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?