| Literature DB >> 28607837 |
Friðgeir Grímsson1, Guido W Grimm1,2, Paschalia Kapli3, Christa-Charlotte Hofmann1, Reinhard Zetter1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We revisit the palaeopalynological record of Loranthaceae, using pollen ornamentation to discriminate lineages and to test molecular dating estimates for the diversification of major lineages.Entities:
Keywords: Lineage-through-time plot; Palaeophytogeography; Pollen as minimum age priors; Pollen morphology; Santalales; Topological uncertainty; Uncorrelated clock node dating
Year: 2017 PMID: 28607837 PMCID: PMC5466002 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.3373
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Information on sample sites.
| Miller Clay Pit MT1–MT3 | Aamaruutissaa MT | Stolzenbach MT | Profen MT1–MT5 | Changchang MT | Theiss MT | Altmittweida MT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Location | Miller Clay Pit, Henry County, Tennessee, United States | Aamaruutissaa, southeast Hareøen Island, western Greenland | Stolzenbach underground coalmine, Kassel, Germany | Profen opencast mine, close to Leipzig, Germany | Changchang Basin, close to Jiazi Town, Qiongshan County, Hainan, China | Theiss, borehole southeast of Krems, Lower Austria | Altmittweida, Saxony, Germany |
| Latitude and longitude (ca.) | 36°13′N, 88°27′W | 70°24′N, 54°41′W | 51°0′N, 9°17′E | 51°09′N, 12°11′E | 19°38′N, 110°27′E | 48°23′N, 15°41′E | 50°58′N, 12°55′E |
| Lithostratigraphy | Claiborne Group | Hareøen Formation | Borkener coal measures | Profen Formation | Changchang Formation | Melker Series | Cottbus/Spremberg Formations |
| Epoch | Lutetian | Late Lutetian-early Bartonian | Lutetian | Bartonian | Lutetian-Bartonian | Rupelian | Chattian to Aquitanian |
| Age (Ma) | 47.8–41.2 | 42–40 [absolute dating] | 47.8–41.2 | 41.2–38 | 47.8–37.8 | 33.9–28.1 | 28.1–20.44 |
| According to | Litho- and biostratigraphy | Chrono-, litho- and biostratigraphy | Litho- and biostratigraphy | Litho- and biostratigraphy | Litho- and biostratigraphy | Litho- and biostratigraphy | Litho- and biostratigraphy |
| Notes on palynofloras | Dominated by angiosperms; rich in Fagaceae, Juglandaceae, Sapotaceae, Anarcardiaceae, Olacaceae, Cannabaceae, and Altingiaceae | Diverse spore and pollen flora; rich in Cupressaceae and angiosperms; | Dominated by angiosperms; rich in Ericaceae, Fagaceae, Hamamelidaceae, Altingiaceae, Combretaceae, Burseraceae, Icacinaceae, Juglandaceae, Lecythidiaceae, and Sapotaceae | Dominated by angiosperms; rich in Anacardiaceae, Araceae, Arecaceae, Fagaceae, Sapotaceae, Symplocaceae, and Combretaceae | Diverse in angiosperms; rich in Fagaceae pollen, especially | Dominated by angiosperms, rich in Fagaceae, Sapotaceae, Juglandaceae, Vitaceae, Malvaceae, Symplocaceae, Cornaceae, Oleaceae, and Arecaceae | Diverse in angiosperms; rich in Juglandaceae and Fagaceae genera |
| For further info on the geological background, stratigraphy [S], palaeoenvironment, palaeoclimate, and plant fossils [P] |
Note:
Following Cohen et al. (2013, update).
Results of the clock-rooting analyses.
| Species set | Gene set | Inferred root |
|---|---|---|
| All | All | Between Lorantheae core clade and all other Loranthaceae (including Loranthinae and Ileostylinae; not used as rooting scenario for subsequent analyses) |
| All | All, excluding trnL/LF | Between Lorantheae and all other Loranthaceae (= rooting scenario 2) |
| All | Nuclear ribosomal DNAs only | Between Lorantheae and all other Loranthaceae (= rooting scenario 2) |
| All | Chloroplast regions only | Between Lorantheae and all other Loranthaceae (= rooting scenario 2) |
| All | Chloroplast genes only | Between Lorantheae and all other Loranthaceae (= rooting scenario 2) |
| Reduced | All | Between |
Figure 1LM micrographs (polar views) of all fossil Loranthaceae morphotypes.
(A) Miller Clay Pit MT1. (B) Miller Clay Pit MT1. (C) Miller Clay Pit MT2. (D) Miller Clay Pit MT3. (E) Aamarutissaa MT. (F) Stolzenbach MT. (G, H) Profen MT1. (I, J) Profen MT2. (K) Profen MT3. (L–O) Profen MT4. (P, Q) Profen MT5. (R, S) Changchang MT. (T–X) Theiss MT. (Y–Ä) Altmittweida MT.
Figure 6SEM micrographs of fossil Loranthaceae pollen with affinity to crown group Lorantheae and comparable extant pollen.
(A–D) Polar views of fossil pollen. (E–G) Polar views of extant pollen. (H–J) Close-ups of sculpturing in area of mesocolpium and along margo in fossil pollen. (K–M) Close-ups of sculpturing in area of mesocolpium and along margo in extant pollen. (A, B, H, I) Changchang MT. (C, D, J) Altmittweida MT. (E, K) Amyema gibberula. (F, L) Helixanthera kirkii. (G, M) Taxillus caloreas. Scale bars: (A–G) = 10 μm, (H–M) = 1 μm.
Figure 2SEM micrographs of fossil Loranthaceae pollen similar to/intermediate between root parasites and Lorantheae and comparable extant pollen.
(A–D) Polar views of fossil pollen. (E–G) Polar views of extant pollen. (H–J) Close-ups of sculpturing in area of mesocolpium and along margo in fossil pollen. (K–M) Close-ups of sculpturing in area of mesocolpium and along margo in extant pollen. (A, H) Miller Clay Pit MT1. (B, I) Stolzenbach MT. (C, J) Profen MT1. (D) Theiss MT. (E, K) Nuytsia floribunda. (F, L) Gaiadendron punctatum. (G, M) Muellerina eucalyptoides. Scale bars: (A–M) = 1 μm.
Figure 3SEM micrographs of fossil Loranthaceae pollen with affinity to Tripodanthus and extant pollen of the genus.
(A–D) Polar views of fossil pollen. (E, F) Polar views of extant pollen. (G–J) Close-ups of sculpturing in area of mesocolpium and along margo in fossil pollen. (K, L) Close-ups of sculpturing in area of mesocolpium and along margo in extant pollen. (A, G) Miller Clay Pit MT2. (B, C, H, I) Miller Clay Pit MT3. (D, J) Aamaruutissaa MT. (E, F, K, L) Tripodanthus acutifolius. Scale bars: (A–F) = 10 μm, (G–L) = 1 μm.
Figure 4SEM micrographs of fossil Loranthaceae pollen with affinity to Elytrantheae and extant representatives.
(A–F) Polar views of fossil pollen. (G–I) Polar views of extant pollen. (A, B) Profen MT2. (C) Profen MT3. (D, E) Profen MT4. (F). Profen MT5. (G) Peraxilla tetrapetala. (H) Amylotheca sp. (I) Ligaria cuneifolia. Scale bar: (A–I) = 10 μm.
Figure 5SEM micrographs of fossil Loranthaceae pollen with affinity to Elytrantheae and extant representatives.
(A–E) Close-ups of sculpturing in area of mesocolpium and along margo in fossil pollen. (F–H) Close-ups of sculpturing in area of mesocolpium and along margo in extant pollen. (A, B) Profen MT2. (C) Profen MT3. (D) Profen MT4. (E) Profen MT5. (F) Peraxilla tetrapetala. (G) Amylotheca sp. (H) Ligaria cuneifolia. Scale bar: (A–H) = 1 μm.
Figure 7Plastid and nuclear species trees for the complete taxon set.
No high-supported conflict is found; both datasets recognise the same main clades, while failing to resolve most of the deeper inter-clade relationships. Particularly, the phylogenetic position of tribes/subtribes with few, often monotypic, genera (root parasitic Nuytsieae, Gaiadendreae, aerial parasitic Ligarinae, Notantherinae, and Tupeinae) is essentially unresolved. Local differences in the topologies and odd placements are often related to species with large amount of missing data. Stippled terminal branches have been reduced by factor 2.
Figure 8Lineage-through-time plots for Loranthaceae as inferred based on three different rooting scenarios or enforcing the topology of Su et al. (2015; scenario 4).
Background shows the stable-isotope-based (marine sediments) global temperature curve with main climatic events annotated at the bottom (after Zachos et al., 2001). Increased diversification of Loranthaceae is inferred for time-scales when the global mean temperature was at least ∼5° C higher than today (middle to late Eocene; late Oligocene to mid-Miocene).
Figure 9A dated phylogeny of Loranthaceae using the pollen-informed root (rooting scenario 3).
The chronogram is based on a concatenated data set including two nuclear ribosomal RNA genes (18S and 25S rDNA), two coding plastid genes (rbcL, matK) and the trnL/LF region. The taxon set has been reduced to species with sufficient data, i.e. data covering all included gene regions. Node heights (divergence ages) are medians, grey bars indicate the 95%-highest-posterior-density intervals; labels at branches indicate posterior probabilities for those branches that did not receive unambiguous support. Triangular doodles represent pollen used as age priors for the according nodes: green—Central Europe; red—North America (including Greenland); yellow—East Asia. ECO, Eocene warm phase; MCO, Miocene warm phase (see Fig. 8).
Results of the dating analyses using the reduced taxon data set and different rooting scenarios.
| Node | Rooting scenario 1 | Rooting scenario 2 | Rooting scenario 3 | Scenario 4 | Av. Medians | Abs. min | Corresponds to | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L.b. | Median | U.b. | L.b. | Median | U.b. | L.b. | Median | U.b. | L.b. | Median | U.b. | |||||
| Loranthaceae crown | 52.6 | 50.1 | 47.8 | 51.5 | 46.9 | 56.1 | 50.8 | 47.3 | 48.0 | 45.4 | Earliest | Lutetian | ||||
| 52.6 | 50.1 | 47.8 | 50.4 | 48.1 | 45.9 | 47.4 | 41.6 | 48.0 | 43.0 | Latest | Priabonian | |||||
| 46.8 | 40.7 | 45.7 | 43.1 | 47.5 | 44.3 | 40.9 | 45.9 | 43.9 | 42.0 | Early | Bartonian | |||||
| 46.5 | 40.7 | 45.7 | 43.1 | 47.4 | 44.3 | 41.1 | 45.1 | 43.2 | 41.5 | Early | Bartonian | |||||
| 52.2 | 49.7 | 47.3 | 48.0 | 38.9 | 47.4 | 41.6 | 34.2 | 40.4 | 37.0 | Latest | Priabonian | |||||
| 49.7 | 47.2 | 44.8 | 48.0 | 38.9 | 56.1 | 50.8 | 47.3 | 42.2 | 39.1 | Late | Bartonian | |||||
| MRCA (aerial parasitic) new world taxa | 52.2 | 49.7 | 47.3 | 48.7 | 44.9 | 50.8 | 48.5 | 46.2 | 42.8 | 41.4 | Mid | Lutetian | ||||
| MRCA | 46.0 | 36.3 | 45.2 | 41.5 | 46.7 | 42.6 | 36.9 | 42.8 | 41.4 | 40.2 | Mid | Priabonian | ||||
| 46.8 | 40.7 | 45.7 | 43.1 | 47.5 | 44.3 | 40.9 | [N/A] | Early | Bartonian | |||||||
| MRCA | 41.0 | 38.0 | 40.9 | 39.4 | 41.0 | 38.0 | 44.1 | 42.5 | 41.1 | Latest | Bartonian | |||||
| [N/A] | [N/A] | [N/A] | 42.2 | Early | Bartonian | |||||||||||
| MRCA | 48.6 | 46.4 | 44.3 | 47.4 | 43.8 | 49.6 | 47.2 | 44.9 | 41.5 | 40.5 | Early | Bartonian | ||||
| Psittacanthinae root | 47.1 | 45.0 | 43.0 | 46.2 | 42.6 | 47.9 | 45.5 | 43.4 | 41.5 | 40.5 | Latest | Lutetian | ||||
| Psittacanthinae crown | 41.4 | 40.4 | 39.5 | 41.3 | 39.4 | 41.5 | 40.6 | 39.6 | 29.8 | 22.8 | Mid | Bartonian | ||||
| Elytrantheae root | 41.0 | 38.0 | 40.9 | 39.4 | 41.0 | 38.0 | 42.6 | 41.2 | 39.6 | Latest | Bartonian | |||||
| Elytrantheae crown | 38.5 | 33.4 | 26.7 | 38.2 | 26.6 | 38.5 | 33.5 | 27.0 | 35.1 | 27.2 | Early | Chattian | ||||
| Lorantheae root | 49.7 | 44.8 | 51.5 | 49.1 | 46.9 | 51.4 | 49.1 | 46.8 | 42.6 | 41.2 | Mid | Lutetian | ||||
| Lorantheae crown | 44.2 | 37.8 | 45.1 | 41.8 | 38.5 | 44.7 | 41.6 | 38.6 | 38.1 | 35.9 | Earliest | Priabonian | ||||
| Core Lorantheae crown | 35.2 | 27.0 | 35.9 | 31.6 | 27.4 | 35.6 | 31.7 | 27.4 | 29.8 | 26.5 | Early | Chattian | ||||
Notes:
Cells with same background colour refer to the same node. Medians closest to the arithmethic mean of all four scenarios (column ‘Av. Medians’) in bold, minimal age scenarios for each node (column ‘Abs. min’) highlighted by blue colour.
U.b., upper boundary; L.b., lower boundary, of the 95%-highest-posterior-density interval; MRCA, most recent common ancestor (can be inclusive or exclusive).
If topology is unconstrained, Notanthera is placed as sister to Elytrantheae (BSML = 57; PP = 1.00); in Scenario 4, Notanthera is constrained as sister of Psittacanthinae (topological constraints derived from the tree shown in Su et al., 2015.
Estimated substitution rates (per million years) for each of the used genetic markers.
| Genetic marker | Rooting scenario 1 | Rooting scenario 2 | Rooting scenario 3 | Scenario 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median ucld.mean | ||||
| 18S rDNA | 2.5 × 10−4 | 2.5 × 10−4 | 2.5 × 10−4 | 2.9 × 10−4 |
| 25S rDNA | 6.5 × 10−4 | 6.6 × 10−4 | 6.3 × 10−4 | 8.2 × 10−4 |
| 10.1 × 10−4 | 10.1 × 10−4 | 10.0 × 10−4 | 11.7 × 10−4 | |
| trnL/LF | 12.9 × 10−4 | 13.1 × 10−4 | 12.8 × 10−4 | 15.5 × 10−4 |
Note:
Estimates are provided for all four tested topological hypotheses (rooting scenarios 1–3, and scenario 4 constraining the topology of Su et al. (2015)).
Includes the trnL intron and downstream-located (5’) trnL exon (can be incomplete) and trnL–trnF spacer (complete).
Ranking of the four tested topological configurations (three rooting scenarios, and scenario 4 constraining the topology of Su et al., 2015).
| Rank | Scenario | Stepping-stone | Path-sampling | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MLE | BF | MLE | BF | ||
| 1 | Rooting sc. 3 | −29457.1 | −29456.0 | ||
| 2 | Rooting sc. 1 | −29461.0 | 7.87 | −29460.0 | 8.08 |
| 3 | Scenario 4 | −29464.3 | 14.53 | −29463.3 | 14.61 |
| 4 | Rooting sc. 2 | −29466.3 | 18.54 | −29465.7 | 19.43 |
Note:
Ranking is based on marginal likelihood estimates (MLE) and Bayes factors (BF), calculated using two approaches, stepping-stone and path-sampling, implemented in beast (Baele et al., 2012, 2013).
Figure 10Global distribution of Loranthaceae in the Paleogene, evidenced based on unequivocal palynological records.
(A) Eocene. (B) Oligocene. Maps are Mollweide views, projected through the prime meridian (Blakey, 2008; Global DVD © 2011 Colorado Plateau Geosystems Inc.).
Figure 11Global distribution of Loranthaceae in the Neogene, evidenced based on unequivocal palynological records.
(A) Miocene. (B) Pliocene to recent. Asterisks indicate fossil occurrences; shaded/circum-lined areas in (B) reflect the modern-day distribution. Maps are Mollweide views, projected through the prime meridian (Blakey, 2008; Global DVD © 2011 Colorado Plateau Geosystems Inc.).