Phenotypic differentiation between wild and domesticated varieties of Crescentia cujete L. and culturally relevant uses of their fruits as bowls in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine

Alejandro Casas¹  Edgar Pérez-Negrón¹  Xitlali Aguirre-Dugua¹ 

[1] Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Campus Morelia, Apartado Postal 27-3 (Santa María de Guido), Morelia, Michoacán 58190, México

关键词: Phenotypic variation;    Morphology;    Mesoamerica;    Maya;    Gourd tree;    Domestication;    Crescentia;    Calabash;   

Others  :  862041
DOI  :  10.1186/1746-4269-9-76

 received in 2013-07-09, accepted in 2013-10-29,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Selection criteria are important for analyzing domestication of perennial plant species, which experience a selection pressure throughout several human generations. We analyze the preferred morphological characteristics of Crescentia cujete fruits, which are used as bowls by the Maya of Yucatan, according to the uses they are given and the phenotypic consequences of artificial selection between one wild and three domesticated varieties.

Methods

We performed 40 semi-structured interviews in seven communities. We calculated Sutrop’s salience index (S) of five classes of ceremonial and daily life uses, and of each item from the two most salient classes. We sampled 238 bowls at homes of people interviewed and compared their shape, volume and thickness with 139 fruits collected in homegardens and 179 from the wild. Morphology of varieties was assessed in fruit (n = 114 trees) and vegetative characters (n = 136 trees). Differences between varieties were evaluated through linear discriminant analysis (LDA).

Results

Use of bowls as containers for the Day of the Dead offerings was the most salient class (S = 0.489) with chocolate as its most salient beverage (S = 0.491), followed by consumption of daily beverages (S = 0.423), especially maize-based pozol (S = 0.412). The sacred saka’ and balche' are offered in different sized bowls during agricultural and domestic rituals. Roundness was the most relevant character for these uses, as bowls from households showed a strong selection towards round shapes compared with wild and homegarden fruits. Larger fruits from domesticated varieties were also preferred over small wild fruits, although in the household different sizes of the domesticated varieties are useful. LDA separated wild from domesticated trees (p < 0.001) according to both fruit and vegetative variables, but domesticated varieties were not different among themselves.

Conclusions

The association between C. cujete bowls and traditional beverages in ritual and daily life situations has driven for centuries the selection of preferred fruit morphology in this tree. Selection of fruit roundness and volume has allowed for the differentiation between the wild variety and the three domesticated ones, counteracting gene flow among them. By choosing the best fruits from domesticated varieties propagated in homegardens, the Maya people model the domestication process of this important tree in their culture.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Aguirre-Dugua et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Ladizinski G: Plant Evolution under Domestication. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1998.
• [2]Purugannan MD, Fuller DQ: The nature of selection during plant domestication. Nature 2009, 457:843-848.
• [3]Brown AHD: Variation under domestication in plants: 1859 and today. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2010, 365:2523-2530.
• [4]Guillén S, Terrazas T, de la Barrera E, Casas A: Germination differentiation patterns of wild and domesticated columnar cacti in a gradient of artificial selection intensity. Gen Res Crop Evol 2011, 58:409-423.
• [5]Parker IM, López I, Petersen JJ, Anaya N, Cubilla-Rios L, Potter D: Domestication syndrome in caimito (Chrysophyllum cainito L.): fruit and seed characteristics. Econ Bot 2010, 64:161-175.
• [6]Blancas J, Casas A, Rangel-Landa S, Moreno-Calles A, Torres I, Pérez-Negrón E, Solís L, Delgado-Lemus A, Parra F, Arellanes Y, Caballero J, Cortés L, Lira R, Dávila P: Plant management in the Tehuacán Valley, Mexico. Econ Bot 2010, 64:287-302.
• [7]Casas A, Vázquez ME, Viveros JL, Caballero J: Plant management among the Nahua and the Mixtec from the Balsas River Basin: and ethnobotanical approach to the study of plant domestication. Hum Ecol 1996, 24:455-478.
• [8]de Freitas Lins Neto EM, Peroni N, Maranhão CM, Maciel MI, de Albuquerque UP: Analysis of umbu (Spondias tuberosa Arruda (Anacardiaceae)) in different landscape management regimes. Environ Monit Assess 2012, 184:4489-4499.
• [9]Smith BD: General patterns of niche construction and the management of ‘wild’ plant and animal resources by small-scale pre-industrial societies. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2011, 366:836-848.
• [10]Bartolini G, Prevost G, Messeri C, Carignani G: Olive Germplasm: Cultivars and Word-Wide Collections. http://apps3.fao.org/wiews/olive/oliv.jsp webcite
• [11]Franks T, Botta R, Thomas MR: Chimerism in grapevines: implications for cultivar identity, ancestry and genetic improvement. Theor Appl Genet 2002, 104:192-199.
• [12]de Freitas Lins Neto EM, Ferreira De Oliveria I, Britto FB, de Albuquerque UP: Traditional knowledge, genetic and morphological diversity in populations of Spondias tuberosa Arruda (Anacardiaceae). Gen Res Crop Evol 2013, 60:1389-1406.
• [13]Aguirre-Dugua X, Eguiarte LE, González-Rodríguez A, Casas A: Round and large: morphological and genetic consequences of artificial selection on the gourd tree Crescentia cujete by the Maya of the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Ann Botany 2012, 109:1297-1306.
• [14]Gentry AH: Bignoniaceae Part I. Flora Neotrop Monogr 1980, 25:82-96.
• [15]Pennington TD, Sarukhán J: Árboles tropicales de México. México: UNAM, FCE; 1998.
• [16]Morton JF: The calabash (Crescentia cujete) in folk medicine. Econ Bot 1968, 22:273-280.
• [17]Gómez-Estrada H, Díaz-Castillo F, Franco-Ospina L, Mercado-Camargo J, Guzmán-Ledezma J, Medina JD, Gaitán-Ibarra R: Folk medicine in the northern coast of Colombia: an overview. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 2001, 7:27-38.
• [18]Volpato G, Godínez D, Beyra A, Baerreto A: Uses of medicinal plants by Haitian immigrants and their descendants in the Province of Camagüey, Cuba. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 2009, 5:16-24. BioMed Central Full Text
• [19]Barrera A: Sobre la unidad de habitación tradicional campesina y el manejo de recursos bióticos en el área maya yucatanense. Biótica 1980, 5:115-129.
• [20]Roys RL: The ethno-botany of the Maya. ISHI reprints on Latin America and the Caribbean. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues; 1976.
• [21]Barrera A, Gómez-Pompa A, Vázquez-Yanes C: El manejo de las selvas por los Mayas: sus implicaciones silvícolas y agrícolas. Biótica 1977, 2:47-61.
• [22]Gómez-Pompa A, Allen MF, Feddick S, Jiménez-Osornio JJ: The Lowland Maya Area: Three Millennia at the Human-Wildland Interface. Binghamton, New York; 2003.
• [23]Toledo VM, Barrera-Bassols N, García-Frapolli E, Alarcón-Chaires P: Usos múltiples y biodiversidad entre los mayas yucatecos (México). Interciencia 2008, 33:345-352.
• [24]Ford A, Nigh R: Origins of the Maya forest garden: Maya resource management. J Ethnobiol 2009, 29:213-236.
• [25]Rico-Gray V, García-Franco JG, Chemas A, Puch A, Sima P: Species composition, similarity, and structure of Mayan homegardens in Tixpeual and Tixcacaltuyub, Yucatan, Mexico. Econ Bot 1990, 44:470-487.
• [26]Aké-G A, Ávila M, Jiménez-O J: Valor de los productos directos del agroecosistema solar: el caso de Hocabá, Yucatán, México. Sociedades Rurales, Producción y Medio Ambiente 2002, 3:7-18.
• [27]Benjamin TJ, Montañez PI, Jiménez JJM, Gillespie AR: Carbon, water and nutrient flux in Maya homegardens in the Yucatán Peninsula of México. Agrof Syst 2001, 53:103-111.
• [28]de la Cerda HE C, Guerra Mukul RR: Homegarden production and productivity in a Mayan community of Yucatan. Hum Ecol 2008, 36:423-433.
• [29]de Frece A, Poole N: Constructing livelihoods in rural Mexico: milpa in Mayan culture. J Peasant Studies 2008, 35:335-352.
• [30]Medina-González EI: Jícaras y guajes prehispánicos procedentes de contextos arqueológicos húmedos. New York: Escuela Nacional de Conservación, Restauración y Museografía Manuel del Castillo Negrete INAH SEP; 1996. [BSc thesis]
• [31]Kerr J: Maya Vase Database. Photographs K1226, K1247, K4546, K4923. http://www.mayavase.com webcite
• [32]Christenson AJ: Popol Vuh: Sacred Book of the Quiché Maya People. http://www.mesoweb.com/publications/Christenson/PopolVuh.pdf webcite
• [33]Barrera-Vásquez A, Rendón S: Libro de los libros de Chilam Balam. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica; 1948.
• [34]Popenoe W: The useful plants of Copan. Am Anthrop 1919, 21:125-138.
• [35]Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI): Censo de Población y Vivienda 2010. http://www.inegi.org.mx/sistemas/consulta_resultados/iter2010.aspx webcite
• [36]Maya J: An introduction to qualitative methods: a training module for students and professionals. Edmonton: Qual Institute Press; 2001.
• [37]Barrera-Vásquez A: Diccionario Maya. México: Porrúa; 2007.
• [38]Harper RM: Useful plants of Yucatan. Bull Torrey Bot Club 1932, 59:279-288.
• [39]Caballero J: Maya homegardens: past, present and future. Etnoecológica 1992, 1:35-54.
• [40]GarcíadeMiguel J: Etnobotánica maya: origen y evolución de los huertos familiares de la Península de Yucatán, México. Universidad de Córdoba: Universidad de Córdoba; 2000. [PhD thesis]
• [41]de Clerck FAJ, Negreros-Castillo P: Plant species of traditional Mayan homegardens of Mexico as analogs for multistrata agroforests. Agrof Syst 2000, 48:303-317.
• [42]Sutrop U: List task and a cognitive salience index. Field Methods 2001, 13:263-276.
• [43]Pennec F, Wencelius J, Garine E, Raimond C, Bohbot H: FLAME v1.0: Free-List Analysis under Microsoft Excel. Paris: CNRS; 2012.
• [44]Kuhl FP, Giardina CR: Elliptic Fourier features of a closed contour. Comp Graph Image Proc 1982, 18:236-258.
• [45]Liang ZC, Huang P, Yang J, Rao GY: Population divergence in the amphicarpic species Amphicarpaea edgeworthii Benth. (Fabaceae): microsatellite markers and leaf morphology. Biol J Linn Soc 2009, 96:505-516.
• [46]Hoffman JI, Peck LS, Hillyard G, Zieritz A, Clark MS: No evidence for genetic differentiation between Antarctic limpet Nacella concinna morphotypes. Mar Biol 2010, 157:765-778.
• [47]Iwata H, Ebana K, Uga Y, Hayashi T, Jannink JL: Genome-wide association study of grain shape variation among Oryza sativa L. germplasms based on elliptic Fourier analysis. Mol Breeding 2010, 25:203-215.
• [48]Iwata H, Ukai Y: Shape: a computer program package for quantitative evaluation of biological shapes based on elliptic Fourier descriptors. J Hered 2002, 93:384-385.
• [49]Bastarrachea-Manzano JR: La vegetación maya: otra forma de cosmovisión. In Manejo de la diversidad de los cultivos en agroecosistemas tradicionales. Edited by Chávez-Servia JL, Tuxill J, Jarvis DI. Cali: Instituto Internacional de Recursos Fitogenéticos; 2004:208-215.
• [50]Redfield R: The folk culture of Yucatan. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1941.
• [51]LeCount LJ: Like water for chocolate: feasting and political ritual among the Late Classic Maya at Xunantunich, Belize. Am Anthrop 2001, 103:935-953.
• [52]Redfield R, Villa-Rojas A: Chan Kom, a Maya village. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1934.
• [53]Hurst WJ, Tarka SM, Powis TG, Valdez F, Hester TR: Cacao use by the earliest Maya civilization. Nature 2002, 418:289-290.
• [54]Coe SD, Coe MD: The true history of chocolate. New York: Thames & Hudson; 1996.
• [55]Pérez-Toro : La Milpa. Mérida: Gobierno de Yucatán; 1942.
• [56]Baqueiro-López O: Magia, mitos y supersticiones entre los mayas. Mérida: Maldonado Editores; 1983.
• [57]Marion MO: Identidad y ritualidad entre los mayas. Colección Fiestas de los Pueblos Indígenas. Mexico: Instituto Nacional Indigenista Sedesol; 1994.
• [58]Santos-Fita D: Cacería de subsistencia, manejo y conservación de fauna silvestre en comunidades rurales de la Península de Yucatán, México. El Colegio de la Frontera Sur; 2013. [PhD thesis]
• [59]Meulenberg IRMM: Calabashes and Bottle Gourds from Suriname. University of Leiden; 2011. [MSc thesis]
• [60]Hamrick JL, Godt MJW: Effects of life history traits on genetic diversity in plant species. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1996, 351:1291-1298.
• [61]Verdú M: Age at maturity and diversification in woody angiosperms. Evolution 2002, 56:1352-1361.
• [62]Petit RJ, Hampe A: Some evolutionary consequences of being a tree. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 2006, 37:187-214.
• [63]Parra F, Pérez-Nasser N, Lira R, Pérez Salicrup D, Casas A: Population genetics and process of domestication of Stenocereus pruinosus (Cactaceae) in the Tehuacán Valley, Mexico. J Arid Environ 2008, 72:1997-2010.
• [64]Miller AJ, Gross BL: From forest to field: perennial fruit crop domestication. Am J Bot 2011, 98:1389-1414.
• [65]Arango-Ulloa J, Bohorquez A, Duque MC, Maass BL: Diversity of the calabash tree (Crescentia cujete L.) in Colombia. Agrof Syst 2009, 76:543-553.
• [66]Assogbadjo AE, Glèlè-Kakaï R, Chadare FJ, Thomson L, Kyndt T, Sinsin B, Van Damme P: Folk classification, perception and preferences of baobab products in West Africa: consequences for species conservation and improvement. Econ Bot 2008, 62:74-84.
• [67]Fandohan B, Assogbadjo AE, Glèlè-Kakaï R, Kyndt T, Sinsin B: Quantitative morphological descriptors confirm traditionally classified morphotypes of Tamarindus indica L. fruits. Gen Res Crop Evol 2011, 58:299-309.
• [68]Gwali S, Nakabonge G, Lamoris-Okullo JB, Eilu G, Nyeko P, Vuzi P: Morphological variation among shea tree (Vitellaria paradoxa subsp. nilotica) ‘ethnovarieties’ in Uganda. Gen Res Crop Evol 2012, 59:1883-1898.
• [69]Cornille A, Gladieux P, Smulders MJM, Roldán-Ruiz I, Laurens F, Le Cam B, Nersesyan A, Clavel J, Olonova M, Feugey L, Gabrielyan I, Zhang X-G, Tenaillon MI, Giraud T: New insight into the history of the domesticated apple: secondary contribution of the European wild apple to the genome of cultivated varieties. PLoS Genet 2012, 8:e10002703. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1002703
• [70]Ashworth VETM, Clegg MT: Microsatellite markers in avocado (Persea americana Mill.): genealogical relationships among cultivated avocado genotypes. J Heredity 2003, 94:407-415.
• [71]Myles S, Boyko AR, Owens CL, Brown PJ, Grassi F, Aradhya MK, Prins B, Reynolds A, Chia JM, Ware D, Bustamante CD, Buckler ES: Genetic structure and domestication history of the grape. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011, 108:3530-3535.
• [72]Besnard G, Rubio De Casas R, Vargas P: Plastid and nuclear DNA polymorphism reveals historical processes of isolation and reticulation in the olive tree complex (Olea europaea) . J Biogeogr 2007, 34:736-752.
• [73]Price S: When is a calabash not a calabash? New West Indian Guide 1982, 56:69-82.
• [74]Heiser CB: The Gourd Book. Norman: The University of Oklahoma Press; 1979.
• [75]Morimoto Y, Maundu P, Fujimaki H, Morishima H: Diversity of landraces of the white-flowered gourd (Lagenaria siceraria) and its wild relatives in Kenya: fruit and seed morphology. Gen Res Crop Evol 2005, 52:737-747.