notes, 6: 1039–1041.
23. Fritts H.C. 1976 – Tree Rings and Climate. Academic Press, London-New York-San Francisco, 567 pp.
24. Fritts H.C., Xiangding W. 1986 – A comparison between response-function analysis and other regression techniques – Tree-Ring Bulletin, 46: 31–46.
25. Hess H.E., Landolt E., Hirzel R. 1970 – Flora der Schweiz, 2. – Basel u. Stuttgart.
26. Hofmann H. 1993 – Zur Verbreitung und Ökologie der Wildbirne (Pyrus communis L.) in Süd-Niedersachsen und Nordhessen sowie ihrerAbgrenzung von verwilderten Kulturbirnen (Pyrus domestica Med.) – Mitt. Dtsch Dendrol. Ges. 81: 27–69.
27. Holmes R.J. 1983 – Computer-assisted quality control in tree-ring dating and measurement – Tree-Ring Bulletin, 43: 69–78.
28. Holmes R.J. 1994 – Dendrochronology Program Library. Users Manual – University of Arizona, Tucson.
29. Huber B., Giertz-Siebenlist V. 1969 – Unsere tausendjährige Eichenchronologie durchschnittlich 57 (10–159) – flach belegt. Sitzungsberichte der Ősterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathem. Naturwiss. Klasse, Abt. I, 178: 37–42.
30. Kaennel M., Schweingruber F.H. 1995 – Multilingual Glossary of Dendrochronology. Terms and definitions in English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Russian – Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, Birmensdorf. Paul Haupt Publishers, Berne, 467 pp.
31. Kim H.T, Hirata Y., Nou I.S. 2002 – Determination of S-genotypes of pear (Pyrus pyrifolia) cultivars by S-RNase sequencing and PCR-RFLP analyses – Mol. Cells, 13: 444–451.
32. Kim H.T, Hirata Y., Kim H.J., Nou I.S. 2006 – The presence of a new S-RNase Allele (S10) in Asian Pear (Pyrus pyrifolia (Burm; Nakai) – Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 53: 1374–1383.
33. Kleinschmit J., Svolba J. 1998 – Auslese von Wildbirne (Pyrus pyraster) und Rückführung in den Wald, Die Wildbirne Pyrus pyraster (L.) Burgsd. – Tagung zum Baum des Jahres am 17. und 18.3.1998 in Göttingen. Band, 125: 83–96.
34. Koch K. 1869 – Dendrologie, Vol. I. Berlin, 735 pp.
35. Kozłowska A. 1951 – Pochodzenie drzew owocowych [Origins of fruit trees] – PZWS, Warszawa (in Polish, Russian summary).
36. Krawczyk A. 1995 – Program komputerowy TREE RINGS (TREE RINGS Computer software) – Kraków.
37. Krawczyk A., Krąpiec M. 1995 – Dendrochronologiczna baza danych [Dendrochronological data base] (In: Materiały II Krajowej Konferencji: Komputerowe wspomaganie badań naukowych [Proceedings of the Polish Conference on Computer Assistance to Scientific Research]) – Wrocław, pp. 247–252 (in Polish).
38. Kuhn R. 1998 – Wildobst und Naturschutz. In: Kleinschmit J., Soppa B., Fellenberg U. (eds.) – Die Wildbirne, Pyrus pyraster (L.) Burgsd. Tagung zum Baum des Jahres am 17.und 18.3. 1998 in Góttingen. Frankfurt am Main, J. D. Sauerländers, pp. 18–31.
39. Lityńska-Zając M., Wasylikowa K. 2005 – Przewodnik do badań archeobotanicznych [Guidebook to archaeobotanical studies] – Sorus, Poznań (in Polish, English summary).
40. Lombard P.B., Westwood M.N. 1987 – Pear rootstocks (In: Rootstocks for Fruit Crops, Eds: R.C. Rom, R.F. Carlson) – John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 145–183.
41. Ma R.C., Oliveira M.M. 2002 – Evolutionary analysis of S-RNase genes from Rosaceae species – Mol. Genet Genomics, 267: 71–78.
42. Maleev V.P. 1939 – Rod gruša – Pyrus L. (In: Flora SSSR, Vol. 9, Eds: Komarov, Juzepczuk) - Moskwa-Leningrad, pp. 336–357 (in Russian).
43. Matuszkiewicz J.M. 2002 – Zespoły leśne Polski [Forest associations in Poland] – PWN Warszawa, 358 pp. (in Polish, English summary).
44. Matuszkiewicz W. 2001 – Przewodnik do oznaczania zbiorowisk roślinnych Polski [Guide to the plant communities of Poland], ser. Vademecum Geobotanicum – PWN Warszawa, 536 pp. (in Polish, English summary).
45. Milecka K., Kupryanowicz M., Makohonienko I., Okuniewska-Nowaczyk I., Nalepka D. 2004 – Quercus L. – Oak (In: Late Glacial and Holocene history of vegetation in Poland based on isopollen maps, Eds: M. Ralska-Jasiewiczowa et al.) – W. Szafer Inst. of Bot., Pol. Acad. of Sci., Krakow, 444 pp.
46. Milutinivic M.D., Djakovic G., Militinivic M.M., Mitletic R., Zikic M. 2005 – Variability in the wild pear population in West Serbia – Acta Hort. 671, IX Inter. Pear Symp., pp. 247–251.
47. Mindur B. 2000 – Dendrometer 1,0 [Dendrometer 1.0 Software] – Kraków.
48. Namvar K., SpethmannV. 1986 – Die Wildoder Holzbirne (Pyrus pyraster) – Allgemeine Forstzeitschrift, 21: 520–522.
49. Neri D., Urbinati C., Savini G., Sanchioni A. 2005 – Age determination and tree-ring growth dynamic in old tree of Pyrus communis ‘Angelica’ – Acta Hort. 671, IXth Inter. Pear Symp. pp. 623–629.
50. Oberdorfer E. 1983 – Pflanzensoziologische Exkursionsflora. 7 Auflage – Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart, 1051 pp.
51. Paganová V. 2000 – Water stress impact on growth of wild pear progenies – Folia Oecol. 27: 135–148.
52. Paganová V. 2003a – Taxonomic reliability of leaf and fruit morphological characteristics of the Pyrus L. taxa in Slovakia – Hort. Sci. (Prague), 30: 98–107.
53. Paganová V. 2003b – Wild pear Pyrus pyraster (L.) Burgsd. requirements on environmental conditions – Ekológia (Bratislava), 22: 225–241.
54. Paganová V. 2005 – Ekologický a estetický význam hrušky planej (Pyrus pyraster (L.) Brurgsd.) v krajine [Ecological and aesthetic significance of wild pear (Pyrus pyraster (L.) Brurgsd.) in the countryside] (In: Autochtónna dendroflóra a jej uplatnenie v krajine: zborník vedeckých a odborných prác z medzinárodnej vedeckej konferencie konanej pri príležitosti 40. výročia založenia Arboréta Borová hora), Eds: I. Lukáčik, J. Škvareninová) – Technická univerzita Zvolen, pp. 215–228 (in Slovak, English summary).
55. Paganová V. 2009 – The occurrence and morphological characteristics of the wild pear lower taxa in Slovakia – Hort. Sci. (Prague), 36: 1–13.
56. Pelc S. 1984 – Morphology and structure of wild apple (Malus silvestris Mill.), common pear (Pyrus communis L.) and Chaenomeles japonica (Thunb.) Lindl. Seeds – Acta Soc. Bot. Poloniae, 53: 159–170.
57. Peniašteková M. 1992 – Pyrus L. Hruška (In: Flóra Slovenska, IV/3, Ed. L. Bertová) – Bratislava, Veda, pp. 381–388 (in Slovak).
58. Prusinkiewicz Z., Bednarek R. 1991 – Gleby [Soils] (In: Geografia Polski. Środowisko Przyrodnicze [Geography of Poland. Natural environment.] Ed. L. Starkel) – PWN, Warszawa, 670 pp. (in Polish, English summary).
59. Rehder A. 1949 – Bibliography of cultivated trees and shrubs – Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University, 825 pp.
60. Rittershoffer B. 1998 – Fórderung eltener Baumarten im Wald. Auf den Spuren der Wildbirne – Allgemeine Fosrtzeitschrift/Der Wald, 16: 860–862.
61. Robertson K.R., Phipps J.B., Rohrer J.R. 1992 – Summary of leaves in the genera of Maloideae (Rosaceae) – Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 79, 1: 81–94.
62. Roloff A. 1998 – Der Baum des Jahres 1998: die Wildbirne (Pyrus communis L. ssp. pyraster Gams) (In: Die Wildbirne, Pyrus pyraster (L.) Burgsd. Tagung zum Baum des Jahres am 17. und 18.3. 1998 in Gőttingen, Eds: J. Kleinschmit, B. Soppa, U. Fellenberg) – Frankfurt am Main, J. D. Sauerländers, pp. 9–17.
63. Rotach P., Baume M. 2004 – Die Wildbirne (Pyrus pyraster (L.) Burgsd) in der Schweiz: Morphologische Charakterisierung, Abgrenzung von der Kulturbirne und Artreinheit ihrer Vorkomen – Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwessen, 155: 367–377.
64. Schmitt H.P. 1998 – Wildbirnen-Vorkommen in Westfalen-Lippe (In: Die Wildbirne, Pyrus pyraster (L.) Burgsd. Tagung zum Baum des Jahres am 17. und 18.3. 1998 in Gőttingen, Eds: J. Kleinschmit, B. Soppa, U. Fellenberg) - Frankfurt am Main, J. D.Sauerländers, pp. 48–52.
65. Sokolov S.J., Svjazeva O.A. 1980 – Arealy derevev i kustarnikov SSSR, 2, Nauka, Leningrad (in Russian).
66. Terpó A. 1960 – Magyarország vadkörtéi (Pyri Hungariae) – Ann. Acad. Hirti Viticult. 22, 6: 1–258 (in Hungarian, Russian and German summary).
67. Terpó A. 1985 – Studies on taxonomy and grouping of Pyrus species – Feddes Repert. 96: 73–87.
68. Torres A.M., Weeden N.F., Martín A. 1993 – Linkage among isozyme, RFLP and RAPD markers in Vicia faba – Theor Appl Genet. 85: 937–945.
69. van der Maarel E. 1979 – Transformation of cover-abundance values in phytosociology and its effects on comunity similarity – Vegetatio, 39: 97–114.
70. Velčev S. 1973 – Rosaceae – Flora na Bulgarija 5 – Sofija (in Bulgarian).
71. Voltas J., Pemán J., Fusté F. 2007 – Phenotypic diversity and delimitation between wild and cultivated forms of the genus Pyrus in North-eastern Spain based on morphometric analyses – Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 54: 1473–1487.
72. Wagner I. 1995 – Identifikation von Wildapfel (Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill.) und Wildbirne (Pyrus pyraster (L.) Burgsd.) – Forstarchiv, 66: 39–47 (in German, English summary).
73. Wagner I. 1996 – Zusammenstellung morphologischer Merkmale und ihrer Ausprägung zur Unterscheidung von Wild- und Kulturformen des Apfel- (Malus) und des Birnbaumes (Pyrus) – Mitt. Dtsch. Dendrol. Ges. 82: 87–108 (in German, English summary).
74. Walanus A. 2001 – DendroGraph – program druku krzywych grubości słojów przyrostów rocznych. Instrukcja obsługi programu DendroGraph [DendroGraph – a software for plotting tree ring width curves. DendroGraph Software User’s Manual] – Kraków (in Polish).
75. Walanus A. 2002 – Instrukcja obsługi programu TCS. Program TCS do obliczania lat wskaźnikowych [User’s manual of TCS software. TCS software for calculation of signature years] – Kraków (in Polish).
76. Wallroth Fr.W. 1822 – Schedulae criticae de Plantis Florae Halensis Selectis – Corollarium novum ad C. Sprengelil Floram Halensem Halae, Sumtibus Car. Aug. Kümellii. Tomus I. Phanerogamia, pp. 213–215.
77. Wilhelm G.J. 1998 – Im Vergleich mit Elsbeere und Speierling Beobachtungen zur Wildbirne – Allgemeine Forstzeitschrift/der Wald, 16: 856–859 (in German, English summary).
78. Wolf G. 1981 – Zum Anbau der Wildbirne im Wald – Allgemeine Forstzeitschrift, 37: 949–952 (in German, English summary).
79. Woś A. 1999 – Klimat Polski [Climate of Poland] – PWN Warszawa (in Polish, English summary).
80. Załuski T. 2002 – Changes of ve getation in the “Bielinek” nature reserve – Ecological Questions, 2: 175–180.
81. Zielski A., Krąpiec M. 2004 – Dendrochronologia [Dendrochronology] – PWN Warszawa, pp. 158–176 (in Polish).
82. Zisovich A.H., Stern R. A, Shafir S., Goldway M. 2004 – Identification of seven S-alleles from the European pear (Pyrus communis) and the determination of compatibility among cultivars – J. Hortic. Sci. Biotech. 79: 101–106.

Typ dokumentu

Bibliografia

Identyfikator YADDA

bwmeta1.element.baztech-article-BGPK-3625-4034