Tepary Bean Domestication: Ecological and Nutritional Changes During Phaseolus Acutifolius Evolution
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Tepary bean domestication: ecological and nutritional changes during Phaseolus acutifolius evolution Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Nabhan, Gary Paul Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 05/10/2021 08:49:04 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/566678 TEPARY BEAN DOMESTICATION: ECOLOGICAL AND NUTRITIONAL CHANGES DURING PHASEOLUS ACUTIFOLIUS EVOLUTION by Gary Paul Nabhan A Thesis Submitted.to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF PLANT SCIENCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE WITH A MAJOR IN HORTICULTURE In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 19 7 8 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial ful fillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permis sion for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED: P & C H — APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR This thesis has been approved on the date shown below: W , P - __________ s ' / s ' / n W. P. BEMIS Date Professor of Plant Sciences ACKNOWLEDGMENTS More than 60 years ago3 two agricultural botan ists, R . H. Forbes and G. F . Freeman, were busy experi menting with desert-adapted Indian crops at The University of Arizona. There is thus a long tradition here of research with arid land food plants. If a master’s thesis is, in a sense, a rite of passage into a tradition,-then I wish to thank the older, wiser people who have shared their tradition with me: W. P . Semis, James Berry, Richard Felger, Howard Scott Gentry, W. H. Hood, Lawrence Kaplan, and Charles Weber. Dozens of others helped me with field, lab and graphics; I especially thank several for their skillful support: Cynthia Anson, Dennis Cornejo, Nancy Evans, Robert Hale, Susan Koontz, Victoria Marcarian, David . Parsons, Amadeo Rea, Joseph Scheerens, Thomas Sheridan, Wade Sherbrooke, Judy Spencer and Barbara Tapper. This study was greatly facilitated by a USDA Western Regional Research Project Grant on improvement of beans, and a USDA Plant Explorations Grant for tepary collections. Members of the buffalogourd research team helped with this work off and on, showing unending iii patience. The staff of the University of Arizona Herbarium, under the direction of Charles Mason, also provided assistance in numerous ways. Soil samples were analyzed at The University of Arizona testing lab in the Department of Soils, Water and Engineering; Charles MacKown provided interpretations of the results. I am grateful to several scientists for sharing with me their unpublished data: Cynthia Anson,, James Berry, Richard Felger, George Freytag, Mary Beck Moser, Oliver Norvell, J. Giles Waines and Charles Weber. Too many theses and dissertations end with apolo gies to mates for the hours they they "slaved over the typewriter and stove while being ignored." I feel fortunate that my wife, Karen Reichhardt, and I have still had time to enjoy each other’s company while finishing our theses. I dedicate this work to two groups of people: the Papago Indians, known in their own language as the Tepary Bean People; and to the Tepary Burrito Society, a group of scientists and artists who gather to discuss the desert and its people. I am grateful for their friend ship and inspiration. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF T A B L E S ........ .. ..... viii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ............... % ABSTRACT . .. .. xl CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION . 1 2. PHASEOLUS ACUTIFOLIUS AND PREHISTORIC BEAN DOMESTICATION: A REVIEW . ............ 8 3. GENETICS AND THE MECHANISMS OF SELECTION: A LITERATURE REVIEW . .. 19 H. MATERIALS .. 33 5. WILD TEPARIES: ECOLOGICAL NICHES AND SELECTIVE PRESSURES . ....... 36 Methods . .. 37 Habitats of Wild P. acutifolius var. latifolius . ^ .: . .. ..... 38 Habitats of Wild P. acutifolius var. tenuifolius . .. .; 43 Comparison of Wild Tepary Varieties in Three Localities........ 44 Interpretation of Comparative Data . 45 6. THE ECOLOGICAL NICHES OF DOMESTICATED TEPARIES .52 Geomorphological Manipulations . 54 Synecological Manipulations . 60 7. ; POD DEHISCENCE AND SEED DISSEMINATION . 65 Pod Dehiscence . ... ..... 65 Methods . ... 65 Results and Discussion . ..... 66 v • vi' TABLE OF CONTENTS— Continued Page Seed Dispersal .......... ...... JO Methods . .. - 70 Results and Discussion .. 72 8. SEED CRYPTICITY ............. 77 Wild Seed Crypticity .. ...... 77 Methods . 77 Results and Discussion .......... 78 Crypticity of Wild and Domesticated Teparies in G ravel ....... .. 8.0 Methods . ........ 80 Results and Discussion . -. 8l 9. SEED GERMINATION AND EMERGENCE . ..... 84 Field Emergence . ......... 8.4 Methods ............. 84 Results and Discussion ...... 85 . Germination Inhibitors . 87 Laboratory Germination ... 88 10. CHANGES IN NUMBER OF SEEDS PER POD . 93 Methods . .. .- 93 Results and Discussion . .. 94 11. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF. S E E D S .......... 99 Domesticated Teparies under Different Agronomic Conditions ....... 102 Methods ......................... 102 Results and Discussion ...... 10.4 Wild Teparies , .. 106 Nutritional Comparison of Wild and Domesticated Teparies ....... 107 12. SEED SIZE AND WEIGHT . ,. .. Ill Environmental Effects on Domesticated Tepary Seed Weights . 112 Methods . .. .. 112 Results and Discussion . 112 Wild Teparies . ■. .. .. .. .. 114 Comparison of Wild and Domesticated Teparies . 114 vil TABLE OF CONTENTS— Continued ' Page 13. PLANT PRODUCTIVITY . 118 In Situ Productivity Analysis via Quadrats . ............ 119 Methods . ................ 119 Discussion ..................... 120 Comparative Yields under Furrow Irri gation .............. 122' Discussion . .. 123 14. CONCLUSIONS: INTERRELATIONSHIPS OF ECOLOGICAL VARIABLES ........... 127 REFERENCES . .... 134 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. A comparison of wild and domesticated teparies (Phaseolus acutifolius) .......... 12 2. Changes occurring during Phaseolus domestication ............................ 14 3. Parallel responses to cultural selection in Phaseolus .......... ......... 15 4. Soil samples from wild tepary localities in southern Arizona . 46 5. Habitat preferences of sympatric wild tepary varieties ............. 47 ^6. Water sources and environments for southwestern Indian beans ........ 55 7. Soil samples from floodwater fed and conventionally irrigated tepary fields in southern Arizona ........... 58 8. Plants with dehiscing p o d s ............ 67 9. Matching of habitat substrates with seed- coat colors in wild teparies.......... 79 10. Number of seeds per pod . -. 95 11. Published protein values for domesticated teparies ............ .. 100 12. Protein contents of floodwater-fed teparies and conventionally-irrigated teparies ..... ... .. ... 103 13. Crude protein value of wild teparies . ... 10 8 14. Seed weights of wild teparies . 115 viii ix LIST OF TABLES— Continued Table Page 2 15. Tepary productivity per 10 0 m ........ 121 16. Productivity of four Phaseolus selections 124 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Distribution of wild teparies in south western North A m e r i c a ......... 6. 2. Distribution of domesticated teparies in southwestern North America 7 3. Wild var. latifolius climbing into mesquite tree on floodplain of Rio Bavispe, Sonora . .■ . 40 4. Wild var. latifolius twining on barbed wire in hedgerow, Rio Sonora, Sonora . .... 42 5. Niche preferences of two wild tepary varieties .... ........ .. 49 6. Channelled floodwater technique in the Rio San Miguel Valley, Sonora . 57 7. Domesticated teparies at base of maize stalk in Papago Indian floodwater field . 62 8. Distances that wild teparies were dispersed from baseline . .. .. 71 9. Mechanism of seed ejection in wild teparies ............................... 74 10. Visibility of wild and domesticated teparies on litter and gravel substrates 82 11. Field emergence rates of wild and domesti cated teparies . .: . > . 86 12. Laboratory germination rates of wild and domesticated teparies . , . > .. - . 89 x ' ABSTRACT Wild and domesticated tepary beans, Phaseo'lus acutifolius Gray, have provided- an opportunity to study how domestication affects desert-adapted plants. Spec ifically wild var. latifolius has been contrasted with its domesticated counterparts in terms of their ecologi cal niches, seed ecology, protein content and production Teparies have been harvested for millenia in / ' - ' . southwestern North America, where they have been a pro teinaceous staple of native desert peoples. Although wild and.domesticated var. latifolius occur within kilometers of one another near the Sonoran Desert periphery, the region is not necessarily the crop’s center of origin. Cultural selection began more than 51000 years ago, utilizing phenotypic selection of vari ants derived from self-pollinating