Phenotypic diversity and taxonomic relationship of Rhizophora species based on morphological markers

Paper Details

Research Paper 01/09/2015
Views (254) Download (6)

Phenotypic diversity and taxonomic relationship of Rhizophora species based on morphological markers

Leah E. Endonela, Maribel L. Dionisio-Sese, Nestor C. Altoveros, Teresita H. Borromeo
J. Bio. Env. Sci.7( 3), 236-243, September 2015.
Certificate: JBES 2015 [Generate Certificate]


The phenotypic diversity and taxonomic relatedness of Indo-West Pacific (IWP) Rhizophora species in Pagapas Bay, Calatagan, Batangas, Philippines was investigated based on morphometric markers. Comparative analysis of characterization data revealed the occurrence of R. apiculata, R. mucronata, R. stylosa and hybrid R. × lamarckii in overlapping population. At field condition, the Rhizophora species were effectively distinguished by leaf, floral and hypocotyl attributes. Analysis of 40 morphometric parameters using standardized Shannon-Weaver Diversity Index (H’) showed computed average H’ value of 0.77 indicating high intraspecific phenotypic diversity among the Rhizophora species. Cluster analysis of qualitative traits using UPGMA SAHN Simple Matching Coefficient revealed that at coefficient 0.76, R. mucronata and R. stylosa showed 100% similarity while analysis of quantitative traits using Euclidean Distance Coefficient at coefficient 7.12, R. mucronata showed 100% similarity with R. × lamarckii. In both dendrograms, R. × lamarckii clustered with R. mucronata and R. stylosa while R. apiculata formed a separate distinct group. Hence, this study claims that either R. mucronata or R. stylosa is the possible parental species of R. × lamarckii. Interestingly, however, R. × lamarckii exhibit intermediate morphometric features of R. apiculata and R. mucronata. Having adapted to the same environment through time the expressed morphological traits are mainly genotypic effects, hence, are distinctive, uniform and stable at species level. Reliance to morphometric markers remain useful in species identification, diversity assessment and taxonomic studies.


Alongi D. 2008. Mangrove forests: Resilience,protection from tsunamis, and responses to global climate change. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 76, 1-13.

Bioversity International. 2007. Guidelines for the development of crop descriptor lists. Bioversity Technical Bulletin Series. Bioversity International, Rome, Italy. xii+72p.

Brokaw N, Thompson J. 2000. The H for DBH. Forest Ecological Management 129, 89-91.

Ceron-Souza I, Turner BL, Winter K, Medina E, Bermingham E, Feliner GN. 2014. Reproductive phenology and physiological traits in the red mangrove hybrid complex (Rhizophora mangle and R. racemosa) across a natural gradient of nutrients and salinity. Plant Ecology 215(5), 481-493.

Clough B. 2013. Continuing the Journey Amongst Mangroves. ISME Mangrove Educational Book Series No. 1. International Society of Mangrove Ecosystem (ISME), Okinawa, Japan, and International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), Yokohama, Japan, 72 p.

Duke NC. 2006. Rhizophora apiculata, R. mucronata, R. stylosa, R. × annamalai, R. × lamarckii (Indo-West Pacific stilt mangrove), ver. 2.1. In: Elevitch, C.R. (ed.). Species Profiles for Pacific Island Agroforestry. Permanent Agriculture Resources (PAR), Holualoa, Hawai’i. (Accessed on 30 October 2014).

Duke NC. 2010.  Overlap  of  eastern  and  western mangroves in the South-western Pacific: hybridization of all three Rhizophora (Rhizophoraceae) combinations in New Caledonia. Blumea 55, 171-188.

Ng WI, Chan HT, Szmidt AE. 2013. Molecular identification of natural mangrove hybrids of Rhizophora in Peninsular Malaysia. ISME/GLOMIS Electron Journal 10, 4-6.

Ng WL, Szmidt AE. 2014. Introgressive hybridization in two Indo-west Pacific Rhizophora mangrove species, R. mucronata and R. stylosa. Aquatic Botany 120, 222-228.

Parani M, Rao CS, Mathan M, Anuratha CS, Narayanan KK, Parida A. 1997. Molecular phylogeny of mangroves. III. Parentage analysis of Rhizophora hybrid using random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) and restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) markers. Aquatic Botany 58, 165-172.

Parani M, Lakshmi M, Senthilkumar P, Nivedita R, Parida A. 1998. Molecular phylogeny of mangroves. VI. Analysis of genome relationship in mangrove species using RAPD and RFLP markers. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 97, 617–625.

Parani M, Lakshmi M, Ziegenhagen B, Fladung M, Senthilkumar P, Parida A. 2000. Molecular phylogeny of mangroves VII. PCR-RFLP of trnS-psbC and rbcL gene regions in 24 mangrove and mangrove-associate species. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 100, 454-460.

Primavera JH. 2000a. Development and conservation of Philippine mangroves. Institutional Issues. Ecological Economics 35(1), 91-106.

Primavera JH, Sadava RS, Lebata MJHL, Altamirano JP. 2004. Handbook of Mangroves in the Philippines – Panay. The Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC) Aquaculture Department, Iloilo, Philippines, 106 p.

Tomlinson PB. 1986. The Botany of Mangroves. Cambridge University Press. New York, NY, 440 p.

Triest L. 2008. Molecular ecology and biogeography of mangrove trees towards conceptual insights on gene flow and barriers: A review. Aquatic Botany 89, 138-154.

Wee AKS, Takayama K, Asakawa T, Thompson B, Onrizal S, Sungkaew NX, Tung M, Nazre KK, Soe HTW, Tan Y, Watano S, Baba T, Kajita Webb EL. 2014. Oceanic current, not land masses maintain the genetic structure of the mangrove Rhizophora mucronata Lam. (Rhizophoraceae) in Southeast Asia. Journal of Biogeography, 11 p.

Yao  CE.  1998.  Wanted:  The  Philippines’  Fourth Bakauan. The Online Magazine for Sustainable Seas. Volume 1(11).