1 / 23

Strangler Figs: Complexity Amongst Seeming Monotony

Jasmine L. Martin BIOL 501 Spring 2012. Strangler Figs: Complexity Amongst Seeming Monotony. OVERVIEW. Strangler Figs Why Are They Important? Evidentiary Support Take Home Message. Strangler Fig Trees. Genus Ficus Form rigid rings around trunks of host trees, depleting nutrients

winola
Download Presentation

Strangler Figs: Complexity Amongst Seeming Monotony

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Jasmine L. Martin BIOL 501 Spring 2012 Strangler Figs: Complexity Amongst Seeming Monotony

  2. OVERVIEW • Strangler Figs • Why Are They Important? • Evidentiary Support • Take Home Message

  3. Strangler Fig Trees • Genus Ficus • Form rigid rings around trunks of host trees, depleting nutrients • Hundreds of species in tropical and subtropical forests worldwide (280 in subgenus Urostigma) • Epiphytes whose seedlings grow downward

  4. So What? • Strangler figs are considered to be a keystone species • Provide nourishment for many insects and animals: Ants Wild Pigs Birds Civets Bats Deer Butterflies Primates

  5. Host-specificity and coevolution among pollinating and nonpollinating New World fig wasps • Collected ripe figs from 14 species of New World stranglers • Wasps classified (mitochondrial cytochromeoxidase subunit I (COI) gene) • Phylogenetic analyses (PUAP version 4.0) • Cophylogenetic analyses (TREEMAP 1.,0, TREEMAP 2.02β, and PARAFIT)

  6. Wasp Classification • Pollinators: Genus Pegoscapus • Competitors: Idarnes(subfamily Sycophaginae) • I. ‘flavicollis’ • I. ‘carme’ • Gallers: Idarnes ‘incerta’, Heterandrium(Pteromalidae, subfamily Otitesillinae), Aepocerus(Pteromalidae, subfamily Otitesillinae) • Parasitoid: Physothorax(Torymidae)

  7. Results Neotropical nonpollinating wasps formed a group all their own distinct from the pollinators

  8. Results (cont’d.) • As it relates to fig species, monophyletic wasp genera were not found. Strong evidence for host-switching was provided for all wasp types. • In most cases, host-switching was followed by cospeciation. Codivergence was a commonly observed trend between the pollinators and gallers.

  9. Conclusion • Two distinct clades were formed within Heterandriumand Aepocerus. These groups, likely products of a host-switch with subscequentcospeciation, should be further analyzed for possible recognition as new genera.

  10. Fruit characteristics and factors affecting fruit removal in a Panamanian community of strangler figs • Studied 53 trees from 12 strangler species • Quantified diurnal and nocturnal removal rates and proportions of fruits removed

  11. Results • Birds that relied on fig trees for nourishment chose red-fruited figs. • Conversely, figs with green fruit attracted large numbers of fruit-eating bats very frequently.

  12. Conclusion • The proportion of fig fruits (both red and green) removed was high. • Red fruits were taken during the day by birds. • Green fruits were consumed by bats at night. • Frugivore populations have shown to be affected by the production of fig trees.

  13. Genetic Mosaics in Strangler Fig Trees: Implications for Tropical Conservation • Analyzed allozyme variation in leaves from six species of stranglers • Subjected to starch-gel electrophoresis for eighteen enzyme systems

  14. Results 13 of the 14 sampled trees (and all of the species) showed detectable genetic differentiation among branches. These 13 trees included at least 45 genetic individuals.

  15. Conclusion • Postgermination fusion most likely caused the observed mosaicism. • It has been shown that figs highly favor fusions and since branches studied often differed at more than one locus, the contribution of somatic mutation is probably minimal.

  16. Conclusion (cont’d.) • Further investigation of allofusion frequency, allorecognition specificity, wood anatomy, physiological integration, and reproductive synchrony should improve conservation programs.

  17. TAKE HOME • Stangler figs are very important to the rain forest environment. • Various animals and insects depend on them for nourishment, survival, and reproduction. • Therefore, stranglers should be researched further to provide mechanisms for tropical conservation.

  18. References • Compton, SG; Musgrave, MK. “Host relationships of Ficusburtt-davyi when growing as a strangler fig”. South African Journal of Botany, 1993. 59.4: 425-430. • Harrison, Rhett D. “Short Communication: Mortality and recruitment of hemi-epiphytic figs in the canopy of a Bornean rain forest”. Journal of Tropical Ecology, February 2006. 22:477-480. • Herre, Edward Allen; Jandér, Charlotte, K.; and Machado, Carlos Alberto. “Evolutionary Ecology of Figs and Their Associates: Recent Progress and Outstanding Puzzles”. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, September 2008. 39: 439–458. • Korine, Carmi; Kalko, Elisabeth K. V.; Herre, Edward Allen. “Fruit characteristics and factors affecting fruit removal in a Panamanian community of strangler figs”. Oecologia, 2000. 123: 560–568. • Laman, Tim. “Borneo’s Strangler Fig Trees”. National Geographic, April 1997: 38-55. • Male, T D; Roberts, GE. “Host associations of the strangler fig Ficuswatkinsiana in a subtropical Queensland rain forest”. Austral Ecology, 2005. 30.2: 229-236. • Marussich, Wendy A. and Machado, Carlos A. “Host-specificity and coevolution among pollinating and nonpollinating New World fig wasps”. Molecular Ecology, January 2007. 16: 1925–1946. • Molbo, Drude, et. al. “Cryptic species of fig-pollinating wasps: Implications for the evolution of the fig–wasp mutualism, sex allocation, and precision of adaptation”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, May 2003. 100-10: 5867–5872. • Patel, Aviva. “Strangler fig-host associations in roadside and deciduous forest sites, South India”. Journal of Biogeography, July 1996. 23.4: 409–414. • Putz, Francis E.; Holbrook, Michele. “Strangler Fig Rooting Habits and Nutrient Relations in the Llanos of Venezuela”. American Journal of Botany, June 1989. 76.6: 781-788. • Schmidt, S; Tracey, D P. “Adaptations of strangler figs to life in the rainforest canopy”. Functional Plant Biology,2006. 33.5: 465-475. • Swagel, Eric N.; Bernhard, A. Van H.; and Ellmore, George S.” Substrate Water Potential Constraints on Germination of the Strangler Fig Ficusaurea(Moraceae)”. American Journal of Botany, May 1997. 84-5: 716-722. • “The Fig and The Fig Wasp”. The Fig & The Fig Wasp. March 15, 2011. http://www.thefigandthewasp.com/ • Thomson, James D.; Herre, E. A.; Hamrick, J. L.; Stone, J. L. “Genetic Mosaics in Strangler Fig Trees: Implications for Tropical Conservation”. Science, 22 November 1991. 254.5035: 1214-1216. • Titus, Jonathan H.; Holbrook, N. Michele; and Putz , Francis E. “Seed Germination and Seedling Distribution of Ficuspertusa and F. tuerckheimii: Are Strangler Figs Autotoxic?”. Biotropica, December 1990. 22.4: 425-428.

  19. Dr. White Dr. Coomans Mrs. Petty Dr. Mario Espinoza Mrs. Sindy Martin

  20. Questions?

More Related