Feb 24, 2016
STRANGLER FIGS: COMPLEXITY AMONGST SEEMING MONOTONY
Jasmine L. MartinBIOL 501Spring 2012
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 Hundreds of species in tropical and
subtropical forests worldwide (280 in subgenus Urostigma)
Epiphytes whose seedlings grow downward
So What? Strangler figs are considered to be a
keystone species Provide nourishment for many insects
and animals:Ants Wild PigsBirds CivetsBats DeerButterflies Primates
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 cytochrome
oxidase subunit I (COI) gene) Phylogenetic analyses (PUAP version 4.0) Cophylogenetic analyses (TREEMAP 1.,0,
TREEMAP 2.02β, and PARAFIT)
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)
Results
Neotropicalnonpollinating waspsformed a group all
theirown distinct from thepollinators
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.
Conclusion Two distinct clades were formed within
Heterandrium and Aepocerus. These groups, likely products of a host-switch with subscequent cospeciation, should be further analyzed for possible recognition as new genera.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Conclusion (cont’d.) Further investigation of allofusion
frequency, allorecognition specificity, wood anatomy, physiological integration, and reproductive synchrony should improve conservation programs.
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.
References Compton, SG; Musgrave, MK. “Host relationships of Ficus burtt-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 Ficus watkinsiana 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 Ficus aurea(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 Ficus pertusa
and F. tuerckheimii: Are Strangler Figs Autotoxic?”. Biotropica, December 1990. 22.4: 425-428.
Dr. White Dr. CoomansMrs. Petty Dr. Mario
Espinoza Mrs. Sindy Martin
Questions?