Jasmine L. Martin
BIOL 501
Spring 2012

 Strangler Figs
 Why Are They Important?
 Evidentiary Support
 Take Home Message

 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

 Strangler figs are considered to be a keystone species
 Provide nourishment for many insects and animals:
Ants
Birds
Wild Pigs
Civets
Bats
Butterflies
Deer
Primates

 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)

 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)

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

 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.

 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.

 Studied 53 trees from 12 strangler species
 Quantified diurnal and nocturnal removal rates and proportions of fruits removed

 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.

 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.

 Analyzed allozyme variation in leaves from six species of stranglers
 Subjected to starch-gel electrophoresis for eighteen enzyme systems

 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.

 Further investigation of allofusion frequency, allorecognition specificity, wood anatomy, physiological integration, and reproductive synchrony should improve conservation programs.

 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.
















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
Mrs. Petty
Dr. Coomans
Dr. Mario Espinoza
Mrs. Sindy Martin