| Literature DB >> 22815805 |
Torsten Wappler1, Conrad C Labandeira, Jes Rust, Herbert Frankenhäuser, Volker Wilde.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Eocene, a time of fluctuating environmental change and biome evolution, was generally driven by exceptionally warm temperatures. The Messel (47.8 Ma) and Eckfeld (44.3 Ma) deposits offer a rare opportunity to take a census of two, deep-time ecosystems occurring during a greenhouse system. An understanding of the long-term consequences of extreme warming and cooling events during this interval, particularly on angiosperms and insects that dominate terrestrial biodiversity, can provide insights into the biotic consequences of current global climatic warming. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22815805 PMCID: PMC3399891 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0040744
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Examples of plant damage representing a broad spectrum of insect herbivory from the Messel and Eckfeld maar lake localities.
A. Well preserved gall with delineation of concentric growth striae [DT163] (SMF Me 3591). B. Paired mandible chew marks on Araciphyllites tertiarius [DT219] (SMF Me 1396). C. Elongate and round scales of scale insects preserved in situ on an leaf blade (arrows) [DT191] (PB 2005-140, LS, NHMM) [40]. D. A broad zone of gall necroses on surrounding plant tissue [DT163] (SMF Me 3198). E. Mine with a distinctively quadrangular terminal chamber [DT171] (SMF Me 3582). F. Gall attachment scars on a lauraceous leaf fragment [DT206] (SMF Me 21180). G. Circular holes characterized by a broad flange of reaction tissue (arrow) [DT206] (SMF Me 21184). H. A strongly undulatory, serpentine mine consisting of modest width increases and containing particulate frass, on a walnut leaf (Juglandaceae) [DT92] (SMF Me 13228). I. An unidentified dicot exhibiting typical margin excisions, most likely produced by megachilid bee [DT82] (PB 1990-527, LS, NHMM) [101]. Scale bar = 1 cm.
Figure 2Rarefaction curves comparing the number of angiosperm leaf morphotypes at Messel and Eckfeld.
The shaded area represents the standard error of the rarefaction calculated after [102]. The horizontal scale is reduced to 3000 for greater detail.
Site summaries and diversity parameters analyzed for plant-species assemblages from the two study localities (Messel, Eckfeld).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 47.8 | 22.4 | 1671 | 9334 | 93 | 75.61±3.23 | 0.94 | 0.76 |
|
| 44.3 | 17.3 | na | 6748 | 33 | 31.71±1.16 | 0.86 | 0.74 |
Abbreviations for indices: MAT, Mean annual temperature; MAP, Mean annual precipitation; N, Number of leaves in the census; S, total number of morphotypes.
Leaf margin analysis was used for the Eckfeld sample (Wappler unpubl. data).
Diversity was rarefied to 1000 leaves using analytical rarefaction and the error represents Heck’s standard error [ .
Figure 3Mean diversity of damage types (DTs) on the bulk floras rarified to 800 leaves.
A. Mean diversity of damage types (DTs) on the bulk floras. B. Specialized DTs. C. Mining DTs. D. Galling DTs. The horizontal line is the median, the top and bottom horizontal margins of the box are respectively the upper and lower quartiles, and the vertical lines are the full range of values from the data.
Occurrence of damage types (DTs) recorded from Messel and Eckfeld and DTs that are already known from other European floras.
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 14 | 11 | 12 | 29 | 23 | 5 | 4 |
|
| 14 | 9 | 5 | 16 | 10 | 2 | 2 |
|
| 13 | 11 | 8 | 19 | 18 | 2 | 1 |
|
| 12 | 9 | 3 | 15 | 10 | 2 | 1 |
Abbreviations are: HF, hole feeding; MF, margin feeding; SF, surface feeding; G, galling; M, leaf mining; PS, piercing and sucking, and OV, oviposition. Fifty-five new DTs, including seed predation and skeletonitazion but not shown in the table, are recognized from both localities.
Damage type diversity data taken from ([, [25], [40], [48], [49], [101], [103], , Wappler unpubl. data).
Figure 4A comparison of damage frequencies between the Messel and Eckfeld floras.
Regression lines are from a linear model, and R2 values are shown on the plots. Error bars were omitted to reduce clutter.
Dicot species or morphotypes with at least 50 specimens in the Messel Maar floral community, their assignments to “evergreen” (E), “deciduous ” (D), or unassigned (U) categories for analysis, and their bases of assignment (L), leaf texture and/or other foliar features; (R), phenology of all or most living relatives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Juglandaceae | E | L,R | 710 | 55.35±1.87 | 53 | 12.03±2.50 | 5.49±1.79 | 1.24±0.99 | 3.98±1.50 |
|
| Lauraceae | E | L | 698 | 28.51±1.72 | 35 | 8.71±2.18 | 3.24±1.39 | 0.55±0.69 | 3.16±1.24 |
|
| Lauraceae | E | L,R | 456 | 43.64±2.32 | 40 | 11.06±2.40 | 3.91±1.83 | 0.99±0.85 | 4.03±1.61 |
|
| Juglandaceae | E | L,R | 376 | 38.56±2.52 | 33 | 11.01±2.36 | 6.76±1.88 | 1.18±0.88 | 5.49±1.68 |
|
| Lauraceae | E | L | 361 | 37.95±2.55 | 30 | 10.94±2.28 | 3.51±1.57 | 0.85±0.77 | 3.74±1.54 |
|
| Fabaceae | E | L,R | 272 | 31.62±2.83 | 25 | 7.89±1.99 | 2.58±1.33 | 0.88±0.82 | 2.29±0.91 |
|
| Moraceae | E | L,R | 196 | 18.37±2.74 | 19 | 7.07±2.18 | 2.94±1.48 | 0.95±0.78 | 2.41±1.18 |
|
| Lauraceae | E | L | 188 | 9.04±2.09 | 7 | 3.15±1.27 | 0.79±0.76 | 0.53±0.62 | – |
|
| Lauraceae | E | L | 173 | 30.06±3.48 | 16 | 7.71±1.63 | 2.13±1.15 | – | 2.13±1.14 |
|
| Juglandaceae | D | L,R | 123 | 30.89±4.17 | 17 | 9.50±2.00 | 4.78±1.49 | 0.81±0.69 | 2.90±1.09 |
|
| Ulmaceae | D | R | 92 | 22.83±4.39 | 8 | 5.78±1.11 | 1.64±0.87 | – | – |
|
| Vitaceae | U | 88 | 27.27±4.73 | 19 | 11.83±2.01 | 6.75±1.66 | 3.34±1.22 | 2.29±0.97 | |
|
| unknown | U | 84 | 4.76±2.38 | 4 | 2.37±1.20 | 1.19±0.69 | – | 1.19±0.68 | |
|
| Lauraceae | E | L | 84 | 5.95±2.59 | 5 | 2.96±1.60 | 1.19±0.69 | 0.60±0.49 | 0.59±0.49 |
|
| Ulmaceae | D | L,R | 81 | 29.63±5.09 | 14 | 10.06±1.51 | 3.92±1.11 | 1.47±0.60 | 1.87±0.83 |
|
| Lauraceae | E | L | 77 | 9.09±3.26 | 6 | 4.14±1.15 | 1.31±0.67 | – | 0.66±0.47 |
|
| Myrtaceae | E | L,R | 69 | 56.52±5.96 | 24 | 18.51±2.06 | 10.39±1.60 | 2.18±0.76 | 5.52±1.00 |
|
| Myricaceae | U | 68 | 13.24±4.08 | 9 | 6.60±1.41 | 3.63±1.17 | 2.19±1.00 | 0.73±0.45 | |
|
| Ulmoidea | D | R | 54 | 5.56±3.23 | 3 | 2.77±0.59 | 1.85±0.52 | – | 0.92±0.27 |
|
| Rutaceae | E | L,R | 54 | 14.81±4.86 | 6 | 5.62±0.68 | 3.78±0.44 | 0.99±0.05 | 1.84±0.38 |
|
| Nymphaeaceae | D | L,R | 54 | 20.37±5.44 | 2 | 1.93±0.26 | 1.92±0.26 | – | 1.93±0.25 |
Abbreviations: (DT), Damage type; (SpecDT), Specialized Damage type; (MineDT), Mining Damage type; (GallDT), Galling Damage type; all categories are rarefied to 50 specimens.
Dicot species or morphotypes with at least 50 specimens in the Eckfeld Maar floral community, their assignments to “evergreen” (E), “deciduous” (D), or unassigned (U) categories for analysis, and their bases of assignment (L), leaf texture and/or other foliar features; (R), phenology of all or most living relatives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Juglandaceae | E | L,R | 1186 | 19.56±1.15 | 43 | 6.56±2.28 | 2.10±1.29 | 0.42±0.61 | 1.31±1.03 |
|
| unknown | U | 365 | 11.23±1.64 | 10 | 3.60±1.42 | 0.27±0.48 | – | – | |
|
| Theaceae | E | L,R | 333 | 5.71±1.30 | 9 | 2.39±1.22 | 0.42±0.57 | 0.15±0.35 | – |
|
| unknown | U | 331 | 5.44±1.20 | 7 | 2.36±1.25 | 1.11±0.86 | 0.28±0.45 | 0.68±0.65 | |
|
| unknown | D | L | 306 | 6.21±1.36 | 7 | 2.24±1.16 | 0.31±0.46 | – | – |
|
| unknown | U | 215 | 17.67±2.62 | 20 | 6.30±2.52 | 2.54±1.44 | 0.46±0.59 | 1.59±1.05 | |
|
| Betulaceae | U | 112 | 1.79±1.32 | 2 | 0.88±0.99 | 0.46±0.49 | – | 0.46±0.49 | |
|
| unknown | U | 93 | 11.83±3.37 | 9 | 5.18±2.39 | 2.08±1.58 | 1.61±1.10 | 0.52±0.49 | |
|
| Lauraceae | E | L,R | 84 | 75.00±4.72 | 28 | 20.09±2.25 | 9.51±1.61 | 2.97±1.05 | 7.07±1.31 |
|
| unknown | U | 61 | 11.48±4.01 | 5 | 4.40±0.72 | 1.65±0.53 | 0.82±0.38 | 0.83±0.37 | |
|
| Juglandaceae | E | L,R | 55 | 5.45±2.94 | 3 | 2.72±0.87 | 0.90±0.29 | – | 0.90±0.29 |
|
| Fabaceae | D | L | 55 | 36.36±6.47 | 10 | 9.42±0.69 | 2.80±0.41 | – | 2.81±0.42 |
|
| Cercidiphyllaceae | U | 53 | 3.77±2.69 | 1 | 0.99±0.05 | – | – | – |
(DT), Damage type; (SpecDT), Specialized Damage type; (MineDT), Mining Damage type; (GallDT), Galling Damage type; all categories arerarefied to 50 specimens.
Figure 5Two-way cluster analysis of insect damage on species–locality pairs, based on relative abundances of the seven functional feeding groups.
Each plant from Messel and Eckfeld with at least 50 specimens was included in the analysis. Black circles are scaled according to the relative abundance of each functional feeding group on each plant host. The two-way cluster analysis was performed using the protocol of [11]. The significance of the clusters in Roman numerals is explained in the text. Abbreviations are: MF, margin feeding; HF, hole feeding; G, galling; M, leaf mining; S, skeletonization; SF, surface feeding; and PS, piercing and sucking.
Generalized versus specialized herbivory for Messel and Eckfeld evergreen and deciduous plant taxa.
| Messel | ||||
|
|
| |||
| 873 occurences | (58.94%) | 414 occurences | (27.95%) | evergreen plant taxa |
| 137 occurences | (9.25%) | 57 occurences | (3.84%) | deciduous plant taxa |
|
| ||||
|
|
| |||
| 240 occurences | (61.38%) | 92 occurences | (23.52%) | evergreen plant taxa |
| 46 occurences | (12.53%) | 10 occurences | (2.55%) | deciduous plant taxa |