Relationships between ecosystems and plant assemblages as responses to environmental conditions in the Lower Jurassic of Hungary and Romania
More details
Hide details
Hungarian Natural History Museum, Botanical Department, H-1476 Budapest, P.O. Box 222, Hungary
W. Szafer Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of Sciences, Lubicz 46, 31-512 Kraków, Poland
University of Bucharest, Faculty of Geology and Geophysics, Laboratory of Palaeontology, N. Bălcescu Ave. 1, 010041 Bucharest, Romania
Jagiellonian University, Botanical Garden, Kopernika 27, 31-501 Kraków, Poland
Eötvös Loránd University, Department of Palaeontology, 1117 Budapest, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/C, Hungary
Hungarian Geological and Geophysical Institute, Geological and Geophysical Collections, 1143 Budapest, Stefánia út 14, Hungary
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
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.