Conference presented in 2010. First findings reported for Jatropha in three soils

1. 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

2. Origins and distribution
Reference: (Heller, 1996)
Non-toxic
Toxic

3. Collection of native germoplasm
Reference:
Pérez-Vázquez y
Zavala del Ángel,
2009
Places where J. curcas has been collected in Veracruz

4. Research on soil requirements
 High potential
 Sandy
 Sandy-Loam
 Low potential
 Clay

5. Prospectives on potential production
Reference: Zamarripa and Díaz, 2008

6. Research
Objective
 To determine the effects of different soils over
chlorophill, development and growth of native
J. curcas seedlings.

7. 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

8. 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%

9. 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 1,2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
No.ofobservations

10. Methodology
 Experimental design
 Factors
 Sustrata
 Levels
 Sandy-loam
 Clay-loam
 Sandy
 Variables
 Morphology: stems, leaves, roots
 Physiology: Chlorophyl
 N=15

11. 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

12. 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).

13. Results
Stem growth over time under different substrates

14. Results
 Soil effects on variables
Maximum and minimum root collar
diameters by substract
Substract
Sandy Sandy-Loam Clay-LoamDiameter(mm)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Smallest
biggest
Stem lengths
Substract
Sandy Sandy-LoamClay-Loam
Length(mm)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Maximum and minimum heights
Substract
Sandy Sandy-LoamClay-Loam
Stemlength(mm)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Smallest
Tallest
Stem width
Substract
Sandy Sandy-Loam Loam-Clay
Stemwidth(mm)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Sandy-Loam > Clay-Loam > Sandy

15. Results
 Soil effects on variables
Number of leaves
Sandy Sandy-LoamClay-Loam
Number
0
2
4
6
8
Chlorophyll meter reading in leaves
Substract
Sandy Sandy-Loam Clay-Loam
SPADUnits
0
10
20
30
40
50
Sandy-Loam > Clay-Loam > Sandy

16. Results
 Dry mass
a) Stem dry mass
Sandy Sandy-LoamClay-Loam
Weigth(g)
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
b) Root dry mass
Sandy Sandy-LoamClay-Loam
Rootsweigth(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
Weigth(g)
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
Sandy-Loam > Clay-Loam > Sandy

17. 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

18. 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

19. THANK YOU