Botânica
Unveiling neotropical serpentine flora: a list of Brazilian tree species in an iron saturated environment in Bom Sucesso, Minas Gerais
Unveiling neotropical serpentine flora: a list of Brazilian tree species in an iron saturated environment in Bom Sucesso, Minas Gerais
Acta Scientiarum. Biological Sciences, vol. 41, 2019
Universidade Estadual de Maringá
Received: 14 September 2018
Accepted: 15 May 2019
Abstract: Serpentine soils are those holding at least of 70% iron-magnesium compounds, which make life intolerable for many species. Although plant's adaptation to environmental toughness is widely studied in tropics, virtually nothing is known about Brazilian serpentine flora. Our aim was to bring up and characterize the serpentine flora in Bom Sucesso, Minas Gerais state, Brazil. We performed expeditions utilizing rapid survey sampling method to identify the arboreal compound in the area. Plants within circumference at breast high (CBH) up to 15,7 cm were included in our study. A specialist identified all the individuals to species level. We found 246 species located in 59 botanical families. Fabaceae, Myrtaceae and Melastomataceae were the most representative families in the area. Serpentine areas usually present a few species capable to survive to adverse conditions, contrasting the high number found in our study. To our knowledge, this is the first floristic survey in serpentine areas in the neotropics, reinforcing the need for more studies about plant diversity in those areas. It seems that serpentinites is not the key factor influencing plant diversity in the neotropics. The high diversity found in our study strengthens serpentine areas as a place for conservation concern.
Keywords: ultramafic vegetation, trace elements, heavy metals, serpentine soil.
Introduction
Serpentine soils are those holding 70% or more iron-magnesium compounds, leading to rocky soils with many degrees of nutritional imbalance, containing high concentrations of weathered ultramafic rocks (Salihaj, Bani, & Echevarria, 2016). They are drifted from ultramafic rocks, shaping environments with low capacity to hold water, nutrient deficit and plenty of toxic materials such as nickel, chrome, magnesium and iron (Anacker, 2014). Although there some areas of serpentine soils in South America, they are scares around the globe, with the majority of them found in the Circum-pacific margin and Mediterranean Sea (Hseu, Zehetner, Fujii, Watanabe, & Nakao 2018), leading to a large gap of knowledge and only a few floristic surveys in Brazil and Central America (Almeda & Martins, 2015). Iron (Fe) and Magnesium (Mg) are known as trace elements because they are found at very small concentrations on plants, and when at higher concentrations, their presence can lead to leaf death, necrotic brown spotting on leaves, chlorosis, cellular damage, permutagenic damage, DNA strand breaks and DNA base modifications (Nagajyoti, Lee, & Sreekanth, 2010). Heavy metals are known to interfere directly on the physiological processes of the plants, playing an important role in the redox reactions, being an integral part of enzymes, interfering in CO2 fixation, nutrient absorption, gaseous exchange and respiration (Nagajyoti et al., 2010). Altogether, those physical and chemical characteristics make serpentine soils a harsh environment for plants, hosting a reduced flora when compared to the neighboring areas (Brady, Kruckeberg, & Bradshaw Jr., 2005).
Serpentine plants need to endure harsh environmental conditions, and therefore understanding the ecological species that survive in those places is an important part of the serpentine problem (Kazakou et al., 2010). They are also known for the presence of extremely specialized habitats that hosts ‘islands’ of biodiversity and endemic flora (Chiarucci & Baker, 2007). In the tropics, flora associated with serpentine soil is a topic of concern for scientists (Cano, Cano-Ortiz, Del Río, Ramirez, & Ruiz, 2014), but despite the high endemism rates found on those places, floristic surveys exclusive from these locals on South America are scarce (Almeda & Martins, 2015).
Iron rich environments figure among the most threatened and less studied places in State Minas Gerais (Jacobi & Carmo, 2008). The state endured resource exploitation for livestock farming, wood harvest and anthropic fire, reducing its vegetation to a few. Mining in Brazil (from licenses to search for the ore to extractions) quadrupled between 2000 to 2009, reaching a 698.000 km2 area in national territory (Jacobi, Carmo, & Campos, 2011). Despite all the measures that are being taken to preserve Brazilian biodiversity, few are those that intend to conserve mineral rich environments (Jacobi et al., 2011).
Due the high threaten to forest fragments and the advances on the mining industry in soils with high concentration of heavy metals (Hseu & Iizuka, 2013), it's urgent to understand vegetation distribution in serpentine environments and utilize those studies to help recover disturbed areas. Our study's aim was to characterize flora in a serpentine area in Bom Sucesso, Minas Gerais State, Brazil, by producing a species list that can further be used on conservation projects.
Material and methods
Study area
We conducted this study in Minas Gerais State, Bom Sucesso municipality in an area known as Morro das Almas, located between the coordinates 21º 01' 58" South and longitude 44º 45' 28" West, in an altitude of 952 m above the sea level. The region presents a mosaic of phytophysiognomies, since the Minas Gerais State is an ecotone area (transitional areas between phytophysiognomies) Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE, 2012) with the main vegetation types belonging to the Cerrado (Brazilian savannah) and Mata Atlântica Domain IBGE (2013). Climate in the region is usually marked by two well defined seasons - wet and rainy summers, with dry cold winters IBGE (2013). The mean annual precipitation is 1776 mm concentrated in the months of October to March and mean temperature of 19ºC (Figure 1). The area was previously studied by the Departamento de Ciências do Solo (Department of Soil Science) from Universidade Federal de Lavras, where they investigated the geology of the area and found that the flora from that locality stands upon soils holding high saturation of iron oxide (Fe2O3 on 72.33%), characterizing serpentine soils Araujo, Pedroso, Amaral, and Zinn (2014). Local landscape is surrounded by natural fields - a mosaic of Altitude and rocky fields), in which is usual the presence of livestock grazing.
Floristic survey
We performed the floristic survey utilizing the rapid survey sampling method. This method consists in walking through an area and identifying the arboreal species, making a presence/absence list. When the same species appears several times in the same area, we continue to walk to try to find new species. Our sampling was complete when we covered the whole area of the Morro das Almas hill. We covered a 352 ha area and identified some species in the field. Species were sampled and identified by a dendrology specialist (Prof. Rubens Santos, from UFLA), since most of the species were not flourish. The plants which the specialist could not identify in the field were collected and checked using the Brazilian Flora Group (BFG, 2015) virtual herbarium. Plants were identified by using their vegetative characteristics and their names were checked in The Plant List (2018), Reflora 2015 virtual herbarium.
Results
We recorded 249 arboreal species, located in 61 botanical families (Table 1). The most representative family in this study was Fabaceae, holding 31 species, an equivalent to 12.60% of the total richness in the community, followed by Myrtaceae with 33 species (11.38%) and Melastomataceae with 12 species (4.87%) (Figure 2). Those families hold 10.37% of the total floristic richness. Copaifera L. and Bowdichia Kunth were the most representative genera in Fabaceae, followed by Myrcia and Eugenia in Myrtaceae and Miconia and Tibouchina in Melastomataceae. Myrcia splendens, Pera glabrata and Ocotea pulchella were commonly found in all the area.
Table 1. List of the species from a neotropical serpentine site in Bom Sucesso, Minas Gerais State, Brazil.
Botanical Families/Species | Conservation Status (IUCN) | Endemic Species of Brazil | Protected by Law |
Anacardiaceae | |||
Astronium fraxinifolium Schott | Low concern | No | No |
Lithrea molleoides (Vell.) Engl. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi | Not evaluated | No | No |
Tapirira guianensis Aubl. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Tapirira obtusa (Benth.) J.D.Mitch. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Annonaceae | |||
Annona cacans Warm. | Low concern | No | No |
Annona cornifolia A.St.-Hil. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Annona emarginata (Schltdl.) H.Rainer | Low concern | No | No |
Annona neolaurifolia H.Rainer | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | No |
Annona sylvatica A.St.-Hil. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Duguetia furfuracea (A.St.-Hil.) Saff. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Duguetia lanceolata A.St.-Hil. | Low concern | Yes | No |
Guatteria australis A.St.-Hil. | Low concern | Yes | No |
Xylopia brasiliensis Spreng. | Near Threatened | Yes | No |
Xylopia sericea A.St.-Hil. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Apocynaceae | |||
Aspidosperma australe Müll.Arg. | Low concern | No | No |
Aspidosperma cylindrocarpon Müll.Arg. | Low concern | No | No |
Aspidosperma sp. | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | No |
Aspidosperma spruceanum Benth. ex Müll.Arg. | Low concern | Yes | No |
Aspidosperma tomentosum Mart. & Zucc. | Low concern | Yes | No |
Aquifoliaceae | |||
Ilex cerasifolia Reissek | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Ilex conocarpa Reissek | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Araliaceae | |||
Dendropanax cuneatus (DC.) Decne. & Planch. | Low concern | No | No |
Schefflera macrocarpa (Cham. & Schltdl.) Frodin | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Arecaceae | |||
Syagrus flexuosa (Mart.) Becc. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Syagrus romanzoffiana (Cham.) Glassman | Low concern | Yes | No |
Asteraceae | |||
Baccharis brachylaenoides DC. | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | No |
Baccharis dentata (Vell.) G.M.Barroso | Not evaluated | No | No |
Eremanthus erythropappus (DC.) MacLeish | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Gochnatia paniculata (Less.) Cabrera | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | No |
Gochnatia polymorpha (Less.) Cabrera | Low concern | Not evaluated | No |
Piptocarpha macropoda (DC.) Baker | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Vernonanthura divaricata (Spreng.) H.Rob. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Vernonanthura fagifolia (Gardner) H.Rob. | Vulnerável | Yes | No |
Bignoniaceae | |||
Cybistax antisyphilitica (Mart.) Mart. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Handroanthus aureus Mattos | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | No |
Handroanthus ochraceus (Cham.) Mattos | Not evaluated | No | No |
Handroanthus serratifolius (Vahl) S.O.Grose | Not evaluated | No | No |
Jacaranda caroba (Vell.) DC. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Jacaranda macrantha Cham. | Low concern | Yes | No |
Boraginaceae | |||
Cordia sellowiana Cham. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Cordia trichotoma (Vell.) Arrab. ex Steud. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Burseraceae | |||
Protium spruceanum (Benth.) Engl. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Protium widgrenii Engl. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Trattinnickia ferruginea Kuhlm. | Endangered | Yes | Yes |
Calophyllaceae | |||
Calophyllum brasiliense Cambess. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Kielmeyera coriacea Mart. & Zucc. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Kielmeyera speciosa A.St.-Hil. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Cannabaceae | |||
Celtis brasiliensis (Gardner) Planch. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Trema micrantha (L.) Blume | Not evaluated | No | No |
Cardiopteridaceae | |||
Citronella paniculata (Mart.) R.A.Howard | Not evaluated | No | No |
Caryocaraceae | |||
Caryocar brasiliense Cambess. | Low concern | No | No |
Celastraceae | |||
Monteverdia evonymoides (Reissek) Biral | Not evaluated | No | No |
Maytenus gonoclada Mart. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Plenckia populnea Reissek | Not evaluated | No | No |
Salacia elliptica (Mart. ex Schult.) G.Don | Not evaluated | No | No |
Chrysobalanaceae | |||
Hirtella glandulosa Spreng. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Clethraceae | |||
Clethra scabra Pers. | Low concern | No | No |
Clusiaceae | |||
Garcinia brasiliensis Mart. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Combretacea | |||
Terminalia argentea Mart. | Low concern | No | No |
Terminalia glabrescens Mart. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Cunoniaceae | |||
Lamanonia ternata Vell. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Dilleniaceae | |||
Curatella americana L. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Davilla rugosa Poir. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Ebenaceae | |||
Diospyros burchellii Hiern | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | No |
Erythroxylaceae | |||
Erythroxylum citrifolium A.St.-Hil. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Erythroxylum cuneifolium (Mart.) O.E.Schulz | Not evaluated | No | No |
Erythroxylum deciduum A.St.-Hil. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Erythroxylum pelleterianum A.St.-Hil. | Low concern | No | No |
Erythroxylum suberosum A.St.-Hil. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Erythroxylum tortuosum Mart. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Euphorbiaceae | |||
Croton floribundus Spreng. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Pera glabrata (Schott) Baill. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Sebastiania brasiliensis Spreng. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Fabaceae | |||
Albizia polycephala (Benth.) Killip ex Record | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Andira anthelmia (Vell.) Benth. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Andira fraxinifolia Benth. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Bauhinia rufa (Bong.) Steud. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Bowdichia virgilioides Kunth | Near Threatened | No | No |
Copaifera langsdorffii Desf. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Copaifera magnifolia Dwyer | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Dalbergia miscolobium Benth. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Dalbergia villosa (Benth.) Benth. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Enterolobium gummiferum (Mart.) J.F.Macbr. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Hymenaea courbaril L. | Low concern | No | No |
Hymenaea stigonocarpa Mart. ex Hayne | Not evaluated | No | No |
Inga vera Willd. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Leptolobium dasycarpum Vogel | Not evaluated | No | No |
Leptolobium elegans Vogel | Not evaluated | No | No |
Leucochloron incuriale (Vell.) Barneby & J.W.Grimes | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Machaerium hirtum (Vell.) Stellfeld | Not evaluated | No | No |
Machaerium nyctitans (Vell.) Benth. | Low concern | No | No |
Machaerium villosum Vogel | Low concern | No | No |
Ormosia fastigiata Tul. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Piptadenia gonoacantha (Mart.) J.F.Macbr. | Low concern | No | No |
Platypodium elegans Vogel | Not evaluated | No | No |
Senna aversiflora (Herbert) H.S.Irwin & Barneby | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Senna macranthera (DC. ex Collad.) H.S.Irwin & Barneby | Not evaluated | No | No |
Senna multijuga (Rich.) H.S.Irwin & Barneby | Not evaluated | No | No |
Stryphnodendron adstringens (Mart.) Cov. | Low concern | Yes | No |
Stryphnodendron obovatum Benth. | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | No |
Stryphnodendron occhionianum E.M.O.Martins | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Tachigali denudata (Vogel) Oliveira-Filho | Near Threatened | Yes | No |
Tachigali rugosa (Mart. ex Benth.) Zarucchi & Pipoly | Near Threatened | Yes | No |
Vatairea macrocarpa (Benth.) Ducke | Not evaluated | No | No |
Hypericaceae | |||
Vismia guianensis (Aubl.) Choisy | Not evaluated | No | No |
Lacistemaceae | |||
Lacistema hasslerianum Chodat | Not evaluated | No | No |
Lamiaceae | |||
Aegiphila lhotzkiana Cham. | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | No |
Hyptidendron asperrimum (Spreng.) Harley | Low concern | Yes | No |
Hyptidendron canum (Pohl ex Benth.) Harley | Not evaluated | No | No |
Hyptidendron sp. | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | Not evaluated |
Vitex megapotamica (Spreng.) Moldenke | Not evaluated | No | No |
Vitex polygama Cham. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Lauraceae | |||
Aniba canelilla (Kunth) Mez | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Aniba firmula (Nees & Mart.) Mez | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Endlicheria paniculata (Spreng.) J.F.Macbr. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Nectandra grandiflora Nees | Low concern | Yes | No |
Nectandra megapotamica (Spreng.) Mez | Not evaluated | No | No |
Nectandra nitidula Ness | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Nectandra oppositifolia Ness | Not evaluated | No | No |
Ocotea corymbosa (Meisn.) Mez | Not evaluated | No | No |
Ocotea odorifera (Vell.) Rohwer | Endangered | Yes | Yes |
Ocotea pulchella (Nees & Mart.) Mez | Low concern | No | No |
Persea major (Meisn.) L.E.Kopp | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Lecythidaceae | |||
Cariniana estrellensis (Raddi) Kuntze | Not evaluated | No | No |
Lythraceae | |||
Lafoensia pacari A.St.-Hil. | Low concern | No | No |
Malpighiaceae | |||
Byrsonima coccolobifolia Kunth | Low concern | No | No |
Byrsonima intermedia A.Juss. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Byrsonima sericea DC. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Byrsonima verbascifolia (L.) DC. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Heteropterys byrsonimifolia A.Juss. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Malvaceae | |||
Eriotheca candolleana (K.Schum.) A.Robyns | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Luehea candicans Mart. & Zucc. | Low concern | No | No |
Luehea divaricata Mart. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Luehea grandiflora Mart. & Zucc. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Luehea paniculata Mart. & Zucc. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Pseudobombax grandiflorum (Cav.) A.Robyns | Low concern | Yes | No |
Pseudobombax longiflorum (Mart. & Zucc.) A.Robyns | Not evaluated | No | No |
Pseudobombax tomentosum (Mart.) A.Robyns | Low concern | No | No |
Melastomataceae | |||
Miconia albicans (Sw.) Triana | Not evaluated | No | No |
Miconia burchellii Triana | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Miconia pepericarpa DC. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Miconia sellowiana Naudin | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Miconia trianae Cogn. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Miconia tristis Spring | Not evaluated | No | No |
Miconia willdenowii Klotzsch ex Naudin | Low concern | Yes | No |
Pleroma candolleanum (Mart. ex DC.) Triana | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Tibouchina estrellensis (Raddi) Cogn. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Pleroma fissinervium Schrank et Mart. ex DC. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Pleroma fothergillii (Schrank et Mat. ex DC.) Triana | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Pleroma granulosum (Desr.) D. Don | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Meliaceae | |||
Cabralea canjerana (Vell.) Mart. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Cedrela fissilis Vell. | Vulnerável | No | No |
Trichilia pallens C.DC. | Low concern | Yes | No |
Monimiaceae | |||
Mollinedia argyrogyna Perkins | Low concern | Yes | No |
Moraceae | |||
Brosimum gaudichaudii Trécul | Not evaluated | No | No |
Ficus pertusa L.f. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Ficus adhatodifolia Schott ex Spreng. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Maclura tinctoria (L.) D.Don ex Steud. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Myrtaceae | |||
Blepharocalyx salicifolius (Kunth) O.Berg | Low concern | No | No |
Calyptranthes clusiifolia O.Berg | Not evaluated | No | No |
Campomanesia guazumifolia (Cambess.) O.Berg | Not evaluated | No | No |
Campomanesia velutina (Cambess.) O.Berg | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Campomanesia xanthocarpa (Mart.) O.Berg | Low concern | No | No |
Eugenia bimarginata DC. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Eugenia discolorans C.Wright | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | No |
Eugenia florida DC. | Low concern | Yes | No |
Eugenia hiemalis Cambess. | Low concern | No | No |
Eugenia sonderiana O.Berg | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Eugenia verticillata (Vell.) Angely | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Eugenia discolorans C. Wright & Sauvalle | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | No |
Myrceugenia miersiana (Gardner) D.Legrand & Kausel | Low concern | Yes | No |
Myrcia guianensis (Aubl.) DC. | Low concern | No | No |
Myrcia hebepetala DC. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Myrcia multiflora (Lam.) DC. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Myrcia obovata (O.Berg) Nied. | Low concern | Yes | No |
Myrcia subcordata DC. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Myrcia retorta Cambess. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Myrcia splendens (Sw.) DC. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Myrcia tomentosa (Aubl.) DC. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Myrcia variabilis DC. | Low concern | Yes | No |
Myrcia venulosa DC. | Low concern | Yes | No |
Pimenta pseudocaryophyllus (Gomes) Landrum | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Plinia cauliflora (Mart.) Kausel | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Psidium rufum Mart. ex DC. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Siphoneugena densiflora O.Berg | Low concern | Yes | No |
Siphoneugena widgreniana O.Berg | Low concern | Not evaluated | No |
Nyctaginaceae | |||
Guapira opposita (Vell.) Reitz | Not evaluated | No | No |
Ochnaceae | |||
Ouratea castaneifolia (DC.) Engl. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Pentaphylacaceae | |||
Ternstroemia brasiliensis Cambess. | Low concern | Yes | No |
Phyllanthaceae | |||
Hieronyma alchorneoides Allemão | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | No |
Piperaceae | |||
Piper gaudichaudianum Kunth | Not evaluated | No | No |
Polygonaceae | |||
Ruprechtia laxiflora Meisn. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Primulaceae | |||
Myrsine coriacea (Sw.) R.Br. ex Roem. & Schult. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Myrsine gardneriana A.DC. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Myrsine guianensis (Aubl.) Kuntze | Not evaluated | No | No |
Myrsine lineata (Mez) Imkhan. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Myrsine umbellata Mart. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Proteaceae | |||
Euplassa rufa (Loes.) Sleumer | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Roupala montana Aubl. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Rubiaceae | |||
Amaioua guianensis Aubl. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Amaioua intermedia Mart. ex Schult. & Schult.f. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Chomelia sericea Müll.Arg. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Cordiera concolor (Cham.) Kuntze | Not evaluated | No | No |
Cordiera sessilis (Vell.) Kuntze | Not evaluated | No | No |
Faramea latifolia (Cham. & Schltdl.) DC. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Guettarda uruguensis Cham. & Schltdl. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Guettarda viburnoides Cham. & Schltdl. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Ixora brevifolia Benth. | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | No |
Machaonia brasiliensis (Hoffmanss. ex Humb.) Cham. & Schltdl. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Rudgea viburnoides (Cham.) Benth. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Rutaceae | |||
Zanthoxylum caribaeum Lam. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Zanthoxylum fagara (L.) Sarg. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Zanthoxylum rhoifolium Lam. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Zanthoxylum riedelianum Engl. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Salicaceae | |||
Casearia arborea (Rich.) Urb. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Casearia decandra Jacq. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Casearia lasiophylla Eichler | Low concern | Yes | No |
Casearia sylvestris Sw. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Sapindaceae | |||
Allophylus edulis (A.St.-Hil. et al.) Hieron. ex Niederl. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Cupania zanthoxyloides Radlk. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Matayba guianensis Aubl. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Sapotaceae | |||
Chrysophyllum marginatum (Hook. & Arn.) Radlk. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Pouteria gardneri (Mart. & Miq.) Baehni | Not evaluated | No | No |
Siparunaceae | |||
Siparuna brasiliensis (Spreng.) A.DC. | Low concern | Yes | No |
Siparuna guianensis Aubl. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Smilacaceae | |||
Smilax brasiliensis Spreng. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Solanaceae | |||
Cestrum axillare Vell. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Solanum bullatum Vell. | Low concern | Yes | No |
Solanum cernuum Vell. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Solanum lycocarpum A.St.-Hil. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Styraceae | |||
Styrax camporum Pohl | Not evaluated | No | No |
Styrax ferrugineus Nees & Mart. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Styrax latifolius Pohl | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Styrax pohlii A.DC. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Symplocaceae | |||
Symplocos pubescens Klotzsch ex Benth. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Symplocos sp. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Thymelacaceae | |||
Daphnopsis coriacea Taub. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Urticaceae | |||
Cecropia pachystachya Trécul | Not evaluated | No | No |
Verbenaceae | |||
Aloysia virgata (Ruiz & Pav.) A.Juss. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Vochysiaceae | |||
Qualea grandiflora Mart. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Qualea multiflora Mart. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Vochysia magnifica Warm. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Vochysia rufa Mart. | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Vochysia thyrsoidea Pohl | Not evaluated | Yes | No |
Vochysia tucanorum Mart. | Not evaluated | No | No |
Zygophyllaceae | |||
Kallstroemia minor Hook.f. | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | No |
From the 249 species recorded in our study, 91 are native from Brazil. Four of the species are recorded as Near Threatened, two are Vulnerable and two are Endangered according to the IUCN Red List (International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN], 2019).
Discussion
Serpentine environments provide peculiar conditions, resulting in a strong selective pressure, specialized flora to adverse conditions and holding many degrees of soil toxicity and endemism (Cano et al., 2014). Due to the many degrees of nutritional imbalance and inhospitable physicochemical conditions on soils, it is usual to find a depauperate flora on serpentine areas (Branco & Ree, 2010). In some surveys regarding flora associated to serpentine soils in the tropics, it is usual to find a low number of species (Cano et al., 2014), counterpointing the high species number found in our survey. The highest species number found for the Americas in a serpentine soil area was 219 species in Dominican Republic (Cano et al., 2014) and recently 135 species in Philippines (Sarmiento, 2018), reinforcing the importance of the Morro das Almas area as one of the most diverse serpentine areas from the Tropics.
The amount of species found in our study points to the existence of some kind of adaptation by the plants present in Morro das Almas, making explicit that despite the stress caused by toxic metals in soil, vegetation might present morphological and anatomical adaptations to deal with those effects. Despite the proposal that serpentine soils are limiting factors to vegetation diversification, in our study it doesn't seem to be the key factor influencing this community’s plurality, as the high species number can evidence. Fabaceae, Myrtaceae and Melastomataceae, the families with higher species richness, also characterize the neighboring region flora (Guimarães, Almeida, Carneiro, Souza, & Siqueira, 2012; Terra et al., 2018), foregrounding its adaptive power facing edaphic variations.
Fabaceae is frequently associated with nodule systems that benefit not only the plants from this family, but also induces changes in the soil fertility, nitrogen fixation and enhances the variability of microbes (Saad, Kobaissi, Amiaud, Ruelle, & Benizri, 2018), characteristics that might explain the higher representativeness of this family in our study. It is also possible that the soil microbes found in the area might be highly adapted to the excess of toxic heavy metals, as the soil microbes activity can affect the fertility, carbon storages and growth patterns from the plants (Malik et al., 2018).
From the 249 species recorded, two (Trattinnickia ferruginea and Ocotea odorifera) are classified as endangered according to the IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2019) and protected by the Brazilian law as priority for the conservation in the country (Brasil, 2008). The fact that we could found species that are protected by law at Morro das Almas reinforces the need to pay better care for this area. Morro das Almas hill has already been studied by MMX Mineração e Metálicos S.A., a company from the Eike Batista group, as a possible location to exploit minerals, but the business didn’t continue due to the fact that the company experienced a bankrupt. The fact that a mining company already had the license to exploit this region makes the need to study this place urgent. Since the State of Minas Gerais is already dealing with a series of environmental contamination due to the disrupts of the damn in Mariana and Brumadinho that killed two important rivers for the state (Rio Doce and Rio Paraopeba), it is vital to study and comprehend the flora from places with natural excess of heavy metal, using them as potencial phytoremediators and vegetation management projects for areas impacted by ore extractions (Ali, Kahn, & Sajad, 2013).
As our results demonstrate from the high number of species found on the area, it seems that the presence of serpentine soil is not enough to restrict the local flora biodiversity, which reinforces that there might be some anatomical and physiological adaptations on the plants from the studied community to deal with the environmental adversity provided by the high levels of iron-magnesium compounds found on the local soil. As those soils are only found in less than 1% of the Earth’s exposed surface (Vithanage, Rajapaksha, Oze, Rajakaruna, & Dissanayake, 2014), further investigations on the area might explore the biochemical, ecological and resistance to stress aspect of the plants (Echevarria et al., 2018) to help understand the functioning aspect of this single community. Investigating the relationships between the plants from serpentine areas and the soil might assist on phytostabilization projects, as it’s been successfully used in other countries (Boisson et al., 2018; Mizuno, Nakahara, Fujimori, & Yoshida, 2018).
Conclusion
Species substitution and environmental heterogeneity found in this study reinforce serpentine environments importance to conservation as they act as refugee to those species providing a specific habitat for the vegetation.
Acknowledgements
We thank Universidade Federal de Lavras and Departamento de Ciências Florestais for all their support. We thank Capes (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior) and CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico) for the concession of study scholarship. We also thank for our lab colleagues, especially Nay Alecrim, Paula Eveline and professor Carla Rodrigues Ribas, for collaborating on discussions. We thank Eduardo de Paiva Paula for his help with species identification and fieldwork. This paper was partially produced in PEC 527 - Scientific Publication, from Applied Ecology post-graduation discipline at UFLA. We also thank Professor Ludmila Guimarães for her enthusiasm and revision. We thank the two peer reviewers and the editor for their contributions on the manuscript.
References
Ali, H., Khan, E., & Sajad, M. A. (2013). Phytoremediation of heavy metals—concepts and applications. Chemosphere, 91(7), 869-881. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.01.075
Almeda, F., & Martins, A. B. (2015). Pterolepis haplostemona (Melastomataceae): a new serpentine endemic from Goiás, Brazil. Phytotaxa, 201(3), 233-238. doi: 10.11646/phytotaxa.204.2.10
Anacker, B. L. (2014). The nature of serpentine endemism. American Journal of Botany, 101(2), 219-224. doi: 10.3732/ajb.1300349
Araujo, M. A., Pedroso, A. V., Amaral, D. C., & Zinn, Y. L. (2014). Paragênese mineral de solos desenvolvidos de diferentes litologias na região sul de Minas Gerais. Revista Brasileira de Ciências do Solo, 38(1), 11-25. doi: 10.1590/S0100-06832014000100002
Boisson, S., Séleck, M., Le Stradic, S., Collignon, J., Garin, O., Malaisse, F., … Mahy, G. (2018). Using phytostabilisation to conserve threatened endemic species in southeastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. Ecological Research, 33(4), 789-798. doi: 10.1007/s11284-018-1604-2
Brady, K. U., Kruckeberg, A. R., & Bradshaw Jr., H. D. (2005). Evolutionary ecology of plant adaptation to serpentine soils. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 36, 243-266. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.021103.105730
Branco, S., & Ree, R. H. (2010). Serpentine soils do not limit mycorrhizal fungal diversity. Plos One, 5(7), e11757. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011757
Brasil. (2008). Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Instrução Normativa nº 6 de 23 de setembro de 2008. Brasília, DF: Diário Oficial da União.
Brazil Flora Group [BFG]. (2015). Growing knowledge: an overview of seed plant diversity in Brazil. Rodriguésia, 66(4), 1085-1113. doi: 10.1590/2175-7860201566411
Cano, E., Cano-Ortiz, A., Del Río, S., Ramirez, A. V., & Ruiz, F. J. E. (2014). A phytosociological survey of some serpentine plant communities in the Dominican Republic. Plant Biosystems - An International Journal Dealing with all Aspects of Plant Biology, 148(2), 200-212. doi: 10.1080/11263504.2012.760498
Chiarucci, A., & Baker, A. J. (2007). Advances in the ecology of serpentine soils. Plant and Soil, 293(1), 1-2. doi: 10.1007/s11104-007-9268-7
Echevarria, G., Baker, A. J., Boyd, R. S., van der Ent, A., Mizuno, T., Rajakaruna, N., & Bani, A. (2018). A global forum on ultramafic ecosystems: from ultramafic ecology to rehabilitation of degraded environments. Ecological Research, 33(3), 1-6. doi: 10.1007/s11284-018-1627-8.
Guimarães, J. C. C., Almeida, H. S., Carneiro, V. M. C., Souza, C. M., & Siqueira, F. F. (2012). Diversidade e estrutura de um fragmento florestal no planalto de Poços de Caldas, Andradas, MG. Enciclopédia Biosfera, 8(14), 1201-1215.
Hseu, Z. Y., & Iizuka, Y. (2013). Pedogeochemical characteristics of chromite in a paddy soil derived from serpentinites. Geoderma, 202-203, 126-133. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.03.021
Hseu, Z. Y., Zehetner, F., Fujii, K., Watanabe, T., & Nakao, A. (2018). Geochemical fractionation of chromium and nickel in serpentine soil profiles along a temperate to tropical climate gradient. Geoderma, 327, 97-106. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.04.030
Institudo Brasileiro de Geografia Estatística [IBGE]. (2012). Manual técnico da vegetação Brasileira. Rio de Janeiro, RJ: IBGE.
Institudo Brasileiro de Geografia Estatística [IBGE]. (2013). Mapeamento das unidades territoriais. Rio de Janeiro, RJ: IBGE.
International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN]. (2019). The IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2018-2. Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org
Jacobi, C. M., & Carmo, F. F. (2008). Diversidade dos campos rupestres ferruginosos no Quadrilátero Ferrífero, MG. Megadiversidade, 4(1-2), 24-32.
Jacobi, C. M., Carmo, F. F., & Campos, I. C. (2011). Soaring extinction threats to endemic plants in Brazilian metal-rich regions. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 40(5), 540-543. doi: 10.1007/s13280-011-0151-7
Kazakou, E., Adamidis, G. C., Baker, A. J., Reeves, R. D., Godino, M., & Dimitrakopoulos, P. G. (2010). Species adaptation in serpentine soils in Lesbos Island (Greece): metal hyperaccumulation and tolerance. Plant and Soil, 332(1-2), 369-385. doi: 10.1007/s11104-010-0302-9
Malik, A. A., Puissant, J., Buckeridge, K. M., Goodall, T., Jehmlich, N., Chowdhury, S., Chowdhury, Somak., Gweon, Hyun Soon., Peyton, J. M., Mason, K. E., Agtmaal, M., Blaud, A., Clarck, I. M., Whitaker, J., Pywell, R. F., Ostle, N., Gleixner, G. & Griffiths, R. I. (2018). Land use driven change in soil pH affects microbial carbon cycling processes. Nature communications, 9(1), 3591. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05980-1
Mizuno, T., Nakahara, Y., Fujimori, T., & Yoshida, H. (2018). Natural revegetation potential of Japanese wild thyme (Thymus quinquecostatus Celak.) on serpentine quarries. Ecological Research, 33(4), 777-788. doi: 10.1007/s11284-018-1575-3
Nagajyoti, P. C., Lee, K. D., & Sreekanth, T. V. M. (2010). Heavy metals, occurrence and toxicity for plants: a review. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 8(3), 199-216. doi: 10.1007/s10311-010-0297-8
Salihaj, M., Bani, A., & Echevarria, G. (2016). Heavy metals uptake by hyperaccumulating flora in some serpentine soils of Kosovo. Global Nest Journal, 18(1), 214-222. doi: 10.30955/gnj.001804
Saad, R. F., Kobaissi, A., Amiaud, B., Ruelle, J., & Benizri, E. (2018). Changes in physicochemical characteristics of a serpentine soil and in root architecture of a hyperaccumulating plant cropped with a legume. Journal of soils and sediments, 18(5), 1994-2007. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-017-1903-1
Sarmiento, R. T. (2018). Vegetation of the Ultramafic Soils of Hinatuan Island, Tagana-An, Surigao Del Norte: an Assessment as Basis for Ecological Restoration. AMBIENT SCIENCE, 5(2), 44-50. doi:10.21276/ambi.2018.05.2.aa01
Terra, M. D. C. N. S., Teodoro, G. S., Pifano, D. S., Fernandes, F. B., Silva, T. M. C., & Berg, E. V. D. (2018). Tree responses to soil and edge effects in a semideciduous forest remnant. Floresta e Ambiente, 25(3), e20160542. doi: 10.1590/2179-8087.054216
The Plant List. (2018). Plantas do Brasil: Resgate histórico e herbário virtual para conhecimento e conservação da flora brasileira. Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Instituto de Pesquisas Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro.
Vithanage, M., Rajapaksha, A. U., Oze, C., Rajakaruna, N., & Dissanayake, C. B. (2014). Metal release from serpentine soils in Sri Lanka. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 186(6), 3415-3429. doi: 10.1007/s10661-014-3626-8