Relationships between ecosystems
and plant assemblages as responses
to environmental conditions
in the Lower Jurassic of Hungary and Romania
1, 2,
3,
4,
5, 6,
7
| 1 | Hungarian Natural History Museum, Botanical Department, H-1476 Budapest, P.O. Box 222, Hungary |
| 2 | W. Szafer Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of Sciences, Lubicz 46, 31-512 Kraków, Poland |
| 3 | University of Bucharest, Faculty of Geology and Geophysics, Laboratory of Palaeontology,
N. Bălcescu Ave. 1, 010041 Bucharest, Romania |
| 4 | Jagiellonian University, Botanical Garden, Kopernika 27, 31-501 Kraków, Poland |
| 5 | Eötvös Loránd University, Department of Palaeontology, 1117 Budapest, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/C,
Hungary |
| 6 | Hungarian Geological and Geophysical Institute, Geological and Geophysical Collections,
1143 Budapest, Stefánia út 14, Hungary |
| 7 | Department of Palaeobotany and Palaeoherbarium, Institute of Botany, Jagiellonian University,
Lubicz 46, 31-512 Kraków, Poland |
Online publication date: 2015-06-23
Publication date: 2015-06-23
Acta Palaeobotanica 2015; 55(1): 3–17
ABSTRACT
Two Early Jurassic localities, the Mecsek Mts in Hungary and Anina in Romania, are similarly
significant and both floras are of autochthonous/paraautochthonous origin. In the Early Jurassic the Hungarian
locality was a delta plain; the Romanian locality was an intramontane depression filled predominantly by
a braided river system. The floristic composition of the two localities (52 genera, 120 species), although superficially
similar (25 common genera), differs at species level (only 9 common species) as well as in the proportions
of taxa in major plant groups. These differences can be explained by differences in environmental conditions
resulting from palaeogeographic and topographic factors. Based on previous and recent studies, alpha diversity
as well as statistically (DCA, PCA) differentiated ecogroups are compared and discussed. For common species,
the GLM method was used to classify them to particular environmental response types. Their environmental
requirements in both ecosystems are evaluated. Some of the shared species showed different preferences at the
localities, explainable by their broad ecological tolerance.
