Abstract
The development of identification criteria for crop plants based on phytoliths is of high relevance for archaeology, palaeoecology and plant systematics. While identification criteria are available for major food crops, these are mostly based on phytoliths from inflorescences, while other plant parts remain undetected. This paper focuses on bilobate phytoliths from leaves of Panicum miliaceum L. (common millet) and Setaria italica (L.) P. Beauv. (foxtail millet), two taxa that co-occur in regions of Asia and Europe since prehistory and regularly occur at archaeological sites in Eurasia. Leaves of the investigated taxa were systematically sampled to explore the variation of short cells and to collect 27 morphometric variables of bilobate phytoliths with newly developed open-source software. The data was analysed by discriminant analysis, analysis of variance and multiple comparison tests. The resulting morphometric data from five populations per species enables a distinction between the bilobate phytoliths of P. miliaceum and S. italica. Observed differences between populations within species affect only few parameters. This possibility to classify populations of bilobate phytoliths from P. miliaceum and S. italica leaves offers a new method for the detection and identification of these taxa in archaeology, amongst others.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Phytolith systematics, of major relevance for plant systematic, taxonomy, palaeoecology and archaeology, is a strongly developing field, and it is frequently mentioned as a critical topic for research development (Mulholland and Rapp 1992, 10; Piperno 2006, 79; Ball et al. 2009; Shillito 2013). Phytoliths, consisting of biogenic opal, offer valuable applications such as the identification of plant taxa from sedimentary archives, the detection of plant material from anthropogenic deposits and the understanding of past plant use through the analysis of food products, construction material and temper and crop processing residues. Indeed, the identification of plant parts (culm/leaves/inflorescences) and the understanding of their use are fundamental to unravel social organization (e.g. Anderson 2003; Harvey and Fuller 2005). The ongoing need for further development of phytolith systematics partly relates to redundancy and multiplicity of these particles: Many plants can produce the same type of phytolith, and various phytolith types are produced in the different parts of a single plant. There are, nevertheless, multiple examples showing strong potentials for taxonomic identification on the family, subfamily, genus and sometimes the species level.
Concerning Old World taxa, phytolith systematics has focused on the domesticated cereals Avena sativa (oat), Triticum sp. (wheat), Hordeum sp. (barley), Panicum miliaceum (broomcorn millet), Setaria italica (foxtail millet) and Oryza sp. (rice), while identification criteria are additionally available for Musa spp. (banana) and some major palms (Rosen 1992; Ball et al. 1993, 2009; Pearsall et al. 1995; Zhao et al. 1998; Mbida et al. 2000; Portillo et al. 2006; Lu et al. 2009a; Fenwick et al. 2011; Gu et al. 2013; Weisskopf and Lee 2014). The identification criteria for these taxa are all partly based on morphometry, and much work is still ahead to expand the plants investigated. In archaeology for instance, there is the need to extend the research to other crops but also their wild relatives. Millets, a group of grasses that belong to the Panicoideae and Chloridoideae subfamilies and that are used as crops in various parts of the world, received until recently little attention. Radomski and Neumann (2011), Zhang et al. (2011), Madella et al. (2014a, b) and Weisskopf and Lee (2014), amongst others, made a start with the study of variation within millets. Second, most morphometric studies on taxonomic identification of economic plants are primarily based on phytoliths from inflorescences with the exception of rice (Gu et al. 2013) and einkorn (Ball et al. 1993). Apart from inflorescences, however, grass leaves are also well-known for their taxonomic diagnostic value (Ellis 1987; Metcalfe 1960). Leaves, although often overlooked in the archaeological record, are a non-dietary by-product of cereal harvests that is of substantial economic importance, as known from ethnography and archaeology (Grubben and Partohardjono 1996; Lancelotti and Madella 2012; Ryan 2011). Ethnographic studies show the use of stalks and leaves of various millets for animal fodder, hay as well as silage, plaiting, building, fencing, thatching, brooms and fuel (Grubben and Partohardjono 1996). The development of taxonomic identification of phytoliths from leaves is therefore highly relevant.
In order to further work towards the development of plant identification criteria based on phytoliths, the aim of this study is to investigate phytolith morphometry from leaves of Panicum miliaceum L. (common millet) and Setaria italica (L.) P. Beauv. (foxtail millet), both members of the Poaceae, subfamily Panicoideae, tribe Paniceae. The two crops were selected because they have been of high economic importance, in particular in Asia and Europe, since prehistory. Moreover, the geographical distribution of P. miliaceum and S. italica considerably overlaps, which makes distinction relevant. Genetic and archaeobotanical evidence points to China as the origin of both taxa; S. italica was probably also domesticated elsewhere (De Wet et al. 1979; Li et al. 1995; Fukunaga et al. 2002, 2006; Lu 2002; Hunt et al. 2008, 2011; Lu et al. 2009b; Zhao 2011; Motuzaite-Matuzeviciute et al. 2013b; Bestel et al. 2014).
There are various studies on plant systematics, anatomy, physiology, taxonomy, carbon isotopes and phytolith extraction methods that discuss silicification and phytoliths of P. miliaceum and/or S. italica (for late 19th and early 20th century bibliography see: Formanek, Neubauer and Netolitzky in Powers 1992; more recent bibliography: Clark and Gould 1975; Hodson et al. 1982; Hodson and Parry 1982; Parry and Hodson 1982; Pearsall et al. 1995; Zuo and Lü 2011; Rajendiran et al. 2012; Sivasubramanian et al. 2013; Parr and Sullivan 2014; Wang et al. 2014). Especially for archaeology, those studies presenting identification criteria are most relevant. Until recently, identification of Panicoideae was primarily based on the general morphology of phytoliths, and on comparisons between reference material and archaeological material (Madella 2001, 2007; Rosen 2001; Li et al. 2007; Itzstein-Davey et al. 2007; Atahan et al. 2008). After the development of partial morphometric identification criteria for P. miliaceum and/or S. italica (Lu et al. 2009a; Zhang et al. 2011; Weisskopf and Lee 2014), their application in archaeology has quickly gained terrain, and it is applied to fields such as the detection of crop plants and food products, domestication and crop dispersal, agricultural practices, human impact and related social developments (Lu et al. 2005; Zhang et al. 2010, 2012; Gong et al. 2011; Chen et al. 2012; Weisskopf et al. 2014; Weisskopf and Lee 2014; Dal Corso 2014). Most of these studies are based on identifications from inflorescence phytoliths, while there are a few exceptional studies on Panicoideae stem/leaf phytoliths from archaeological tools or material used for basketry (Di Lernia et al. 2012; Ma et al. 2014).
Concerning the systematics of millets based on phytoliths from leaves, Renvoize (1987) explored the variation of short cell morphotypes in 101 genera of Paniceae, and Lu and Liu (2003) and Fahmy (2008) demonstrated the potential of morphometric analysis of bilobates, diagnostic of Panicoideae, for taxonomic classification. In addition, there are various regional ecological studies that compare phytoliths from leaves of multiple taxa, including local Panicum and/or Setaria species (e.g. Ellis 1988; Zucol 1998; Krishnan et al. 2000), but these studies often focus on wild taxa and exclude major subsistence crops. Interestingly, leaf anatomical studies by Shaheen et al. (2011, 2012) commenced with a taxonomic identification of Panicum and Setaria species from Pakistan, including P. miliaceum and S. italica by means of phytolith morphotypology, amongst others, but the wider validity of the results is unclear since information on the sample size is lacking.
Within the above-presented framework of archaeobotany and the study of past societies, this investigation aims to examine whether bilobate and cross-shaped phytoliths allow for taxonomic identification of P. miliaceum and S. italica by leaf phytolith morphometry. The focus is on bilobates since these are short cells that silicify frequently and in large numbers, independent of environmental conditions, and thus can also be expected to occur frequently in archaeological assemblages. Bilobates and crosses were studied together since they can be considered as variations of the same morphotype (cf. Ball and Brotherson 1992) and since the large variation and subtle differences hamper the sharp separation between two separate groups.
The analysis of bilobate phytoliths was conducted by semi-automatic morphometric analysis (Out et al. 2014). The study included populations grown in various parts of the world to increase the applicability of the observations and conclusions and to explore the variation within single taxa. The main questions are as follows:
-
Can bilobate phytoliths from P. miliaceum and S. italica be distinguished from each other by morphometry, i.e. is there a difference in bilobate morphometry between the species?
-
Is there a significant difference in bilobate phytolith morphometry between the various investigated populations of either P. miliaceum and S. italica, i.e. is there a difference within species?
Materials and methods
Table 1 shows the studied plant material and the experimental design. The study included five populations of both P. miliaceum and S. italica. Plants grown in Barcelona and Kyoto were grown from seeds obtained from the National Small Grains Collection, the North Central Regional Plant Introduction Station and the Plant Genetic Resources Conservation Unit, all part of the National Plant Germplasm System of the United States Department of Agriculture. Populations provided by the Botanical Institute of Barcelona were grown in the Botanical Garden of Barcelona. Further, plant material was kindly made available by G. Thijsse (Naturalis Biodiversity Centre, the Netherlands), M.K. Jones (University of Cambridge, UK) and D.Q. Fuller (University College London, UK).
The sampling strategy aimed to include two samples from two leaf blades from two plants per population. The leaves included the leaf below the highest leaf and the third leaf from the plant base, the latter representing a random leaf. The lowest and highest leaves were avoided since those are thought to have the highest risk of differences in leaf development and silicification. Leaf blades rather than sheaths were selected since blades are taxonomically more relevant (Metcalfe 1960, xviii) and since they may show more silica deposition due to higher evapo-transpiration (Prychid et al. 2004, 383; Chauhan et al. 2011, 842). Spodograms showing surface views of the in situ phytoliths were prepared according to the following protocol:
-
1.
After maturation and decease of a plant, leaf fragments of 1–2 cm wide were collected from the middle of the lower and upper part of a leaf.
-
2.
Samples were soaked in distilled water overnight to soften them (this shortens step 4).
-
3.
Samples were cleaned 10 min in an ultrasonic bath to remove any dust or contaminants.
-
4.
Samples were fragmented and soaked in household bleach until they became transparent. The length of this process depended on the individual samples.
-
5.
Samples were rinsed by first soaking them in distilled water overnight and then briefly soaking them in ethanol (90 %).
-
6.
Samples were mounted on a microscope slide with the abaxial or adaxial side randomly facing up. The ethanol was left to evaporate and the samples were mounted with the permanent mounting liquid Entellan™.
For the analysis, the following procedure was carried out:
-
1.
The variation of morphotypes was explored non-quantitatively.
-
2.
Microphotographs of bilobate short cells in the costal zone (veins) were taken at ×630 magnifications with a Leica DM2500 microscope equipped with a Leica DFC490 camera. Photographs of up to 10 clearly visible short cells per vein were taken to assure random sampling within leaves. Nodular (notched) bilobates were excluded.
-
3.
The outline of at least 50 phytoliths per sample was drawn using a Bamboo Fun drawing pen (Wacom) and a FIJI macro (Schindelin et al. 2012) especially developed for this purpose (Out et al. 2014).
-
4.
A total of 27 meaningful variables of size and shape (see Table 2) were measured by another newly developed FIJI macro (ibid.).
-
5.
Descriptive statistics, including the mean, minima, maxima and standard deviation, were calculated for each of the variables at the level of species, population, plant, leaf and sample. The data is available from the corresponding author. Minimum sample sizes were calculated following the formula of Ball et al. (2006), assuring a 90 % confidence level that the sample means are within 5 % of the actual population means on the level of leaves, plants and populations:
$$ {N}_{\min }={Z}^2{{}_{\mu}}_{/2}\mathrm{X}{S}^2/{\left(\mathrm{ME}\right)}^2 $$where N min is the minimum sample size, Z 2∝/2 = 1.64, which is the square of the two-tailed value at ∝ = 0.10, S 2 = the variance, and (ME)2 = the square of the desired margin of error, which is here 0.05 x the sample mean.
-
6.
To test whether the measurements allow for differentiation between the two taxa, a discriminant analysis was applied using the statistical software SPSS v.21 (IBM 2012).
-
7.
To further test whether there is a taxon effect on the measured morphometrics and, moreover, to test whether there is an effect of population on the measured values, the statistical analysis also included the definition of an appropriate statistical mixed model (Laird and Ware 1982; Verbeke and Molenberghs 2000) and an ANOVA. Concerning the model, the data was assumed to be approximately normally distributed and to be heteroscedastic due to the different taxa, populations, plants and leafs. These assumptions are based on a graphical residual analysis (residual plots of each variable for each taxon). The statistical model included the taxa P. miliaceum and S. italica, and additionally the populations 1-5, the latter nested within the factor taxon as fixed factors. The factors plant, leaf and sample were regarded as random factors with sample being nested in leaf, leaf nested in plant and plant nested in population. Based on this model, an ANOVA was conducted to answer the questions of the trial.
-
8.
To test which populations differed from each other (if relevant), multiple contrast tests (e.g. Bretz et al. 2011) were conducted to compare the mean values of the several levels of the influence factors per taxon, i.e. mean values of pairs of populations were compared. To do so, a corresponding cell means model was applied (Schaarschmidt and Vaas 2009). Steps 7 and 8 were carried out with assistance from M. Hasler (Kiel University) using the statistical software R (2013).
Results
Minimum sample size
Results of the test for the minimum adequate sample size of bilobates for species, population, plants, leaves and samples are summarized in Table 3. The outcome of the required minimum sample size depends on the level for which the sample size is calculated. While for S. italica, the minimum sample size calculated per sample is mostly the highest number, the minimum sample size for P. miliaceum is regularly higher when calculated per plant or population, suggesting that variation within plants and population is larger than variation within samples. On the sample level, the applied sample size of N = 50 phytoliths per sample is sufficient to cover the variation for 18 of the 27 variables, while for some measurements, even smaller sample sizes can be used. The N = 50 sample size does not meet the required minimum per sample for the nine variables area bounding box (ArBBox), area, concavity, convex area (CArea), equivalent ellipse area (EqEllAr), radius of the inscribed circle (MinR), perimeter equivalent diameter (PerEqD), modification ratio and sphericity. The required minimum sample size has nevertheless been reached due to the duplication in the experimental design, indicating that a representative data set has been investigated.
Phytolith morphotypes
The phytolith morphotypes in the prepared samples of P. miliaceum and S. italica leaf blades include long cells, bulliforms, short cells including bilobates, cross-like bilobates and crosses, nodular (notched) bilobates, trilobates and polylobates, cork cells, stomata, interstomatal cells, trichomes, including prickles and microhairs, and silicified fragments of vascular bundles. Although neither of the two species yield unique phytolith morphotypes, trilobates and particularly polylobates are rare in the investigated S. italica samples. Figures 1 and 2 show a selection of long cells and short cells. The shape of bilobates of both species shows great variation concerning the short ends of the lobes and the length of the shank between the lobes (see Figs. 1 and 2 and Supplementary Information Figs. 1 and 2). The long cells show straight and wavy edges and occasionally spiny ornamentation. Silicification is generally the highest along the leaf edge and in short cells.
Morphometric analysis
Descriptive statistics of the bilobates of altogether 4000 phytoliths from 10 populations, 20 plants, 40 leaves and 80 samples of P. miliaceum (N = 2000) and S. italica (N = 2000) are presented in Table 4 and in the Supplementary Information Tables 1, 2 and 3. Figure 3 shows boxplots of values per population for a representative selection of variables. The ranges of all variables overlap.
A stepwise discriminant analysis has been conducted to test if the morphometric data can be used to predict whether the bilobates represent P. miliaceum or S. italica. Significant mean differences are observed for all variables except the following: area, area equivalent diameter and perimeter equivalent diameter. Box’s M indicates that the assumption of equality of covariance matrices is violated, which is, however, not regarded as problematic in the case of large sample sizes (Burns and Burns 2009). The developed discriminant function DF = 1.061 * Aspect Ratio + 2.014 * Circularity + 0.844 * Roundness + 0.583 * Solidity + 1.118 * Shape – 0.298 * Rectangularity – 1.352 * ModRatio reveals a significant association (p = 0.000) between the two taxa and the predictors, accounting for 56.6 % of the between-species variability. The cross-validated classification shows that 88 % of all phytoliths together are identified correctly, with 82.9 % of Panicum phytoliths and 93.2 % of the Setaria phytoliths being identified correctly. Thus, classification is possible when based on measurements of phytolith populations. To further test the validity of our results, the developed discriminant function has been applied to 200 phytoliths of S. italica taken from four samples from two leaves from a single plant grown in London (UCL collection ref. nr. 237). Of these phytoliths, 83.5 % are classified correctly as S. italica.
In other words, compared with S. italica, the average leaf bilobates from P. miliaceum are characterised by lower values of aspect ratio, circularity, rectangularity and solidity, and higher values of modification ratio, roundness and shape (see Table 4). This means that on average, P. miliaceum bilobates are less elongated (aspect ratio and roundness), less roundish (circularity and shape) and more irregular of shape (modification ratio, rectangularity and solidity) then S. italica bilobates. The diagnostic variables are visualised in Fig. 4. Simplifying the results further, comparisons of the bilobates of the two species in Figs. 1 and 2 show that the short sides of the P. miliaceum bilobates are relatively concave while the short sides of the S. italica bilobates are more often relatively flat or convex. The complexity of the variables, the mostly subtle differences between the two species and the fact that seven variables are taken into consideration in the discriminant function implies that image analysis-assisted morphometry is required to distinguish between the two studied taxa.
Table 5 shows the results of the ANOVA, testing the effect of taxon as well as population within taxon on the measured values, and the main result of the multiple contrast tests. Supplementary Information Table 4 shows the detailed results of the multiple contrast tests. The ANOVA confirms the outcome of the discriminant analysis, showing that taxon significantly influences the measured variable values for 16 of the 27 variables of size and shape, i.e. that there is a difference between the measured values of P. miliaceum and S. italica. The ANOVA further demonstrates that there is a significant effect of population within taxon on the measured values: A few variables show differences between P. miliaceum and/or S. italica populations within single species. This concerns the five variables CHull, circularity, solidity, convexity shape and concavity that are mostly measurements of shape.
The multiple comparison tests mostly confirm the ANOVA results, showing that the values of most variables (N = 21 out of 27) do not statistically differ between populations within a single species. The multiple comparison tests show differences between populations for six variables: circularity, solidity, convexity, shape, ModRatio and sphericity. At the level of four individual variables, there are minor differences between the outcomes of the ANOVA and the multiple comparison tests; the multiple comparison tests, for example, indicate that there are differences between sphericity measurements in two S. italica populations, while the ANOVA states that population does not significantly influence these measurements. These minor differences are inherent to the use of a complex, mixed model (see “Materials and methods”).
Based on the multiple comparison tests, differences between P. miliaceum populations are only observed for convexity measurements of two population pairs that both include population 5, grown in Korea (see Fig. 3c). This population differs from the other population because of a non-European location and by the fact that random leaves were sampled since the reference material available concerned plant fragments instead of a full plant. The differences between S. italica populations are observed for the variables circularity, modification ration, shape, solidity and sphericity (see Fig. 3b, d). Only circularity and shape show differences between more than one pair of populations (for these two variables, the sample size of measured phytoliths was sufficiently large). The significant differences between the S. italica populations all relate to population 4 (population 9 in Table 1), grown indoors in England with seeds from India, from which random leaves were used since the reference material concerned plant fragments only.
Discussion
Minimum sample size
Table 3 shows that while for many variables, the sample means were within 5 % of the actual population means on all analysis levels, for some variables, particularly variables of size, this is not the case. While it could be argued that ideally, more phytoliths should have been measured per sample, the experimental duplication and the fact that minimum sample sizes per population are easily met makes the collection of further measurements of reduced relevance.
The sample size data moreover shows the diversity in variation within the studied material. While some samples, leaves, plants and populations have small variation (resulting in a small minimum required sample size), others have larger variation. In addition, particularly in the case of P. miliaceum, the minimum sample size is larger for the analysis levels of plant and population, pointing to an important level of variation within plants and populations. These results indicate that calculating a minimum required sample size based on morphometric data from single samples or from a single leaf may result in a too small sample size. This has consequences for studies in phytolith morphometry that use the above-provided formula to calculate a minimum sample size for studies in modern-day and archaeological material. This is of relevance for taxonomic identification by phytolith morphometry considering the tendency to develop identification criteria based on small sample sizes of material and often from few populations, and the regular lack of information on the experimental design and the quantities of reference material investigated.
Concerning the analysis of archaeological samples that are expected to represent either P. miliaceum or S. italica, the results indicate that a minimum of 35 phytoliths per sample can be sufficient for the analysis of data of many variables. Future reference studies should at best include material from more than one sample, leaf and plant, as indicated by our results for the minimal required sample size on the plant and population levels.
Classification by morphometry: differences between P. miliaceum and S. italica
This study, based on five populations per species, all of which are of a different genetic origin and some were grown under distinct environmental conditions, shows that taxonomic distinction between bilobates of leaves from P. miliaceum and S. italica by phytolith morphometry is achievable. The 88 % chance of correct identification with discriminant analysis is reasonably comparable with other, routinely accepted morphometric phytolith identification criteria (Ball et al. 1999, 2006; Piperno 2009). The exploration of the phytolith morphotypes suggests that frequency analysis of short cells from leaves, and particularly short cells other than bilobates may be a relevant additional tool to support the morphometric identification. This remains a topic for future research.
The taxonomic distinction of phytoliths from P. miliaceum and S. italica leaves is highly relevant for systematic and archaeobotany since:
-
It offers a new classificatory criterion to distinguish between the two taxa;
-
It furthers the level of taxonomic significance of different types of plant tissues; indeed, our results show that taxonomic identification by phytolith morphometry is possible using phytoliths from leaves (previously only tested in rice; Fujiwara 1993; Gu et al. 2013);
-
The improved identification of leaves by phytolith analysis allows for the identification of by-products of millet harvests such as leaf fodder that are of substantial economic importance, as known from ethnography and archaeology (see “Introduction”), which may moreover benefit our understanding of producer and consumer sites and the social organisation of prehistoric societies (Fuller et al. 2014);
-
The result can be directly applied to the archaeology of Asia and Europe to identify these crops of major economic importance since prehistory. Although most populations were grown in Europe and a further check for application in Asia may be useful, the large number of investigated populations, their large geographic and environmental variation and the attested restricted variation in the bilobates size and shape supports the criteria’s wide applicability;
-
The taxonomic characterisation at genus level (Panicum versus Setaria) may also be applicable in plant remains from archaeological sites in Africa.
For the proper application of the illustrated discriminant function as a taxonomic identification criterion for archaeological and palaeoecological assemblages, various aspects should be kept in mind. First, morphometric analysis of phytoliths from archaeological sites should always be based on statistically significant assemblages rather than individual phytoliths, since single cells have high variability. The minimum sample size recommended for morphometric analysis of bilobates from leaves from P. miliaceum and S. italica is discussed above (“Discussion”, “Minimum sample size”). Second, differences between the reference material and archaeological assemblages may occur. For example, post-depositional factors, such as size-selective preservation and dissolution, may affect the composition of the assemblage (cf. Albert et al. 2009). Third, bilobate phytoliths are produced by many more Panicoideae taxa, including both wild and domesticated plants. The presented identification method can therefore best be applied to sites and/or regions where P. miliaceum and S. italica are expected based on the evidence from macroremains and/or inflorescence phytoliths. Further research is needed to clarify the bilobate phytoliths production and significance in related taxa and to avoid false positive identification of wild relatives. This means that the current identification criteria should be preferably applied to closed contexts (e.g. pit linings, roof thatching and possibly dung) from fully fledged agricultural sites rather than early sites in which domestication processes are still in place. In fully agricultural sites, the highest input will be from domestic species, also for secondary products. Moreover, there is the need to compare the short cell bilobate phytolith morphometry of P. miliaceum and S. italica with that of other Panicoideae taxa that have been used as crops or famine food in East Asia and South Asia, such as Panicum sumatrense Roth (little millet), Setaria pumila (Poir.) Roem. and Schult. (yellow foxtail millet), Setaria verticillata (L.) P. Beauv. (bristley foxtail), Urochloa ramosa (L.) T.Q. Nguyen (browntop millet), Echinochloa colona (L.) Link ssp. frumatenacea (sawa millet) and Paspalum scrobiculatum L. (kodo millet). Although the taxonomic identification of P. miliaceum and S. italica bilobates for some sites with mixed assemblages thus requires further research on related taxa, the difference in bilobate size and shape of P. miliaceum and S. italica does nevertheless allow the recognition of the input of two different taxa.
Classification by morphometry: differences between populations within species
Comparison between the populations per species shows highly similar results within species, strengthening the wider applicability of differences between species and stressing the restricted role of within-species genetic variation on phytolith morphometry. The minor differences observed between the populations of P. miliaceum and S. italica affect only few variables and can be considered to reflect variation of biological objects. The minimal variation observed in P. miliaceum particularly relates to the population grown outside Europe and under substantially different climatic conditions (as it has been observed also for Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench; Out and Madella unpublished results). In contrast to P. miliaceum, the difference between populations observed in S. italica is less likely to be explained directly by climatic/environmental conditions, since the slightly outstanding population of S. italica was like most other populations grown in Europe, while the population grown outside Europe (Indonesia) did not differ from the other populations. While both genetic and environmental factors may play a role, the precise cause of the small difference between the S. italica population from England and the others remains unknown.
Identification of plant parts
Besides differentiation between the bilobates of P. miliaceum and S. italica leaves also the differentiation by phytolith analysis between leaves and other plant parts is highly relevant for archaeology, thus aiming at a better detection and identification of non-dietary crop products. A distinction between leaves and inflorescences is firstly possible by means of morphotype comparison, since inflorescences are dominated by dendriform morphotypes, leaves by a combination of bulliforms, stomata, interstomatal cells, bilobates and smooth and wavy long cells (see also Figs. 1 and 2), and stems are dominated by smooth long cells. Since bilobates occur in both leaves, culms and inflorescences, a possible question for future research is whether there is a difference in size and shape in P. miliaceum and S. italica bilobates from different plant parts, and whether different short cell morphotypes are produced in the various plant parts. Interestingly, apart from phytoliths also starch is argued to be able to provide information about plant parts (detection of starch from Panicum culms on harvesting tools, Yang et al. 2013).
Conclusions
Analysis of 27 morphometric variables from five populations per species shows that it is possible to distinguish between bilobate phytoliths from leaves of P. miliaceum and S. italica. Differences within the species are observed, but they are little, and there is some overlap between the two taxa. This makes the objective method of morphometry based on image analysis highly suitable to apply for distinction between the two taxa. The new results are not only relevant for archaeology but also for plant systematics and palaeoecology amongst others. Detection and identification of P. miliaceum and S. italica in archaeological and palaeoecological records were already possible by means of caryopses (seeds), starch and phytoliths from inflorescences (phytoliths: see “Introduction”; starch: Yang et al. 2005; Yang et al. 2012; macroremains: e.g. Knörzer 1971; Kroll 1983, p. 43 ff.), while P. miliaceum can also be detected biochemically by means of miliacin (Motuzaite-Matuzeviciute et al. 2013a). The newly developed identification method for bilobate phytoliths from leaves strengthens this set of tools, now also allowing for detection of leaves that presumably have been of economic importance, e.g. as construction material and fodder, since prehistory. While this paper focuses on variation within species, the main suggestion for future research concerns the comparison with related taxa.
References
Albert RM, Bamford MK, Cabanes D (2009) Palaeoecological significance of palms at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, based on phytolith remains. Quatern Int 193:41–48
Anderson PC (2003) Observations on the threshing sledge and its products in ancient and present-day Mesopotamia. In: Anderson PC, Cummings LS, Schippers TK, Simonet B (eds) Le traitement des récoltes: un regard sur la diversité, du néolithique au présent. APDCA, Antibes, pp 417–438
Atahan P, Itzstein-Davey F, Taylor D, Dodson J, Qin J, Zheng H, Brooks A (2008) Holocene-aged sedimentary records of environmental changes and early agriculture in the lower Yangtze, China. Quatern Sci Rev 27:556–570
Ball TB, Davis AL, Evett R, Ladwig JL, Tromp M, Out WA, Portillo M (2015). Morphometric analysis of phytoliths: recommendations towards standardization. J Archaeol Sci (in press)
Ball TB, Brotherson JD (1992) The effect of varying environmental conditions on phytolith morphometries in two species of grass (Bouteloua curtipendula and Panicum virginatum). Scanning Microsc 6(4):1163–1181
Ball TB, Brotherson JD, Gardner JS (1993) A typologic and morphometric study of variation in phytoliths from einkorn wheat (Triticum monococcum). Can J Botany 72:1182–1192
Ball TB, Vrydaghs L, Van den Hauwe I, Manwaring J, De Langhe E (2006) Differentiating banana phytoliths: wild and edible Musa acuminate and Musa balbisiana. J Archaeol Sci 33:1228–1236
Ball TB, Ehlers R, Standing MD (2009) Review of typologic and morphometric analysis of phytoliths produced by wheat and barley. Breeding Sci 59:505–512
Bestel S, Crawford GW, Liu L, Shi J, Song Y, Chen X (2014) The evolution of millet domestication, Middle Yellow River region, North China: evidence from charred seeds at the late Upper Paleolithic Shizitan Locality 9 site. The Holocene 24(3):261–265
Bretz F, Hothorn T, Westfall P (2011) Multiple comparisons using R. Chapman and Hall/CRC, London
Burns RP, Burns R (2009) Business research methods and statistics using SPSS. Sage, London
Chauhan DK, Tripathi DK, Rai NK, Rai AK (2011) Detection of biogenic silica in leaf blade, leaf sheath, and stem of Bermuda Grass (Cynodon dactylon) using LIBS and phytolith analysis. Food Biophys 6:416–423
Chen T, Wu Y, Zhang Y et al (2012) Archaeobotanical study of ancient food and cereal remains at the Astana cemeteries, Xinjiang, China. Plos One 7(9):e45137. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0045137
Clark CA, Gould FW (1975) Some epidermal characteristics of paleas of Dichanthelium, Panicum, and Echinochloa. Am J Bot 62(7):743–748
Dal Corso M (2014) Environmental history and development of the human landscape in a North-Eastern Italian lowland during the Bronze Age: a multidisciplinary case-study. Dissertation, Kiel University, Germany
de Wet JMJ, Oestry-Sidd LL, Cubero JI (1979) Origin and evolution of foxtail millets Setaria italica. J d’Agric Tradition Botan Appl 26:53–64
Di Lernia S, Massamba N’siala I, Mercuri AM (2012) Saharan prehistoric basketry. archaeological and archaeobotanical analysis of the early-middle Holocene assemblage from Takarkori (Acacus Mts., SW Libya). J Archaeol Sci 39:1837–1853
Ellis RP (1987) A review of comparative leaf blade anatomy in the systematics of the Poaceae: the past twenty-five years. In: Soderstrom TR (ed) Grass systematics and evolution. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC, pp 3–10
Ellis RP (1988) Leaf anatomy and systematic of Panicum (Poaceae: Panicoideae) in Southern Africa. In: Goldblatt P, Lowry PP (eds) Modern systematic studies in African botany. Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, pp 129–156
Fahmy AG (2008) Diversity of lobate phytoliths in grass leaves from the Sahel region, West Tropical Africa: tribe Paniceae. Plant Syst Evol 270:1–23
Fenwick RSH, Lentfer CJ, Weisler MI (2011) Palm reading: a pilot study to discriminate phytoliths of four Arecaceae (Palmae) taxa. J Archaeol Sci 38:2190–2199
Fujiwara H (1993) Research into the history of rice cultivation using plant opal analysis. In: Pearsall DM, Piperno DR (eds) Current research in phytolith analysis: application in archaeology and palaeoecology. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp 147–158
Fukunaga K, Wang Z, Kato K, Kawase M (2002) Geographical variation of nuclear genome RFLPs and genetic differentiation in foxtail millet, Setaria italica (L.) P. Beauv. Genet Resour Crop Ev 49:95–101
Fukunaga K, Ichitani K, Kawase M (2006) Phylogenetic analysis of the rDNA intergenic spacer subrepeats and its implication for the domestication history of foxtail millet, Setaria italica. Theor Appl Genet 113:261–269
Fuller DQ, Stevens C, McClatchie M (2014) Routine activities, tertiary refuse, and labor organization: social inferences from everyday archaeobotany. In: Lancelotti C, Savard M (eds) Madella M. Tuscon Press, Arizona, pp 174–217
Gong Y, Yang Y, Ferguson DK, Tao D, Li W, Wang C, Lü E, Jiang H (2011) Investigation of ancient noodles, cakes and millet at the Subeixi site, Xinjiang, China. J Archaeol Sci 38:470–479
Grubben GJH, Partohardjono S (1996) Plant resources of South-East Asia. volume 10: cereals. Prosea Foundation, Bogor
Gu Y, Zhao Z, Pearsall DM (2013) Phytolith morphology research on wild and domesticated rice species in East Asia. Quatern Int 287(21):141–148
Harvey EL, Fuller DQ (2005) Investigating crop processing using phytoliths analysis: the example of rice and millets. J Archaeol Sci 32:739–752
Hodson MJ, Parry DW (1982) The ultrastructure and analytical microscopy of silicon deposition in the aleurone layer of the caryopsis of Setaria italica (L.) Beauv. Ann Bot-London 50:221–228
Hodson MJ, Sangster AG, Parry DW (1982) Silicon deposition in the inflorescence bristles and macrohairs of Setaria italica (L.) Beauv. Ann Bot-London 50:843–850
Hunt HV, Van der Linden M, Liu X, Motuzaite-Matuzeviciute G, Colledge S, Jones MK (2008) Millets across Eurasia: chronology and context of early records of the genera Panicum and Setaria from archaeological sites in the Old World. Veg Hist Archaeobot 17(Suppl 1):S5–S18
Hunt HV, Campana MG, Lawes MC et al (2011) Genetic diversity and phylogeography of broomcorn millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) across Eurasia. Mol Ecol 20:4756–4771
IBM Corp (2012) IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 21.0. IBM Corp, Armonk
Itzstein-Davey F, Atahan P, Dodson J, Taylor D, Zheng H (2007) A sediment-based record of Lateglacial and Holocene environmental changes. The Holocene 17(8):1221–1231
Knörzer K-H (1971) Eisenzeitliche pflanzenfunde im Rheinland. Bonn Jahrb 171:40–58
Krishnan S, Samson NP, Ravichandran P, Narasimhan D, Dayanandan P (2000) Phytoliths of Indian grasses and their potential use in identification. Bot J Linn Soc 132:241–252
Kroll H (1983) Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975–1979. Die Pflanzenfunde. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 2
Laird NM, Ware JH (1982) Random-effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics 38(4):963–974
Lancelotti C, Madella M (2012) The ‘invisible’ product: developing markers for identifying dung in archaeological contexts. J Archaeol Sci 39(4):953–963
Li Y, Wu S, Cao Y (1995) Cluster analysis of an international collection of foxtail millet (Setaria italica (L.) P. Beauv.). Euphytica 83:79–85
Li X, Dodson J, Zhou X, Zhang H, Masutomoto R (2007) Early cultivated wheat and broadening of agriculture in Neolithic China. The Holocene 17(5):555–560
Lu TDL (2002) A green foxtail (Setaria viridis) cultivation experiment in the Middle Yellow River Valley and some related issues. Asian Perspec 41(1):1–14
Lu H, Liu K-B (2003) Morphological variations of lobate phytoliths from grasses in China and the south-eastern United States. Divers Distrib 9:73–87
Lu H, Yang X, Ye M, Liu K-B, Xia Z, Ren X, Cai L, Wu N, Liu T-S (2005) Millet noodles in Late Neolithic China. Nature 437:967–968
Lu H, Zhang J, Wu N, Liu K-B, Xu D (2009a) Phytoliths analysis for the discrimination of Foxtail Millet (Setaria italica) and Common Millet (Panicum miliaceum). Plos One 4(2):e4448. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004448
Lu H, Zhang J, Liu K-B et al (2009b) Earliest domestication of common millet (Panicum miliaceum) in East Asia extended to 10000 years ago. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:7367–7372
Ma Z, Li Q, Huan X, Yang X, Zheng J, Ye M (2014) Plant microremains provide direct evidence for the functions of stone knives from the Lajia site, northwestern China. Chin Sci Bull 59(11):1151–1158
Madella M (2001) Understanding archaeological structures by means of phytolith analysis: a test from the iron age site of Kilise Tepe—Turkey. In: Meunier JD, Colin F, Faure-Denard L (eds) The phytoliths: applications in earth science and human history. Balkema, Lisse, pp 173–182
Madella M (2007) The silica skeletons from the anthropic deposits. In: Whittle A (ed) The early Neolithic on the great Hungarian plain. vol III. Publicationes Instituti Archaeologici Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Budapest, pp 447–460
Madella M, García-Granero JJ, Out WA, Ryan P, Usai D (2014a) Microbotanical evidence of domestic cereals in Africa 7000 years ago. Plos One 9(10):e110177. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110177
Madella M, Lancelotti C, García-Granero JJ (2014b) Millet microremains—an alternative approach to understand cultivation and use of critical crops in Prehistory. Archaeol Anthropol Sci. doi:10.1007/s12520-013-0130-y
Mbida CM, Van Neer W, Doutrelepont H, Vrydaghs L (2000) Evidence for banana cultivation and animal husbandry during the first millennium BC in the forest of Southern Cameroon. J Archaeol Sci 27(2):151–162
Metcalfe CR (1960) Anatomy of the monocotyledons gramineae. Clarendon, Oxford
Motuzaite-Matuzeviciute G, Jacob J, Telizhenko S, Jones MK (2013a) Miliacin in palaeosols from an early iron age in Ukraine reveal in situ cultivation of broomcorn millet. Archaeol Anthropol Sci. doi:10.1007/s12520-013-0142-7
Motuzaite-Matuzeviciute G, Staff RA, Hunt HV, Liu X, Jones MK (2013b) The early chronology of broomcorn millet (Panicum miliaceum) in Europe. Antiquity 87:1073–1085
Mulholland SC, Rapp G Jr (1992) Phytolith systematic: an introduction. In: Rapp G Jr, Mulholland SC (eds) Phytolith systematics: emerging issues. Plenum Press, New York, pp 1–13
Out WA, Pertusa Grau J, Madella M (2014) A new method for morphometric analysis of opal phytoliths from plants. Microsc Microanal 20(6):1876–1887
Parr JF, Sullivan LA (2014) Comparison of two methods for the isolation of phytolith occluded carbon from plant material. Plant Soil 374:45–53
Parry DW, Hodson MJ (1982) Silica distribution in the caryoposis and inflorescence bracts of foxtail millet [Setaria italica (L.) Beauv.] and its possible significance in carcinogenesis. Ann Bot-London 49:531–540
Pearsall DM, Piperno DR, Dinan EH, Umlauf M, Zhao Z, Benfer RA (1995) Distinguishing rice (Oryza sativa Poaceae) from wild Oryza species through phytolith analysis: results of preliminary research. Econ Bot 49(2):183–196
Piperno DR (2006) Phytoliths: a comprehensive guide for archaeologists and paleoecologists. AltaMira Press, Lanham
Piperno DR (2009) Identifying crop plants with phytoliths (and starch grains) in Central and South America: a review and an update of the evidence. Quatern Int 193:146–159
Portillo M, Ball T, Manwaring J (2006) Morphometric analysis of inflorescence phytoliths produced by Avena sativa L. and Avena strigosa Schreb. Econ Bot 60(2):121–129
Powers AH (1992) Great expectations: a short historical review of European phytolith systematics. In: Rapp G Jr, Mulholland SC (eds) Phytolith systematics. Plenum Press, New York, pp 15–35
Prychid CJ, Rudall PJ, Gregory M (2004) Systematics and biology of silica bodies in monocotyledons. Bot Rev 69(4):377–440
R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/. Last access 1 November 2014
Radomski KU, Neumann K (2011) Grasses and grinding stones: inflorescence phytoliths from modern West African Poaceae and archaeological stone artefacts. In: Fahmy AG, Kahlheber S, D’Andrea AC (eds) Windows on the African past. current approaches to African archaeobotany. Africa Magna, Frankfurt, pp 153–166
Rajendiran S, Vassanda Coumar M, Kundu Ajay S, Dotaniya ML, Subba Rao A (2012) Role of phytolith occluded carbon of crop plants for enhancing soil carbon sequestration in agro-ecosystems. Curr Sci India 103(2):911–920
Renvoize SA (1987) A survey of leaf-blade anatomy in grasses XI. Paniceae. Kew Bull 42(3):739–768
Rosen AM (1992) Preliminary identification of silica skeletons from Near Eastern archaeological sites: an anatomical approach. In: Rapp G, Mulholland SC (eds) Phytolith systematics: emerging issues. Plenum Press, New York, pp 129–147
Rosen AM (2001) Phytolith evidence for agro-pastoral economies in the Scythian period of southern Kazakhstan. In: Meunier JD, Colin F (eds) Phytoliths: applications in earth sciences and human history. Balkema, Lisse, pp 183–198
Ryan P (2011) Plants as material culture in the Near Eastern Neolithic: perspectives from the silica skeleton artifactual remains at Çatalhöyük. J Anthropol Archaeol 30:292–305
Schaarschmidt F, Vaas L (2009) Analysis of trials with complex treatment structure using multiple contrast tests. HortSci 44(1):188–195
Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E et al (2012) Fiji: an open-source platform for biological image-analysis. Nat Methods 9(7):676–682
Shaheen S, Ahmad M, Kkan F et al (2011) Systematic application of palyno-anatomical characterization of Setaria species based in scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and light microscope (LM) analysis. J Med Plants Res 5(24):5803–5809
Shaheen S, Ahmad M, Khan F et al (2012) Elemental dispersive spectrophotometer analysis and morpho-anatomical characterization of Panicum species from Pakistan. J Med Plants Res 6(9):1707–1712
Shillito L-M (2013) Grains of truth or transparent blindfolds? a review of current detabes in archaeological phytolith analysis. Veg Hist Archaeobot 22(1):71–82
Sivasubramanian G, Shangmugam C, Parameswaran VR (2013) Copper (II) immobilized on silica extracted from foxtail millet husk: a heterogeneous catalyst for the oxidation of tertiary amines under ambient conditions. J Porous Mat 20(2):417–430
Verbeke G, Molenberghs G (2000) Linear mixed models for longitudinal data. Springer, New York
Wang X, Jiang H, Shang X et al (2014) Comparison of dry ashing and wet oxidation methods for recovering articulated husk phytoliths of foxtail millet and common millet from archaeological soil. J Archaeol Sci 45:234–239
Weisskopf A, Lee G-A (2014) Phytolith identification criteria for foxtail and broomcorn millets: a new approach to calculating crop ratios. Archaeol Anthropol Sci. doi:10.1007/s12520-014-0190-7
Weisskopf A, Harvey E, Kingwell-Banham E, Kajale M, Mohanty R, Fuller DQ (2014) Archaeobotanical implications of phytolith assemblages from cultivated rice systems, wild rice stands and macro-regional patterns. J Archaeol Sci 51:43–53
Yang X, Lu H, Liu T, Han J (2005) Micromorphology characteristics of starch grains from Setaria italica, Panicum miliaceum and S. viridis and its signification for archaeobotany. Quatern Sci 25:224–227
Yang X, Zhang J, Perry L, Ma Z, Wan Z, Li M, Diao X, Lu H (2012) From the modern to the archaeological: starch grains of millets and their wild relatives in North China. J Archaeol Sci 39:247–254
Yang X, Ma Z, Li Q et al (2013) Experiments with lithic tools: understanding starch residues from crop harvesting. Archaeometry 56(5):828–840
Zhang J, Lu H, Wu N et al (2010) Phytolith evidence for rice cultivation and spread in Mid-Late Neolithic archaeological sites in central North China. Boreas 39:592–602
Zhang J, Lu h, Wu N, Yang X, Diao X (2011) Phytolith analysis for differentiating between foxtail millet (Setaria italica) and green foxtail (Setaria viridis). Plos One 6(5):e19726. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019726
Zhang J, Lu H, Wu N, Qin X, Wang L (2012) Palaeoenvironment and agriculture of ancient Loulan and Milan on the Silk Road. The Holocene 23(2):208–217
Zhao Z (2011) New archaeobotanical data for the study of the origins of agriculture in China. Curr Anthropol 52(S4):S295–S306
Zhao Z, Pearsall DM, Benfer RA Jr, Piperno DR (1998) Distinguishing rice (Oryza sativa Poaceae) from wild Oryza species through phytolith analysis II: finalized method. Econ Bot 52(2):134–145
Zucol AF (1998) Microfitolitos de las Poaceae Argentinas: II. Microfitolitos foliares de algunas especies del genero Panicum (Poaceae, Paniceae) de la provincia de Entre Ríos. Darwinia 36(1–4):29–50
Zuo XX, Lü HY (2011) Carbon sequestration within millet phytoliths from dry-farming of crops in China. Chinese Sci Bull 56:3451–3456
Acknowledgments
This study was partially supported by a Marie Curie Intra European Fellowship [PHYTORES, 273610, 2011–2013]. We heartily thank M. Hasler (Kiel University) for advice on the statistical analysis, the National Plant Germplasm System of the United States Department of Agriculture for providing the seeds, N. Ibáñes, N. Abellán, and M. Veny, A. Susanna, J.M. Montserrat (Botanical Institute of Barcelona and Barcelona Botanic Garden) for growing plant populations and making herbarium material available, M.K. Jones (University of Cambridge), D.Q. Fuller (University College London), L. Duistermaat and G. Thijsse (Naturalis Biodiversity Centre) for providing plant material, X. Liu (University of Cambridge) for information on a Panicum population, A. Wossink (University of Chicago) and E. van Hees (Leiden University) for providing literature, I. Reese for figure editing, E. Küçükkaraca for text editing and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Supplementary Information Fig. 1
Panicum miliaceum, measured masks of one sample from population 5 (GPR/IMF: Korea). Scale: mean Feret of the shown phytoliths = 54.33 μm (GIF 120 kb)
Supplementary Information Fig. 2
Setaria italica, measured masks of one sample from population 8 (National Herbarium of the Netherlands). Scale: mean Feret of the shown phytoliths = 73.51 μm (GIF 127 kb)
Supplementary Information Table 1
Panicum miliaceum, descriptive statistics for morphometric variables of the bilobate phytoliths per population. See Table 2 for the units of measurement. The population numbers correspond with Table 1 (XLS 31 kb)
Supplementary Information Table 2
Setaria italica, descriptive statistics for morphometric variables of the bilobate phytoliths per population. See Table 2 for the units of measurement. The population numbers correspond with Table 1 (XLS 30 kb)
Supplementary Information Table 3
Morphometric data of P. miliaceum and S. italica. See Table 2 for the unit of measurement (XLS 1173 kb)
Supplementary Information Table 4
Output of the multiple contrast tests comparing the mean values of the various populations per taxon. Pop = population. The population numbers 1–5 of S. italica correspond with the numbers 6–10 in Table 1 (same order). Significance codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 (XLS 71 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Out, W.A., Madella, M. Morphometric distinction between bilobate phytoliths from Panicum miliaceum and Setaria italica leaves. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 8, 505–521 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-015-0235-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-015-0235-6