AOBPreview originally published online on March 30, 2006
Annals of Botany 2006 97(6):1103-1114; doi:10.1093/aob/mcl067
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Neither Host-specific nor Random: Vascular Epiphytes on Three Tree Species in a Panamanian Lowland Forest
1 Fachbereich Biologie, Abt. Pflanzenökologie und Systematik 13/274, D-67653 Kaiserslautern, Germany, 2 Botanisches Institut der Universität Basel, Schönbeinstrasse 6, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland and 3 Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Apartado Postal 0843-03092, Balboa, Ancon, Panama
* For correspondence. E-mail s.laube{at}web.de
Received: 10 November 2005 Returned for revision: 10 January 2006 Accepted: 10 February 2006 Published electronically: 30 March 2006
• Background and Aims A possible role of host tree identity in the structuring of vascular epiphyte communities has attracted scientific attention for decades. Specifically, it has been suggested that each host tree species has a specific subset of the local species pool according to its own set of properties, e.g. physicochemical characteristics of the bark, tree architecture, or leaf phenology patterns.
• Methods A novel, quantitative approach to this question is presented, taking advantage of a complete census of the vascular epiphyte community in 0·4 ha of undisturbed lowland forest in Panama. For three locally common host-tree species (Socratea exorrhiza, Marila laxiflora, Perebea xanthochyma) null models were created of the expected epiphyte assemblages assuming that epiphyte colonization reflected random distribution of epiphytes in the forest.
• Key Results In all three tree species, abundances of the majority of epiphyte species (69–81 %) were indistinguishable from random, while the remaining species were about equally over- or under-represented compared with their occurrence in the entire forest plot. Permutations based on the number of colonized trees (reflecting observed spatial patchiness) yielded similar results. Finally, a third analysis (canonical correspondence analysis) also confirmed host-specific differences in epiphyte assemblages. In spite of pronounced preferences of some epiphytes for particular host trees, no epiphyte species was restricted to a single host.
• Conclusions The epiphytes on a given tree species are not simply a random sample of the local species pool, but there are no indications of host specificity either.
Key words: Epiphytes, community assembly, null model, host preference, colonization, Panama, Orchidaceae, Bromeliaceae, Araceae
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. H. Cota-Sanchez and D. D. Abreu Vivipary and offspring survival in the epiphytic cactus Epiphyllum phyllanthus (Cactaceae) J. Exp. Bot., November 1, 2007; (2007) erm232v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|