Research & Reviews: Journal of Botany Volume 2, Issue 1, ISSN: 2278 -2222 __________________________________________________________________________________________
Morphometric Studies in the Genus Caesalpinia L. from Kolhapur District S. A. Deshmukh1*, N. M. Labhane2, M. B. Waghmare1, S. R. Chavan3, D. K. Gaikwad4 1
Department of Botany, The New College, Kolhapur, Maharashtra, India Department of Botany, Bhavans College, Andheri West, Mumbai, India 3 Department of Botany, Y. C. College of Science, Karad, Maharashtra, India 4 Department of Botany, Shivaji University, Kolhapur, Maharashtra, India 2
Abstract From Kolhapur district six Caesalpinia L. species were morphometrically analyzed with the help of PCA, cluster analysis and CD. The study revealed that Caesalpinia cucullata Roxb. is closely related with Caesalpinia decapetala (Roth.) Alst. and Caesalpinia pulcherrima (L.) Sw. is closely related with Caesalpinia sappan L. while Caesalpinia mimosoides Lam. morphologically differs with other species. The sequence of relationship in studied species is as Caesalpinia cucullata Roxb. Caesalpinia decapetala (Roth.) Alst. Caesalpinia bonduc (L.) Roxb. Caesalpinia pulcherrima (L.) Sw. Caesalpinia sappan L Caesalpinia mimosoides Lam.
Keywords: CD, cluster analysis, PCA Abbreviations: CD, coefficient of difference, PCA – principal component analysis *Author for Correspondence E-mail:
[email protected]
INTRODUCTION The genus Caesalpinia (Caesalpiniaceae) has more than 500 species, many of which exhibit a wide range of pharmacological properties, including antiulcer, anticancer, antidiabetic, anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, and antirheumatic activities that have proven to be efficacious in ethnomedicinal practices [1]. Many Caesalpinia species have not yet been investigated for potential pharmacological activity hence their proper identification is very important. Morphometrics permits numerical comparison between different forms. In numerical classification studies, cluster analysis and principal component analysis (PCA) are widely used, which produces hierarchical classification of entities (taxa) based on similarity matrix and reduces the dimensions of the original data, respectively. Such type of studies have been carried in the genus Ficus L. [2], Acalypha L. and Senna Mill. [3, 4] and Cassia L., Exacum L. [5, 6].
MATERIALS AND METHODS From various regions of Kolhapur District, Caesalpinia L. species were collected during the years 2011 and 2012. Collected species were identified as per Yadav and Sardesai, [7]. Various quantitative characters (viz. leaf length, pinna length, leaflet length, inflorescence length, pedicel length, calyx length, corolla length and pod length) were measured. Qualitative characters of some species have been compared with and taken from the “Flora of the presidency of Bombay” [8]. Corresponding mean values of each quantitative character along with their standard deviation were obtained and processed for principal component analysis and cluster analysis [9]. Coefficient of difference values for all the quantitative characters were also calculated according to Mayr [10].
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Present study deals with six Caesalpinia L. species from Kolhapur District. PCA results of eight quantitative characters based on
RRJoB(2013) 25-28 © STM Journals 2013. All Rights Reserved
Page 25
Morphometric Studies in the Genus Caesalpinia L. Deshmukh et al. __________________________________________________________________________________________
similarity matrix reveals significantly the correlation between leaf length and pod length, pinna length and leaflet length and pedicel length and corolla length as shown in Tables 1 and 2 below. Cluster analysis and dendrogram based on farthest neighbor, mean character difference and constrained clustering strategy show that the Caesalpinia L. species are distinctly divided into two groups; one group consists of Caesalpinia bonduc (L.) Roxb., Caesalpinia cucullata Roxb. and Caesalpinia decapetala (Roth.) Alst. and other is of Caesalpinia pulcherrima (L.) Sw. Caesalpinia sappan L and Caesalpinia mimosoides Lam. It also pointed out that Caesalpinia cucullata Roxb. is closely related with Caesalpinia decapetala (Roth.) Alst. and Caesalpinia
LL PW
pulcherrima (L.) Sw. is closely related with Caesalpinia sappan L. while Caesalpinia mimosoides Lam. morphologically differs with other species (Table 4 and Figure 1). Coefficient of difference values were also calculated for all the quantitative parameters as shown in Table 3. The CD values reveal that the quantitative characters i.e., leaflet length, pedicel length, corolla length and leaf length have great contribution in separation of the taxa. CD values showed that Caesalpinia cucullata Roxb. and Caesalpinia mimosoides Lam., Caesalpinia bonduc (L.) Roxb. and Caesalpinia mimosoides Lam., Caesalpinia mimosoides Lam. and Caesalpinia sappan L. are significantly different from each other.
Table 1: Quantitative Characters of Caesalpinia L. Species (in cm.) with Mean and Standard Deviation. C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 45±13.5 23.9 ± 7.12 30.46 ± 7.79 4.12 ± 2.1 13.16 ± 2.25 29.32 ±10.1 6 ± 1.5 16.4 ± 4.55 6.32 ± 1.3 6.12 ± 1.13 7.12 ± 1.2 12.16 ± 2.24
LLL
2.05 ± 0.15
6.78 ± 2.35
1.65 ± 0.25
0.77 ± 0.12
1.1 ± 0.1
1.58 ± 0.29
IL
19.5 ± 5.3
29.48 ± 9.78
23.77 ± 6.6
55.48 ± 19.9
25 ± 4.45
35.48 ± 5.64
PeL 0.71 ± 0.09 0.73 ± 0.12 1.48 ± 0.35 2.25 ± 0.25 5.5 ± 1.7 1.48 ± 0.35 CaL 0.73 ± 0.11 1.27 ± 0.2 1.11 ± 0.12 0.96 ± 0.01 1.27 ± 0.28 1.14 ± 0.1 CoL 1.2 ± 0.15 1.38 ± 0.11 1.85 ± 0.6 2.4 ± 0.2 3.81 ± 0.24 1.9 ± 0.15 PoL 7.36±1.28 8.1 ± 0.5 9.87± 2.23 4.81± 1.1 6.08 ± 1.62 8.87 ± 1.2 LL: leaf length, PL: pinna length, LLL: leaflet length, IL: inflorescence length, PeL: pedicel length, CaL: calyx length, CoL: corolla length, PoL: pod length. C1: Caesalpinia bonduc (L.) Roxb., C2: Caesalpinia cucullata Roxb., C3: Caesalpinia decapetala (Roth.) Alst., C4: Caesalpinia mimosoides Lam., C5: Caesalpinia pulcherrima (L.) Sw. and C6: Caesalpinia sappan L. Table 2: Principal Component Analysis of Caesalpinia L. Species. Similarity LL PL LLL IL PeL CaL CoL Matrix LL 1.000 PW
0.229
1.000
LLL
0.467
0.762
1.000
IL
-0.822
0.113
-0.309
1.000
PeL CaL
-0.569 -0.158
-0.343 0.591
0.638 0.274
0.207 0.148
1.000 0.418
1.000
CoL
-0.617
-0.285
-0.619
0.287
0.995
0.475
1.000
PoL
0.843
0.38
0.46
-0.557
-0.506
0.193
-0.506
PoL
1.000
LL: leaf length, PL: pinna length, LLL: leaflet length, IL: inflorescence PeL: pedicel length, CaL: calyx length, CoL: corolla length, PoL: pod length.
RRJoB (2013) 25-28 © STM Journals 2013. All Rights Reserved
length,
Page 26
Research & Reviews: Journal of Botany Volume 2, Issue 1, ISSN: 2278 -2222 __________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 3: Coefficient of Difference in between all the Species Groups of Caesalpinia L. SG LL PL LLL IL PeL CaL CoL PL Total C1& C2
*
*
C1 & C3 C1& C4
*
*
C1& C5
*
*
*
*
03
*
*
02
*
*
*
C1&C6
*
C2 & C3
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
C2& C4
*
C2& C5
*
C2&C6
*
*
*
*
C3& C5
*
*
*
06
*
04
*
04 03
*
*
C3& C4
*
*
*
07
*
04
*
02 *
04
*
04
C3&C6
00
C4 &C5
*
*
C4&C6
*
*
C5&C6
*
*
Total
8
7
*
*
*
* *
11
02
10
06
04
*
*
06
*
*
05
10
04
*: CD greater than 1.28 (Mayr, 1969). SG: Species Group, LL: leaf length, PL: pinna length, LLL: leaflet length, IL: inflorescence length, PeL: pedicel length, CaL: calyx length, CoL: corolla length, PoL: pod length. C1: Caesalpinia bonduc (L.) Roxb., C2: Caesalpinia cucullata Roxb., C3: Caesalpinia decapetala (Roth.) Alst., C4: Caesalpinia mimosoides Lam., C5: Caesalpinia pulcherrima (L.) Sw. and C6: Caesalpinia sappan L. Table 4: Cluster Analysis Revealing Relationship between Six Caesalpinia L. Species. Distance C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 matrix C1 0 C2
0.663
0
C3
0.312
0.645
0
C4
1.14
1.117
0.936
0
C5
0.881
0.965
0.629
0.659
0
C6
0.48
0.54
0.309
0.896
0.651
0
C1: Caesalpinia bonduc (L.) Roxb., C2: Caesalpinia cucullata Roxb., C3: Caesalpinia decapetala (Roth.) Alst., C4: Caesalpinia mimosoides Lam., C5: Caesalpinia pulcherrima (L.) Sw. and C6: Caesalpinia sappan L.
RRJoB(2013) 25-28 © STM Journals 2013. All Rights Reserved
Page 27
Morphometric Studies in the Genus Caesalpinia L. Deshmukh et al. __________________________________________________________________________________________
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
Farthest neighbour (constrained)
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Euclidean - Data log(10) transformed
Fig. 1: Dendrogram on the basis of Farthest Neighbor, Mean Character Difference and Constrained Clustering Strategy Observed in Quantitative Characters of Caesalpinia L. Species. C1: Caesalpinia bonduc (L.) Roxb., C2: Caesalpinia cucullata Roxb., C3: Caesalpinia decapetala (Roth.) Alst., C4: Caesalpinia mimosoides Lam., C5: Caesalpinia pulcherrima (L.) Sw. and C6: Caesalpinia sappan L.
REFERENCES 1. Zanin João L. Baldim, Bianca A. de Carvalho, Paloma Salles Martineli et al. The Genus Caesalpinia L. (Caesalpiniaceae): Phytochemical and Pharmacological Characteristics. Molecules 2012; 17: 7887–7902p. 2. Sonibare, M.A., Jayeola, A.A., Egunyomi, A. A Morphometric Analysis of the Genus Ficus Linn. (Moraceae). Afr. J. Biotechnology 2004; 3(4): 229–235p. 3. Soladoye, M.O., Sonibare, M. A., Rosanwo, T. O. Phytochemical and Morphometric Analysis of the Genus Acalypha Linn. (Euphorbiaceae). J. Appl. Sci. 2008; 8(17): 3044–3049p. 4. Soladoye, Mike O., Onakoya, Monsurat A., Chukwuma, Emmanuel, C. et al. Morphometric Study of the Genus Senna
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
RRJoB (2013) 25-28 © STM Journals 2013. All Rights Reserved
(Mill) in South-Western Nigeria. African J. Plant Science 2010; 4(3): 044–052p. Deshmukh, S. A., Morphometrics of Genus Cassia L. from Kolhapur District. The Bioscan. 2011; 6(3): 459–462p. Deshmukh, S. A., Morphometric Analysis of Exacum (Gentianaceae) from Kolhapur District. Bioinfolet. 2012; 9(1): 34–37p. Yadav, S. R., Sardesai, M.M., Flora of Kolhapur District, Shivaji University, Kolhapur, 2002. Cooke, T. 1901. The Flora of Presidency Bombay. London, (B.S.I.Reprint). Calcutta. I-III: 1958. Kovach, W. L. MVSP- Multivariate Statistical Package for Windows, version 3.1, Pentraeth Wales, UK. Kovach Computing Services, 1999. Mayr. Principle of Systemic Zoology. MCGraw- Hill: New York, 1969; 428p.
Page 28
