Lichen mimesis in mid-Mesozoic lacewings

  1. Hui Fang
  2. Conrad C Labandeira
  3. Yiming Ma
  4. Bingyu Zheng
  5. Dong Ren
  6. Xinli Wei  Is a corresponding author
  7. Jiaxi Liu  Is a corresponding author
  8. Yongjie Wang  Is a corresponding author
  1. Capital Normal University, China
  2. Smithsonian Institute, United States
  3. Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China

Abstract

Animals mimicking other organisms or using camouflage to deceive predators are vital survival strategies. Modern and fossil insects can simulate diverse objects. Lichens are an ancient symbiosis between a fungus and an alga or a cyanobacterium that sometimes have a plant-like appearance and occasionally are mimicked by modern animals. Nevertheless, lichen models are almost absent in fossil record of mimicry. Here, we provide the earliest fossil evidence of a mimetic relationship between the moth lacewing mimic Lichenipolystoechotes gen. nov. and its co-occurring fossil lichen model Daohugouthallus ciliiferus. We corroborate the lichen affinity of D. ciliiferus and document this mimetic relationship by providing structural similarities and detailed measurements of the mimic’s wing and correspondingly the model’s thallus. Our discovery of lichen mimesis predates modern lichen-insect associations by 165 million years, indicating that during the mid-Mesozoic, the lichen-insect mimesis system was well established and provided lacewings with highly honed survival strategies.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Hui Fang

    College of Life Sciences and Academy for Multidisciplinary Studies, Capital Normal University, Beijing, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Conrad C Labandeira

    Smithsonian Institute, Washington, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Yiming Ma

    College of Life Sciences and Academy for Multidisciplinary Studies, Capital Normal University, Beijing, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Bingyu Zheng

    College of Life Sciences and Academy for Multidisciplinary Studies, Capital Normal University, Beijing, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Dong Ren

    College of Life Sciences and Academy for Multidisciplinary Studies, Capital Normal University, Beijing, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Xinli Wei

    State Key Laboratory of Mycology, Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
    For correspondence
    weixl@im.ac.cn
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Jiaxi Liu

    College of Life Sciences and Academy for Multidisciplinary Studies, Capital Normal University, Beijing, China
    For correspondence
    liu-jiax@263.net
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Yongjie Wang

    College of Life Sciences and Academy for Multidisciplinary Studies, Capital Normal University, Beijing, China
    For correspondence
    wangyjosmy@foxmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1397-8481

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China (31970383)

  • Yongjie Wang

National Natural Science Foundation of China (31730087,41688103)

  • Dong Ren

National Natural Science Foundation of China (31770022)

  • Xinli Wei

Natural Science Foundation of Beijing Municipality (5192002)

  • Yongjie Wang

Academy for Multidisciplinary Studies of Capital Normal University

  • Dong Ren
  • Yongjie Wang

Capacity Building for Sci-Tech Innovation - Fundamental Scientific Research Funds (19530050144)

  • Yongjie Wang

Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University (IRT-17R75)

  • Dong Ren

Support Project of High Level Teachers in Beijing Municipal Universities (IDHT20180518)

  • Dong Ren

Graduate Student Program for International Exchange and Joint Supervision at Capital Normal University (028175534000,028185511700)

  • Hui Fang

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 2,916
    views
  • 381
    downloads
  • 19
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Hui Fang
  2. Conrad C Labandeira
  3. Yiming Ma
  4. Bingyu Zheng
  5. Dong Ren
  6. Xinli Wei
  7. Jiaxi Liu
  8. Yongjie Wang
(2020)
Lichen mimesis in mid-Mesozoic lacewings
eLife 9:e59007.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.59007

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.59007

Further reading

    1. Ecology
    2. Neuroscience
    Kathleen T Quach, Gillian A Hughes, Sreekanth H Chalasani
    Research Article

    Prey must balance predator avoidance with feeding, a central dilemma in prey refuge theory. Additionally, prey must assess predatory imminence—how close threats are in space and time. Predatory imminence theory classifies defensive behaviors into three defense modes: pre-encounter, post-encounter, and circa-strike, corresponding to increasing levels of threat—–suspecting, detecting, and contacting a predator. Although predatory risk often varies in spatial distribution and imminence, how these factors intersect to influence defensive behaviors is poorly understood. Integrating these factors into a naturalistic environment enables comprehensive analysis of multiple defense modes in consistent conditions. Here, we combine prey refuge and predatory imminence theories to develop a model system of nematode defensive behaviors, with Caenorhabditis elegans as prey and Pristionchus pacificus as predator. In a foraging environment comprised of a food-rich, high-risk patch and a food-poor, low-risk refuge, C. elegans innately exhibits circa-strike behaviors. With experience, it learns post- and pre-encounter behaviors that proactively anticipate threats. These defense modes intensify with predator lethality, with only life-threatening predators capable of eliciting all three modes. SEB-3 receptors and NLP-49 peptides, key stress regulators, vary in their impact and interdependence across defense modes. Overall, our model system reveals fine-grained insights into how stress-related signaling regulates defensive behaviors.

    1. Ecology
    Laura Fargeot, Camille Poesy ... Blanchet Simon
    Research Article

    Understanding the relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning stands as a cornerstone in ecological research. Extensive evidence now underscores the profound impact of species loss on the stability and dynamics of ecosystem functions. However, it remains unclear whether the loss of genetic diversity within key species yields similar consequences. Here, we delve into the intricate relationship between species diversity, genetic diversity, and ecosystem functions across three trophic levels – primary producers, primary consumers, and secondary consumers – in natural aquatic ecosystems. Our investigation involves estimating species diversity and genome-wide diversity – gauged within three pivotal species – within each trophic level, evaluating seven key ecosystem functions, and analyzing the magnitude of the relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem functions (BEFs). We found that, overall, the absolute effect size of genetic diversity on ecosystem functions mirrors that of species diversity in natural ecosystems. We nonetheless unveil a striking dichotomy: while genetic diversity was positively correlated with various ecosystem functions, species diversity displays a negative correlation with these functions. These intriguing antagonist effects of species and genetic diversity persist across the three trophic levels (underscoring its systemic nature), but were apparent only when BEFs were assessed within trophic levels rather than across them. This study reveals the complexity of predicting the consequences of genetic and species diversity loss under natural conditions, and emphasizes the need for further mechanistic models integrating these two facets of biodiversity.