Volume 16(1), 255-258, 2012 JOURNAL of Horticulture, Forestry and Biotechnology www.journal-hfb.usab-tm.ro

Research concerning the variability of the flowers morphological features of some orchid species from Anina Mountains

Bîtea Nicoleta - Daniela¹*, Madoşa, E.¹

¹ Banat’s University of Agriculture Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Timişoara, Faculty of Horticulture and Sylviculture

* Corresponding author: Email: [email protected]

Abstract The Anina Mountains is one of the areas where the field Key words literature indicates a whole variety of orchid species. The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the variability of the flowers morphological features of orchids, flower, variability, six orchid species identified in this area. The identified species were divided Anina Mountains into two groups considering the appearance of the lip: species with three - lobed lip and species with the lip composed of two parts. The variability of the features was assessed by biometric measurements made during the flowering season of species. The analyzed features were divided into two groups: the general morphological features of the flowers and the elements of the flowers morphological features. The general morphological features of the flowers had the highest variability in all analyzed species.

The family is one of the largest Materials and Methods botanical families including 800 genera and over 25.000 species [4, 8]. The orchids are about 10% of The examined biological material was the flowering and about one third of the represented by six natural species of the wild orchids monocots [5]. found on the Anina Mountain territory. The identified We have descriptions of 58 species in species were divided into two groups considering the Romania [1] and there have been identified 33 species appearance of the lip: species with the three - lobed lip of orchids in the Anina Mountain area [9]. (Orchis mascula (L.) L., Anacamptis pyramidalis (L.) The Orchidaceae family interests especially Rich., conopsea (L.) R. Br., Dactylorhiza for the decorative potential of the flowers. maculate (L.) Soo) and species with the lip composed The orchid flowers are grouped into some of two parts (Cephalanthera damasonium (Mill.) inflorescences of raceme or spike type, rarely solitary Druce, Epipactis helleborine (L.) Crantz) (Cypripedium calceolus L.). Determination of the discovered species was The flower shell is a perigon type that is done in accordance to those presented by Ciocârlan composed of two cycles with three petaloide tepals. (2009) and Flora Romaniei (1972). The orchid flowers have features that The studies were conducted during the distinguish them from other systematic groups. The flowering of the species listed in May-August 2011. most important feature is the presence of the lip. It is The variability was assessed by the biometric actually a higher internal tepal that reaches a lower measurements. The measurements were made at two position. This is possible due to the 180° twisting categories of features: the general morphological receptacle and ovary. features of the flowers and the elements of flowers The lip has a distinctive shape and appearance morphological features. to the other tepals. It looks different depending on the The general morphological features of the species and it is the most important morphological flowers were analyzed: the inflorescence length (cm) feature in species identification. and the number of flowers/. The lip can continue with a nectarous spur or The elements of the flowers morphological with a bag – shaped expansion [3]. features for the three - lobed lip species were analyzed: The shape, the appearance, and the lip color length and width of the external tepals (cm), length and are adaptations of this family to the pollination by the width of the internal tepals (cm) and the lip length (cm) insects [6, 10]. and width (cm). At the species with the lip composed of two parts the following morphological features of the flowers elements were analyzed: length and width of

255 the external tepals (cm), length and width of the coefficient of variation ( s ). They have been internal tepals (cm), the epichile length and width % (cm), and the hypochile length and width (cm). calculated as given by Ciulcă (2006). These were the statistical parameters that were analyzed: average and average deviation ( x s ), x

Results and Discussions Table 1 The flowering period of the identified species during May – August 2011. Species The flowering period in the The flowering period identified field literature [1,11] on the studied area Orchis mascula (L.) L. IV – VI early May Anacamptis pyramidalis (L.) VI – VII late May – early June Rich. Gymnadenia conopsea (L.) R. Br. VI-VII mid – late June Dactylorhiza maculata (L.) Soo. V-VII. Mid – late June Cephalanthera damasonium V-VI. Mid – late May (Mill.) Druce Epipactis helleborine (L.) Crantz VI-VIII. Early July – early August

According to Table 1 we can observe that all that had the earliest flowering period is Orchis mascula the identified species had the flowering period within (L.) L. and the species that had the latest one is the limits described by the field literature. The species Epipactis helleborine (L.) Crantz.

Table 2 The general morphological features of the flowers for the species with the three – lobed lip Species Inflorescence length (cm) Number of flowers / plant

Orchis mascula 10,30 ± 0,64 31,36 20,44 ± 1,32 32,45 (L.) L. Anacamptis pyramidalis (L.) 4,30 ± 0,14 31,73 45,30 ± 2,96 33,39 Rich. Gymnadenia conopsea (L.) R. 10,73 ± 0,95 24,13 47,87 ± 4,66 28,90 Br. Dactylorhiza 8,18 ± 0,60 26,50 24,61 ± 2,45 36,01 maculata (L.) Soo.

According to Table 2 we can observe that The variability was high and very high for these Gymnadenia conopsea (L.) R. Br. presents the longest features in all the identified species. inflorescence and the largest number of flowers/plants.

Table 3 The general morphological features of the flowers for the species with the lip composed of two parts Species Inflorescence length (cm) Number of flowers / plant

Cephalanthera damasonium 8,22 ± 0,89 54,52 5,00 ± 0,53 53,54 (Mill.) Druce Epipactis helleborine (L.) 10,55 ± 1,11 34,97 21,40 ± 2,98 44,06 Crantz

256 According to Table 3 we can observe that higher values of the coefficient of variation for both Epipactis helleborine (L.) Crantz presents some higher features. The variability was very high in both species mean values for both features. The species for these features. Cephalanthera damasonium (Mill.) Druce presented

Table 4 The elements of the flower morphological features for the species with the three- lobed lip Features Orchis mascula(L.) Anacamptis Gymnadenia Dactylorhiza L. pyramidalis (L.) conopsea(L.) R. Br. maculate (L.) Soo. Rich.

x s s% x Length of external 1,23±0,03 14,00 0,59±0,01 14,19 0,44±0,03 24,71 0,88±0,03 14,46 tepals (cm) Width of external 0,42±0,01 20,74 0,26±0,01 21,05 0,19±0,02 32,10 0,29±0,01 24,02 tepals (cm) Length of internal 0,76±0,03 20,14 0,46±0,01 18,24 0,33±0,03 25,80 0,66±0,03 18,51 tepals (cm) Width of internal 0,30±0,01 19,24 0,23±0,01 27,37 0,20±0,007 27.22 0,27±0,01 22,47 tepals (cm) Length 17,10 1,16±0,02 11,51 0,65±0,02 17,74 0,44±0,05 29,70 0,89±0,03 lip (cm) Width lip 1,16±0,03 13,85 0,79±0,02 14,89 0,44±0,04 25,17 1±0,02 11,90 (cm)

We can observe, according to Table 4, that the ones. Gymnadenia conopsea (L.) R. Br. had the species Orchis mascula (L.) L. had the largest flowers greatest variability and species Orchis mascula (L.) L and Gymnadenia conopsea (L.) R. Br. the smallest the lowest one for the most analyzed features.

Table 5 The elements of the flower morphological features for the the species with the lip composed of two parts Features Cephalanthera damasonium (Mill.) Epipactis helleborine (L.) Crantz. Druce

Length of external 1,66±0,07 21,87 1,00±0,04 14,14 tepals (cm) Width of external 0,60±0,03 25,05 0,48±0,03 19,14 tepals (cm) Length of internal 1,31±0,06 26,29 0,82±0,03 13,84 tepals (cm) Width of internal 0,48±0,01 25,07 0,43±0,01 11,23 tepals (cm) Length of epichile 0,38±0,02 28,80 0,26±0,03 37,15 (cm) Width of epichile 0,78±0,04 29,14 0,19±0,03 52,33 (cm) Length of 0,62±0,02 20,83 0,56±0,02 15,05 hypochile (cm) Width of 0,88±0,03 20,21 0,36±0,03 26,83 hypochile (cm)

257 According to Table 5 we can observe that the species features. This could be an adaptation to attract the Cephalanthera damasonium (Mill.) Druce presented pollinators, because the species produces that some higher mean values for all the analyzed features. attracts certain insects. [7]. The variability was very high for all the features in this Figure 1 synthesizes the values of the species. variation coefficient for the common features. We can The species Epipactis helleborine (L.) observe that the inflorescence length (cm) and the Crantz. had very high variability at the epichile number of flowers/plants had the highest variability.

Coefficient of variation of the common elements

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Inflorescence Number of flowers / Length o f external Width o f external Length of internal Width of internal length (cm) plant tepals (cm) tepals (cm) tepals (cm) tepals (cm)

Orchis mascula Anacamptis pyramidalis Gymnadenia conopsea Dactylorhiza maculata Cephalanthera damasonium Epipactis helleborine

Fig. 1 Synthesis of the values of the variation coefficient for the common features

Conclusions 4. Cozzolio, S., Widmer, A. – 2005 - Orchid Diversity: An Evolutionary Consequence of Deception?, Treds. 1.The general morphological features of the flowers Ecol. Evol. Vol 20 (9), pp. 487-494. had the highest variability in all identified species. 5. Dressler, R. L, - 2005- How Many Orchids Species? 2.Gymnadenia conopsea (L.) R. Br. had the highest în Selbyana 26, pp. 155-158. variability for all the elements of the flowers 6. Juillet, N., Delle-Vedove, Roxane, Dormount, L., morphological features in the species with three - lobed Schatz, B., Pailler, T. - 2010 - Differentiation in a lip. Tropical Deceptive Orchid: Colour Polymorphism and 3.The species with the lip composed of two parts Beyond, în Plant. Syst.. Evol,, nr. 289, pp. 213-221. presented a greater variability than the species with the 7. Harrap, Anne, Harrap, S.- 2009 - Orchids of Britain three - lobed lip for the general morphological features. and Ireland, A Field and Site Guide, second edition, 4.The epichile features had the highest variability in Ed. A & C Black, London. the species with the lip composed of two parts. 8. Kull, T., Kindlmann, P., Hutchings M. J., Primack, R., B. – 2006 - Conservation Biology of Orchids: Introduction to the Special Issue. Biological References Conservation, 129, pp. 1-3. 9. Schrött, L., Faur, A. – 1972 - Consideraţii ecologice 1. Ciocârlan, V. – 2009 - Flora ilustrată a României. şi cronologice asupra orchideelor din Munţii Aninei Pteridophypta et spermatophyta, Ed. Ceres, Bucureşti. (judeţul Caraş – Severin), Cercet. Biol. I., Timişoara, 2. Ciulcă, S. - 2006 - Metodologii de experimentare în pp. 83-93. agricultură şi biologie, Ed. Agroprint, Timişoara,. 10. Vereecken, N., J., Dafni, A., Cozzolino, S. – 2010 - 3. Coste, I. - 1994 - Curs de botanică, Partea II. Pollination Syndromes in Mediterranean Orchids – Sistematica plantelor şi geobotanică. LITO USAB Implications for Speciation, and Timişoara, , pp. 170-171. Conservation în Bot., Rev., nr 76, pp. 220-240. 11. ***Flora R. S. R., 1972 – XII – Ed. Academiei R. S. R., pp. 646-768.

258