Next Article in Journal
The Ectomycorrhizal Fungi and Soil Bacterial Communities of the Five Typical Tree Species in the Junzifeng National Nature Reserve, Southeast China
Next Article in Special Issue
Testing the Tropical Niche Conservatism Hypothesis: Climatic Niche Evolution of Escallonia Mutis ex L. F. (Escalloniaceae)
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of Carica papaya Informs Lineage-Specific Evolution of the Aquaporin (AQP) Family in Brassicales
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 12
Issue 22
10.3390/plants12223852
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

An Updated Review of Fossil Pollen Evidence for the Study of the Origin, Evolution and Diversification of Caribbean Mangroves

by
Valentí Rull
1,2
1
Botanic Institute of Barcelona, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Pg. del Migdia s/n, 08028 Barcelona, Spain
2
Institut Català de Paleontologia Miquel Crusafont, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, C. de les Columnes s/n, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain
Plants 2023, 12(22), 3852; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12223852
Submission received: 31 October 2023 / Revised: 10 November 2023 / Accepted: 13 November 2023 / Published: 14 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Collection Paleobotany, Paleoecology, Biogeography and Evolution)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Recently, the evolutionary history of the Caribbean mangroves has been reconsidered using partial palynological databases organized by the time intervals of interest, namely Late Cretaceous to Eocene for the origin, the Eocene–Oligocene transition for major turnover and Neogene to Quaternary for diversification. These discussions have been published in a set of sequential papers, but the raw information remains unknown. This paper reviews all the information available and provides the first comprehensive and updated compilation of the abovementioned partial databases. This compilation is called CARMA-F (CARibbean MAngroves-Fossil) and includes nearly 90 localities from the present and past Caribbean coasts, ranging from the Late Cretaceous to the Pliocene. Details on the Quaternary localities (CARMA-Q) will be published later. CARMA-F lists and illustrates the fossil pollen from past mangrove taxa and their extant representatives, and includes a map of the studied localities and a conventional spreadsheet with the raw data. The compilation is the most complete available for the study of the origin, evolution and diversification of Caribbean mangroves, and is open to modifications for adapting it to the particular interests of each researcher.

1. Introduction

Mangroves are intertidal ecosystems that develop a worldwide forested fringe along tropical/subtropical coasts between approximately 25° N and 25° S (Figure 1). Structurally, these ecosystems are organized around a number of tree species from varied orders and families that confer mangrove formations, their characteristic physiognomy, which has been considered an example of evolutionary convergence among taxonomically distant clades [1]. In addition to their intrinsic value as natural systems, mangroves are important for the following reasons: (i) they protect coasts and coastal ecosystems, such as corals, seagrasses and salt marshes, from erosion, thus favoring seaward progradation; (ii) they play a key role in the maintenance of biodiversity and ecological dynamics across the marine/terrestrial ecotone; (iii) they provide relevant ecological and cultural services (fisheries, cultivation, aquaculture, timber, fuel, aesthetics, ecotourism, etc.); and (iv) they are among the most efficient blue-carbon ecosystems that contribute to alleviating atmospheric CO2 increases by sequestering carbon in their organic-rich sediments [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9].
However, mangroves are among the world’s most threatened ecosystems [11]. According to the latest estimates, the global mangrove extent was reduced by 3.4% in less than 25 years (1996–2020) due to natural and anthropogenic deforestation [12]. If these rates are maintained, these ecosystems will be severely reduced during this century, and their long-term survival is at great risk [13], which would imply increasing coastal erosion rates and biodiversity depletion, as well as losses in ecological and cultural services and in the global warming mitigation capacity. This has fostered the launching of numerous worldwide initiatives for mangrove conservation and restoration, which need sound ecological knowledge [14,15,16,17]. Most of these initiatives have been based on present-day ecological studies, but paleoecological research may also be useful, as it provides first-hand empirical evidence on the actual response of mangrove ecosystems to environmental (notably climatic, eustatic and anthropogenic) drivers of ecological change. This allows for the characterization of the main threats and helps define the corresponding response thresholds, thus providing information useful for mangrove conservation and management. Evolutionary studies are also valuable, as they furnish straightforward evidence on the evolutionary potential of mangrove species and their capacity to undergo genetic changes in response to environmental shifts [18].
The Caribbean region (Figure 2) has been considered the cradle of Neotropical mangroves and a biodiversity hotspot for these ecosystems [19,20,21]. Current estimates for mangrove loss in the region are similar to global figures, and several conservation actions have been proposed specifically for the region [15]. In this context, the Caribbean mangroves were considered direct descendants of former pantropical Cretaceous mangroves that experienced regional differentiation after the closure of the Tethys Sea. However, a detailed quantitative analysis of the evidence strongly suggested that the first Caribbean mangroves did not appear until the Middle Eocene and were ecological and evolutionary innovations that emerged de novo, rather than as a consequence of the regional differentiation of former hypothetical Late Cretaceous pantropical mangroves [22].
The Eocene Caribbean mangroves were dominated by the ancestor of the extant Pelliciera, which was replaced by the ancestor of the modern Rhizophora after the Eocene–Oligocene transition (EOT), likely due to the global and intense cooling and sea-level fall that characterized this geological boundary [1]. The Pelliciera mangroves never returned, and their modern representatives remain as subordinate mangrove elements restricted to a small equatorial patch in Central America/NW South America [23]. The Rhizophora mangroves diversified during the Neogene and attained their present-like taxonomical composition in the Late Miocene–Pliocene after the emergence of Avicennia and Laguncularia, the other important mangrove-forming trees of extant Caribbean mangroves [24]. The Quaternary was a time of spatial and ecological reorganization due to the recurrent Pleistocene climatic/sea-level shifts, and the Holocene was characterized by the consequences of human disturbance, especially during the last 6000 years [25]. The last centuries have been characterized by a significant reduction in Caribbean mangrove cover due to natural and anthropogenic deforestation, which calls for urgent conservation/restoration actions [18]. A graphical summary of these events is provided in Figure 3.
These conclusions were based on partial datasets organized chronologically according to the time lapse of interest (i.e., Late Cretaceous to Eocene, EOT, and Neogene and Quaternary), which are available in the corresponding papers. A first attempt to synthesize all this information led to the development of a compilation called CARMA (CARibbean MAngroves), but only the main features of the existing fossil records were available, and the specific data remain unpublished [18]. The CARMA compilation has been further updated and subdivided into two conceptually different parts: a pre-Quaternary fossil section (CARMA-F) and a section containing Quaternary and modern records (CARMA-Q). This paper presents the most updated version of CARMA-F, which constitutes the basis for the study of Eocene origin, EOT evolutionary turnover and the Neogene diversification of Caribbean mangroves. The CARMA-Q update, useful for the study of modern mangroves in the face of Quaternary environmental shifts and their anthropization, is in progress and will be published later. In addition to providing a comprehensive view of the published information to unravel the origin and evolution of Caribbean mangroves, CARMA-F may be used as a guide for the interested researchers to locate the required data aimed at addressing their own particular interests. The present version of CARMA-F is fairly complete, considering the published data, and its content is consistent with the above evolutionary insights. However, the compilation remains open to new updates from future research, and further improvements, modifications and alternative hypotheses regarding the origin and evolution of Caribbean mangroves cannot be disregarded.
The paper is subdivided into three main sections. The first section briefly characterizes the extant Caribbean mangroves in terms of their taxonomic composition, whereas the second section illustrates the pollen of the main taxa, with emphasis on those with fossil representatives. The third section describes the CARMA-F compilation, which is provided as a spreadsheet in the Supplementary Material, the main geographical and chronological features of the localities studied, and the types of data provided in the original references, with illustrative examples of all of them.

2. Extant Caribbean Mangroves

According to the latest estimates using remote sensing methods [12], Caribbean mangroves occupy a total extent of approximately 14,700 km2, which represents ~10% of the world’s total (Figure 4; Table 1). The countries with more extensive mangrove cover are Cuba, Venezuela, Colombia and Panama (1500–3600 km2); all other countries are below 750 km2, and 15 of them have less than 100 km2 of mangroves, with 9 below 10 km2 (Table 1).
Floristically, there are two main types of mangrove constituents: true (or strict) mangrove elements and mangrove associates (Table 2). The conditions for being considered a true mangrove element are the following [29]: (i) present only in mangroves, not extending into terrestrial communities; (ii) playing a major role in the structure of the community and able to form pure stands; (iii) having specific morphological adaptations to intertidal environments, typically pneumatophores and viviparous embryos; (iv) bearing physiological mechanisms for salt exclusion, as an adaptation to grow in saline waters; and (v) being systematically isolated from their terrestrial relatives, usually at the generic level, but often at the family/subfamily level.
True mangrove elements are further subdivided into major and minor elements. Major true mangrove elements are mostly trees that are also known as mangrove-forming trees. In the Caribbean, the major true mangrove elements are of the genera Rhizophora (Rhizophoraceae), Avicennia (Acanthaceae) and Laguncularia (Combretaceae) (Figure 5). Minor true mangrove elements have similar traits but are not structurally important for the community (condition ii) and are unable to develop pure stands (iii), usually living in peripheral intertidal habitats. This is the case for Pelliciera (Tetrameristaceae) and Acrostichum (Pteridaceae) species, although the first can locally develop small pure stands under perhumid and shading conditions [31]). Mangrove associates are typical of mangrove environments but are not restricted to them (i), are not structurally important (ii) and lack morphological and physiological adaptations to intertidal habitats (iii, iv). These elements also occur in other habitats, such as coastal swamps, back-mangrove wetlands, salt marshes, riverbanks, beach communities and inland rainforests [29]. The herb Crenea maritima (Lythraceae) is exclusive to mangrove environments (i) and might be treated as a true mangrove element but it fails to meet conditions (ii) and (iii) and is therefore considered a mangrove associate. Conocarpus erectus is able to develop pure stands (ii) and is sometimes considered a true mangrove element, but it lacks morphological adaptations (iii) and does not tolerate flooding and high salinities (iv), thus living in marginal mangrove environments [32]. Some reviews on taxonomic, biogeographical, environmental and ecological features of some of the most important Caribbean true-mangrove elements have recently been published [32,33,34,35].
In addition to the above true and associate mangrove species, ~120 other accompanying species have been identified in the Neotropical mangroves, defining 30 phytosociological associations, all of which are present in the Caribbean region [36].

3. Modern and Fossil Pollen Types

Fossil pollen/spores are, by large, the main evidence utilized in the evolutionary study of Caribbean mangroves. The pollen morphology of the main Caribbean mangrove components is illustrated in Figure 6, which is based on material from living plants and sedimentary pollen from modern sediments. It should be stressed that pollen morphology is rather homogeneous within each genus, and identification at the species level is not possible in most genera, with a few exceptions. This is why when dealing with pollen, we will refer to genera, except when some degree of morphological differentiation at the species level is possible. The generic names of extant mangrove components are usually extended to the whole Quaternary, assuming that they have been present during the last 2.6 Ma, which is a common procedure in Quaternary paleoecology [37]. In older sediments, where the occurrence of extant taxa is not guaranteed, artificial (as opposed to natural or living) species have been defined based on pollen morphology (morphospecies) and associated with extant genera, also on the basis of morphological identity. Since pollen morphology is a highly conservative character, from an evolutionary point of view [38,39], it has traditionally been assumed that these morphospecies represent the ancestors (likely at the generic level) of extant species, having similar ecological requirements. Indeed, paleoecological studies using fossils commonly rely on a reasonable degree of niche constancy over time (niche conservatism), especially at the genus level, in long-lasting communities [40,41,42,43], which is the case for mangroves.
This procedure, which has long been used in plant evolution, in general, and the Neotropics, in particular [46,47,48], has been validated by recent molecular phylogenetic studies, demonstrating that the main extant Caribbean mangrove genera were already present in the Paleogene, and that their modern species emerged mostly in the Neogene [19,49,50]. The fossil representatives of the main extant mangrove genera are listed in Table 3; the remaining true and associate mangrove genera (Table 2) do not have known Cretaceous, Paleogene or Neogene fossil equivalents and occur only in Quaternary and modern sediments. The palm Nypa fruticans Wurmb, now restricted to the IWP region, is included because it was present in the Caribbean region until the Eocene [44,45]. In this review, the names of extant genera are used as representatives of the corresponding lineages, according to the fossil representatives listed in Table 3.
Table 3. Paleogene and Neogene fossil pollen representatives of extant mangrove genera from the Caribbean region. Based on Refs. [45,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58].
Table 3. Paleogene and Neogene fossil pollen representatives of extant mangrove genera from the Caribbean region. Based on Refs. [45,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58].
GenusFossil Representative (Morphospecies)Range
Acacia *Polyadopollenites mariae DueñasPaleogene–Neogene
AcrostichumDeltoidospora adriennis (Potonié & Gelletich) FrederiksenCretaceous–Neogene
AvicenniaAvicennia
Retitricolporites sp. Lorente		Neogene
CreneaVerrutricoporites rotundiporus Van der Hammen & WijsmtraNeogene
HibiscusEchiperiporites estelae Germeraad, Hopping & MullerNeogene
LagunculariaLagunculariaNeogene
NypaSpinizocolpites echinatus Muller,
S. baculatus Muller
S. prominatus (McIntyre) Stover & Evans		Cretaceous–Paleogene
PachiraBombacacidites baculatus Muller, Di Giacomo & Van ErveNeogene
PellicieraPsilatricolporites crassus Van der Hammen & Wijsmtra
Lanagiopollis crassa (Van der Hammen & Wijmstra) Frederiksen		Paleogene–Neogene
RhizophoraZonocostites ramonae Germeraad, Hopping & Muller
Zonocostites spp.		Paleogene–Neogene
* Not included in Table 2 but considered to be a past mangrove associate by some authors [45].

4. The CARMA-F Compilation

The most updated CARMA version contains almost 160 entries/localities, of which 86 correspond to CARMA-F (Figure 7). The details on these localities and their fossil pollen data are provided in the Supplementary Material and are summarized as follows. Geographically, most fossil pollen sites (86%) are in the southern Caribbean coasts, especially in Colombia and Venezuela. This is due to the intensive and extensive exploration/production activities developed in these countries by the oil industry since the early 20th century. In these activities, fossil pollen played a key biostratigraphic role, especially in coastal and shallow-marine environments [51,57,59,60,61]. Many of the northern South American sites are located far from the present Caribbean coasts, but they were on near-mangrove coastal/shelf environments in the Paleogene and the Neogene. This is due to the highly dynamic paleogeography of the region driven mainly by the migration of the Caribbean plate and the occurrence of extensive marine incursions in NW South America [62,63,64,65]. The remaining CARMA-F localities lie in Central America (12%) and the Greater Antilles (2%), while the Lesser Antilles are devoid of fossil pollen records involving mangrove elements. The location of fossil records is approximate in many cases, especially in wells, due to the lack of coordinates, mostly for industrial confidentiality reasons. In these cases, the location of the records in Figure 7 has been placed according to maps and descriptions with the aid of Google Earth.
Chronologically, 6 localities bear Late Cretaceous sediments, 37 include Paleogene rocks, and 59 contain Neogene formations (this makes more than 86 items—actually 102—because a number of sections include combinations of these ages). The majority of records (61; 71%) provide quantitative data, usually pollen percentages but also raw counts in a few cases (5), whereas 19 (22%) report only presence, and 6 (7%) yield a semiquantitative parameter called re-observation probability (ROP), using the formula ROP = 1 − (1 − (a/N))M, where a = number of grains of a species counted in a sample, N = total number of grains of all species in the same sample, and M = total number of grains of all species in a new sample [51]. These data are displayed in several formats in the original references, namely, in-text taxa lists, tables and range charts for qualitative (presence/absence) data and diagrams or tables for percentages. ROP values are provided as range charts using symbols for probability classes. Illustrative examples of range charts, percentage tables/diagrams and ROP charts are provided in Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11.

5. Final Remarks

The CARMA-F version presented here replaces the unpublished partial compilations used in previous papers [1,22,23,24,25], but the main conclusions in relation to the origin, evolution and diversification of Caribbean mangroves, as summarized in Rull [18] and synthesized in Figure 3, do not change. The refinements introduced by the updated dataset are addressed in detail in a book that will be issued next year [69]. The available version of CARMA-F is open to further additions and improvements and constitutes the most complete available compilation for studying any aspect of the origin and evolution of Caribbean mangroves. The format chosen for making the compilation public is a conventional spreadsheet so that interested researchers can freely use and modify this information according to their particular interests. As a former industry-based biostratigrapher, the author is aware that many palynological datasets potentially useful for the study of mangrove evolution remain unknown in confidential databases from oil companies. Some classical and highly cited papers, such as those by Germeraad et al. [51] or Lorente [57], among others, have demonstrated that it is possible to bring these data to light maintaining reasonable confidentiality rules. Continued efforts in this sense for the benefit of evolutionary knowledge would be acknowledged. Further improvements of CARMA-F would include the expansion of the compilation to the Caribbean/Gulf of Mexico region and eventually to the entire Neotropical region.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants12223852/s1. Refs. [70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110] are cited in the Supplementary Materials.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data are provided as Supplementary Material. The data are also publicly available at Mendeley Data (https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/zx8zvk3pw2/2; accessed on 12 November 2023).

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges the comments by two anonymous reviewers.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Rull, V. Eocene/Oligocene global disruption and the revolution of Caribbean mangroves. Persp. Pant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2023, 59, 125733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lugo, A.E.; Snedaker, S.C. The ecology of mangroves. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1974, 5, 39–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Saenger, P. Mangrove Ecology, Silviculture and Conservation; Kluwer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  4. Nagelkerken, I.; Blaver, S.J.N.; Bouillon, S.; Green, P.; Haywood, M.; Kirton, L.G.; Meynecke, J.-O.; Pawlik, J.; Penrose, H.M.; Sasekumar, A.; et al. The habitat function of mangroves for terrestrial and marine fauna: A review. Aquat. Bot. 2008, 89, 155–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Laegdsgaard, P.; Johnson, C. Why do juvenile fish utilize mangrove habitats. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2001, 257, 229–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Afonso, F.; Félix, P.M.; Chainho, P.; Heumüller, J.A.; de Lima, R.F.; Ribeiro, F.; Brito, A.C. Assessing ecosystem services in mangroves: Insights from São Tomé Island (Central Africa). Front. Environ. Sci. 2021, 9, 501673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nellemann, C.; Corcoran, E.; Duarte, C.; Valdés, L.; De Young, C.; Fonseca, L.; Grimsditch, G. Blue Carbon. A Rapid Response Assessment; UNEP, GRID-Arendal: Arendal, Norway, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  8. Mcleod, E.; Chmura, G.L.; Bouillon, S.; Salm, R.; Björk, M.; Duarte, C.; Lovelock, C.E.; Schlesinger, W.H.; Siliman, B.R. A blueprint for blue carbon: Toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2011, 9, 552–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Fest, B.J.; Swearer, S.E.; Arndy, S.K. A review of sediment carbon sampling methods in mangroves and their broader impacts on stock estimates for blue carbon ecosystems. Sci. Tot. Environ. 2022, 816, 151618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Spalding, M.; Kainuma, M.; Collins, L. World Atlas of Mangroves; Routledge: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  11. Worthington, T.A.; zu Ermgassen, P.S.E.; Friess, D.A.; Krauss, K.W.; Lovelock, C.E.; Throley, J.; Tingey, R.; Woodroffe, C.E.; Bunting, P.; Cormier, N.; et al. A global biophysical typology of mangroves and its relevance for ecosystem structure and deforestation. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 15652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bunting, P.; Rosenqvist, A.; Hilarides, L.; Lucas, R.M.; Thomas, N. Global Mangrove Watch: Updated 2010 mangrove forest extent (v2.5). Remote Sens. 2022, 10, 1669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Duke, N.C.; Meyneccke, J.-O.; Dittman, S.; Ellison, A.M.; Anger, K.; Berger, U.; Cannicci, S.; Diele, K.; Ewel, K.C.; Field, C.D.; et al. A world without mangroves? Science 2017, 317, 41–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Makowski, C.; Finkl, C.W. Threats to Mangrove Forests. Hazards, Vulnerability, and Management; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  15. Lacerda, L.D.; Borges, R.; Ferreira, A.C. Neotropical mangroves: Conservation and sustainable use in a scenario of global climatic change. Aquat. Cons. 2019, 29, 1347–1364. [Google Scholar]
  16. Lester, S.E.; Dubel, A.K.; Hernán, G.; McHenry, J.; Rassweiler, A. Spatial planning principles for marine ecosystem restoration. Front. Mar. Sci. 2020, 7, 328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mishra, A.K.; Farooq, S.H. Lack of ecological data hinders management of ecologically important saltmarsh ecosystems: A case study of saltmarsh plant Porterasia coarctata (Roxb.). J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 321, 115957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Rull, V. Rise and fall of Caribbean mangroves. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 885, 163851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Duke, N.C. Mangrove floristics and biogeography revisited: Further deductions from biodiversity hot spots, ancestral discontinuities, and common evolutionary processes. In Mangrove Ecosystems: A Global Biogeographic Perspective; Rivera-Monroy, V.H., Lee, S.Y., Kristensen, E., Twilley, R.R., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2017; pp. 17–53. [Google Scholar]
  20. Bryan-Brown, D.N.; Connolly, R.M.; Richards, D.R.; Adame, F.; Friess, D.A.; Brown, C.J. Global trends in mangrove forest fragmentation. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 7117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Goldberg, L.; Lagomasino, D.; Thomas, N.; Fatoyinbo, T. Global declines in humandriven mangrove loss. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2020, 26, 5844–5855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Rull, V. The Caribbean mangroves: An Eocene innovation with no Cretaceous precursors. Eath-Sci. Rev. 2022, 231, 104070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rull, V. Taxon cycles in Neotropical mangroves. Plants 2023, 12, 244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rull, V. The Neogene-Quaternary diversification trend in the shaping of modern caribbean mangroves. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2023, 300, 107920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rull, V. Responses of Caribbean mangroves to Quaternary climatic, eustatic and anthropogenic drivers of ecological change: A review. Plants 2022, 11, 3502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Iturralde-Vinent, M.A. Meso-Cenozoic Caribbean Paleogeography: Implications for the historical biogeography of the region. Int. Geol. Rev. 2006, 48, 791–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Westerhold, T.; Marwan, N.; Drury, A.J.; Lebrand, D.; Agnini, C.; Anagnostou, E.; Barnet, J.S.K.; Bohaty, S.M.; de Vleesschouwer, D.; Florindo, F.; et al. An astronomically dated record of earth’s climate and its predictability over the last 66 million years. Science 2020, 369, 1383–1387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Miller, K.G.; Browning, J.V.; Schmelz, W.J.; Kopp, R.E.; Mountain, G.S.; Wright, J.D. Cenozoic sea-level and cryospheric evolution from deep-sea geochemical and continental margin records. Sci. Adv. 2020, 6, aaz1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Tomlinson, P.B. The Botany of Mangroves; Cambridge Univ Press: Cambridge, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  30. Gentry, A.H. Phytogeographic patterns as evidence for a Choco refuge. In Biological Diversification in the Tropics; Prance, G.T., Ed.; Columbia Univ Press: New York, NY, USA, 1982; pp. 112–136. [Google Scholar]
  31. Dangremond, E.M.; Feller, I.C.; Sousa, W.P. Environmental tolerances of rare and common mangroves along light and salinity gradients. Oecologia 2015, 179, 1187–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Lonard, R.I.; Judd, F.W.; DeYoe, H.; Stalter, R. Biology of the mangal halophyte Conocarpus erectus L.: A review. In Handbook of Halophytes; Grigore, M.-N., Ed.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1819–1831. [Google Scholar]
  33. DeYoe, H.; Lonard, R.I.; Judd, F.W.; Stalter, R.; Feller, I. Biological flora of the tropical and subtropical intertidal zone: Literature review for Rhizophora mangle L. J. Coast. Res. 2020, 36, 857–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lonard, R.I.; Judd, F.W.; DeYoe, H.; Stalter, R. Biology and ecology of the halophyte Laguncularia racemosa (L.) Gaertn. f.: A review. In Handbook of Halophytes; Grigore, M.-N., Ed.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  35. Lonard, R.I.; Judd, F.W.; Summy, K.R.; DeYoe, H.; Stalter, R. The biological flora of coastal dunes and wetlands: Avicennia germinans (L.) L. J. Coast. Res. 2017, 33, 191–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. García-Fuentes, A.; Lendínez-Barriga, M.L.; Torres-Cordero, J.A.; Ruiz-valenzuela, L.; Quesada, J.; León, Y.; Salazar-Medías, C. A study on the mangrove formations of the Neotropical-Austroamerican Kingdom. Phytocoenologia 2020, 50, 137–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rull, V. Quaternary Ecology, Evolution and Biogeography; Elsevier/Academic Press: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  38. Erdtman, G. Pollen Morphology and Plant Taxonomy: Angiosperms; E.J. Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  39. Traverse, A. Paleopalynology; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  40. Wiens, J.J.; Ackerly, D.D.; Allen, A.P.; Anacker, B.L.; Buckley, L.B.; Cornell, H.V.; Damschen, E.I.; Dvaies, T.J.; Grytnes, J.-A.; Harrison, S.P.; et al. Niche conservatism as an emerging principle in ecology and conservation biology. Ecol. Lett. 2010, 13, 1310–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wiens, J.J.; Graham, C.H. Niche conservatism: Integrating evolution, ecology, and conservation biology. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2005, 36, 519–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hadly, E.A.; Spaeth, P.A.; Li, C. Niche conservatism above the species level. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 19707–19714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lososová, Z.; Divišek, J.; Chytrý, M.; Götzenberger, L.; Těšitel, J.; Mucina, L. Macroevolutionary patterns in European vegetation. J. Veget. Sci. 2020, 32, e12942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gee, C.T. The mangrove palm Nypa in the geologic past of the New World. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 2001, 9, 181–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Graham, A. Diversification of Gulf/Caribbean mangrove communities through Cenozoic time. Biotropica 1995, 27, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Flenley, J.R. The Equatorial Rain Forest: A Geological History; Butterworths: London, UK, 1979. [Google Scholar]
  47. Morley, R.J. Origin and Evolution of Tropical Rain Forests; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  48. Graham, A. A Natural History of the New World. The Ecology and Evolution of Plants in the Americas; University Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  49. Li, X.; Duke, N.C.; Yang, Y.; Huang, L.; Zu, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Zhou, R.; Zhong, C.; Huang, Y.; Shi, S. Re-evaluation of phylogenetic relationships among species of the mangrove genus Avicennia from Indo-West Pacific based on multilocus analyses. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0164453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Lo, E.Y.Y.; Duke, N.C.; Sun, M. Phylogeographic pattern of Rhizophora (Rhizophoraceae) reveals the importance of both vicariance and long-distance oceanic dispersal to modern mangrove distribution. BMC Evol. Biol. 2014, 14, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Germeraad, J.H.; Hopping, C.A.; Muller, J. Palynology of Tertiary sediments from tropical areas. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 1968, 6, 189–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wijmstra, T.A. The identity of Psilatricolporites and Pelliciera. Acta Bot. Neerl. 1968, 17, 114–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Graham, A. New records of Pelliciera (Theaceae/Pellicieraceae) in the Tertiary of the Caribbean. Biotropica 1977, 9, 48–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Graham, S.A. Fossil records in the Lythraceae. Bot. Rev. 2013, 79, 48–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Muller, J. Fossil pollen records of extant angiosperms. Bot. Rev. 1981, 47, 1–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Frederiksen, N.O. Review of early Tertiary sporomorph paleoecology. Am. Assoc. Strat. Palynol. Contr. Ser. 1985, 19, 1–92. [Google Scholar]
  57. Lorente, M.A. Palynology and palynofacies of the Upper Tertiary in Venezuela. Diss. Bot. 1986, 99, 1–222. [Google Scholar]
  58. Pocknall, D.T.; Wood, L.J.; Geen, A.F.; Harry, B.E.; Hedlund, R. Integrated paleontological studies of Pliocene to Pleistocene deposits of the Orinoco Delta, Eastern Venezuela and Trinidad. In Proceedings of the IX International Palynological Congress, Houston, TX, USA, 24–27 October 1996; American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists Foundation: Indianapolis, IN, USA, 2001; pp. 319–326. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kuyl, O.S.; Muller, J.; Waterbolk, H.T. The application of palynology to oil geology with reference to western Venezuela. Geol. Mijnb. 1955, 3, 49–76. [Google Scholar]
  60. González de Juana, C.; Iturralde, J.M.; Picard, X. Geología de Venezuela y de sus Cuencas Petrolíferas (I and II); FONINVES: Caracas, Venezuela, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  61. Muller, J.; Di Giacomo, E.; Van Erve, A.W. A palynological zonation for the Cretaceous, Tertiary and Quaternary of northern South America. Am. Assoc. Strat. Palynol. Contr. Ser. 1987, 19, 7–76. [Google Scholar]
  62. Hoorn, C.; Wesselingh, F.P.; ter Steege, H.; Bermudez, M.A.; Mora, A.; Sevink, J.; Sanmartín, I.; Sanchez-Messeguer, A.; Anderson, C.L.; Figueiredo, J.P.; et al. Amazonia through time: Andean uplift, climate change, landscape evolution, and biodiversity. Science 2010, 330, 927–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Jaramillo, C.; Romero, I.; D’Apolito, C.; Bayona, G.; Duarte, E.; Louwye, S.; Escobar, J.; Luque, J.; Carrillo-Briceño, J.D.; Zapata, V.; et al. Miocene flooding events of western Amazonia. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1601693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Mann, P. Gulf of Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. In Encyclopedia of Geology; Alderton, D., Elias, S.A., Eds.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2021; pp. 47–67. [Google Scholar]
  65. Romito, S.; Mann, P. Tectonic terrains underlying the present-day Caribbean plate: Their tectonic origin, sedimentary thickness, subsidence histories and regional controls on hydrocarbon resources. In The Basins, Orogens, and Evolution of the Southern Gulf of Mexico and Northen Caribbean; Davidson, I., Hull, J.N.F., Pindell, J., Eds.; Geological Society of London: London, UK, 2020; pp. 343–378. [Google Scholar]
  66. Rull, V. Contribution of quantitative ecological methods to the interpretation of stratigraphically homogeneous pre-Quaternary sequences: A palynological example from the Oligocene of Venezuela. Palynology 2003, 27, 75–98. [Google Scholar]
  67. Dueñas, H.; Van der Hammen, T. Significado geológico y asociaciones palinológicas de las formaciones Diablo Inferior (Mioceno Tardío) y San Fernando Superior (Mioceno Medio), piedemonte cuenca de los Llanos Orientales, Colombia. Rev. Acad. Colomb. Cienc. 2007, 31, 481–498. [Google Scholar]
  68. Graham, A. Studies in Neotropical paleobotany. VI. The lower Miocene communities of Panama-the Cucaracha Formation. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 1988, 75, 1467–1479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Rull, V. Origin and Evolution of Caribbean Mangroves. A Time-Continuum Integrative Approach; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; in press. [Google Scholar]
  70. Bermúdez, M.A.; Hoorn, C.; Bernet, M.; Carrillo, E.; Van Der Beek, P.A.; Garver, J.I.; Mora, J.L.; Mehrkian, K. The detrital record of late-Miocene to Pliocene surface uplift and exhumation of the Venezuelan Andes in the Maracaibo and Barinas foreland basins. Basin Res. 2017, 29 (Suppl. S1), 370–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Celis, S.A.; Rodríguez-Tovar, F.J.; Pardo-Trujillo, A.; García-García, F.; Giraldo-Villegas, C.A.; Gallego, F.; Plata, Á.; Trejos-Tamayo, R.; Vallejo-Hincapié, F.; Cardona, F.J. Deciphering influencing processes in a tropical delta system (middle-late Eocene? to Early Miocene, Colombian Caribbean): Signals from a well-core integrative sedimentological, ichnological, and micropaleontological analysis. J. S. Am. Earth Sci. 2023, 127, 104368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Colmenares, O. A Palynological Study of the South-East Region of the Boscán Field, Venezuela. Master’s Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  73. Colmenares, O.; Teran, L. A biostratigraphic study of Paleogene sequences in southwestern Venezuela. Palynology 1993, 17, 67–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. De la Parra, F.; Pinzon, D.; Mantilla-Duran, F.; Rodriguez, G.; Caballero, V. Marine-lacustrine systems during the Eocene in northern South America-palynological evidence from Colombia. J. S. Am. Earth Sci. 2021, 108, 103188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Dueñas, H. Palynology of Oligocene-Miocene strata of borehole Q-E-22, Planeta Rica, northern Colombia. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 1980, 30, 313–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Dueñas, H. Fluctuaciones del nivel del mar durante el depósito de los sedimentos basales de la Formación Ciénaga de Oro. Rev. Acad. Colomb. Cien. Exac. Fís. Nat. 1983, 15, 67–76. [Google Scholar]
  77. Garzon, S.; Warny, S.; Bart, P.J. A palynological and sequence-stratigraphic study of Santonian-Maastrichtian strata from the Upper Magdalena Valley basin in central Colombia. Palynology 2012, 36 (Suppl. S1), 112–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Graham, A. Late Cenozoic evolution of tropical lowland vegetation in Veracruz, Mexico. Evolution 1975, 29, 723–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Graham, A. Studies in Neotropical paleobotany. II: The Miocene communities of Veracruz, Mexico. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 1976, 63, 787–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Graham, A. Studies in Neotropical paleobotany. IV. The Eocene communities of Panama. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 1985, 72, 504–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Graham, A. Miocene communities and paleoenvironments of southern Costa Rica. Am. J. Bot. 1987, 74, 1501–1518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Graham, A. Studies in Neotropical paleobotany. V. The Lower Miocene communities of Panama-the Culebra Formation. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 1988, 75, 1440–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Graham, A. Studies in Neotropical paleobotany. VII. The Lower Miocene communities of Panama-the La Boca Formation. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 1989, 76, 50–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Graham, A. Late Tertiary microfossil flora from the republic of Haiti. Am. J. Bot. 1990, 77, 911–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Graham, A. New angiosperm records from the Caribbean Tertiary. Am. J. Bot. 1990, 77, 897–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Graham, A. Studies in Neotropical paleobotany. X. The Pliocene communities of Panama-composition, numerical representations, and paleocommunity paleoenvironmental reconstructions. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 1991, 78, 465–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Graham, A. Studies in Neotropical paleobotany. XI. Late Tertiary vegetation and environments of southeastern Guatemala: Palynofloras from the Mio-Pliocene Padre Miguel Group and the Pliocene Herrería Formation. Am. J. Bot. 1998, 85, 1409–1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Graham, A. Studies in Neotropical paleobotany. XIII. An Oligo-Miocene palynoflora from Simojovel (Chapas, Mexico). Am. J. Bot. 1999, 86, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Graham, A.; Dilcher, D.L. Studies in Neotropical paleobotany. XII. A palynoflora from the Pliocene Rio Banano Formation of Costa Rica and the Neogene vegetation of Mesoamerica. Am. J. Bot. 1998, 85, 1426–1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Graham, A.; Jarzen, D.M. Studies in Neotropicl Paleobotany. I. The Oligocene communities of Puerto Rico. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 1969, 56, 308–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Hambalek, N.; Rull, V.; DiGiacomo, E.; Díaz de Gamero, M.L. Evolución paleoecológica y paleoambiental de la secuencia del Neógeno en el Surco de Urumaco, Estado Falcón. Estudio palinológico y litológico. Bol. Soc. Venez. Geól. 1994, 19, 7–19. [Google Scholar]
  92. Helenes, J.; Cabrera, D. Oligocene-Miocene palynomorph assemblages from eastern Venezuela. Palynology 2003, 27, 5–25. [Google Scholar]
  93. Jaramillo, C.A.; Dilcher, D.L. Middle Paleogene palynology of Central Colombia, South America: A study of pollen and spores from tropical latitudes. Palaeontogr. Abt. B 2001, 258, 87–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Jaramillo, C.A.; Bayona, G.; Pardo-Trujillo, A.; Rueda, M.; Torres, V.; Harrington, G.J.; Mora, G. The palynology of the Cerrejón Formation (Upper Paleocene) of northern Colombia. Palynology 2007, 31, 153–189. [Google Scholar]
  95. Lamy, A. Plio-Pleistocene palynology and visual kerogen studies, Trinidad, W.I., with emphasis on the Columbus Basin. In Proceedings of the 1st geological conference of the Geological Society of Trinidad & Tobago, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, 10–12 July 1985; pp. 114–127. [Google Scholar]
  96. Montaño, P.C.; Nova, G.; Bayona, G.; Mahecha, H.; Ayala, C.; Jaramillo, C. Análisis de secuencias y procedencia en sucesiones sedimentarias de grano fino: Un ejemplo de la Formación Umir y base de la Formación Lisama, en el sector de Simacota (Santander, Colombia). Bol. Geol. 2016, 38, 51–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ochoa, D.; Hoorn, C.; Jaramillo, C.; Bayona, G.; Parra, M.; De la Parra, F. The final phase of tropical lowland conditions in the axial zone of the Eastern Cordillera of Colombia: Evidence from three palynological records. J. S. Am. Earth Sci. 2012, 39, 157–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Pardo-Trujillo, A.; Plata-Torres, A.; Ramírez, E.; Vallejo-Hincapié, F.; Trejos-Tamayo, R. Eocene to Miocene palynology of the Amagá Basin (Cauca Valley, Colombia) compared to the Caribbean region. Rev. Acad. Colomb. Cien. Exac. Fís. Nat. 2023, 47, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Pocknall, D.T.; Erlich, R.N. Palynostratigraphy and lithostratigraphy of Upper Cretaceous and Paleogene outcrop sections, Mérida Andes (Maracaibo Basin), Western Venezuela. J. S. Am. Earth Sci. 2020, 104, 102830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Rodríguez-Forero, G.; Oboh-Ikuenobe, F.E.; Jaramillo-Muñoz, C.; Rueda, M.J.; Cadena, E. Palynology of the Eocene Esmeraldas Formation, Middle Magdalena Valley, Colombia. Palynology 2012, 36, 96–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Rull, V. Paleoecología y análisis secuencial de una sección deltaica terciaria de la cuenca de Maracaibo. Bol. Soc. Ven. Geól. 1992, 46, 16–26. [Google Scholar]
  102. Rull, V. Oligo-Miocene palynology of the Rio Chama sequence (western Venezuela), with comments on fossil algae as paleoenvironmental indicators. Palynology 1997, 21, 213–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Rull, V. Sequence analysis of western Venezuelan Cretaceous to Eocene sediments using palynology: Chrono-paleoenvironmental and paleovegetational approaches. Palynology 1997, 21, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Rull, V. Middle Eocene mangroves and vegetation changes in the Maracaibo basin, Venezuela. Palaios 1998, 13, 287–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Rull, V. Palaeofloristic and palaeovegetational changes across the Paleocene/Eocene boundary in northern South America. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 1999, 107, 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Rull, V. Ecostratigraphic study of Paleocene and Early Eocene palynological cyclicity in northern South America. Palaios 2000, 15, 14–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Rull, V. A quantitative palynological record from the early Miocene of western Venezuela, with emphasis on mangroves. Palynology 2001, 25, 109–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Rull, V.; Poumot, C. Eocene to Miocene palynocycles from western Venezuela, and correlations with global eustatic cycles. In Proceedings of the Memorias VIII Congreso Geológico Venezolano, Porlamar, Isla de Margarita Venezuela, 16–19 November 1997; Volume 2, pp. 343–349. [Google Scholar]
  109. Santos, C.E. Palynostratigraphy of the Umir Formation, Middle Magdalena Valley Basin (MMVB), Colombia. Master’s Thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  110. Van der Hammen, T.; Wijmstra, T.A. A palynological study of the Tertiary and Upper Cretaceous of British Guiana. Leidse Geol. Meded. 1964, 30, 183–241. [Google Scholar]
Plants 12 03852 g001
Figure 1. Worldwide distribution of mangroves (green fringes), with the Caribbean region highlighted by a red box. The barrier between the AEP and IWP biogeographical regions is represented as a gray band. AEP, Atlantic–East Pacific region; IWP, Indo-West Pacific region. Base map from Ref. [10].
Figure 1. Worldwide distribution of mangroves (green fringes), with the Caribbean region highlighted by a red box. The barrier between the AEP and IWP biogeographical regions is represented as a gray band. AEP, Atlantic–East Pacific region; IWP, Indo-West Pacific region. Base map from Ref. [10].
Plants 12 03852 g001
Plants 12 03852 g002
Figure 2. The Caribbean region, as considered in this paper, and its main physiographical features. Base map from Google Earth.
Figure 2. The Caribbean region, as considered in this paper, and its main physiographical features. Base map from Google Earth.
Plants 12 03852 g002
Plants 12 03852 g003
Figure 3. Summary of the main evolutionary trends of Caribbean mangroves, from their Eocene origin to their Neogene diversification, as analyzed and discussed in Refs. [1,18,22,23,24,25]. Paleogeographic reconstruction according to Ref. [26] and paleoclimatic/paleoesutatic curves according to Refs. [27,28]. Chronology: Quat, Quaternary; Pli, Pliocene; E, Early; M. Middle; L, Late. Paleogeography: PI, Panama Isthmus. Paleoclimates: EECO, Early Eocene Climatic Optimum; MECO, Middle Eocene Climatic Optimum; EOT, Eocene—Oligocene Transition; OMT, Oligocene/Miocene Transition; MCO, Miocene Climatic Optimum; Iceh, Icehouse; NQ, Neogene–Quaternary. Polar Ice Caps (IC): NH, Northern Hemisphere. Richness: NQ, Neogene–Quaternary.
Figure 3. Summary of the main evolutionary trends of Caribbean mangroves, from their Eocene origin to their Neogene diversification, as analyzed and discussed in Refs. [1,18,22,23,24,25]. Paleogeographic reconstruction according to Ref. [26] and paleoclimatic/paleoesutatic curves according to Refs. [27,28]. Chronology: Quat, Quaternary; Pli, Pliocene; E, Early; M. Middle; L, Late. Paleogeography: PI, Panama Isthmus. Paleoclimates: EECO, Early Eocene Climatic Optimum; MECO, Middle Eocene Climatic Optimum; EOT, Eocene—Oligocene Transition; OMT, Oligocene/Miocene Transition; MCO, Miocene Climatic Optimum; Iceh, Icehouse; NQ, Neogene–Quaternary. Polar Ice Caps (IC): NH, Northern Hemisphere. Richness: NQ, Neogene–Quaternary.
Plants 12 03852 g003
Plants 12 03852 g004
Figure 4. NASA Landsat 5-TM image of the Caribbean mangrove areas (green patches) using the data of Ref. [12]. Country/island abbreviations as in Table 1. Base map downloaded from https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/47427/mapping-mangroves-by-satellite (accessed on 8 August 2023).
Figure 4. NASA Landsat 5-TM image of the Caribbean mangrove areas (green patches) using the data of Ref. [12]. Country/island abbreviations as in Table 1. Base map downloaded from https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/47427/mapping-mangroves-by-satellite (accessed on 8 August 2023).
Plants 12 03852 g004
Plants 12 03852 g005
Figure 5. The main mangrove-forming tree species from the Caribbean region: (A) Rhizophora mangle (red mangrove); (B) Avicennia germinans (black mangrove); (C) Laguncularia racemosa (white mangrove); and (D) Pelliciera rhizophorae (tea mangrove). Modified from Ref. [25].
Figure 5. The main mangrove-forming tree species from the Caribbean region: (A) Rhizophora mangle (red mangrove); (B) Avicennia germinans (black mangrove); (C) Laguncularia racemosa (white mangrove); and (D) Pelliciera rhizophorae (tea mangrove). Modified from Ref. [25].
Plants 12 03852 g005
Plants 12 03852 g006
Figure 6. Pollen/spores from the main extant Caribbean mangrove species with fossil representatives (Table 3). (A,B), Acrostichum aureum; (C,D), Nypa fruticans; (E–G), Rhizophora mangle; (H,I), Conocarpus erectus; (J,K), Laguncularia racemosa; (L,M), Avicennia germinans; (N–P), Pelliciera rhizophorae; (Q), Hibiscus tiliaceous; (R,S), Crenea patentinervis; (T), Pachira aquatica. The palm Nypa, now restricted to the IWP region (Figure 1), is included because it was part of Caribbean mangroves until the Eocene [44,45]. Vertical bars are measurement scales in μm.
Figure 6. Pollen/spores from the main extant Caribbean mangrove species with fossil representatives (Table 3). (A,B), Acrostichum aureum; (C,D), Nypa fruticans; (E–G), Rhizophora mangle; (H,I), Conocarpus erectus; (J,K), Laguncularia racemosa; (L,M), Avicennia germinans; (N–P), Pelliciera rhizophorae; (Q), Hibiscus tiliaceous; (R,S), Crenea patentinervis; (T), Pachira aquatica. The palm Nypa, now restricted to the IWP region (Figure 1), is included because it was part of Caribbean mangroves until the Eocene [44,45]. Vertical bars are measurement scales in μm.
Plants 12 03852 g006
Plants 12 03852 g007
Figure 7. Localities with pollen records included in the CARMA compilation. Green areas represent the present extent of Caribbean mangroves [10]. Red dots mark the sites included in the CARMA-F section reviewed in this paper. Yellow dots (Quaternary records) and blue boxes (modern sediments) correspond to the CARMA-Q section, whose update is in progress. See the Supplementary Materials for locality names and original references.
Figure 7. Localities with pollen records included in the CARMA compilation. Green areas represent the present extent of Caribbean mangroves [10]. Red dots mark the sites included in the CARMA-F section reviewed in this paper. Yellow dots (Quaternary records) and blue boxes (modern sediments) correspond to the CARMA-Q section, whose update is in progress. See the Supplementary Materials for locality names and original references.
Plants 12 03852 g007
Plants 12 03852 g008
Figure 8. Range chart indicating the present/absence patterns in the Late Eocene–Early Miocene interval of well COT-1X from Venezuela (see Figure 7 for location and the Supplementary Materials for details). Mangrove representatives included in CARMA-F are highlighted in pink (see Table 3 for equivalences with extant taxa). Modified from Ref. [66].
Figure 8. Range chart indicating the present/absence patterns in the Late Eocene–Early Miocene interval of well COT-1X from Venezuela (see Figure 7 for location and the Supplementary Materials for details). Mangrove representatives included in CARMA-F are highlighted in pink (see Table 3 for equivalences with extant taxa). Modified from Ref. [66].
Plants 12 03852 g008
Plants 12 03852 g009
Figure 9. Percentage diagram of the Early Middle Miocene section of well Panchita-1X from Venezuela (Figure 7 and Supplementary Material), indicating the mangrove fossil pollen species highlighted in pink (Table 3). Values at the base of the diagram (in red) are the approximate percentage ranges used in the dataset. Modified from Ref. [57].
Figure 9. Percentage diagram of the Early Middle Miocene section of well Panchita-1X from Venezuela (Figure 7 and Supplementary Material), indicating the mangrove fossil pollen species highlighted in pink (Table 3). Values at the base of the diagram (in red) are the approximate percentage ranges used in the dataset. Modified from Ref. [57].
Plants 12 03852 g009
Plants 12 03852 g010
Figure 10. Raw counts of mangrove fossil pollen taxa (highlighted in pink) for the Middle–Late Miocene interval of the Quebrada Jarana in the Yopal site (Colombia) (Figure 7; Supplementary Material). Modified from Ref. [67].
Figure 10. Raw counts of mangrove fossil pollen taxa (highlighted in pink) for the Middle–Late Miocene interval of the Quebrada Jarana in the Yopal site (Colombia) (Figure 7; Supplementary Material). Modified from Ref. [67].
Plants 12 03852 g010
Plants 12 03852 g011
Figure 11. (A) Semiquantitative range chart of the Middle Eocene section of well Icotea-1 (Venezuela) using the re-observation probability (ROP). Modified from Ref. [51]. (B) Percentage table of the Early Miocene Cucaracha Formation (Panama). Modified from Ref. [68]. Mangrove taxa are highlighted in pink (see Figure 7, Table 3 and the Supplementary Material for location, botanical affinities and more details).
Figure 11. (A) Semiquantitative range chart of the Middle Eocene section of well Icotea-1 (Venezuela) using the re-observation probability (ROP). Modified from Ref. [51]. (B) Percentage table of the Early Miocene Cucaracha Formation (Panama). Modified from Ref. [68]. Mangrove taxa are highlighted in pink (see Figure 7, Table 3 and the Supplementary Material for location, botanical affinities and more details).
Plants 12 03852 g011
Table 1. Mangrove cover by country/island in the Caribbean region. Raw data from Ref. [12], rounded to integers.
Table 1. Mangrove cover by country/island in the Caribbean region. Raw data from Ref. [12], rounded to integers.
Country/IslandMapMangroves (km2)
CubaCu3597
VenezuelaVe2847
ColombiaCo2808
PanamaPa1536
NicaraguaNi747
HondurasHo606
BelizeBz529
El SalvadorES373
Costa RicaCR371
GuyanaGy289
GuatemalaGu250
Dominican RepublicDR192
HaitiHt154
JamaicaJa99
Puerto RicoPR83
Trinidad and TobagoTT82
Cayman Islands (UK)Cy45
Guadeloupe (France)Gp34
Martinique (France)Mr19
Antigua and BarbudaAB9
Virgin Islands (UK/USA)VI4
GrenadaGr2
Saint LuciaSL2
Anguilla (UK)An<1
ArubaAr<1
BarbadosBd<1
Saint Kitts and NevisSK<1
Saint Vincent and The GrenadinesVG<1
Total 14,677
Table 2. True (major and minor) and associate mangrove plant elements of the Caribbean region. Based on Refs. [19,29,30]. Nomenclature according to the International Plant Names Index (IPNI) (https://www.ipni.org/ (accessed on 12 July 2023)).
Table 2. True (major and minor) and associate mangrove plant elements of the Caribbean region. Based on Refs. [19,29,30]. Nomenclature according to the International Plant Names Index (IPNI) (https://www.ipni.org/ (accessed on 12 July 2023)).
TypeSpeciesFamilyPlant Type
TrueMajorAvicennia bicolor Standl. *AcanthaceaeTree
Avicennia germinans (L.) Stearn *AcanthaceaeTree
Avicennia schaueriana Stapf & Leechm. ex Moldenke *AcanthaceaeTree
Laguncularia racemosa C.F.Gaertn. *CombretaceaeTree
Rhizophora mangle L. *RhizophoraceaeTree
Rhizophora racemosa (G.Mey.) Engl. *RhizophoraceaeTree
MinorAcrostichum aureum L.PteridaceaeFern
Acrostichum daneaeifolium Langsd. & Fisch. *PteridaceaeFern
Pelliciera benthamii (Planch. & Triana) N.C.DukeTetrameristaceaeTree
Pelliciera rhizophorae Planch. & Triana *TetrameristaceaeTree
AssociateAmphitecna latifolia (Mill.) A.H.GentryBignoniaceaeTree
Anemopaegma chrysoleucum (Kunth) SandwithBignoniaceaeVine
Batis maritima L.BatidaceaeShrub
Caesalpinia bonduc (L.) Roxb.FabaceaeTree
Conocarpus erectus L. *CombretaceaeTree
Crenea patentinervis (Koehne) Standl. *LythraceaeHerb
Dalbergia ecastaphyllum Taub.FabaceaeTree/Shrub
Dalbergia amerimnum Benth.FabaceaeTree/Shrub
Hibiscus tiliaceus L.MalvaceaeTree
Hippomane mancinella L.EuphorbiaceaeTree
Mora oleifera Duke *FabaceaeTree
Muellera moniliformis L.f. *FabaceaeTree
Pachira aquatica Aubl.BombacaceaeTree
Pavonia rhizophorae Killip *MalvaceaeShrub
Pavonia spicata Cav.MalvaceaeShrub
Phryganocydia phellosperma (Hemsl.) SandwithBignoniaceaeVine
Pluchea odorata (L.) Cass.AsteraceaeHerb
Rhabdadenia biflora Müll.Arg.ApocynaceaeVine
Rustia occidentalis (Benth.) Hemsl.RubiaceaeTree/Shrub
Scaevola plumieri (L.) VahlGoodeniaceaeShrub
Tabebuia palustris Hemsl. *BignoniaceaeTree
Thespesia populnea (L.) Sol. ex CorrêaMalvaceaeTree
Thespesia populneoides (Roxb.) Kostel.MalvaceaeTree
Tuberostylis axilaris S.F.BlakeAsteraceaeShrub
Tuberostylis rhizophorae SteetzAsteraceaeEpiphyte
* Species used by Duke [19] to characterize the Atlantic–East Pacific (AEP) mangroves.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rull, V. An Updated Review of Fossil Pollen Evidence for the Study of the Origin, Evolution and Diversification of Caribbean Mangroves. Plants 2023, 12, 3852. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12223852

AMA Style

Rull V. An Updated Review of Fossil Pollen Evidence for the Study of the Origin, Evolution and Diversification of Caribbean Mangroves. Plants. 2023; 12(22):3852. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12223852

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rull, Valentí. 2023. "An Updated Review of Fossil Pollen Evidence for the Study of the Origin, Evolution and Diversification of Caribbean Mangroves" Plants 12, no. 22: 3852. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12223852

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop