AOBPreview originally published online on June 21, 2006
Annals of Botany 2006 98(3):495-502; doi:10.1093/aob/mcl125
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Early Angiosperm Ecology: Evidence from the Albian-Cenomanian of Europe
EK31 UCB Lyon 1 et UMR 5125, Paléobotanique, 7 rue Dubois, F-69622 Villeurbanne, France, 2 UMR 6118 du CNRS Géosciences, Université Rennes 1, Campus de Beaulieu, avenue du Général Leclerc, F-35042 Rennes, France and 3 National Museum, Prague, Václavské nám. 68, 115 79, Praha 1, Czech Republic
* For correspondence. E-mail bernard.gomez{at}univ-rennes1.fr
Received: 7 February 2006 Returned for revision: 3 March 2006 Accepted: 28 April 2006 Published electronically: 21 June 2006
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONAPPENDIXACKNOWLEDGEMENTSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
• Background and Aims The mid-Cretaceous is a period of sudden turnover from gymnosperm to angiosperm-dominated floras. The aim was to investigate the fossil plant ecology in order to follow the spread of angiosperm taxa.
• Methods Floristic lists and localities from the latest Albian-Cenomanian of Europe are analysed with Wagner's Parsimony Method, a clustering method currently used in phylogeny (cladistics).
• Key Results Wagner's Parsimony Method points out that (a) gymnosperms dominated brackish water-related environments while angiosperms dominated freshwater-related environments (e.g. swamps, floodplains, levees, channels), (b) angiosperms showed the highest diversity in stable, freshwater-related environments, (c) a single angiosperm, ‘Diospyros’ cretacea, is restricted to brackish water-related environments and (d) the families Lauraceae and Platanaceae were exclusive to disturbed, braided river environments, implying a opportunist strategy for early tree angiosperms.
• Conclusions During the Mid-Cretaceous, European floras were characterized by (a) coastal gymnosperms, (b) highly diversified fluvial angiosperms and (c) the first European brackish water-related angiosperm.
Key words: Wagner's Parsimony Method, angiosperms, gymnosperms, conifers, ecology, environment, Mid-Cretaceous, Europe
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONAPPENDIXACKNOWLEDGEMENTSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
The Mid-Cretaceous is a key period in angiosperm evolution, marking the dawn of their rise to dominance. The first angiosperm-dominated floras occurred during the latest Albian and Cenomanian (Lidgard and Crane, 1990
), only leaving the record of a ‘hollow’ turnover between the Lower and Upper Cretaceous when successfully competing in environments previously dominated by gymnosperms. Thus, knowledge of Mid-Cretaceous palaeoenvironments and plant biocoenoses are essential for understanding early angiosperm origin(s) and evolution. Many hypotheses concerning early angiosperm ecology have been proposed: (a) woody Magnoliids (Thorne, 1976), (b) weedy xeric shrub or riparian weeds (Stebbins, 1965; Hickey and Doyle, 1977), (c) ruderal (i.e. opportunist) herbs or shrubs (Taylor and Hickey, 1996), (d) aquatic (Sun et al., 2002) or (e) disturbed, understorey shrubs (Feild et al., 2004).
In Europe, numerous localities were prospected and worked out over two centuries. However, only a single or a few localities from the same area were studied at one time (e.g. Uli
n
et al., 1997; Nguyen Tu et al., 1999, 2002; Gomez et al., 2001, 2002), and no synthesis on a European scale is available for the Mid-Cretaceous. Wagner's Parsimony Method (WPM), a clustering method currently used in phylogeny (cladistics), allows a hierarchical classification of the localities to be processed from floristic lists of fossil plant megaremains. The result is compared with the palaeoenvironmental data in order to infer the relationship between the fossil record (biocoenoses) and the palaeoenvironments (biotopes).
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONAPPENDIXACKNOWLEDGEMENTSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
The database consists of a set of floristic lists of fossil plant impressions and compressions ordered according to a ‘presence/absence’ per locality matrix (see the Appendix). It is compiled from the Albian and Cenomanian literature of Europe, especially from the Czech Republic (Fri
and Bayer, 1901; Knobloch, 1971, 1999; Kvaek J., 1992; Ulin et al., 1997; Kvaek and Dilcher, 2000; Nguyen Tu et al., 2002), France (Nguyen Tu et al., 1999; Gomez et al., 2004; Néraudeau et al., 2005), Italy (Pigozzo, 2002; Gomez et al., 2003), Portugal (Teixeira, 1948) and Spain (Gaibar-Puertas, 1962; Alvárez-Ramis and Meléndez, 1971; Alvárez-Ramis et al., 1981; Alvárez-Ramis and de Lorenzo, 1982; Román-Gómez, 1985, 1987; Gomez et al., 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002). A floristic list from a place bearing ill-defined fossil plant beds are not considered in the analysis. Otherwise, each well-defined fossil plant bed in a given place corresponds to a distinct locality (Fig. 1). This is in order to contrast environments both in time and space. Leaf megaremains cannot endure long-distance transport without suffering angular tears along the veins or entrapment by riparian vegetation or banks (Gastaldo et al., 1989; Martín-Closas and Gomez, 2004). No such damage is described in the literature and the fossil assemblages used are generally considered to be autochthonous or parautochthonous deposits. In these circumstances, one may assume that the growing and final depositional environments were very similar on a working landscape ecology scale. The localities were grouped according to the species content with WPM, which previously had only been applied to synecology (for a review, see Coiffard et al., 2004). The early-mid Albian localities are used as outgroup, the floristic changes (total species turnover) between the Albian and Cenomanian being more significant than the coeval locality variations. The resulting consensus tree was subsequently compared with the taphonomical data. Most parsimonious trees and the resulting strict consensus tree were constructed with the software Paup 4·0 b2 for PC (Swofford, 1999).
|
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONAPPENDIXACKNOWLEDGEMENTSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
Groups and subgroups
The consensus tree of localities has a length of 238 steps, a consistency index of 0·5672 and a rescaled consistency index of 0·3132 (Fig. 2). It shows a four-branch polytomy at the base, of which branches are the highest hierarchical level of the distribution of taxa in the localities. Group A comprises three localities, which are characterized by one Bennettite, Nilssoniopteris pecinovensis, and two conifers, Brachyphyllum squamosum and Sphenolepis pecinovensis. Group B includes nine localities, of which the floral content includes one ginkgo, Nehvizdya/Eretmophyllum sp., one conifer, Ceratostrobus sequoiaphyllus, and one angiosperm, Diospyros cretacea. Group C shows five localities, and is characterized by one fern, Raphaelia lobifolia, one conifer, ‘Widdringtonia’ graminea, and one angiosperm, ‘Myrica’ fragiliformis. The fourth main branch is subdivided into three groups, D–F, because the localities within these groups share numerous taxa, whereas a few taxa are shared by the whole branch. Groups D, E and F share Myrtophyllum geinitzii, while D and E are clustered and share Myrtophyllum angustum. Group D consists of seven localities, and displays one fern, Onychiopsis capsulifera and three angiosperms, Hederaephyllum primordiale, Araliphyllum formosum and ‘Magnolia’ amplifolia. Group E represents six localities, and is composed of one angiosperm, Araliphyllum daphnophyllum. The group F comprises four localities each showing two angiosperms, Grevilleophyllum constans and Platanus laevis. Four species are frequent in two unrelated groups: (1) a Taxodiaceae, Cunninghamites lignitum in A and C; (2) a Cheirolepidiaceae, Frenelopsis alata in B and C; (3) an angiosperm, Debeya coriacea in C and E; and (4) a fern, Phlebopteris dunkeri in C and D.
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONAPPENDIXACKNOWLEDGEMENTSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
Mid-Cretaceous environments
From the sedimentological point of view, all the localities of Group A, except ‘Velké Opatovice’, were interpreted as a shallowing-upward infill of a tide-dominated estuary mouth (Uli
n et al., 1997). There is no accurate sedimentological study for ‘Velké Opatovice’. So, A may represent the vegetation of more or less sandy estuary mouths, which are characterized by coarse sandstones, frequent disturbance (channel displacements) and brackish conditions.
Group B includes localities characterized by dark clays, marine plankton or glauconite, indicating brackish environments. In the most accurate studies, these localities are considered to be an internal estuary (Gomez et al., 2004), lagoon (Nguyen Tu et al., 1999) or salt-marsh (Ulin et al., 1997; Nguyen Tu et al., 2002). As a consequence, one may assume that group B is salt-marsh vegetation under stable brackish water-related conditions.
Although group C lacks accurate palaeoenvironmental description, Quasisequoia crispa and Cunninghamites lignitum lived in a wet and stable backswamp assemblage (Kvaek, 2001).
Groups D–F correspond to fluvial environments. Groups D and E consist of beds of laminated clays intercalated in fluvial sandstones without brackish water-related environment indicators. Amongst them, localities Brník (Nguyen Tu et al., 2002), Praha Mala Chuchle, Vy
ehorovice (Kvaek and Dilcher, 2000) and Puy Puy (Gomez et al., 2004) are considered to be floodplain or levee deposits. The localities of E differ from D by the presence of muscovite and coarser clasts that may reflect the difference between floodplains s.s. (D) and levees (E). Flood events are more frequent in levees E, and these disturbances may limit the vegetation growth. Additionally, in the levees the coarser clastic material may result in higher drainage. Most localities in groups F may reflect coarse-grained, braided river channel infills (Ulin et al., 1997). However, there is no accurate sedimentological study for ‘Hloubetín brown claystones’. Group F appears to correspond to disturbed, frequently flooded, freshwater-related environments.
In addition, the close similarity between the living and final depositional environments is supported by the strong correlation between plant assemblages and sedimentary context. Thus it would be surprising to have so many similar plant communities living in very dissimilar biotopes that might fossilize in similar deposits.
Environmental factors
The relationship between palaeoenvironments and plant assemblages deals with wide space and time scales corresponding to the landscape ecology or ‘eco-complexes’ sensu Dajoz (1996). Thus each leaf assemblage may reflect environmental mosaics juxtaposed in the same geomorphological unit (e.g. braided river environments ranging from disturbed sandy banks to ‘hardwood’ forests). Nowadays, such environmental mosaics take place within a few metres.
The distribution of the vegetation can be explained according to two environmental parameters: (1) the ‘disturbance’, understood herein as an event destroying the vegetation and implying recolonization, and (2) the salinity. Groups A and B correspond to brackish water-related environments and contrast to the remainder. Within the brackish water-related environments, the estuary mouths (A) differ from the salt-marshes (B) by more frequent disturbances due to displacements of the estuary channels. Like the freshwater-related environments, the braided rivers (F) were characterized by very frequent disturbances related to the channel displacements; the floodplains (D and E) underwent less frequent flood disturbance, especially concerning the levees (E). The backswamp environments (C) were only disturbed by the long-term meandering of the streams. These parameters allow for an easy comparison with the classification by Grime (1977, 1979), in which (a) braided rivers correspond to disturbed environments favouring ruderal (opportunist) strategies; (b) salt-marshes are constrained environments characterized by low water availability and require tolerator strategies; and (c) floodplains and backswamps are mesic environments that enhance competitor strategies. Estuary mouths and levees are intermediate environments between constrained and disturbed, and disturbed and mesic environments, respectively.
Ecology and environments
The most diverse assemblages are stable, freshwater-related environments (backswamps and floodplains) including approx. 12–14 taxa (on average per groups), whereas disturbed and/or brackish water-related environments show only approx. four to eight taxa (Fig. 3). Salinity appears to be the most relevant parameter to distinguish the distributions of the gymnosperms s.l. and angiosperms (Fig. 3). The gymnosperms s.l. are the most flourishing in the brackish water-related environments, whereas the angiosperms predominated in the freshwater-related environments. Furthermore, angiosperms and gymnosperms s.l. are nearly exclusive to the disturbed environments (braided rivers and estuary mouths, respectively) probably because of the higher competition during recolonization.
|
Otherwise, autecological variations occur at a lower taxonomic level. Amongst gymnosperms (Fig. 4), the Bennettitales, Cycadales, Cheirolepidiaceae and Ginkgoales were restricted to the brackish water-related environments, while Taxodiaceae occupied nearly all environments except the braided rivers. According to the classification by Grime (1977
, 1979), they might have been tolerator, while Taxodiaceae might have been competitor and tolerator. Living Taxodiaceae still include competitors, such as Sequoia Endl., and tolerators, such as Taxodium L. C. Rich. Angiosperms played three main strategies (Fig. 4): (1) the bulk of the angiosperms occupied the stable, freshwater-related environments in association with the ferns, which may reflect a competitor strategy or, more probably, a shade-tolerant strategy; (2) ‘Diospyros’ cretacea might have been one of the first brackish and tolerator angiosperms in Europe; (3) Lauraceae (sensu Upchurch and Dilcher, 1990; Kvaek, 1992) and Platanaceae highly dominated in disturbed, freshwater-related environments and acted more or less like ruderal (opportunist) trees. Living Platanaceae share a similar ecology, and offer a ‘striking example of habitat fidelity’ (Wing and Boucher, 1998). Cenomanian Lauraceae are also well-developed in stable, freshwater-related environments and, at least in Europe, appears to have experienced a radiation during the Mid-Cretaceous (Kvaek and Ecklund, 2003).
|
Evolutionary trends
The dominance of Ginkgoales and Cheirolepidiaceae in brackish water-related environments is striking, and they could correspond to refuge niches and/or free angiosperm niches (i.e. absence of salt-tolerator angiosperm trees). Conifers also occurred in stable, freshwater-related environments, in which Taxodiaceae took the part of the overstorey.
The angiosperms showed the highest morphological and taxonomic diversity in stable, freshwater-related environments, where they consisted of probable eudicots bearing compound leaves, Lauraceae, and simple toothed leaves similar to ANITAs (i.e. five groups of basal angiosperms, Amborella, Nymphaeales, Illiciales, Trimaniaceae, Austrobaileyaceae) and Magnoliids. Such a palaeoecological situation fits well with the ‘dark and disturbed early angiosperms’ hypothesis by Feild et al. (2004). Such vegetation also occurred in North America, and was composed of Magnoliids (Liriophyllum and Magnoliaephyllum), Sapindopsis and ferns (Retallack and Dilcher, 1981, 1986). Nevertheless, in contrast to the Northern American floras, Europe lacked Magnoliales such as Liriophyllum (Kvaek and Dilcher, 2000). The angiosperm ‘Diospyros’ cretacea displays thick cuticles and cyclocytic stomata (Kvaek, 1983) and only occurred within gymnospermous, brackish water-related environments (in contrast to other coeval, saline-tolerant angiosperms), suggesting particular water loss adaptations for saline environments and a wide early ecological range. Otherwise, angiosperms are nearly exclusive to disturbed, freshwater-related environments (i.e. braided rivers). This might indicate a ruderal (opportunist) strategy (Stebbins, 1965; Taylor and Hickey, 1996), though the Lauraceae and Platanaceae species that grew there do not belong to angiosperm basal clades (APG, 2003). Similarly, channel environments in North America show platanoid-dominated vegetation (Doyle and Hickey, 1976; Retallack and Dilcher, 1981; Upchurch et al., 1994). Lauraceae and Platanaceae wood (Paraphyllantoxylon and Icacinoxylon, respectively) also occur, and even large trunk fragments were collected (Falcon-Lang et al., 2001). Bond (1989) suggested a very convenient hypothesis to account for the early dominance of woody angiosperms in disturbed environments: seedlings of living angiosperm trees grow faster than those of living conifer trees (Becker, 2000). The appearance of the fast seedling character, in association with the tree habit, may help the Lauraceae and Platanaceae to compete with gymnosperm trees such as the Taxodiaceae in disturbed habitats. In addition, the good representation of the Lauraceae in stable, freshwater-related environments may reflect an ‘early-successional habit’. Such a habit was suggested for Magnoliaephyllum (Retallack and Dilcher, 1981) and Myrtophyllum (Ulin et al., 1997). The radiation of Lauraceae in Cenomanian, which is stated by Kvaek and Ecklund (2003), may be related to rapidity of seedling growth and tree habit, making the family more competitive during regeneration.
|
APPENDIX |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONAPPENDIXACKNOWLEDGEMENTSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
Data matrix
Outgroup: 1, Belas1 (Alvárez-Ramis and Meléndez, 1971
); 2, Belas2 (Teixeira, 1948); 3, Buarcos lower (Teixeira, 1948); 4, Buarcos mid (Teixeira, 1948); 5, Buarcos upper (Teixeira, 1948); 6, Caixaria (Teixeira, 1948); 7, Pola de Siero (Alvárez-Ramis and Meléndez, 1971); 8, Préjano (Román-Gómez, 1985, 1987); 9, Rubielos de Mora (Gomez et al., 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002); 10, Runa (Alvárez-Ramis and Meléndez, 1971); 11, Tavarede (Teixeira, 1948).
Ingroup: 12, Font Benon, Les Nouillers (Gomez et al., 2004); 13, Bohdankov (Fri and Bayer, 1901); 14, Brník (Nguyen Tu et al., 2002); 15, Evan (Knobloch, 1971); 16, Hloubetín (Nguyen Tu et al., 2002); 17, Hloubetín brown claystone (Kvaek J, 1992); 18, Horousany (Nguyen Tu et al., 2002); 19, Landsberg (Fri and Bayer, 1901); 20, Le Brouillard, Ecouflant (Nguyen Tu et al., 1999); 21, Lipenec (Knobloch, 1971); 22, Pecínov bei Nove, Pecínov (Knobloch, 1999); 23, Pecínov bei Nove lower, Pecínov (Knobloch, 1971); 24, Pecínov bei Nove middle, Pecínov (Knobloch, 1971); 25, Pecínov unit 1, Pecínov (Ulin et al., 1997); 26, Pecínov unit 2, Pecínov (Ulin et al., 1997); 27, Pecínov unit 2b, Pecínov (Nguyen Tu et al., 2002); 28, Pecínov unit 3, Pecínov (Ulin et al., 1997); 29, Pecínov unit 3A, Pecinov (Ulin et al., 1997); 30, Pecínov unit 3B, Pecínov (Ulin et al., 1997); 31, Pecínov unit 5, Pecínov (Nguyen Tu et al., 2002); 32, Pecínov unit 5b, Pecínov (Nguyen Tu et al., 2002); 33, Praha Klicov, Praha (Knobloch, 1971); 34, Praha Mala Chuchle, Praha (Kvaek and Dilcher, 2000); 35, Praha Slivenec, Praha (Knobloch, 1971); 36, Puy-Puy, Tonnay-Charente (Gomez et al., 2004); 37, Renardière, Tonnay-Charente (Gomez et al., 2004); 38, Rudka (Knobloch, 1971); 39, Rudka2. (Knobloch, 1999); 40, Touchovice (Knobloch, 1971); 41, Velké Opatovice (Knobloch, 1971); 42, Vyehorovice 1 (Knobloch, 1971); 43, Vyehorovice 2 (Knobloch, 1971); 44, Zbrasin (Knobloch, 1971); 45, Zbraslavec (Knobloch, 1971).
|
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONAPPENDIXACKNOWLEDGEMENTSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
The authors thank V. Daviero-Gomez, D. Néraudeau, V. Perrichot, M. Philippe, B. Videt and R. Vullo for sampling the collection in Charente-Maritime. C.C. thanks A. Nel for his help in the development of the method. This article is a contribution to ECLIPSE CNRS ‘Interactions Climat/Écosystèmes de l’Aptien au Paléocène', Global Change IFB ‘Interactions biodiversité végétale–changements globaux à la transition Crétacé inférieur–supérieur d’Europe occidentale'. The research of B. Gomez was supported by projects BTE2001-0185-C02-01 and B052001-0173 of the Spanish government and project 2001SGR-75 of the Catalan government. J. Kva
ek acknowledges the support of a grant from the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic No. MK00002327201. |
LITERATURE CITED |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONAPPENDIXACKNOWLEDGEMENTSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
-
Alvárez-Ramis C, de Lorenzo P. 1982. Estudio de la flora cretácica de Pola de Siero. Acta Geológica Hispánica 14: 327–332.
Alvárez-Ramis C, Meléndez F. 1971. Un nuevo yacimiento de flora cretácica en el Albiense de la Cordillera Ibérica. La Cierva (Serranía de Cuenca). Estudios geológicos 27: 247–253.
Alvárez-Ramis C, Biondi E, Desplats D, Hughes NF, Koeniger J-C, Pons D, et al. 1981. Les végétaux (macrofossiles) du Crétacé moyen de l'Europe occidentale et du Sahara. Végétations et paléoclimats. Cretaceous Research 2: 339–359.[CrossRef]
APG. 2003. An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG II. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 141: 399–436.[CrossRef]
Becker P. 2000. Competition in the regeneration niche between conifers and angiosperms: Bond's slow seedling hypothesis. Functional Ecology 14: 401–412.[CrossRef]
Bond WJ. 1989. The tortoise and the hare: Ecology of angiosperm dominance and gymnosperm persistence. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 36: 227–249.[ISI]
Coiffard C, Gomez B, Thévenard F, Nel A. 2004. Application de la méthode de parcimonie de Wagner à l'étude synécologique de flores de l'Albien et du Cénomanien d'Europe. Annales de Paleontologie 90: 175–186.[CrossRef]
Dajoz R. 1996. Précis d'écologie. Paris, France: Dunod.
Doyle JA, Hickey LJ. 1976. Pollen and leaves from the mid-Cretaceous Potomac Group and their bearing on early angiosperm evolution. In: Beck, CB, ed. Origin and early evolution of angiosperms. Columbia, SC: Columbia University Press, 139–206.
Falcon-Lang HJ, Kvaek J, Ulin D. 2001. Fire-prone plant communities and palaeoclimate of a Late Cretaceous fluvial to estuarine environment, Pecínov quarry, Czech Republic. Geological Magazine 138: 563–576.
Feild TS, Arens NC, Doyle JA, Dawson TE, Donoghue MJ. 2004. Dark and disturbed: a new image of early angiosperm ecology. Paleobiology 30: 82–107.
Fri A, Bayer E. 1901. Studien im Gebiete der Bohmischen Kreideformation. VII. Perucer Schichten. Archiv der naturwissenschaftliche Landesdurchforschung Böhmen 11: 1–184.
Gaibar-Puertas C. 1962. Estudio geológico en torno a un nuevo yacimiento de flora supracretácica española. Notas y comunicaciones del Instituto Geológico y Minero de España 66: 37–62.
Gastaldo RA, Bearce SC, Degges C, Hunt RJ, Peebles MW, Violette DL. 1989. Biostratinomy of a Holocene oxbow lake: a backswamp to mid-channel transect. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 58: 47–60.[CrossRef][ISI]
Gomez B, Barale G, Martín-Closas C, Thévenard F, Philippe M. 1999. Découverte d'une flore à Ginkgoales, Bennettitales et Coniférales dans le Crétacé inférieur de la formation Escucha (Chaine Ibérique Orientale, Teruel, Espagne). Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Monatshefte 1999: 661–675.
Gomez B, Martín-Closas C, Barale G, Thévenard F. 2000. A new species of Nehvidzya (Ginkgoales) from the Lower Cretaceous of the Iberian Ranges (Spain). Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 111: 49–70.[CrossRef][ISI]
Gomez B, Martín-Closas C, Méon H, Thévenard F, Barale G. 2001. Plant taphonomy and palaeoecology in the lacustrine Uña Delta (Late Barremian, Iberian Ranges, Spain). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 170: 133–148.[CrossRef]
Gomez B, Martín-Closas C, Barale G, Solé de Porta N, Thévenard F, Guignard G. 2002. Frenelopsis (Coniferales: Cheirolepidiaceae) and related male organ genera from the Lower Cretaceous of Spain. Palaeontology 45: 997–1036.[CrossRef][ISI]
Gomez B, Thévenard F, Fantin M, Guisberti L. 2003. Late Cretaceous plants from the Bonarelli level of the Venetian Alps, Northeastern Italy. Cretaceous Research 23: 671–685.[CrossRef]
Gomez B, Daviero-Gomez V, Perrichot V, Thévenard F, Coiffard C, Philippe M, Néraudeau D. 2004. Assemblages floristiques de l'Albien-Cénomanien de Charente-Maritime (SO France). Annales de paléontologie 90: 147–159.[CrossRef]
Grime JP. 1977. Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. The American Naturalist 111: 169–1194.
Grime JP. 1979. Plant strategies and vegetation processes. Chichester: Wiley.
Hickey LJ, Doyle JA. 1977. Early Cretaceous fossil evidence for Angiosperms evolution. Botanical Review 43: 1–104.
Knobloch E. 1971. Neue Pflanzefunde aus dem böhmischen und mährischen Cenoman. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen 139: 43–56.
Knobloch E. 1999. Neue oder wenig bekannte Pflanzenarten aus den perucer Schichten (Cenoman) der böhmischen Masse. Actae Musei Nationalis Pragae, Series B, Historia Naturalis 55: 25–60.
Kvaek J. 1992. Leaf and fruit compressions from the Bohemian Cenomanian. In: Kovar-Eder J, ed. Palaeovegetational development in Europe and regions relevant to its palaeofloristic evolution. Proceedings of the Pan-European Palaeobotanical Conference, Vienna, 19–23 September 1991, 301–304, Museum of Natural History, Vienna.
Kvaek J. 2001. Plant habitats of the Peruc Korycany Formation (Cenomanian, Czech Republic, Central Europe). In: Ferguson DK, ed. 12th Plant Taphonomy Meeting, Altenbach, Austria, 2 October 2001, University of Vienna, Vienna.
Kvaek J, Dilcher DL. 2000. Comparison of Cenomanian floras from Western Interior North America and Central Europe. Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Geologica 44: 17–38.
Kvaek J, Ecklund H. 2003. A report of newly recovered reproductive structures from the Cenomanian of Bohemia (Central Europe). International Journal of Plant Sciences 164: 1021–1039.[CrossRef]
Kvaek Z. 1983. Cuticular studies in Angiosperms of the Bohemian Cenomanian. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 28: 159—170.
Kvaek Z. 1992. Lauralean angiosperms in the Cretaceous. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 147: 345–367.
Lidgard S, Crane PR. 1990. Angiosperm diversification and Cretaceous floristic trends: a comparison of palynofloras and leaf macrofloras. Paleobiology 16: 94–95.[Abstract]
Martín-Closas C, Gomez B. 2004. Taphonomie des plantes et interprétations paléoécologiques. Une synthèse. Geobios 1: 65–88.
Néraudeau D, Vullo R, Gomez B, Perrichot V, Videt B. 2005. Stratigraphie et paléontologie (plantes, vertébrés) de la série paralique Albien terminal–Cénomanien basal de Tonnay-Charente (Charente-Maritime, France). Comptes Rendus Palevol 4: 79–93.
Nguyen Tu TT, Bocherens H, Mariotti A, Baudin F, Pons D, Broutin J, et al. 1999. Ecological distribution of Cenomanian terrestrial plants based on 13C/12C ratios. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 145: 79–93.[CrossRef]
Nguyen Tu TT, Kvaek J, Ulin D, Bocherens H, Mariotti A, Broutin J. 2002. Isotope reconstruction of plant palaeoecology: case study of Cenomanian floras from Bohemia. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 183: 43–70.[CrossRef]
Pigozzo F. 2002. Le filliti cretaciche di Carcoselle (Trevigiano Occidentale). Lavori della Società Venziana di Scienze Naturali 27: 131–144.
Retallack G, Dilcher DL. 1981. Early angiosperm reproduction: Prisca reynoldsii, gen. et sp. nov. from mid-Cretaceous coastal deposits in Kansas, U.S.A. Palaeontographica B 179: 103–151.
Retallack G, Dilcher DL. 1986. Cretaceous angiosperm invasion of North America. Cretaceous Research 7: 227–252.[CrossRef]
Román-Gómez P. 1985. Estudio paleobotánico del Cretácico inferior de Préjano (Rioja). Memoria de Licenciatura, Ciencias Geológicas, ‘in littera’, Madrid 1–141.
Román-Gómez P. 1987. Nota sobre la macroflora del Cretácico inferior de la Cuenca de Préjano (La Rioja). COL-PA, Editorial Universidad Complutense Madrid 41: 35–40.
Stebbins GL. 1965. The probable growth habit of the earliest flowering plants. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 52: 457–468.[CrossRef]
Sun G, Ji Q, Dilcher DL, Zheng S, Nixon KC, Wang X. 2002. Archaefructaceae, a new basal Angiosperm family. Science 296: 899–904.
Swofford DL. 1999. PAUP* phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods), version 4·0 b2. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
Taylor DW, Hickey LJ. 1996. Evidence for and implications of an herbaceous origin for Angiosperms. In: Taylor DW, Hickey LJ, eds. Flowering plant origin, evolution, and phylogeny. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall, 232–266.
Teixeira C. 1948. Flora Mesózoica Portuguesa. Vol. 1. Serviços Geológicos de Portugal, 1–121.
Thorne RF. 1976. A phylogenetic classification of the Angiosperms. Evolutionary Biology 9: 35–106.
Ulin D, Kvaek J, Svobodová M, 
piáková L. 1997. High-frequency sea-level fluctuations and plant habitats in Cenomanian fluvial to estuarine succession: Pecínov quarry, Bohemia. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 136: 165–197.[CrossRef]
Upchurch GR, Dilcher DL. 1990. Cenomanian angiosperm leaf megafossils from the Rose Creek locality of the Dakota Formation, southeastern Nebraska. US Geological Survey Bulletin 1915: 1–55.
Upchurch GR, Crane PR, Drinnan AN. 1994. The megaflora from the Quantico locality (upper Albian), Lower Cretaceous Potomac Group of Virginia. Virginia Museum of Natural History Memoir 4: 1–57.[Medline]
Wing SL, Boucher LD. 1998. Ecological aspects of the Cretaceous flowering plant radiation. Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Science 26: 379–421.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||