Advertisement

Vegetation History and Archaeobotany

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 207–217 | Cite as

Multidisciplinary studies in Cucurbita maxima (squash) domestication

  • Analía Martínez
  • Verónica LemaEmail author
  • Aylen Capparelli
  • Carlos Bartoli
  • Fernando López Anido
  • S. Iván Pérez
Original Article
  • 312 Downloads

Abstract

Plant domestication is a complex process in which natural and cultural factors play important roles delimiting evolutionary pathways of plants under cultivation. In order to deal with and understand the changes generated during this process, multi-disciplinary research is required, especially when a full picture of the domestication history of a taxon is to be assessed. We present here some advances in the study of Cucurbita maxima (squash) domestication from an integrated perspective, including experimental, morphometric and archaeobotanical approaches, which are discussed in the light of new data from physiological analyses. Modern material includes plants obtained from experimental fields, derived from crosses between domesticated (C. maxima ssp. maxima) and spontaneous/wild forms (C. maxima ssp. andreana), resulting in F1 and F2 generations. The archaeobotanical material includes remains recovered from sites in southern Peru and northwest Argentina ranging in date from 3,000 to 800 bp. Morphological and anatomical analyses were conducted on seeds, pericarps and peduncles (the stem of the flower or fruit) for reconstructing squash size and shape evolution under domestication. The results suggest the presence of hybrid forms, mainly from the earlier sites, but also from more recent ones. As expected, a linear evolutionary pathway was not found. Diversity and multiple crossings seem to have been a constant in squash cultivation over time, emphasising the role of gene flows between domestic and wild variants in the domestication process. Finally, we hypothesize the possible linkage between past gene flow and different dormancy patterns as part of management practices, allowing the maintenance of squash populations adapted to different environmental conditions.

Keyword

Domestication Cucurbita maxima Squash cultivation Hybridisation/crossing South America 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are indebted to the Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) PIP 0319, to the Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Técnica (ANPCyT) PICT 2015-2040 and PICT 2012-0709, and to Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo (La Plata National University) N734 project, all funding to Aylen Capparelli, as well as to the Instituto Nacional de Fisiología Vegetal (INFIVE) which has provided institutional and financial support for this work. The authors would like to thank the editors, anonymous referees and James Greig for their suggestions and for helping us to improve the English writing.

References

  1. Aguirre-Dugua X, González-Rodríguez A (2016) Phylogeographical approaches to the study of plant domestication, with special emphasis on perennial plants. In: Lira R, Casas A, Blancas J (eds) Ethnobotany of Mexico. Springer, New York, pp 319–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allaby R, Kitchen J, Fuller D (2016) Surprisingly low limits of selection in plant domestication. Evol Bioinform 11(S2):41–51Google Scholar
  3. Ashworth L (1997) Estudios sobre la biología reproductiva del zapallo amargo (Cucurbita andreana, Cucurbitaceae). Dissertation, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, ArgentinaGoogle Scholar
  4. Casas A, Blancas J, Otero-Arnaiz A et al (2016) Evolutionary ethnobotanical studies of incipient domestication of plants in Mesoamerica. In: Lira R, Casas A, Blancas J (eds) Ethnobotany of Mexico. Springer, New York, pp 257–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Corruccini RS (1995) Of ratios and rationality. Am J Phys Anthropol 96:189–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cowan C (1997) Evolutionary changes associated with the domestication of Cucurbita pepo. In: Gremillion K (ed) People, plants and landscapes: Studies in paleoethnobotany. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp 63–85Google Scholar
  7. Cowan CW, Smith BD (1993) New perspectives on a wild gourd in Eastern North America. J Ethnobiol 13:17–54Google Scholar
  8. Decker D, Wilson H (1986) Numerical analysis of seed morphology in Cucurbita pepo. Syst Bot 11:595–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Decker-Walters D, Walters T (2000) II.C.8—Squash. In: Kiple KF, Ornelas KC (eds) The Cambridge world history of food, vol 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 335–351Google Scholar
  10. Ellstrand N, Prentice H, Hancock J (1999) Gene flow and introgression from domesticated plants into their wild relatives. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 30:539–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fuller D (2012) New archaeobotanical information on plant domestication from macro remains: tracking the evolution of domestication syndrome traits. In: Gepts P, Famula TR, Bettinger RL, Brush SB, Damania AB, McGuire PE, Qualset CO (eds) Biodiversity in agriculture: domestication, evolution, and sustainability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 110–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hart J (2004) Can Cucurbita pepo gourd seeds be made edible? J Archaeol Sci 31:1,631-1,633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hillman G, Stuart Davies M (1990) Measured domestication rates in wild wheats and barley under primitive cultivation, and their archaeological implications. J World Prehist 4:157–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hufford M, Xu X, Van Heerwaarden J et al (2012) Comparative population genomics of maize domestication and improvement. Nat Genet 44:808–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jungers WL, FalsettI A, Wall CE (1995) Shape, relative size and size-adjustments in morphometrics. Yrbk Phys Anthropol 38:137–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kates HR, Soltis PS, Soltis DE (2017) Evolutionary and domestication history of Cucurbita (pumpkin and squash) species inferred from 44 nuclear loci. Mol Phylogenet Evol 111:98–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kistler L, Newsom L, Ryan T, Clarke A, Smith B, Perry G (2015) Gourds and squashes (Cucurbita spp.) adapted to megafaunal extinction and ecological anachronism through domestication. PNAS 112:15,107–15,112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lema V (2010) Procesos de domesticación vegetal en el pasado prehispánico del Noroeste argentino: estudio de las prácticas más allá de los orígenes. Relaciones de la Sociedad Argentina de Antropología 32:121–142Google Scholar
  19. Lema V (2011) The possible influence of post-harvest objectives on Cucurbita maxima ssp. maxima and ssp. andreana evolution under cultivation at the Argentinean Northwest: an archaeological example. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 3:113–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lema V (2015) Non domestication cultivation in the Andes: plant management and nurturing in the Argentinean Northwest. Veget Hist Archaeobot 24:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lema V, Capparelli A, Pochettino ML (2008) Taxonomic identification of Cucurbita species through seed coat micromorphology: implications for dry and carbonized archaeobotanical remains. Veget Hist Archaeobot 17(Suppl 1):277–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lira R, Eguiarte L, Montes S, Zizumbo-Villarreal D, Colunga-García Marín P, Quesada M (2016) Homo sapiens-Cucurbita interaction in Mesoamerica: domestication, dissemination and diversification. In: Lira R, Casas A, Blancas J (eds) Ethnobotany of Mexico. Springer, New York, pp 389–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lira Saade R (1995) Estudios taxonómicos y ecogeográficos de las Cucurbitacea latinoamericanas de importancia económica. Instituto de Biología, U.N.A.M. MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  24. Martinez A, Benech-Arnold R, Capparelli A, Lema V, Bartoli C (2016) Is it possible to associate seed dormancy with domestication processes? In: Proceedings of the 31. Reunión Argentina de fisiología vegetal (RAFV), 13–17 November 2016, Corrientes ArgentinaGoogle Scholar
  25. Martínez A, Pérez S, Lema V, López Anido F (2015) Modificación de caracteres ligados a la domesticación en Cucurbita maxima. Utilización de la morfometría como herramienta para su identificación. Acta Bot Mal 40:95–106Google Scholar
  26. Matsuoka Y, Vigouroux Y, Goodman M, Sanchez J, Buckler E, Doebley J (2002) A single domestication for maize shown by multilocus microsatellite genotyping. PNAS 99:6,080–6,084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Millán R (1945) Variaciones del zapallito amargo Cucurbita andreana y el origen de. Cucurbita maxima. Rev Arg Agron 12:86–93Google Scholar
  28. Montes-Hernández S, Eguiarte L (2002) Genetic structure and indirect estimates of gene flow in three taxa of Cucurbita (Cucurbitaceae) in Western Mexico. Am J Bot 89:1,156–1,163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nee M (1990) The domestication of Cucurbita (Cucurbitaceae). Econ Bot 44(Suppl):56–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Piperno D, Stothert K (2003) Phytolith evidence for early Holocene Cucurbita domestication in Southwest Ecuador. Science 299:1,054–1,057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sanjur O, Piperno D, Andres T, Wessel-Beaver L (2002) Phylogenetic relationships among domesticated and wild species of Cucurbita (Cucurbitaceae) inferred from a mitochondrial gene: Implications for crop plant evolution and areas of origin. PNAS 99:535–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith B (1997) The initial domestication of Cucurbita pepo in the Americas 10,000 years ago. Science 276:865–996Google Scholar
  33. Smith B (2006) Documenting domestication in plants in the archaeological record. In: Zeder M, Bradley D, Emshwiller E, Smith BD (eds) Documenting domestication: new genetic and archaeological paradigms. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 15–24Google Scholar
  34. Vibrans H (2016) Ethnobotany of Mexican weeds. In: Lira R, Casas A, Blancas J (eds) Ethnobotany of Mexico. Springer, New York, pp 287–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Whitaker TW (1983) Cucurbits in Andean prehistory. Am Antiqu 48:576–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Whitaker TW, Bemis WP (1964) Evolution in the genus Cucurbita. Evolution Int J org Evolution 18:553–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wilson H, Lira R, Rodríguez I (1994) Crop/weed gene flow: Cucurbita argyrosperma Huber and C. fraterna LH Bailey (Cucurbitaceae). Econ Bot 48:293–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INFIVEUniversidad Nacional de La Plata, CCT CONICET La PlataLa PlataArgentina
  2. 2.Laboratorio de Etnobotánica y Botánica Aplicada, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y MuseoUniversidad Nacional de La Plata, CONICETLa PlataArgentina
  3. 3.División Arqueología, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y MuseoUniversidad Nacional de La Plata, CONICETLa PlataArgentina
  4. 4.Facultad de Ciencias AgrariasUniversidad Nacional de Rosario, IICAR CONICETSanta FeArgentina
  5. 5.División Antropología, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y MuseoUniversidad Nacional de La Plata, CONICETLa PlataArgentina

Personalised recommendations