International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 10, Issue 6 (June 2023), Pages: 201-212

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Ex-situ propagation of Anacamptis pyramidalis (L.) from an agroecological perspective

 Author(s): 

 Elie Khoury 1, 2, *

 Affiliation(s):

 1Department of Dendrology, Faculty of Forestry, University of Forestry, Sofia, Bulgaria
 2Department of Plant Production, Faculty of Agriculture, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0009-0003-3281-5781

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2023.06.024

 Abstract:

The pyramidal orchid (Anacamptis pyramidalis) in Lebanon is facing random collection and potential extinction risks. To address this conservation concern, we conducted a study to investigate the impact of different agroecological treatments, including substrate type, mycorrhizal application, and mother bulb separation, on the growth and flowering characteristics of the orchid. The primary aim was to propose effective methods for ex-situ propagation of this endangered species. Various substrates were employed, including Own-soil, Pinebark, Pinebark-Peat (1/1 ratio), and Peat-Sand (1/1 ratio). Son bulbs were planted separately (SB) or combined with mother bulbs from the previous season (SB+MB), with or without mycorrhizal application (M: Yes and M: No). The selection of treatments was based on the natural requirements of the Pyramidal orchid in the wild state. The trial was conducted over a two-year period. The control treatment (Own-soil/SB+MB/M: No) yielded the highest plant length (37cm), width of the longest leaf (1.6cm), length of the longest leaf (17cm), width of the shortest leaf (1.4cm), dorsal sepal length (0.9cm), labellum length (0.9cm), petal length (0.9cm), and length of bulbs (3cm). Mother bulb separation resulted in enhanced growth for all indicators except bulb length and width. Mycorrhiza application improved all indicators, except the width of the shortest leaf and lateral sepal length. The combination of mycorrhizal treatment with mother bulb separation yielded the most significant improvements across all indicators compared to the control. Notably, in the Peat+Sand/SB/M: Yes treatment, there was a substantial increase in the width of the longest leaf (by 0.5cm) and the length of the longest leaf (by 3cm) compared to the control. Integrating the three studied factors provided a suitable ex-situ conditioning approach for the orchid, surpassing in-situ conditions. This study provides valuable insights into effective strategies for the conservation and ex-situ propagation of the pyramidal orchid in Lebanon.

 © 2023 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Anacamptis pyramidalis, Lebanon, Agroecological treatments, Ex-situ propagation, Mycorrhizal application

 Article History: Received 5 November 2022, Received in revised form 22 April 2023, Accepted 4 May 2023

 Acknowledgment 

No Acknowledgment.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Khoury E (2023). Ex-situ propagation of Anacamptis pyramidalis (L.) from an agroecological perspective. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 10(6): 201-212

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10 Fig. 11 Fig. 12 

 Tables

 Table 1 

----------------------------------------------   

 References (24)

  1. Alexander C and Hadley G (1984). The effect of mycorrhizal infection of Goodyera repens and its control by fungicide. New Phytologist, 97(3): 391-400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1984.tb03605.x   [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexander C, Alexander IJ, and Hadley G (1984). Phosphate uptake by Goodyera repens in relation to mycorrhizal infection. New Phytologist, 97(3): 401-411. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1984.tb03606.x   [Google Scholar]
  3. del Prete C, Mazzola P, and Miceli P (1991). Karyological differentiation and speciation in C. Mediterranean Anacamptis (Orchidaceae). Plant Systematics and Evolution, 174: 115-123. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00940334   [Google Scholar]
  4. Dhillion SS and Friese CF (1994). The occurrence of mycorrhizas in prairies: Application to ecological restoration. In the 13th North American Prairie Conference, The University of Windsor, Windsor, Canada: 103-114.   [Google Scholar]
  5. Dijk E and Eck ND (1995). Effects of mycorrhizal fungi on in vitro nitrogen response of some Dutch indigenous orchid species. Canadian Journal of Botany, 73(8): 1203-1211. https://doi.org/10.1139/b95-130   [Google Scholar]
  6. Dubova L, Senberga A, Alsina I, Strauta L, and Cinkmanis I (2019). Development of symbiotic interactions in the faba bean (Vicia faba L.) roots. Agronomy Research, 17(4): 1577-1590.   [Google Scholar]
  7. Foley MJY and Clarke SJ (2005). Orchids of the British Isles. Griffin Press in Association with RBGE, Cheltenham, UK.   [Google Scholar]
  8. Hagsater E and Dumont V (1996). Orchids: Status survey and conservation action plan. Volume 28, IUCN/SSC Orchid Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.   [Google Scholar]
  9. Heydarian A, Moghadam HT, Donath TW, and Sohrabi M (2018). Study of effect of arbuscular mycorrhiza (Glomus intraradices) fungus on wheat under nickel stress. Agronomy Research, 16(4): 1660-1667.   [Google Scholar]
  10. Ilves A, Metsare M, Seliškar A, García MB, Vassiliou L, Pierce S, Tatarenko I, Tali K, and Kull T (2016). Genetic diversity patterns of the orchid Anacamptis pyramidalis at the edges of its distribution range. Plant Systematics and Evolution, 302: 1227-1238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00606-016-1328-0   [Google Scholar]
  11. Jomaa I (2008). Analyse diachronique de la fragmentation des forêts du Liban. Ph.D. Dissertation, Université Paul Sabatier-Toulouse III, Toulouse, France.   [Google Scholar]
  12. Kretzschmar H, Eccarius W, and Dietrich H (2007). Die Die orchideengattungen anacamptis, orchis, neotinea: Phylogenie, taxonomie, morphologie, biologie, verbreitung, ökologie und hybridisation. Echinomedia, Albersdorf, Germany.   [Google Scholar]
  13. Li T, Wu S, Yang W, Selosse MA, and Gao J (2021). How mycorrhizal associations influence orchid distribution and population dynamics. Frontiers in Plant Science, 12: 647114. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.647114   [Google Scholar] PMid:34025695 PMCid:PMC8138319
  14. Lind H, Franzén M, Pettersson B, and Anders Nilsson L (2007). Metapopulation pollination in the deceptive orchid Anacamptis pyramidalis. Nordic Journal of Botany, 25(3‐4): 176-182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0107-055X.2007.00103.x   [Google Scholar]
  15. Loit K, Soonvald L, Kukk M, Astover A, and Runno-Paurson E (2018). The indigenous arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal colonisation potential in potato roots is affected by agricultural treatments. Agronomy Research, 16(2): 510-522.   [Google Scholar]
  16. Mehdiyeva NP, Alizade VM, Zambrana NYP, and Bussmann RW (2017). Anacamptis pyramidalis (L.) rich. ORCHIDACEAE. In: Bussmann R (Ed.), Ethnobotany of the Caucasus. European Ethnobotany. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49412-8_132   [Google Scholar]
  17. Penuelas J, Gordon C, Llorens L, Nielsen T, Tietema A, Beier C, and Gorissen A (2004). Nonintrusive field experiments show different plant responses to warming and drought among sites, seasons, and species in a north–south European gradient. Ecosystems, 7: 598-612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-004-0179-7   [Google Scholar]
  18. Press MC, Shah N, and Stewart GR (1986). The parasitic habit: Trends in metabolic reductionism. In: Ter Borg SJ (Ed.), Biology and control of Orobanche: 96-106. LH/VPO, Wageningen, Netherlands.   [Google Scholar]
  19. Selosse MA (2014). The latest news from biological interactions in orchids: In love, head to toe. New Phytologist, 202(2): 337-340. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12769   [Google Scholar] PMid:24645780
  20. Sevgi E, Altundag E, Kara O, Sevgi O, Tecimen HB, and Bolat I (2012). Studies on the morphology, anatomy and ecology of Anacamptis pyramidalis (L.) LCM Richard (Orcidaveae) in Turkey. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 44: 135-141.   [Google Scholar]
  21. Tohmé G and Tohmé H (2014). Illustrated flora of Lebanon. CNRS Publication, Beirut, Lebanon.   [Google Scholar]
  22. Tsiftsis S, Tsiripidis I, Karagiannakidou V, and Alifragis D (2008). Niche analysis and conservation of the orchids of east Macedonia (NE Greece). Acta Oecologica, 33(1): 27-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2007.08.001   [Google Scholar]
  23. Vicente-Serrano SM, Cuadrat-Prats JM, and Romo A (2006). Aridity influence on vegetation patterns in the middle Ebro Valley (Spain): Evaluation by means of AVHRR images and climate interpolation techniques. Journal of Arid Environments, 66(2): 353-375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2005.10.021   [Google Scholar]
  24. Wood J and Ramsay M (2004). Anacamptis laxiflora (Orchidaceae), Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8748.2004.00407.x   [Google Scholar]