Ecogeographical land characterization maps as a tool for assessing plant adaptation and their implications in agrobiodiversity studies
- 476 Downloads
Information on plant adaptation can be very useful in agrobiodiversity studies. Ecogeographical land characterization (ELC) maps constitute a new tool in this direction with great potential. To assess the usefulness of this approach, an ELC map of Spain was created through multivariate methods. Its performance to characterize plant habitat preferences was compared with existing ecological regions and land cover maps. Collecting sites and seed weight from eight plant species were used to test the ELC map. Categories from each map were assigned to accessions using collecting sites. Chi-square tests were applied to test if category frequency distributions for each species followed a distribution proportional to the relative frequency of categories in each map. The tests found significant differences in the eight species studied. Thus, Bonferroni confidence intervals (BCI) classified categories from maps in preferred, neutral or avoided habitats. Seed weight was used as a proxy for plant adaptation. Comparison between observed and expected ranking of BCI and quartile classes in terms of seed weight means, and GLM and post-hoc tests carried out to test the effect of these classes upon seed weight showed consistently better results for the ELC map. Species results and applications of ecogeographic maps in plant genetic resources conservation are discussed.
KeywordsAbiotic adaptation Bonferroni confidence intervals Geographic information systems Germplasm characterization Map evaluation Two-step clustering
We would like to thank the personnel at CRF-INIA, in particular to Lucía de la Rosa and Edurne Aguiriano. We are also grateful to Miguel Ibañez for his statistical advice and Lori J. De Hond for linguistic assistance.
- Bossard M, Feranec J, Otahel J (2000) CORINE land cover technical guide—Addendum 2000. European Environment Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
- Chiu T, Fang D, Chen J, Wang Y, Jeris C (2001) A robust and scalable clustering algorithm for mixed type attributes in large database environment. In: proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, San Francisco, pp 263–268Google Scholar
- Greene SL, Hart TC (1999) Implementing a geographic analysis in germplasm conservation. In: Greene SL, Guarino L (eds) Linking genetic resources and geography: emerging strategies for conserving crop biodiversity. American Society of Agonomy and Crop Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, pp 25–38Google Scholar
- Hijmans RJ, Guarino L, Cruz M, Rojas E (2001) Computer tools for spatial analysis of plant genetic resources data: 1. DIVA-GIS. Plant Genet Resour Newsl 127:15–19Google Scholar
- Instituto Geográfico Nacional (1992) Atlas nacional de España, sección II, grupo 7, edafología. Instituto Geográfico Nacional, MadridGoogle Scholar
- Lobo Burle M, Torres Cordeiro CM, Fonseca JR, Palhares de Melo M, Neves Alves R, Abadie T (2003) Characterization of germplasm according to environmental conditions at the collecting site using GIS—two case studies from Brazil. Plant Genet Resour Newsl 135:1–11Google Scholar
- Michailidou C, Maheras P, Arseni-Papadimititriou A, Kolyva-Machera F, Anagnostopoulou C (2009) A study of weather types at Athens and Thessaloniki and their relationship to circulation types for the cold-wet period, part I: two-step cluster analysis. Theor Appl Climatol 97:163–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ozenda P, Borel JL (2000) An ecological map of Europe: why and how? CR Acad Sci-Ser III-Sci Vie 323:983–994Google Scholar
- Painho M, Farral H, Barata F (1996) Digital map of European ecological regions (DMEER). Its concept and elaboration. In: Rumor M, McMillan R, Ottens HFL (eds) Geographical information: from research to application through cooperation. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 437–446Google Scholar
- Parra-Quijano M, Draper D, Torres E, Iriondo JM (2008) Ecogeographical representativeness in crop wild relative ex situ collections. In: Maxted N, Ford-Lloyd BV, Kell SP, Iriondo JM, Dulloo ME, Turok J (eds) Crop wild relative conservation and use. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 249–273Google Scholar
- SPSS (2003) SPSS Base 12.0 user’s guide. SPSS, ChicagoGoogle Scholar