Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T08:51:13.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Substrates and fertilization for the rustic cultivation of in vitro propagated native orchids in Soconusco, Chiapas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2007

Anne Damon*
Affiliation:
El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), Carretera Aeropuerto Antiguo, km. 2.5, Apdo. Postal 36, Tapachula, Chiapas, C.P., 30700, México
Marco Pérez Soriano
Affiliation:
El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), Carretera Aeropuerto Antiguo, km. 2.5, Apdo. Postal 36, Tapachula, Chiapas, C.P., 30700, México
Maria Rivera del Lourdes
Affiliation:
El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), Carretera Aeropuerto Antiguo, km. 2.5, Apdo. Postal 36, Tapachula, Chiapas, C.P., 30700, México
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

Native orchid cultivation is a compatible alternative for impoverished coffee farmers in southeastern Mexico who are in crisis due to falling prices. Sustainable orchid cultivation is also an urgent necessity as an alternative to nonsustainable extraction from protected reserves, forest fragments and traditional coffee plantations, and to restore and conserve populations within these habitats. Our objective was to test the effects of locally available substrates and fertilizers upon orchids cultivated under typical rural conditions in coffee-producing areas in Soconusco, Chiapas. Seven species of epiphytic orchids native to Soconusco region—Cattleya aurantiaca, Brassavola nodosa, Prosthechea (Encyclia) chacaoensis, Anathallis (Pleurothallis) racemiflora, Cattleya skinneri, Cycnoches ventricosum and Encyclia cordigera—were propagated in vitro, acclimatized and established in rustic orchid galleries in the home gardens and plantations of coffee growers. Locally available waste products were used as substrates: clay tiles, tree bark, bamboo, seed hulls of pataxte (Theobroma bicolor) and wire baskets filled with bark chips. Two cheap and readily available commercial foliar feeds, Algaenzims (an organic product) and Bayfolan (a synthetic product) were tested. First, the substrates alone were tested for a period of 6 months to 1 year, then a combination of substrates and fertilizers were tested for 6 months, for effects upon leaf and root growth and root number. The mortality rates of these nonsymbiotically propagated, epiphytic orchids during the acclimatization phase, prior to these experiments, were high, between 60 and 90%. Once established in rustic galleries, the young orchid plants showed no preference for a particular substrate, survival depended upon technical problems during establishment, relating to difficulties with the attachment of plants to substrates, and the variable quality of care and attention offered by the farmers. Both fertilizers significantly improved one or all the parameters studied, and possibly counteracted the negative effects of the absence of symbiotic fungi, which, under natural conditions, are essential for orchid seed germination and adequate development of the young plant. More than half of the producers did not continue with the orchid cultures for economic and cultural reasons.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Bowes, B.G. 1999. A Colour Atlas of Plant Propagation and Conservation. Manson Publishing, London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Benzing, D.H. 1990. Vascular Epiphytes: General Biology and Related Biota. Cambridge University Press, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Koopowitz, H. 2001. Orchids and Their Conservation. B.T. Batsford Ltd, London, UKGoogle Scholar
4Castro-Hernández, J.C., Wolf, J.H.D., García-Franco, J.G., and Gonzalez-Espinosa, M. 1999. The influence of humidity, nutrients and light on the establishment of the epiphytic bromeliad Tillandsia guatemalensis in the highlands of Chiapas, Mexico. Revista de Biología Tropical. Available at [email protected] (verified 1 December 2004).Google Scholar
5Migenis, L.E. and Ackerman, J.D. 1993. Orchid–phorophyte relationships in a forest watershed in Puerto Rico. Journal of Tropical Ecology 9: 231240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Hadley, G. and Pegg, G.F. 1989. Host–fungus relations in orchid mycorrhizal systems. In Pritchard, H.W. (ed.). Modern Methods in Orchid Conservation: The Role of Physiology, Ecology and Management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
7Currah, R.S., Zelmer, C.D., Hambleton, S. and Richardson, K.A. 1997. Fungi from orchid mycorrhizas. In Arditti, J. and Pridgeon, A.M. (eds). Orchid Biology: Reviews and Perspectives VII. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht. p. 117170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Sosa, V. and Platas, T. 1998. Extinction and persistence of rare orchids in Veracruz, Mexico. Conservation Biology 12: 451455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Wolf, J. and Flamenco, S.A. 1994. Patterns in species richness and distribution of vascular epiphytes in Chiapas, Mexico. Journal of Biogeography 30: 16891707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Wolf, J.H.D. 1993. Diversity patterns and biomass of epiphytic bryophytes and lichens along an altitudinal gradient in the northern Andes. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 80: 928960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Butcher, D. and Marlon, S.A. 1989. Asymbiotic germination of epiphytic and terrestrial orchids. In Pritchard, H.W. (ed.). Modern Methods of Orchid Conservation: The Role of Physiology, Ecology and Management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 3138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12NOM-059-ECOL 2001. Norma Oficial Mexicana de Protección Ambiental – Especies nativas de México de flora y fauna silvestres. Diario Oficial.Google Scholar
13ECOSUR. Available at http://www.ecosur.mx/. (verified 10 December2004).Google Scholar
14Benzing, D.H. 1983. Vascular epiphytes: a survey with special reference to their interactions with other organisms. In Sutton, S.L., Whitmore, T.C. and Chadwick, A.C. (eds). Tropical Rainforest; Ecology and Management. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford. p. 1124Google Scholar
15Benzing, D.H. 1986. The vegetative basis of vascular epiphytism. Selbyana 9: 2343Google Scholar
16Lesica, P. and Antibus, R.K. 1990. The occurrence of mycorrhizae in vascular epiphytes of two Costa Rican rain forests. Biotropica 22: 250258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Arditti, J. 1992. Fundamentals of Orchid Biology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
18Ioriatti-Dematte, J.B. and Payao-Dematte, M.A.S. 1996. Estudios hídricos com sustratos vegetais para cultivo de orquídeas epífitas. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 31: 803811Google Scholar
19Hew, C.S. 2001. Ancient Chinese orchid cultivation. A fresh look at an age-old practice. Scientia Horticulturae 87: 110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Damon, A., Aguilar-Guerrero, E., Rivera, L. and Velitchka, Nikolaeva 2004. Germinación in vitro de semillas de tres orquídeas de la región del Soconusco, Chiapas. Revista Chapingo-Serie Horticultura 10: 195203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Hartmann, H.T., Kester, D.E., Davies, F.D. Jr and Geneve, R.L. 1997. Plant Propagation: Principles and Practices. 6th ed Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar
22Stewart, J. and Griffiths, M. 1995. Manual of Orchids. Timber Press, Oregon, USA.Google Scholar
23Ospina, H. 1996. Orchids and Ecology in Colombia; To the Rescue of Paradise Santafé de Bogotá MinervaGoogle Scholar
24Wolf, J.H.D. and Konings, C.J.F. 2001. Toward the sustainable harvesting of epiphytic bromeliads: a pilot study from the highlands of Chiapas, Mexico. Biological Conservation 101: 2331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25Angel, C.A., Tsubota, M., Leguizamón, J., Cárdenas, R., Chaves, B., Cadena, G. and Bustillo, A.E. 2001. Enfermedades y Plagas en Cattleyas Colombia CenicaféCrossRefGoogle Scholar