4.7 Article

A factor analysis approach to modelling the early diversification of terrestrial vegetation

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2020.110170

关键词

Devonian; Early land plants; Factor analysis; Plant macrofossil; Plant radiation; Terrestrialization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed early plant genera using comprehensive macrofossil data and identified four major phases of early land plant evolution. Results showed that diversity peaks were linked to the rise of new flora without exponential declines of the previously dominant flora. This new model reflects the early steps of Earth's greening.
Data from a new comprehensive macrofossil-based compilation of early plant genera are analyzed via a Q-mode factor analysis. This compilation ranges from the Silurian to the earliest Carboniferous and illustrates the key vegetation changes that took place during the configuration of early terrestrial ecosystems. Results reveal that four factors can be used to explain more than 90% of the variance in the data. These factors are interpreted as the major phases of the early land plant evolution: a first Eotracheophytic flora (Silurian-Lochkovian) dominated by basal eutracheophytes and rhyniophytoids, an early Eophytic Flora (Early Devonian) dominated by zosterophylls, a transitional late Eophytic Flora (Middle Devonian-earliest Carboniferous) dominated by lycopsids and cladoxylopsids, and finally, the earliest phase of the Palaeophytic Flora (Late Devonian-earliest Carboniferous) dominated by the first seed plants. These floras present different but complementary diversity patterns, which help us to understand the overall trajectory of changes in plant diversity. Results further show how the maximum peaks of diversity appear linked to the rise of each new flora but, interestingly, these diversifications are not associated with any exponential declines of the previously dominant one. This new four-phase diversification model reflects the early steps of Earth's greening.

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

4.7
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