Exploring the Influence of Environmental Factors on

Eggplant (Solanum melongena) Phenotypic Variation: An

Analysis of Norms of Reaction

Atason, Abdul Maher C.

Bansag, John Paul

Cañete, Kian J.

Mambulao, Celestine M.

Montemayor, Christian Rey

BSBIO-II

May 2023

In partial fulfilment of the requirements in (Bio-103 Evolutionary Biology)

Submitted to Professor Giovanne G. Tampos
 Rationale

Norms of reaction is one of the major challenges in ecology and evolution.

Investigating the evolutionary divergence in reaction of norms such as length, mass,

and height, of plants in different atmospheric condition is one of the approach that

provide new insights in the field of evolution. Variation in responses among taxa

indicate that attributes of reaction norms have evolved, and such variation represents

raw material for further evolution of traits and their responses across environments

(Pfennig et al. 2010). Thus, environmental condition such as white cover, black cover,

plastic cover, direct, and indirect sunlight can alter the growth of plants to adapt to a

certain environment and thats what they called norms of reaction.

The variation in phenotype in response to the environment is graphically

represented as a reaction norm, a plot of phenotype versus environmental values

(Bradshaw 1965; Sultan 1987; Schlichting and Pigliucci 1998). In some portion of

ecotypes, maybe survive or not in a certain environmental condition this due to the lack

of resources needed by plants. most plants compete for the same resources (light,

water, and nutrients) that could need by them to survive (Silvertown and Charlesworth,

2001).

This study focuses on the norms of reaction of Eggplant (Solanum melongena) in

different atmospherical condition such as white cover, black cover, plastic cover, direct

sunlight, and indirect sunlight. Thus, reaction of plants such growth, Height, leaf area

(width and length), mean plant weight and number of leaves will be determined every

week and record. In addition, same soil and fertilizer are used in five (5) ecotypes in
their respective environmental treatment. By examining the patterns of norms of

reaction divergence, the researcher begins to investigate how evolutionary forces have

shaped differences in continuous reaction norms through time.

We examine these data to answer the following three (3) questions about the

evolution of reaction norms: (1) Do any of these components, such as white cover, black

cover, plastic cover, direct and indirect sunlight, appear to be constrained and could

potentially contribute to reaction norm variation consistent with mechanisms such as

lack of available genetic variation? (2) Do patterns of reaction norm differences depend

on the type of organism, trait, or environment considered? (3) Is reaction norm

divergence greater among species than among populations within species?

This study will provide new insights and knowledge to students and readers

about the reaction of Eggplant (Solanum melongena) in respective environmental

treatment, in addition this could lead to a new idea on what is compatible treatment of

eggplant (Solanum melongena) in Interco Street, Guinggona Purok Sumikap-2 Mati

Davao Oriental.
 Methodology

This study entitled “Exploring the Influence of Environmental Factors on Eggplant

(Solanum melongena) Phenotypic Variation: An Analysis of Norms of Reaction”,

conducted at Interco Street, Guinggona Purok Sumikap-2, Mati, Davao Oriental. The

area is characterized by the presence of various weeds and interspersed coconut trees

and has sandy and gravelly soil.

Figure 1. Interco Street, Guinggona Purok Sumikap-2 Mati Davao Oriental.

In this research, five environmental factors were used to determine the norms of

reaction of eggplant (Solanum melongena): white cloth shade, black cloth shade,
transparent plastic shade, direct sunlight, and indirect sunlight. The plants were watered

every day, and phenotypic variations such as plant height, leaf area, and number of

leaves were observed and tallied every week. On the last day of observation, the

researcher weighs the plant leaves, stem, and roots in analytical balance and calculate

the total plant mass and leaf weight ratio, will be determined through the used of light

meter device, respectively, to investigate the environmental factors that affect the

phenotypic variation of the plants. The soil used for each environmental factor will be the

same, consisting of sandy soil mixed with organic fertilizer.

Data analysis

In terms of the validity and authenticity of the data, the researcher performed

different calculations such as Leaf Area Ratio (LAR), Specific Leaf Area (SLA), and

Mean Leaf Area (MLA), as proposed by Brower et al. in 1969.

Formulas:

Leaf Area Ratio (LAR) = Total area of leaves (leaf area) per total plant weight (cm2/g)

LAR (cm2/g) = LWR x SLA

Leaf Weight Ratio (LWR) = Total weight of leaves per total plant weight (g/g)

Specific Leaf Area (SLA) = Total area of leaves (leaf area) per total weight of leaves

(cm2/g)
 Result

Mean Plant Height

In mean plant height determination, the researchers undergo measurements of

plant height of every treatment in every week and calculate the data which the total

count of height of specific treatment divided by number of weeks interval.

Table 1: Mean Plant Height

Treatment Height (cm)

white cover 7.942857143

black cover 5.1

plastic cover 7.085714286

direct sunlight 6.314285714

indirect sunlight 6.971428571

In table 1 incorporates the mean plant height, which the white cover treatment

had a high value which 7.94 folowed by plastic cover which had 7.08, the indirect

sunlight which had 6.97 this due to the favorable environment in such treatment while

direct sunlight had 6.31 due to sunlight directly towards the plant and black cover had

lower value of height which 5.1 due to lack of sunlight availability.

Table 2: Mean Plant Weight.

Treatment Weight (g)

White cover 19.666

Black cover 4.5659

Plastic cover 7.0581

Direct sunlight 13.729

Indirect sunlight 11.1459

In table 2: the mean plant weight integrate the weight of every treatment, white

cover had value 19.7 (grams) this means of highest growth rate which lead to massive

weight compare to four (4) treatments. The direct sunlight had valued 13.7 this due to

nutrients and minerals absorb by plants, while indirect sunlight had 11.14 lead to 3 rd

high weight which dominant the two (2) treatment. The plastic cover had 7.05 this

means that plastic cover had slow growth and black cover had valued 4.57 which led

slower weight this due to lack of resources such sunlight.

In mean leaf area which can get in Specific Leaf Area (SLA) = Total area of

leaves (leaf area) per total weight of leaves (cm2/g) which only we get the average for

brief and concise data.

 Mean Leaf Area White cover
18 Black cover
mean leaf area (grams/cm²)

16 Plastic cover
14 Direct
12 Indirect
10
8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Weeks

Table 3: Mean Leaf Area of Plants Leaves.

The graph above represents the mean leaf area of Eggplant (Solanum

melongena) in every week, this data provides the phenotypic variation among treatment.

In week 1 white cover had in a lower portion of mean leaf area, the same in a week 2, 3,

4, this happens because the plants were new into environmental condition which it

doesn’t change their adaptation, while in week five (5) dominate other treatments which

has high mean leaf area followed by indirect sunlight, black cover, direct sunlight and

white cover. In week 6 indirect sunlight dominate other treatment this changes in their

area of leaves lead to adaptation on giving environmental conditions, which followed by

black cover, white cover, direct sunlight, and plastic cover.

 While in week 7 Eggplant (Solanum melongena) already adapt the certain

environment which lead to declination of plant adaptability to a specific environmental

condition, indirect sunlight had a high mean leaf area because they need a maximum

amount of sunlight for the photosynthesis, while white cover also had a mean leaf area,

nevertheless plastic cover and direct sunlight had almost the same mean leaf area this

for the reason that in plastic cover could be the same temperature in direct although it

has a cover but the sun will still hit and pass the plastic cover. The black cover had a

lower mean leaf area because the survival rate in black cover could be possible this due

to lack of sunlight which need by them in growing development.

number of leaves White cover

9 Black cover
Plastic cover
8
Direct
7 Indirect

6
Leaf count

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Weeks

Table 4: number of leaves.

In the first week of plant growth, plants with white covers and direct sunlight have

the same number of leaves as those with black covers, plastic covers, and indirect
sunlight. Based on the data outputs, the second week was remarkably comparable to

the first week indicating no changes. The same number of leaves are present in the

third week despite the white coating and direct sunlight. The number of leaves for these

species is higher than for those with white covers and direct sunlight despite having the

same amount of indirect, plastic, and black cover.

The number of leaves on the white cover, black cover, and areas exposed to

direct sunlight were identical in the fourth week, while the black cover still had the same

number of leaves as in the third week. Their leaves grow because of the plastic cover

and indirect sunlight; yet the number of leaves remained constant from the fourth to the

fifth weeks. When compared to other plants, the white cover's number of leaves swiftly

increases in the sixth week and reaches a high level, followed by the plastic cover and

indirect sunlight, which have an equal number of leaves, and the black cover and direct

sunlight, which have a lower number of leaves. In the 7th week which is the last week

before we were going to harvest the plants, the white cover and direct sunlight are the

same that having a high amount number of leaves. followed by the plastic cover, indirect

sunlight and black cover which have a small amount number of leaves. This data shows

the number of leaves depend on the environmental treatment.

 Leaf Area Ratio White cover
Black cover
12
Plastic cover
10 Direct
leaf Area (cm²/grams )

8 Indirect

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Weeks

Figure 5: Leaf Area ratio.

The bar graph above represents the leaf area ratio of plants in every week, in

week 1 plastic cover had high leaf area ratio this means that plastic cover had received

maximum amount of sunlight. The same in week 2, 3, 4, 5, this due to plants still

adapting the environment which slower growth. In week six (6) plastic cover had high

leaf area ratio followed by indirect sunlight, white cover, black cover and direct sunlight,

the high the leaf area ratio area more efficient at capturing the light and producing

biomass. In week 7, the plant in every treatment already adapts those available

resources in their respective environmental conditions, white cover leading at the high

leaf area ratio, followed by plastic cover, indirect sunlight, and direct sunlight this means
that white cover had high chance of efficiency in capturing the light and producing

biomass. While black cover had slower leaf area ratio mean had insufficient in capturing

the light and lower in producing biomass which altered the growth of plants in black

cover.

Discussion

Evolutionary Divergence in Norms of Reaction of Eggplant (Solanum melongena)

had lead to different phenotypic variation of plants in every environmental treatment.

(Table 1) result of phenotypic variation such as height, white cover had high mean plant

height, differ from plastic cover, indirect sunlight, direct sunlight and black cover. In this

scenario white cover had high height value due to environment which received

maximum amount of heat from the sun that can gives a plant a normal growth, black

cover had a lowest mean plant height because of lacking of sunlight, the ecotypes of

black cover could later die because of the absence of sunlight in it’s environment. This

result highlights the importance of microevolutionary changes in phenotypic plasticity in

many plant (Kirkpatrick and Heckman 1989). In addition those microevolutionary

changes can lead to a new phenotype that adapt by species to a new environment.

In (table 2) the phenotypic variation such as weight, white cover dominate the

other treatment. The white cover can help to reduce the intensity of the light that

reaches the plant, providing a more diffused light that the plant can use more efficiently.

This can prevent sunburn and damage to the plant’s tissues, allowing it to focus more

on growth. While direct sunlight had also low plant weight, due to the intensity of the
light that too high for the plant to handle, leading to sunburn and damage to the plant’s

tissues. In a plastic cover plastic can trap heat and humidity, creating a greenhouse

effect that raises the temperature and reduces air circulation. This can cause the plant

to become stressed, leading to slow growth or even death in extreme cases also plastic

cover prevent the rainfall reaching the soil which can lead to lack of resources needed

by plants.

In (table 3) those phenotypic variation such as mean leaf area in week one (1)

plants were all at a similar stage of development at the time of measurement. In the

early stages of growth, plants may have a similar number and size of leaves, which can

result in a similar mean leaf area. In week seven (7) which all the treatment had different

response to it’s environment, which indirect sunlight had high mean leaf area, indirect

sunlight typically provides a more diffuse and less intense light than direct sunlight. This

can allow the plant to photosynthesize more efficiently, and also help to maintain a more

consistent temperature and humidity around the plant, preventing stress on the plant’s

tissues and roots. This can help the plant to grow more leaves and increase its leaf

area. Plant in White cover had also high mean leaf area this due to creating a more

stable microclimate around the plants by reducing fluctuations in temperature and

humidity. This can help to reduce stress on the plants and promote healthy growth,

leading to larger leaves and a higher mean leaf area. While direct sunlight had low this

due to heat stress and damage to the leaves. This can result in smaller leaf size and a

lower mean leaf area. The black cover had low mean leaf area due to Black covers

absorb light, so the amount of light that reaches the plants may be reduced compared to

direct sunlight.
 The leaf area ratio, which white cover had high leaf area ratio due to white covers

can help to trap moisture and increase humidity levels around the plants, which can help

to promote leaf growth. While black cover had lower leaf area ratio due to the lack of

sunlight need by plants, which photosynthesis doesn’t work in such environment,

because black cover absorb the sunlight which the intensity can’t reach the plants.

Conclusion

In summation, eggplant plants exhibited significant phenotypic variation in

response to various environmental treatments, particularly light intensity and cover

kinds. The results underline how crucial microevolutionary modifications in phenotypic

plasticity are for plants to adapt to new environments. It has been demonstrated that

variables like light intensity, heat stress, air circulation, humidity levels, and the

availability of resources affect a plant’s height, weight, leaf area, and leaf area ratio.

Knowing these linkages helps further our understanding of how plants adapt and guide

cultivation techniques for the best development and yield.

The plant in white cover and Plants in indirect sunlight had high level of survival

rate this due to white cover can help to reduce the intensity of the light that reaches the

plant, providing a more diffused light that the plant can use more efficiently. This can

prevent sunburn and damage to the plant’s tissues, allowing it to focus more on growth.

Also creating a more stable microclimate around the plants by reducing fluctuations in

temperature and humidity. Plants in direct sunlight also had lower chance of survival

rate due to the intensity of the light that too high for the plant to handle, leading to
sunburn and damage to the plant’s tissues, which lead to a small amount of leaves

could be produce and lower growth rate due to light intensity that too high to handle.

The plant in plastic, cover plastic can trap heat and humidity, creating a greenhouse

effect that raises the temperature and reduces air circulation. This can cause the plant

to become stressed, leading to slow growth or even death in extreme cases also plastic

cover prevent the rainfall reaching the soil which can lead to lack of resources needed

by plants.

The plant in black cover had slower growth rate and since plants need a

resources such as nutrients, water and sunlight to produce photosynthesis, in the

absence of one sources like light intensity can lead to plants death and malnourishment

due to Black covers absorb light, so the amount of light that reaches the plants may be

reduced compared to direct sunlight. Nevertheless, plants in white cover and indirect

sunlight had greater chance of survival, produce better yield production, and exhibited

more favorable norms of reaction than those grown under other environmental

conditions. Further experimentation is required in this study since this only conducted at

Interco Street, Guinggona Purok Sumikap-2 Mati Davao Oriental which different from

other various location.

 Literature

Bradshaw, A. D. 1965. Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants.

Advances in Genetics 13:115–155, 1972. Some of the evolutionary consequences of

being a plant. Evolutionary Biology 5:25–47.

Brower, J. E., Zar, J. H., and von Ende, C. N. (1969). Field and Laboratory Methods for

General Ecology. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.

Kirkpatrick, M., and N. Heckman. 1989. A quantitative genetic model for growth, shape,

reaction norms, and other infinite-dimensional characters. Journal of Mathematical

Biology 27:429–450.

Pfennig, D. W., M. A. Wund, E. C. Snell-Rood, T. Cruickshank, C. D. Schlichting, and A.

P. Moczek. 2010. Phenotypic plasticity’s impacts on diversification and speciation.

Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:459–467.

Schlichting, C. D., and M. Pigliucci. 1998. Phenotypic evolution: a reaction norm

perspective. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.

Silvertown J, Charlesworth D (2001) Plant population biology, 4th Edn. Blackwall,

Oxford, Levine JM, Rees M (2002) Coexistence and relative abundance in annual plant

assemblages: the roles of competition and colonization. Am Nat 160:452–459

Photo Documentation