B IOD I V E R S I TA S ISSN: 1412-033X

Volume 22, Number 12, December2021 E-ISSN: 2085-4722

Pages: 5317-5324 DOI: 10.13057/biodiv/d221212

Karyotype analysis from four species of edible plants in northeastern

Thailand

SURAPON SAENSOUK1, NATKAMON SAEN-IN1, PIYAPORN SAENSOUK2,♥

1Walai Rukhavej Botanical Research Institute, Mahasarakham University. Kantharawichai, Maha Sarakham 44150, Thailand
2Plant and Invertebrate Taxonomy and Its Applications Unit Group, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Mahasarakham University.

Kantharawichai, Maha Sarakham 44150, Thailand. Tel. +66 4375 4247, ♥email: pcornukaempferia@yahoo.com

Manuscript received: 12 September 2021. Revision accepted: 12 November 2021.

Abstract. Saensouk S, Saen-in N, Saensouk P. 2021. Karyotype analysis from four species of edible plants in northeastern Thailand.
Biodiversitas 22: 5317-5324. Karyotype analysis from four species of edible plants, namely one species from family Cannaceae (Canna
indica L.), one species including 2 variants from family Araceae (Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott, green taro and black taro) and two
species from family Apiaceae (Eryngium foetidum L. and Centella asiatica (L.) Urb.) in Maha Sarakham province, northeastern
Thailand were determined from root tips. The results showed that the chromosome numbers and karyotype formulae were 2n = 28 =
14m+10sm+4st (2sat) with NF = 56 for green taro, 2n = 42 = 20m+20sm+ 2st (3sat) with NF = 84 for black taro, 2n = 18 = 18sm with
NF = 36 for Centella asiatica (L.) Urb., 2n = 16 = 2m+14sm with NF = 32 for Eryngium foetidum L., 2n = 27 = 2m+25sm with NF = 54
for Canna indica L. Both taros had differences in the chromosome numbers and karyotype formulae. The chromosomes of both taros
were the asymmetrical karyotype. While, the chromosome structure of both taros, including the number of metacentric, submetacentric
and subtelocentric as well as the position of satellite-chromosomes, were found to be different, which indicated inter-and intra-specific
variations in this species. Therefore, the chromosome number, karyotype formula, chromosome structure, position of satellite-
chromosomes and idiogram can be used for classification of both taros in this study. Moreover, idiograms of both taros were reported
for the first time. The karyotype, NF, RL, CI and ideogram of Centella asiatica (L.) Urb., Eryngium foetidum L. and Canna indica L.
were reported for the first time.

Keywords: Edible plants, chromosome number, karyotype, idiogram

INTRODUCTION was also found that taro has 2 variations, namely black taro
and green taro. Both taros have been found to have similar
Edible plants are very important to human life and well- morphological characters, but there are many variations in
being because it is an important source of food. In addition, their morphology. We identified those specimens from the
edible plants are diverse and have great nutritional benefits. available literature, which showed that both taros have
It is also a plant that can be cultivated and readily available been found to be the same species, C. esculenta (L.) Schott.
locally. In addition, edible plants are also a source of local Therefore, the chromosome structure, variations in
knowledge and wisdom, which have been passed down chromosome number and karyotypes might be different.
through generations, such as cooking or vegetables, which The information of this research will support future
all point to the relationship between lifestyle and diversity cytological studies to be more comprehensive. The aim of
of local vegetables in the community as well. Commonly this study was to study the chromosome numbers,
cultivated edible plants are garlic, galingale, corn, ginger, karyotype and idiogram analysis of four species (include
galangal, rice, sesame, gourd, cucumber, coriander, two variants) in edible plants, namely black taro, green
morning glory, taro, chili, pepper, pumpkin, zucchini, taro, Asiatic leaf, dill, Indian sago from Maha Sarakham
shallot, etc (Boyce et al. 2012, Pholhiamhan et al. 2018). Province, Northeast Thailand. Taro is a very popular tuber
Taro is a very popular tuber crop of economic significance crop of economic significance (Gogoi and Borah 2013).
(Gogoi and Borah 2013). The edible plants are also found The chromosome numbers and karyotypes of taro (C.
in Maha Sarakham Province, Northeast Thailand is an area esculenta (L.) Schott) were previously studied by several
where many food crops are grown. There are also some workers (Ramachandran 1978; Kuruvilla and Singh 1981;
edible plants that are popularly cultivated as vegetables or Zhang and Yang 1984; Coates et al. 1988; Subramanian
used as raw materials for high-yielding dishes as a means and Munian 1988; Huang et al. 1989; Kuruvilla et al. 1989;
of earning a living. These edible plants are taro, Asiatic Li 1989; Sreekumari and Mathew 1989; Zhang 1998;
leaf, dill, Indian sago. Ivancic and Lebot 1999; Senavongse et al. 2018) (Table 2).
During the study of aquatic plants in Maha Sarakham The chromosome numbers of Asiatic leaf (Centella
Province, the researchers found that these aquatic plants to asiastica (L.) Urb.) 2n = 18 and 36 were previously studied
be edible plants were taro (Colocasia esculenta (L.) by Kokubugata et al. (1998), while karyotypes of Asiatic
Schott.), Asiatic leaf (Centella asiastica (L.) Urb.), dill leaf is never studied before (Table 2). Next, the
(Eryngium foetidum L.), Indian sago (Canna indica L.). It chromosome numbers 2n = 16 of dill (Eryngium foetidum
5318 B I OD I V E R S I TA S 22 (12):5317-5324, December 2021

L.) were previously studied by Hore (1980) and Guerra Mahasarakham University, Maha Sarakham Province,
(1986). For the karyotypes of dill is never studied before Thailand. The chromosome numbers study from root tips
(Table 2). For the chromosome numbers 2n = 18, 27, 36 of followed the methods of Saensouk et al. (2019) and
Indian sago (Canna indica L.) were previously studied by Senavongse et al. (2018; 2020). Photographs were taken
Belling (1925) and Hanson et al. (2001), while karyotypes using a light microscope (Zeiss: Axiostar plus) at 100×
of Asiatic leaf is never studied before (Table 2). magnification.
The classification of the karyotype symmetry degree is
proposed following Stebbins (1971). The diploid
MATERIALS AND METHODS chromosome numbers of each specimen in this study were
counted from 20 cells. For the arrangement of the
Four species of edible plants, namely taro (Colocasia karyotypes, the following parameters, such as average
esculenta (L.) Schott.) including two variants i.e. green taro length of the short arm (Ls), average length of the long arm
and black taro, Asiatic leaf (Centella asiastica (L.) Urb.), (Ll), length of each chromosome (LT), average
dill (Eryngium foetidum L.), Indian sago (Canna indica L.) measurement of relative length (RL), chromosome index
were collected in fields from Maha Sarakham Province, (CI), standard deviation (SD) of RL and CI from metaphase
northeastern, Thailand (Figure 1). The comparative chromosomes, were calculated by the methods of Saensouk
morphology of two variants of taro was provided (Figure 1, et al. (2019), Senavongse et al. (2018; 2020), Saensouk and
Table 1). All four species were grown in a nursery at the Saensouk (2021a) and Saensouk and Saensouk (2021b).
Walai Rukhavej Botanical Research Institute,

Table 1. Comparative analysis of morphological characteristics of both taros (Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott) in this study

Characteristics
Specimens Petiole Leaf color Inside corm color Local Thai name Common name
Green Taro Light green Light green Light cream-purple Peuak-Kan-Khiao Green taro
Black Taro Dark purple Dark green Dark cream-purple Peuak-Kan-Dam Black taro

A.1 A.2 B.1 B.2

C D B.1

Figure 1. Morphology of edible plants four species with two variants of taro from Maha Sarakham Province, northeastern, Thailand.
A.Green taro (A1: shoot, A2: corm with inside corm), B.Black taro (B1: shoot, B2: corm with inside corm), C. Asiatic leaf (Centella
asiatica (L.) Urb.), D. dill (Eryngium foetidum L.), E. Indian sago (Canna indica L.)
 SAENSOUKet al. –Karyotype analysis of edible plants in northeastern Thailand 5319

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION from 2.61±0.19 to 6.97±0.54 μm. The relative length of the
karyotype is a value between 3.87 to 10.49% (Table 2).
The comparative morphology characteristics of the The centromeric indexes were 0.50-0.72 (Table 2; Figures
green taro and black taro in this study are described, follow 2A, 3A, 4A). The created ideogram was based on the
the green taro has light green color in petiole and leaf and lengths of the chromosome arms and presented the point of
light cream-purple color in inside corm but black taro has the centromere (Figure 4A).
dark purple color in petiole, dark green color in leaf and Black taro presented the somatic chromosome number
dark cream-purple color in inside corm (Figures 1A, 1B tobe 42 (Figure 2B), which was consistent with the reports
and Table 1). The dominant characteristics of Asiatic leaf of Subramanian and Munian (1988) and Zhang (1998),
(Centella asiastica (L.) Urb.) has leaves borne on while it differed from that of Huang et al. (1989) of 2n = 36
pericladial petioles (Figure 1C) For dill (Eryngium (Table 2). The NF was found to be 84. The karyotype
foetidum L.) has leaf blade flat with margins serrate (Figure formula of this specimen was found to be an asymmetrical,
1D) and Indian sago (Canna indica L.) has leaves like karyotype 20m+20sm+2st (3sat), including 20 metacentric
banana leaves, rhizome arrow root (Figure 1E). (m) pairs, 20 submetacentric (sm) pairs and two
Chromosome numbers, karyology (fundamental number subtelocentric (st) and three visible satellites (Figures 3B,
(NF), karyotype formula and satellite) and location in this 4B and Table 2). The present results differ from previous
study and those studied previously of taro (Colocasia reportsdue to the effects of environmental factors, i.e.
esculenta (L.) Schott.) include two variants i.e. green taro Parvin et al. (2008) who reported 38m+4sm without
and black taro, Asiatic leaf (Centella asiastica (L.) Urb.), chromosome satellites and Senavongse et al. (2018)
dill (Eryngium foetidum L.), Indian sago (Canna indica L.) reported a karyotype formula with five satellites (Table 2).
were presented in Table 2. The karyotypes and idiograms The short arm length ranged from 1.16±0.07 to 2.28±0.10
varied in composition for each chromosome shape μm, the long arm length ranged from 2.10±0.11 to
amongbothspecimens (Figures 3, 4). The karyotype 4.01±0.30 μm and the total chromosome length ranged
formulas of the taros are as follows: from 3.33±0.11 to 6.07±0.35 μm. The relative length of the
Green Taro (Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott.) = 2n = karyotype is a value between 3.92 to 7.15% (Table 4). The
28 = 14m+10sm+4st (2 sat) centromeric indexes were 0.50 – 0.68 (Table 4, Figures 2B,
Black Taro (C. esculenta (L.) Schott.) = 2n = 42 = 3B, 4B). The created ideogram was based on the lengths of
20m+20sm+2st (3 sat) the chromosome arms and presented the point
Asiatic leaf (Centella asiatica (L.) Urb.) = 2n = 18 = ofthecentromere (Figure 4B).
18sm
Dill (Eryngium foetidum L.) = 2n = 16 = 2m+14sm
Indian sago (Canna indica L.) = 2n = 27 = 2m+25sm

Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott. (green taro and black

taro)
The results indicated that the somatic chromosome
number of green taro was 2n = 28 (Figure 2A). This was
the same as several other workers who studied the
chromosome numbers of C. esculenta (L.) Schott, as
present in Table 2, such as Ramachandran (1978);
Kuruvilla and Singh (1981); Zhang and Yang (1984); A B
Tanimoto and Matsumoto (1986); Coates et al. (1988);
Subramanian and Munian (1988); Huang et al. (1989); Figure 2. Somatic metaphase chromosomes of taros (C.
Kuruvilla et al. (1989); Li (1989); Sreekumari and Mathew esculenta (L.) Schott). A. Green taro showing 2n = 28, B.
(1989); Zhang (1998); Ivancic and Lebot (1999), black taro showing 2n = 42, scale bars = 5 µm
Senavongse et al. (2018), The NF was found to be 56. The
karyotype formula was found to be asymmetrical, including
14 metacentric (m) pairs, 10 submetacentric (sm) pairs and
four subtelocentric (st) and two visible satellites, and its
formula was 14m+10sm+4st (2sat) (Figures 3A, 4A and
Table 2), which was inconsistent with a previous study by
Sreekumari and Mathew (1991a) who was reported the
karyotype formulae 20m+8sm, 20m+6sm+2a,
18m+8sm+2a, 22m+2sm+6a and 6m+12sm+10a (Table 2).
In addition, Senavongse et al. (2018) reported differences Figure 3. Karyotypes of taros (C. esculenta (L.) Schott). A.
from this study for the karyotype formula with five Green taro (2n = 28 = 14m+10sm+4st (2sat), B. Black taro
satellites (Table 2), due to the effects of environmental (2n = 42 = 20m+20sm+ 2st (3sat)). Arrows indicate
factors. The short arm length ranged from 1.03±0.11 to
satellites, scale bars = 5 µm
2.29±0.26 μm, the long arm length ranged from 1.58±0.10
to 4.68±0.54 μm and the total chromosome length ranged
5320 B I OD I V E R S I TA S 22 (12):5317-5324, December 2021

Table 2. Chromosome numbers and karyological study of Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott, Centella asiatica (L.) Urb., Eryngium
foetidum L. and Canna indica L. were investigated in this study and those studied previously

Chromosome Karyotype
Family Species NF Satellite Location Previous studied
numbers (2n) formula
Araceae Colocasia 28, 42 ̶ ̶ ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ India Ramachandran (1978)
esculenta (L.) 28, 42 ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ India Kuruvilla and Singh (1981)
Schott 28, 42 ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ China Zhang and Yang (1984)
28, 42 ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ Japan Tanimoto and Matsumoto (1986)
28, 42 56, 84 ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ Australia Coates et al. (1988)
42 84 ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ India Subramanian and Munian (1988)
36 ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ China Huang et al. (1989)
28 ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ China Li (1989)
28 ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ India Sreekumari and Mathew (1989)
28 ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ India Kuruvilla et al. (1989)
28 56 20m+8sm ̶̶̶ India Sreekumari and Mathew (1991a)
28 (II) 56 20m+6sm+2a ̶̶̶ India Sreekumari and Mathew (1991a)
28 (III) 56 18m+8sm+2a ̶̶̶ India Sreekumari and Mathew (1991a)
28 (IV) 56 22m+2sm+6a ̶̶̶ India Sreekumari and Mathew (1991a)
28 (V) 56 6m+12sm+10a ̶̶̶ India Sreekumari and Mathew (1991a)
28 ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ India Sreekumari and Mathew (1991b)
42, 84 ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ India Sreekumari and Mathew (1991)
28, 42 ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ India Sreekumari and Mathew (1995)
42 ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ China Zhang (1998)
28 ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ New Caledonia Ivancic and Lebot (1999)
42 84 38m+4sm ̶̶̶ Bangladesh Parvin et al. (2008)
28 56 24m+4sm ̶̶̶ Thailand Senavongse et al. (2018)
28 56 20m+8sm 8(SCR), Thailand Senavongse et al. (2018)
2(STR)
28 56 22m+6sm 10(SCR) Thailand Senavongse et al. (2018)
28 56 24m+4sm ̶̶̶ Thailand Senavongse et al. (2018)
28 56 14m+14sm ̶̶̶ Thailand Senavongse et al. (2018)
28 56 14m+10sm+4st 2(SCR) Thailand Present study (Green taro)
42 84 20m+20sm+ 2st 3(SCR) Thailand Present study (Black taro)

Apiaceae Centella 18, 36 ̶ ̶ ̶ ̶ Australia Kokubugata et al. (1998)

asiatica (L.) and Japan
Urb. 18 36* 18sm* ̶ ̶ Thailand Present study

Eryngium 16 ̶ ̶ ̶ ̶ ̶ ̶ Brazil Guerra (1986)

foetidum L. 16 ̶ ̶ ̶ ̶ ̶ ̶ India Hore (1980)
16 32* 2m+14sm* ̶ ̶ Thailand Present study

Cannaceae Canna indica L. 18, 27 ̶ ̶ ̶ ̶ ̶ ̶ Japan Belling (1925)

27 54* 2m+25sm* ̶ ̶ Thailand Present study
Note: *the first time report, M: metacentric chromosome, sm: submetacentric chromosome, a: acrocentric chromosome, st:
subtelocentric chromosome, STR: subtelomeric region, SCR: subcentromeric regions, ̶: not available

chromosome number of green taro might be diploid

because it was found to be the dominant characteristic in
light green petioles and leaves, including light cream inside
corm, and the chromosome number of black taro might be
triploid because it was found to be the dominant
characteristic in dark petioles and leaves, including dark
A B inside corm, which was consistent with the report of Coates
Figure 4. Idiograms of taros (C. esculenta (L.) Schott). A.Green et al. (1988). They reported the somatic chromosome
taro, B.Black taro numbers of C. esculenta (L.) Schott as 28 and 42, which
characterized this species to be diploid and triploid,
However, the chromosome number of taro (C. esculenta
respectively. This study found karyotype asymmetry with
(L.) Schott) agrees with the majority of previous reports
satellite-chromosomes, while Senavongse et al. (2018)
(Table 2), while Sharma and Sarkar (1963) reported 2n =
reported karyotype symmetry with satellite-chromosomes
22, 26, 38 and Huang et al. (1989) reported 2n = 36, which
of C. esculenta (L.) Schott because of the effects of
are consistent with Senavongse et al. (2018) who reported
environmental factors. These cytological data can be used
various chromosome numbers for C. esculenta (L.) Schott.
as evidence in the study of evolutionary relationships and
Comparative morphology between the taros found that the
 SAENSOUKet al. –Karyotype analysis of edible plants in northeastern Thailand 5321

can also help to identify the species (Senavongse et al.

2020) as an important taxonomic character (Wahidi and
Nursyahra 2018). Idiograms of both taros are reported for
the first time. A
In this study, the chromosome numbers of the taro
specimens, green taro and black taro (C. esculenta (L.)
Schott) are different, green taro (2n = 28) and black taro
(2n = 42) (Figure 2 and Table 2). The taros have
asymmetrical karyotypes, which differ in chromosome
structure, including number of metacentric, submetacentric B
and subtelocentric and the position of satellite-
chromosomes as the morphological characteristics of the
taro specimens have similar morphologies, but mainly
differ in their morphology (petiole color, leaf color, inside
corm color), as shown in Figure 1 and Table 1. Therefore, C
the chromosome number, karyotype formula, chromosome
structure, position of satellite-chromosomes and idiograms
can be used for classification of both specimens of taro in
this study.
Figure 6. Chromosome of Eryngium foetidum L. A. Somatic
Centella asiatica (L.) Urb. metaphase chromosome number showing 2n = 16, B. Karyotype
The cytogenetic of Centella asiatica (L.) Urb. was showing 2m + 14sm, C. Idiogram, scale bars = 5 µm
found that the somatic chromosome number of C. asiatica
(L.) Urb. was presented tobe 18 (Figure 5A), which was
consistent with the reports of Kokubugata et al. (1998)
(Table 2). The NF was found to be 36. The karyotype
formula of this species was an asymmetrical, karyotype 18
sm, including 18 pairs submetacentric (sm)-type (Figures A
5B, 5C and Table 2). The short arm length ranged from
0.53±0.03 to 0.94±0.21 μm, the long arm length ranged
from 0.89±0.09 to 1.61±0.31 μm and the total chromosome
length ranged from 1.42±0.12 to 2.55±0.43 μm. The
relative length of the karyotype is a value between 8.18 to B
14.62 % (Table 5). The centromeric indexes were 0.54-0.73
(Table 5 and Figures 5B, 5C). The created ideogram was
based on the lengths of the chromosome arms and
presented the point of the centromere (Figure 5C). The NF,
the karyotype, RL, CI and ideogram of C. asiatica were C
reported for the first time (Tables 2, 5).

Figure 7. Chromosome of Canna indica L. A. Somatic metaphase

chromosome number showing 2n = 27, B. Karyotype showing 2m
A + 25sm, C. Idiogram, scale bars = 5 µm

Eryngium foetidum L.
The cytogenetic of Eryngium foetidum L. was found
B that the chromosome number of E. foetidum L. was
presented the somatic chromosome number to be 16
(Figure 6A), which was consistent with the reports of
Guerra (1986) and Hore (1980) (Table 2). The NF was
found to be 32. The karyotype formula of this species was
an asymmetrical, karyotype 2m+14sm, including two pair
C metacentric (m)-type and 14 pairs submetacentric (sm)-
type (Figures 6B, 6C and Table 2). The short arm length
ranged from 0.58±0.11 to 1.06±0.16 μm, the long arm
length ranged from 1.01±0.14 to 2.23±0.38 μm and the
Figure 5. Chromosome of C. asiatica A. Somatic metaphase
total chromosome length ranged from 1.60±0.28 to
chromosome number showing 2n = 18, B. Karyotype showing
18sm, C. Idiogram, scale bars = 5 µm 3.29±0.32 μm. The relative length of the karyotype is a
5322 B I OD I V E R S I TA S 22 (12):5317-5324, December 2021

value between 10.73 to 22.51% (Table 6). The centromeric species was an asymmetrical, karyotype 2m+25sm,
indexes were 0.59-0.69 (Table 6; Figures 6B, 6C). The including two pair metacentric (sm)-type and 25pairs
created ideogram was based on the lengths of the (Figures 7B, 7C and Table 2). The short arm length ranged
chromosome arms and presented the point of the from 0.53±0.03 to 0.94±0.21 μm, the long arm length
centromere (Figure 6C). The NF, the karyotype, RL, CI ranged from 0.89±0.09 to 1.61±0.31 μm and the total
and ideogram of E. foetidum L. were reported for the first chromosome length ranged from 1.42±0.12 to 2.55±0.43
time (Tables 2, 6). μm. The relative length of the karyotype is a value between
8.18 to 14.62 % (Table 7). The centromeric indexes were
Canna indica L. 0.54-0.73 (Table 7; Figures 7B, 7C). The created ideogram
The cytogenetic of Canna indica L. was found that the was based on the lengths of the chromosome arms and
chromosome number of C. indica L. was presented the presented the point of the centromere (Fiure 7C). The NF,
somatic chromosome number tobe 27 (Figure 7A), which the karyotype, RL, CI and ideogram of C. indica L. were
was consistent with the reports of Belling (1925) (Table 2). reported for the first time (Tables 2, 7).
The NF was found to be 54. The karyotype formula of this

Table 3. Mean length of short arm chromosome (Ls), long arm chromosome (Ll), total arm chromosome (LT), relative length (RL),
centromeric index (CI), standard deviation (SD) of RL and CI from 20 metaphases of green taro (C. esculenta (L.) Schott) (2n = 28)

Chromosomepair Ls (µm) ± SD Ll (µm) ± SD LT (µm) ±SD RL (%) CI Chromosome type

1 2.29±0.26 4.68±0.54 6.97±0.54 10.49 0.59 Metracentric
2 2.23±0.21 3.85±0.24 6.08±0.27 9.20 0.50 Metracentric
3 1.94±0.20 3.87±0.38 5.81±0.51 8.78 0.66 Submetracentric
4 1.85±0.11 3.56±0.07 5.41±0.18 8.19 0.51 Metracentric
5 2.02±0.05 3.19±0.21 5.22±0.19 7.90 0.62 Submetracentric
*6 1.98±0.25 3.19±0.45 5.18±0.69 7.84 0.61 Submetracentric
*7 1.62±0.12 3.23±0.09 4.85±0.06 7.36 0.58 Metracentric
8 1.53±0.14 3.16±0.11 4.69±0.21 7.08 0.61 Submetracentric
9 1.41±0.37 2.96±0.60 4.37±0.96 6.62 0.68 Submetracentric
10 1.63±0.22 2.47±0.19 4.10±0.21 6.21 0.59 Metracentric
11 1.40±0.10 2.43±0.15 3.82±0.09 5.77 0.55 Metracentric
12 1.43±0.39 2.23±0.54 3.66±0.81 5.52 0.53 Metracentric
13 1.21±0.06 2.22±0.18 3.42±0.18 5.18 0.72 Subtelocentric
14 1.03±0.11 1.58±0.10 2.61±0.19 3.87 0.70 Subtelocentric
Note: *Satellite chromosome

Table 4. Mean length of short arm chromosome (Ls), long arm chromosome (Ll), total arm chromosome (LT), relative length (RL),
centromeric index (CI), standard deviation (SD) of RL and CI from 20 metaphases of black taro (C. esculenta (L.) Schott) (2n = 42)

Chromosome pair Ls (µm) ± SD Ll (µm) ± SD LT (µm) ±SD RL (%) CI Chromosome type

1 2.06±0.16 4.01±0.30 6.07±0.35 7.15 0.66 Submetracentric
*2 2.28±0.10 3.23±0.09 5.51±0.13 6.49 0.57 Metracentric
3 2.01±0.06 3.22±0.05 5.23±0.06 6.17 0.58 Metracentric
4 1.93±0.07 3.01±0.14 4.94±0.17 5.84 0.68 Submetracentric
5 1.71±0.17 3.06±0.33 4.77±0.40 5.64 0.52 Metracentric
6 1.72±0.19 2.91±0.16 4.63±0.09 5.47 0.51 Metracentric
7 1.53±0.08 2.97±0.12 4.50±0.07 5.32 0.66 Submetracentric
8 1.66±0.08 2.75±0.09 4.41±0.06 5.21 0.62 Submetracentric
9 1.58±0.29 2.66±0.37 4.24±0.64 5.02 0.66 Submetracentric
10 1.48±0.12 2.61±0.12 4.10±0.07 4.84 0.60 Submetracentric
11 1.61±0.05 2.35±0.11 3.95±0.07 4.67 0.50 Metracentric
12 1.55±0.08 2.32±0.08 3.87±0.09 4.57 0.51 Metracentric
13 1.50±0.34 2.21±0.54 3.71±0.87 4.38 0.55 Metracentric
*14 1.32±0.25 2.31±0.18 3.62±0.13 4.27 0.68 Submetracentric
15 1.16±0.07 2.34±0.09 3.50±0.16 4.12 0.67 Submetracentric
16 1.22±0.06 2.10±0.11 3.33±0.11 3.92 0.52 Metracentric
17 1.15±0.16 2.18±0.61 3.33±0.75 3.92 0.70 Subtelocentric
18 1.11±0.24 1.98±0.19 3.09±0.23 3.65 0.59 Metracentric
19 1.00±0.14 1.96±0.12 2.96±0.06 3.50 0.58 Metracentric
20 1.11±0.07 1.63±0.05 2.74±0.05 3.25 0.62 Submetracentric
21 0.89±0.11 1.31±0.23 2.20±0.32 2.59 0.63 Submetracentric
Note: *Satellite chromosome
 SAENSOUKet al. –Karyotype analysis of edible plants in northeastern Thailand 5323

Table 5. Mean length of short arm chromosome (Ls), long arm chromosome (Ll), total arm chromosome (LT), relative length (RL),
centromeric index (CI), standard deviation (SD) of RL and CI from 20 metaphases of Centella asiatica (L.) Urb. (2n = 18)

Chromosomepair Ls (µm) ± SD Ll (µm) ± SD LT (µm) ±SD RL (%) CI Chromosome type

1 0.94±0.21 1.61±0.31 2.55±0.43 14.62 0.63 Submetracentric
2 0.79±0.17 1.53±0.34 2.32±0.48 13.29 0.65 Submetracentric
3 0.76±0.11 1.40±0.16 2.16±0.22 12.40 0.64 Submetracentric
4 0.63±0.08 1.40±0.21 2.03±0.27 11.67 0.68 Submetracentric
5 0.63±0.08 1.24±0.13 1.87±0.15 10.77 0.66 Submetracentric
6 0.70±0.16 1.07±0.27 1.76±0.41 10.18 0.60 Submetracentric
7 0.64±0.05 1.06±0.19 1.69±0.22 9.78 0.62 Submetracentric
8 0.61±0.17 0.96±0.23 1.57±0.39 9.11 0.61 Submetracentric
9 0.53±0.03 0.89±0.09 1.42±0.12 8.18 0.63 Submetracentric

Table 6. Mean length of short arm chromosome (Ls), long arm chromosome (Ll), total arm chromosome (LT), relative length (RL),
centromeric index (CI), standard deviation (SD) of RL and CI from 20 metaphases of Eryngium foetidum L. (2n = 16)

Chromosomepair Ls (µm) ± SD Ll (µm) ± SD LT (µm) ±SD RL(%) CI Chromosome type

1 1.06±0.16 2.23±0.38 3.29±0.32 22.51 0.68 Submetracentric
2 0.83±0.06 1.88±0.39 2.71±0.43 18.24 0.69 Submetracentric
3 0.83±0.13 1.55±0.37 2.38±0.44 15.89 0.64 Submetracentric
4 0.76±0.18 1.39±0.32 2.15±0.43 14.27 0.65 Submetracentric
5 0.70±0.14 1.27±0.29 1.96±0.35 13.10 0.64 Submetracentric
6 0.74±0.11 1.07±0.29 1.81±0.40 12.13 0.59 Metracentric
7 0.58±0.11 1.13±0.31 1.71±0.42 11.36 0.66 Submetracentric
8 0.60±0.17 1.01±0.14 1.60±0.28 10.73 0.63 Submetracentric

Table 7. Mean length of short arm chromosome (Ls), long arm chromosome (Ll), total arm chromosome (LT), relative length (RL),
centromeric index (CI), standard deviation (SD) of RL and CI from 20 metaphases of Canna indica L. (2n = 27)

Chromosome pair Ls (µm) ± SD Ll (µm) ± SD LT (µm) ±SD RL (%) CI Chromosome type

1 1.13±0.22 1.97±0.18 3.10±0.13 10.02 0.63 Submetracentric
2 0.95±0.16 1.94±0.14 2.90±0.13 9.33 0.66 Submetracentric
3 0.86±0.19 1.91±0.83 2.76±0.99 8.90 0.69 Submetracentric
4 0.85±0.08 1.84±0.34 2.68±0.34 8.63 0.68 Submetracentric
5 0.92±0.07 1.57±0.22 2.49±0.23 8.01 0.63 Submetracentric
6 0.87±0.28 1.49±0.83 2.36±1.08 7.61 0.63 Submetracentric
7 0.67±0.14 1.56±0.17 2.23±0.21 7.21 0.69 Submetracentric
8 0.72±0.13 1.44±0.33 2.16±0.41 7.00 0.67 Submetracentric
9 0.74±0.31 1.33±0.43 2.07±0.72 6.72 0.64 Submetracentric
10 0.76±0.08 1.21±0.16 1.97±0.14 6.38 0.61 Submetracentric
11 0.64±0.06 1.10±0.06 1.74±0.12 5.68 0.63 Submetracentric
12 0.65±0.22 1.04±0.30 1.69±0.48 5.51 0.62 Submetracentric
13 0.60±0.09 0.90±0.04 1.50±0.08 4.91 0.60 Submetracentric
14 0.53±0.10 0.72±0.20 1.25±0.20 4.10 0.58 Metracentric

In conclusion, this studies,the karyotype, NF, RL, CI (petiole color, leaf color, inside corm color). The
and ideogramof chromosome study from edible aquatic chromosome numbers and karyotype formula from root
plants from Maha Sarakham province, Thailand belongs to tips of both taros were 2n = 28 = 14m+10sm+4st (2sat)
family Apiaceae (two species i.e. Centella asiatica (L.) with NF = 56 for green taro and 2n = 42 = 20m+20sm+ 2st
Urb. and Eryngium foetidum L.) and family Cannaceae (3sat) with NF = 84 for black taro. Therefore, karyotypes of
(one species, Canna indica L.) were reported for the first both taros were taken asymmetrical but differ in NF,
time. In addition, one more species of edible aquatic plants chromosome structure, including number of metacentric,
in this study, namely Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott or submetacentric and subtelocentric and the position of
taro (comprise of two variants, green taro and black taro) satellite-chromosomes. Therefore, the morphology, the
was studied comparative some morphologies and chromosome number, karyotype formula, chromosome
chromosome. The result found that the morphological structure, position of satellite-chromosomes and ideogram
characteristics of both taros specimens have similar can be used for classification of both taros in this study.
morphologies, but mainly differ in their morphologies
5324 B I OD I V E R S I TA S 22 (12):5317-5324, December 2021

From available literatures were found that ideograms of Li RQ. 1989. Studies on Karyotypes of Vegetables in China. Wuhan
University Press, Wuhan.
both taros were never reported from previously study. Parvin S, Kabir G, Ud-Deen MM, Sarker JK. 2008. Karyotype analysis of
seven varieties of taro Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott. from
Bangladesh. J Biol Sci 16: 15-18. DOI: 10.3329/jbs.v16i0.3735.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Pholhiamhan R, Saensouk S, Saensouk P. 2018. Ethnobotany of Phu Thai
ethnic group in Nakhon Phanom province, Thailand. Walailak J Sci
Technol 15 (10): 679-699. DOI: 10.48048/wjst.2018.3737.
This research was financially supported by Walai Ramachandran K. 1978. Cytological studies on South Indian Araceae.
Rukhavej Botanical Research Institute, Mahasarakham Cytologia 43: 289-303.
University through the Biodiversity and Conservation Saensouk S, Saensouk P, Senavongse R. 2019. Karyological study in three
Thailand species of Colocasia (Araceae). Cytologia 84: 179-182.
Research Unit, Walai Rukhavej Botanical Research DOI: 10.1508/cytologia.84.179.
Institute, Mahasarakham University, Thailand (FY2020). Saensouk S, Saensouk P. 2021a. Karyotype analysis of three species of
We appreciate support from the Walai Rukhavej Botanical Allium (Amaryllidaceae) from Thailand. Biodiversitas 22 (8): 3458-
Research Institute, Mahasarakham University, Maha 3466. DOI: 10.13057/biodiv/d220844.
Saensouk P, Saensouk S. 2021b. Diversity and cytological studies on the
Sarakham, Thailand for facilities during research. Many genus Amomum Roxb. former Elettariopsis Baker (Zingiberaceae) in
thanks to my family and friends for their support and help Thailand. Biodiversitas 22 (6): 3209-3218. DOI:
in the field. Many thanks to Dr. Jolyon Dodgson who is 10.13057/biodiv/d220624.
agriculturist, crop scientist, plant pathologist from UK for Senavongse R, Saensouk S, Saensouk P. .2018Comparative karyotype
analysis in five strains of Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott (Araceae) in
language editing and suggestions to improve the Thailand. Cytologia 83: 169-173. DOI: 10.1508/cytologia.83.169.
manuscript. Senavongse R, Saensouk S, Saensouk, P. 2020. Karyological study of
three native species of the genus Alocasia (Araceae) in the northeast
of Thailand. Nucleus 63: 81-85. DOI: 10.1007/s13237-019-00278-z.
Sharma AK, Sarkar AK. 1963. Cytological analysis of different cytotypes
REFERENCES of Colocasia antiquorum. Bull Bot Soc Bengal 17: 16-22.
Subramanian D, Munian M. 1988. Cytotaxonomical studies in South
Belling J. 1925. Chromosomes of Canna and of Hemerocallis. J Heredity Indian Araceae. Cytologia 53: 59-66.
16 (12): 465-466. Sreekumari MT, Mathew PM. 1989. Karyomorphology of six cultivars of
Boyce PC, Sookchaloem D. 2012. Araceae. In: Santisuk, T. and Larsen, taro (Colocasia esculenta Schott). New Bot 16: 127-135.
K. (eds.). Flora of Thailand. Prachachon Co., Ltd., Bangkok. Sreekumari MT, Mathew PM. 1991. Effect of colchicine treatment in a
Coates DJ, Yen DE, Gaffey PM. 1988. Chromosome Variation in Taro, triploid variety of taro (Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott). New Bot 18:
Colocasia esculenta: Implications for origin in the Pacific. Cytologia 211-215.
53: 551-560. Sreekumari MT, Mathew PM. 1991a. Karyomorphology of five
Gogoi R, Borah S. 2013. Two new species and a new record for Colocasia morphotypes of taro (Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott). Cytologia 56:
(Araceae: Colocasieae) from Arunachal Pradesh. Northeast India. 215-218.
Gard Bull Sing 65: 27-37. Sreekumari MT, Mathew PM. 1991b. Karyotypically distinct
Guerra M. 1986. Citogenetica de Angiospermas coletadas en Pernambuco. morphotypes in taro (Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott). Cytologia 56:
Brazilian J Genet 9: 21-40. 399-402.
Hore A. 1980. Structure and behaviour of chromosomes as an aid to the Sreekumari MT, Mathew PM. 1995. Karyotype distinction in Indian taros.
study of phylogeny of Umbelliferae with special reference to the tribe J Cytol Genet 30: 143-149.
Apieae (Ammineae) and Saniculeae. Cytologia 45: 389-402. Stebbins GL. 1971. Chromosomal Evolution in Higher Plants. Edward
Huang SF, Zhao ZF, Chen ZY, Chen SJ, Huang XX. 1989. Chromosome Arnold, London.
counts on one hundred species and infraspecific taxa. Acta Bot Austr Tanimoto T, Matsumoto T. 1986. Variations of morphological characters
Sin 5: 161-176. and isozyme patterns in Japanese cultivars of Colocasia esculenta
Ivancic A, Lebot V. 1999. Botany and genetics of New Caledonian wild Schott and C. gigantea Hook. Japanese J Breed 36: 100-111.
taro, Colocasia esculenta. Pacific Sci 53: 273-285. Wahidi I, Nursyahra. 2018. Starch and karyotype study of taro (Colocasia
Kokubugata G, Kondo K, Randall LM. 1998. Intraspecific polyploidy in esculenta L.) from West Sumatra, Indonesia. Intl J Sci Res Pub 8:
Centella asiastica and their karyotypes in five populations in 256-260. DOI: 10.29322/IJSRP.8.10.2018.p8233.
Australia and Japan. Chromosome Sci 2: 43-46. Zhang CS. 1998. A preliminary study on making plant chromosomal
Kuruvilla KM, Singh A. 1981. Karyotypic and electrophoretic studies on specimens using peppermint oil compound as pretreatment agent. J
taro and its origin. Euphytica 30: 405-413. Wuhan Bot Res 16: 280-282.
Kuruvilla KM, Dutt B, Roy RP. 1989. Karyomorphological investigations Zhang GM, Yang ZH. 1984. Studies on chromosome numbers of main
on aroids of North-Eastern Hills. J Cytol Genet 24: 13-22. cultivars of Colocasia esculenta in China. Acta Hort Sin 11: 187-190.