The variability of Amazonian palm phytoliths

Witteveen, Nina H.; Hobus, Camille; Philip, Annemarie; Piperno, Dolores R.; McMichael, Crystal N.H.

doi:10.1016/j.revpalbo.2022.104613

Cited by 17 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our preliminary data on approximated 2D area of the spheroid echinates as well as perimeter and maximum diameter all indicated intra-specific differences in the size of this phytolith morphotype in the nut and leaflet of the oil palm. This is rather a crude approximation compared to the detailed work done using phytolith morphometrics (Ball et al 2016; Yansheng et al 2019) and on globular and palm phytoliths (Fenwick et al 2011; Benvenuto et al 2015; Huisman et al 2018; Witteveen et al 2022), however, published data on detailed morphometrics of oil palm phytoliths does not seem available. Should there be intra-specific differences between nut endocarp phytoliths and that of other parts of the oil palm in that the former are generally larger as indicated in this study, this would have major implications for interpretations of phytolith assemblages in sediments associated with processing oil palm nuts by both human and non-human taxa.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Why Phytoliths? Overview and Application Of Phytoliths Acros...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This work builds upon phytolith analyses of multiple palm species globally (e.g. phytolith variability in Amazonian palms and their use by humans: Piperno 1989; Morcote-Rios et al 2013, 2016; Witteveen et al 2022; morphotype analyses of palms at archaeological sites in Papua New Guinea and Rapa Nui: Delhon & Orliac 2010; Fenwick et al 2011; Bowdery 2015). Such attention to palms is unsurprising as they are high phytolith producers (Hodson et al 2006, 2015), their phytoliths are relatively robust to chemical and physical processes pre- and post-deposition due to factors such as having a surface bulk ratio >1 (Barboni et al 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Interpreting phytoliths assemblages at chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus) nut-cracking sites in Bossou Forest, Guinea

Phillips

Almeida-Warren

Bamford

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nut-cracking behaviour of the chimpanzees of Bossou Forest has been long documented and studied in order to understand ultimate drivers for this form of durophagy by these apes. At sites in which they break open the nuts of the oil palm (Elaeis guineaeensis) on stone anvils with stone hammers, fragments of the tools as well as remnants of the nuts may be deposited into local sediments; however, they may become less visible at the macroscopic level as these sites are no longer used (become dormant). We build upon work that has been done to document this unique cultural heritage in West African chimpanzees by interpreting phytolith assemblages in sediments at active nut-cracking sites (used within the last two months). We compare these assemblages with those found in sediments of sites that have been dormant for ~10 years and sites where chimpanzees have not been observed to access and crack open oil palm nuts with stone tools. We predicted that larger assemblages of spheroid echinates, a phytolith associated with palms, would be found at active nut-cracking sites, however we found no statistical difference between total spheroid echinates (measured as total number found per gram of dry sediment) assemblages produced across active nut-cracking, dormant, or non-nut-cracking sites. This may have been due to small sample size (N= up to 6 sediment samples for each of the three sites) and so further sample collection and analyses are needed for inter-site comparisons. We also measured 2D area (sq micrometers), perimeter and maximum diameter of spheroid echinates found in nut endocarps (shells) and leaflets from an oil palm frond. Intra-specific differences from all three measurements were found with these phytoliths being larger in the nut endocarp than the leaflet. This has implications for (re)interpreting the assemblages of spheroid echinate phytoliths at the three sites to determine if there is a greater productivity larger-sized spheroid echinates that fall within the size range of those measured for the nut endocarp (mean maximum diameter of 14.9 micrometres versus 7.8 micrometers for those found in oil palm leaflet). Finally, we argue for the importance of initialising and continuing the interpretation of phytolith assemblages in local sediments that are located near sites where directed plant input by non-human taxa has occurred, in this case, chimpanzees cracking open oil palm nuts using stone tools. This is important to refine our interpretation of phytolith assemblages where human and non-human taxa who use complex foraging strategies share ecological spaces.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Why Phytoliths? Overview and Application Of Phytoliths Acros...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interpreting phytoliths assemblages at chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus) nut-cracking sites in Bossou Forest, Guinea

Phillips

Almeida-Warren

Bamford

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All soil surface samples (n = 42) were processed for phytoliths at the Palaeoecology Laboratory at the University of Amsterdam (UvA), using a subsample containing 1 cm 3 of soil. At the onset of laboratory processing, 56,000 microspheres (Microparticles GmbH, Lot: SiO2-R-L3519-3, ø 15.29 μm, SD 0.49 μm) were added to each sample to calculate phytolith concentrations (Huisman et al, 2019;Witteveen et al, 2022). A series of chemical treatments, with 33% hydrogen peroxide (H 2 O 2 ), 10% hydrochloric acid (HCl) and potassium manganate (KMnO 4 ), were performed on each sample.…”

Section: Laboratory Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Phytolith assemblages from soil surface samples and phytolith morphotypes from herbarium samples have been characterised for different parts of the world, such as eastern Europe (Alexandra, 1997), the Mediterranean region (Bremond, et al, 2004), North America (Blinnikov, 2005;Fredlund & Tieszen, 1994), Africa (Runge, 1999) and South America (e.g. Dickau et al, 2013;Huisman et al, 2018;Witteveen et al, 2022). In North-Western Europe, analysis of surface sample phytolith assemblages is limited (Powers et al, 1989), particularly in the Netherlands (McMichael et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterising Dutch forests, wetlands and cultivated lands on the basis of phytolith assemblages

Wolf

McMichael²,

Philip³

et al. 2022

Netherlands Journal of Geosciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Palaeoecological reconstructions in the Netherlands are commonly based on pollen and macrofossil analysis, but can be limited if the preservation of organic material is poor. Phytoliths, biogenic silica, do not have this limitation and preserve in settings where other macro- and microfossils do not. Little is known about how phytolith assemblages preserved in soils and sediments reflect the parent vegetation in north-western European systems, so it is currently difficult to contextualise past environments. Here, we characterise phytolith assemblages for soil samples recovered from three major vegetation types in the Netherlands to provide reference data for future reconstructions of past vegetation change. We collected 42 soil surface samples from forests, wetlands and agricultural fields across the Netherlands and characterised the phytolith assemblages they contained. We identified the different phytolith morphotypes and quantified the percentages and concentrations (#phytoliths/cm3 soil) in each sample. We used non-metric multidimensional scaling to assess the variation in phytolith assemblage composition within, and between, the three vegetation types. The phytolith assemblages analysed from the forests, wetlands and agricultural fields were clearly distinguishable from each other. Agricultural fields were dominated by four phytolith morphotypes of grass silica short cells (GSSCs): rondel (tabular), cross type 1 (>15 µm), rondel (elongated) and disturbance or crop phytoliths. Forests settings had significantly higher amounts of different arboreal phytoliths (large and small spheroid rugose) compared with other vegetation types. Wetlands could be identified by significantly higher amounts of Cyperaceae phytoliths (papillate) and other GSSCs (saddle and bilobates with thick castula). Phytolith assemblages could distinguish different subtypes of vegetation within forest and wetland areas, while differences between agricultural systems could not be identified. Our study demonstrates that phytoliths preserved in soils or sediments can be used to separate major vegetation types across the Netherlands. Thus, these results support the hypothesis that phytoliths can be used to infer past environmental conditions in palaeoecological reconstructions. We suggest that future work should: (1) focus on characterising which phytolith types are produced by the commonest tree, wetland, shrub and herb species in the Netherlands and (2) characterise phytolith assemblages across a wider array of vegetation types in north-western European systems to increase the capability for quantitative reconstructions using phytolith assemblages.

show abstract

Pre‐contact and post‐colonial ecological legacies shape Surinamese rainforests

Witteveen,

White,

Sánchez‐Martínez

et al. 2024

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disturbances in tropical forests can have long‐lasting ecological impacts, but their manifestations (ecological legacies) in modern forests are uncertain. Many Amazonian forests bear the mark of past soil modifications, species enrichments, and fire events, but the trajectories of ecological legacies from the pre‐contact or post‐colonial period remain relatively unexplored. We assessed the fire and vegetation history from 15 soil cores ranging from 0 to 10 km from a post‐colonial Surinamese archaeological site. We show that (1) fires occurred from 96 bc to recent times and induced significant vegetation change, (2) persistent ecological legacies from pre‐contact and post‐colonial fire and deforestation practices were mainly within 1 km of the archaeological site, and (3) palm enrichment of Attalea, Oenocarpus and Astrocaryum occurred within 0, 1, and 8 km of the archaeological site, respectively. Our results challenge the notion of spatially extensive and persistent ecological legacies. Instead, our data indicate that the persistence and extent of ecological legacies are dependent on their timing, frequency, type, and intensity. Examining the mechanisms and manifestations of ecological legacies is crucial in assessing forest resilience and Indigenous and local land rights in the highly threatened Amazonian forests.

show abstract

The variability of Amazonian palm phytoliths

Cited by 17 publications

References 32 publications

Interpreting phytoliths assemblages at chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus) nut-cracking sites in Bossou Forest, Guinea

Interpreting phytoliths assemblages at chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus) nut-cracking sites in Bossou Forest, Guinea

Characterising Dutch forests, wetlands and cultivated lands on the basis of phytolith assemblages

Pre‐contact and post‐colonial ecological legacies shape Surinamese rainforests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About