Seed production potential of <i>Pinus montezumae</i> Lambert in central Mexico

Herrera-Hernández, Raquel; López-Upton, Javier; Muñoz-Gutiérrez, Liliana; Ramírez-Herrera, Carlos

doi:10.5902/1980509871911

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Articles • Ci. Fl. 34 (1) • 2024 • https://doi.org/10.5902/1980509871911 copy

Seed production potential of Pinus montezumae Lambert in central Mexico

Potencial de producción de semilla de Pinus montezumae Lambert en el centro de México

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

The forests that surround the cities of Mexico, Puebla and Tlaxcala are a source of environmental services for 25 million people. Pinus montezumae Lamb. is an abundant species in the area that is under anthropocentric pressure. The objective of the study was to determine the repopulation capacity of Pinus montezumae through its seed production capacity related with environmental (climate, soil) and ecological variables (tree density). In eight populations, 10 cones per tree were collected from 15 trees per population (1200 cones). Data analysis was carried out by parametric and non-parametric methods according to the behavior of each variable. Correlations were estimated using the Pearson and Spearman method. In all variables, significant differences were found (p<0.05) between populations and 3 out of 11 variables between trees. On average, 132 developed seeds were obtained per cone, 55% full, 43% empty and 2% pest-ridden. Production efficiency, reproductive efficiency and endogamy index were 0.33, 28.7 and 0.43, respectively. Some seasonal climatic factors showed associations with seed production. A lower seed production potential (r < -0.70) was observed in populations with high temperature and low precipitation and a higher seed weight when the average temperature increased (r = 0.74). Organic matter has a negative influence on seed weight (r = -0.94), while more acidic soils have greater potential for seed production (r = 0.76). Stand density did not show any significant correlation (p<0.05; r<±0.26). Despite the high fragmentation and low stand density in the populations, the reproductive indicators do not show a deficiency in the production of full seed, which indicates a correct natural regeneration process by seed. The substantial increase in temperature and reduction in precipitation could reduce the species' seed production and its ability to repopulate naturally. This warns of the need for adequate management of forests under an unfavorable climate scenario, and one that is focused on the renewal of populations through reforestation programs.

Keywords
Endogamy; Reproduction efficiency; Reproductive indicators; Seed weight

Population	Latitude	Longitude	Altitude (MASL)	Precipitation (mm)	Temperature (°C)	Organic matter	pH	Density
Tlacotenco	19°10.80’	98°36.90’	2959	901 (826)	13 (3.4)	10.5	5.4	9.0
Llano Grande	19°20.83’	98°43.53’	3176	883 (807)	11 (1.1)	7.1	5.4	10.7
Tlahuapan	19°20.90’	98°39.35’	2844	912 (827)	13 (1.9)	6.6	5.3	6.2
San Rafael	19°16.8’	98°35.85’	2913	928 (849)	13 (3.7)	6.9	5.3	15.8
San Pedro	19°15.56’	98°05.08’	2949	910 (794)	14 (8.9)	4.8	4.4	10.2
San Bartolo	19°16.30’	98°05.53’	2850	896 (775)	14 (10.0)	3.3	4.4	19.3
Altamira	19°16.96’	97°59.45’	3000	912 (839)	13 (8.0)	6.7	3.5	22.8
Ixtenco	19°17.41’	97°58.21’	2950	904 (825)	14 (9.4)	3.5	3.6	18.1

Variable	Total Variance	Variance components (%)
Variable	Total Variance	Population	Tree	Error
Production potential	1762.66	9.97 ^* * Variables with significant difference for the population and tree factors (p ≤ 0.05) according to Tukey-Kramer and Dunn's tests.	56.73 ^* * Variables with significant difference for the population and tree factors (p ≤ 0.05) according to Tukey-Kramer and Dunn's tests.	33.30
Developed seeds	2780.48	17.96 ^* * Variables with significant difference for the population and tree factors (p ≤ 0.05) according to Tukey-Kramer and Dunn's tests.	54.70 ^* * Variables with significant difference for the population and tree factors (p ≤ 0.05) according to Tukey-Kramer and Dunn's tests.	27.34
Percentage of developed seeds	409.96	14.52 ^* * Variables with significant difference for the population and tree factors (p ≤ 0.05) according to Tukey-Kramer and Dunn's tests.	55.81	29.68
Percentage of full seeds	0.7698	0.85 ^* * Variables with significant difference for the population and tree factors (p ≤ 0.05) according to Tukey-Kramer and Dunn's tests.	63.53	35.63
Percentage of empty seeds	0.4057	1.31 ^* * Variables with significant difference for the population and tree factors (p ≤ 0.05) according to Tukey-Kramer and Dunn's tests.	64.69	34.01
Percentage of pest-ridden seeds	1.2020	24.51 ^* * Variables with significant difference for the population and tree factors (p ≤ 0.05) according to Tukey-Kramer and Dunn's tests.	27.68	47.82
Percentage of aborted ovules	0.3377	15.15 ^* * Variables with significant difference for the population and tree factors (p ≤ 0.05) according to Tukey-Kramer and Dunn's tests.	49.09	35.77
Weight of 100 seeds	0.3655	5.20 ^* * Variables with significant difference for the population and tree factors (p ≤ 0.05) according to Tukey-Kramer and Dunn's tests.	46.43 ^* * Variables with significant difference for the population and tree factors (p ≤ 0.05) according to Tukey-Kramer and Dunn's tests.	48.37
Seed production efficiency	0.9015	3.85 ^* * Variables with significant difference for the population and tree factors (p ≤ 0.05) according to Tukey-Kramer and Dunn's tests.	62.01	34.14
Reproductive efficiency	0.4094	0.34 ^* * Variables with significant difference for the population and tree factors (p ≤ 0.05) according to Tukey-Kramer and Dunn's tests.	66.01	33.65
Endogamy index	0.4057	1.31 ^* * Variables with significant difference for the population and tree factors (p ≤ 0.05) according to Tukey-Kramer and Dunn's tests.	64.69	34.01
Average	-	8.2	56.2	35.6

Population	Production Potential	Production potential %		Developed seed %			Weight of 100 seeds
Population	Production Potential	Aborted ovules	Developed seed	Full	Empty	Pest-ridden	Weight of 100 seeds
Tlacotenco	231 abc	31 de	69 ab	63 a	37 c	0 c	1.7 b
	(± 4)	(± 1)	(± 1.3)	(± 1.6)	(± 1.6)	(± 0.1)	± 0.03
	163-343	22-66	34-78	28-85	14-71	0-2	1.2-2.5
Llano Grande	233 abc	46 bc	54 c	51 bc	49 ab	0 c	2.1 a
	(± 3)	(± 1.5)	(± 1.5)	(± 2)	(± 2)	(± 0.1)	± 0.03
	170-279	19-72	27-81	1-80	20-99	0-2	1.5-2.8
Tlahuapan	238 ab	31 de	69 ab	47 c	50 a	3 b	2.1 a
	(± 2)	(± 1.5)	(± 1.5)	(± 1.8)	(± 2)	(± 0.6)	± 0.05
	208-271	20-66	34-80	15-78	15-84	0-16	1.2-3.1
San Rafael	248 a	41 cd	59 b	57 ab	41 c	2 b	1.9 a
	(± 3)	(± 1)	(± 1.2)	(± 2)	(± 2)	(± 0.4)	± 0.04
	200-306	21-59	41-79	11-89	11-89	0-15	1.2-2.7
San Pedro	201 c	57 a	43 d	59 ab	41 bc	0 c	2.1 a
	(± 4)	(± 1.5)	(± 1.5)	(± 1.5)	(± 1.5)	(± 0.1)	± 0.04
	137-289	32-77	23-68	32-80	20-68	0-1	1.2-3.2
San Bartolo	210 bc	50 ab	50 cd	49 c	50 a	1 b	2.2 a
	(± 3)	(± 1.6)	(± 1.7)	(± 1.7)	(± 1.7)	(± 0.2)	± 0.07
	180-289	23-89	11-77	18-79	21-82	0-7	1.1-3.1
Altamira	217 abc	33 de	67 ab	52 bc	40 c	8 a	2.0 a
	(± 3)	(± 2)	(± 2)	(± 2.3)	(± 2.3)	(± 1)	± 0.04
	183-253	10-74	26-90	7-78	20-92	1-21	1.8-2.3
Ixtenco	216 abc	28 e	72 a	63 a	36 c	1 b	2.1 a
	(± 3)	(± 2)	(± 2)	(± 1.8)	(± 1.8)	(± 0.3)	± 0.06
	196-254	10-66	34-90	36-97	3-64	0-5	1.4-3.3
Average	227	42	58	55	43	2	2.02

Population	Production efficiency	Reproductive efficiency	Endogamy index
Tlacotenco	0.38 ± 0.015 a 0.21-0.61	29 ± 1.1 a 11-55	0.31 ± 0.02 c 0.14-0.71
Llano Grande	0.25 ± 0.015 bc 0.04-0.64	30 ± 1.7 a 0-58	0.42 ± 0.02 ab 0.19-0.99
Tlahuapan	0.28 ± 0.015 b 0.07-0.60	29 ± 1.7 a 4-88	0.51 ± 0.02 a 0.15-0.84
San Rafael	0.34 ± 0.015 ab 0.06-0.62	31 ± 1.5 a 5-60	0.31 ± 0.02 bc 0.10-0.88
San Pedro	0.24 ± 0.012 bc 0.09-0.54	22 ± 1.0 bc 8-40	0.37 ± 0.02 b 0.19-0.67
San Bartolo	0.23 ± 0.011 c 0.07-0.47	19 ± 1.0 c 9-40	0.50 ± 0.02 a 0.21-0.81
Altamira	0.31 ± 0.02 ab 0.02-0.70	26 ± 1.4 ab 2-44	0.34 ± 0.02 bc 0.19-0.92
Ixtenco	0.40 ± 0.02 a 0.21-0.86	32 ± 1.4 a 17-52	0.35 ± 0.02 bc 0.01-0.63
Average	0.33	28.7	0.43

	PPS	POA	PSD	PSL	PSV	PSP	WHS
DENSITY	-0.02	0.16	-0.16	0.16	-0.25	0.12	0.07
P	-0.16	0.07	-0.07	-0.01	-0.24	0.41	0.42
NH₄	0.06	-0.08	0.08	0.01	-0.31	0.57	-0.52
NO₃	*0.81^ * p < 0.05. N=8.**	-0.37	0.37	-0.15	0.27	-0.19	0.44
O.M.	0.63	-0.34	0.34	0.18	0.20	0.03	*-0.94^ * p < 0.05. N=8.**
pH	*0.76^ * p < 0.05. N=8.**	0.04	-0.04	-0.09	0.37	-0.48	-0.54
PPFall	0.63	*-0.75^ * p < 0.05. N=8.**	*0.75^ * p < 0.05. N=8.**	0.17	-0.47	0.48	-0.54
RHumdity	*-0.78^ * p < 0.05. N=8.**	0.27	-0.27	0.42	*-0.64^ * p < 0.05. N=8.**	0.10	0.34
MATemp	*-0.71^ * p < 0.05. N=8.**	0.10	-0.10	0.29	-0.36	-0.01	*0.74^ * p < 0.05. N=8.**
WMinTemp	*-0.86^ * p < 0.05. N=8.**	0.29	-0.29	-0.20	-0.31	0.12	0.51

Universidade Federal de Santa Maria Av. Roraima, 1.000, 97105-900 Santa Maria RS Brasil, Tel. : (55 55)3220-8444 r.37, Fax: (55 55)3220-8444 r.22 - Santa Maria - RS - Brazil
E-mail: cienciaflorestal@ufsm.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Raquel Herrera-Hernández

Forestry Engineer, Master in Forest Sciences