4.8 Article

Fossil evidence for Cretaceous escalation in angiosperm leaf vein evolution

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1014456108

关键词

angiosperm evolution; plant evolution; transpiration; tropical rainforest; venation

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DEB-0919071, IOB-0714156]
  2. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences
  4. Division Of Environmental Biology [0919071] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The flowering plants that dominate modern vegetation possess leaf gas exchange potentials that far exceed those of all other living or extinct plants. The great divide in maximal ability to exchange CO2 for water between leaves of nonangiosperms and angiosperms forms the mechanistic foundation for speculation about how angiosperms drove sweeping ecological and biogeo-chemical change during the Cretaceous. However, there is no empirical evidence that angiosperms evolved highly photosynthetically active leaves during the Cretaceous. Using vein density (D-V) measurements of fossil angiosperm leaves, we show that the leaf hydraulic capacities of angiosperms escalated several-fold during the Cretaceous. During the first 30 million years of angiosperm leaf evolution, angiosperm leaves exhibited uniformly low vein D-V that overlapped the D-V range of dominant Early Cretaceous ferns and gymnosperms. Fossil angiosperm vein densities reveal a subsequent biphasic increase in D-V. During the first mid-Cretaceous surge, angiosperm D-V first surpassed the upper bound of D-V limits for nonangiosperms. However, the upper limits of D-V typical of modern megathermal rainforest trees first appear during a second wave of increased D-V during the Cretaceous-Tertiary transition. Thus, our findings provide fossil evidence for the hypothesis that significant ecosystem change brought about by angiosperms lagged behind the Early Cretaceous taxonomic diversification of angiosperms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据