Identification of Prosopis juliflora and Prosopis - Universidad Pública ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

14other Prosopis species using their RAPDs profiles. However, similarity valuesclearly show that P. juliflora is more closely related to P. pallida than to any ofthe tested species of series Chilenses. Ramı´rez et al. (1999) found the similaritiesbetween species of series Ruscifoliae, Pallidae and Chilenses were inconsistentwith the classification advanced by Burkart (1976). While Ramı´rez et al.(1999) found that P. kunzei of series Sericanthae was distinct and no species ofseries Denudantes or Humiles have been analysed, these studies may suggest areconsideration of the series rank within section Algarobia.There is considerable confusion as to the identity of Prosopis species introducedinto Africa, Asia, Australia and Northeast Brazil. The distinct profilesobserved with P. pallida and P. juliflora allow for the accurate identification ofthese species. In Burkina Faso, the accession analysed showed strong similaritiesto P. juliflora form Honduras. Therefore, it can be confirmed thatP. juliflora is present in Burkina Faso. The accession collected in Cape Verdehad also been identified as P. juliflora but perfectly matches P. pallida fromPeru and is distinct from P. juliflora. As this accession is representative of thedominant Prosopis used in reforestation programmes, it may be suggested thatmost Prosopis in Cape Verde has been incorrectly identified and is actuallyP. pallida. Similarly, in Senegal, the accession that had been identified asP. juliflora matches P. pallida from Peru, thus confirming that P. pallida ispresent in Senegal. The first recorded introduction of Prosopis into Africa wasin the early 19th century to Richard Toll, Senegal, then a French colony, wherethe accession tested in this study was collected. At this time, P. pallida wasintroduced to Hawaii from Peru via a herbarium in Paris, France (Esbenshade1980), but no records exists as to the origin of the Senegalese material. However,while the accession from Richard Toll has been identified as P. pallida,P. juliflora has also been identified by Burkart (1976) indicating that bothspecies are present in Senegal.In the north east of Brazil, two accessions were analysed, one of which hadbeen identified as P. juliflora and the other as P. affinis. Molecular markerssuggest that both may in fact be P. pallida. It is accepted that Prosopis seed wasintroduced into the northeast of Brazil in 1947 from Peru by S.C. Harland(Silva 1990). This can now be assumed to have been P. pallida. However,Prosopis has been identified in the north east of Brazil as long ago as 1879(Bentham 1879 in Burkart 1976) and two distinct types of Prosopis have beennoted in north east Brazil (Silva 1990). Pasiecznik et al. (2001) state that it ispossible that trade between the Caribbean and Brazil may have led to theintroduction of P. juliflora to the north east of Brazil in the 1800s and this maybe the origin of the Prosopis noted by Bentham. Later introductions from Perubeginning in the 1940s, however, are clearly P. pallida. While P. pallida is usedfor afforestation and is the most common, it cannot be stated that all Prosopisin Northeast Brazil is P. pallida. The identification of P. affinis in the Northeastof Brazil by Lima and Silva (1991) was based on the revised taxonomy ofProsopis in northern Peru by Ferreyra (1987). This was the first description ofP. affinis in Peru, with Ferreyra (1987) distinguishing it primarily on the basis
of pod coloration. Burkart (1976) noted P. affinis as native from Uruguay toParaguay. As the P. affinis identified in Brazil is probably P. pallida, it may alsobe assumed that the P. affinis identified in Peru by Ferreyra is also P. pallida,confirming the exclusion of this species from the P. juliflora–pallida complex byPasiecznik et al. (2001).Molecular markers have proven to be very useful tools in this study indifferentiating populations of the genus Prosopis at different taxonomic ranks.This study has allowed the identification and differentiation of the Prosopisspecies tested and has resolved the identity of introduced populations. This,and parallel studies using ploidy and leaf morphology (Harris et al. 2003), havehelped to resolve some of the outstanding taxonomical problems and has aidedin the development of a practical field guide for the identification of tropicalProsopis species, and P. juliflora and P. pallida in particular (Pasiecznik et al.2004) for the benefit of foresters, farmers, extensionists, researchers anddevelopment workers worldwide.15AcknowledgementsThis work was supported by a grant from the Accioń Integrada, H.B. 1999–0035 of the Spanish Ministerio de Educacioń y Cultura.ReferencesAlban L., Matorel M., Romero J., Grados N., Cruz, G. and Felker P. 2002. Cloning of elite,multipurpose trees of the Prosopis juliflora/pallida complex in Piura, Peru. Agroforest. Syst. 54:173–182.Burghardt A.D. and Palacios R.A. 1997. Electrophoretic characterisation of the American sectionsof Prosopis L. (Leguminosae: Mimosoideae). Bull. Int. Group Study Mimosoideae 20: 71–83.Burkart A. 1976. A monograph of the genus Posopis (Leguminosae subfam. Mimosoideae). (Part 1and 2). Catalogue of the recognised species of Prosopis. J. Arnold Arboretum 57: 219–249, 450–525.Church G.M. and Gilbert W. 1984. Genomic sequencing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 81: 1991–1995.Esbenshade H.W. 1980. Kiawe: a tree crop in Hawaii. Int. Tree Crops J. 1: 125–130.Felker P. 1990. Prosopis spp. In: Burns R.M. and Mosquera M. (eds), Useful Trees of TropicalNorth America. North American Forestry Commission Compendium Publication, No.3. USDAForest Service, Washington DC, USA pp. 85–96.Ferreyra R. 1987. Estudio sistémico de los algarrobos de la costa norte del Perú. Dirección deInvestigacioń Forestal y de Fauna. Min. de Agricultura, Lima, Peru.Griffith A.L. 1961. Acacia and Prosopis in the Dry Forests of the Tropics. FAO, Rome, Italy.Harris P.J.C., Pasiecznik N.M., Bradbury M. and Ramírez L. 1998. Problems and potential ofProsopis. In: Prendergast H.D.V., Etkin N.L., Harris D.R. and Houghton P.J. (eds), Plants forFood and Medicine. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK pp. 277–293.Harris P.J.C., Pasiecznik N.M., Smith S.J., Billington J. and Ramírez L. 2003. Differentiation ofProsopis juliflora (Sw.) DC. and P. pallida (H. & B. ex. Willd.) H.B.K. using foliar characters andploidy. Forest Ecol. Manage. 180: 153–164.Hunziker J.H., Poggio L., Naranjo C.A. and Palacios R.A. 1975. Cytogenetics of some species andnatural hybrids in Prosopis (Leguminosae). Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 17: 253–262.
Page 2: 2species are sympatric in each cent
Page 7 and 8: 7presence or absence of each marker
Page 9 and 10: 9Figure 3. Amplification of the mar
Page 11 and 12: 11Table 3.Matrix of similarity amon
Page 13: Pasiecznik et al. (2001) noted simi

Identification of Prosopis juliflora and Prosopis - Universidad Pública ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?