Development and growth of Jatropha curcas in different soils

Valdés-Rodríguez, Sánchez-Sánchez,

Pérez-Vázquez, Ruíz-Bello

Seedling growth of piñon

(Jatropha curcas L.) on

different soils

XXIII REUNIÓN CIENTÍFICA - TECNOLÓGICA FORESTAL Y

AGROPECUARIA VERACRUZ 2010 Y II DEL TRÓPICO MEXICANO

Tepetates, Veracruz Nov. 17, 2010

Origins and distribution

Reference: (Heller, 1996)

Non-toxic

Toxic

Collection of native germoplasm

Reference:

Pérez-Vázquez y Zavala del Ángel, 2009

Places where J. curcas has been collected in Veracruz

Research on soil requirements

High potential

Sandy

Sandy-Loam

Low potential

Clay

Prospectives on potential production

Reference: Zamarripa and Díaz, 2008

Research

Objective

To determine the effects of different soils over

chlorophill, development and growth of native

J. curcas seedlings.

Research

Hypothesis

Ho: Jatropha curcas seedlings performance is

the same in sandy, sandy-loam, and clay-

loam textures

Ha: Jatropha curcas seedlings performance

is different in sandy, sandy-loam, and clay-

loam textures

Methodology

Site and conditions

Southeasth México

19° 16' 00" N and 96° 16' 32" W

18 m altitude

Natural conditions

Temperature: 19.8 ºC - 40.2 ºC

Humidity: 63.2%

Methodology

Biological material:

Non-toxic seeds

Location: 18º 59’52” N, 96º

15’ 31” W, 17 mosl

Physical data

Weight: 742.0 mg ± 24.3 mg

Length: 18.55 mm ± 0.68 mm

Width 10.3 mm ± 0.30 mm

Weight, Distribution: Normal

0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0 1,1 1,20

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

No

. of o

bs

erv

atio

ns

Methodology

Experimental design Factors

Sustrata

Levels

Sandy-loam

Clay-loam

Sandy

Variables Morphology: stems, leaves, roots

Physiology: Chlorophyl

N=15

Results

Soil analysis

Table 1. Soil chemical analysis and the method used for each test

Soil type pH Organic matter

(%) Total N (%) P (ppm) Ca

(me/100g)

Mg

(me/100g)

Method Potentiometer Walkley-Black N=O.Mx0.05

Olsen-Kitson

Mellon Diehl et al. Diehl et al.

Sandy 7.81

(slightly alkaline)

Not detected (very low)

Not detected (very low)

2.8 (low) 3.859 7.717

Sandy-loam 7.26

(Neutral)

1.824 (medium)

0.0912 (low)

14.0 (medium) 8.770 14.733

Clay-loam 7.43

(slightly alkaline)

3.397 (high)

0.1698 (high)

34.0 (high) 16.487 25.958

Results

Soil effects on variables

Parameter

Substrates

Sandy Sandy-Loam Clay-Loam

Stem length (mm) 124 ± 19 c 226 ± 35 a 178 ± 23 b

Root collar diameter (mm) 9.9 ± 1.5 b 11.7 ± 1.7 a 10.8 ± 0.7 ab

Chlorophyll (SPAD) 23.4 ± 8.0 b 36.9 ± 12.0 a 29.3 ± 6.6 a

Number of true leafs 2.7 ± 1.4 b 7.3 ± 2.5 a 6.0 ± 3.3 a

Means within a column which do not share the same letter are significantly different (P < 0.05).

Results

Stem growth over time under different substrates

Results

Soil effects on variables

Maximum and minimum root collar diameters by substract

Substract

Sandy Sandy-Loam Clay-LoamD

iam

ete

r (m

m)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Smallest

biggest

Stem lengths

Substract

Sandy Sandy-LoamClay-Loam

Le

ng

th (

mm

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Maximum and minimum heights

Substract

Sandy Sandy-LoamClay-Loam

Ste

m length

(m

m)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Smallest

Tallest

Stem width

Substract

Sandy Sandy-Loam Loam-Clay

Ste

m w

idth

(m

m)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Sandy-Loam > Clay-Loam > Sandy

Results

Soil effects on variables

Number of leaves

Sandy Sandy-LoamClay-Loam

Nu

mber

0

2

4

6

8

Chlorophyll meter reading in leaves

Substract

Sandy Sandy-Loam Clay-Loam

SP

AD

Un

its

0

10

20

30

40

50

Sandy-Loam > Clay-Loam > Sandy

Results

Dry mass

a) Stem dry mass

Sandy Sandy-LoamClay-Loam

Weig

th (

g)

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

b) Root dry mass

Sandy Sandy-LoamClay-Loam

Roo

ts w

eig

th (

g)

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

1,4

1,6

c) Leaf dry mass

Sandy Sandy-LoamClay-Loam

Weig

th (

g)

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

Sandy-Loam > Clay-Loam > Sandy

Conclusions

Best growth on sandy-loam textures

Similar growth on clay-loam vs sandy-loam

Stem width, number of leaves, Chlorophyll, dry

mass

Chlorophyll level is higher in Sandy-loam

and clay-loam than in Sandy soils

Lowest growth on sandy textures

Clay-loam Sandy-loam Sandy

Conclusions

Null Hypothesis not accepted

J. curcas is sensitive to soil type

The nutritional contents are key for a good

development

Clay-loam Sandy-loam Sandy

THANK YOU