Correo Electrónico
DNINFOA - SIA
Bibliotecas
Convocatorias
Identidad U.N.
Publicado
The role of host tree characteristics in epiphyte community in Northern Andean cloud forests: a case study in El Centello Nature Reserve
Rol de las características de los árboles hospederos en la comunidad de epífitas en los bosques nublados del norte de los Andes: un estudio de caso en la Reserva Natural El Centello
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15446/caldasia.v48.115388Palabras clave:
horizontal distribution, host tree effect, orchidaceae, neotropic, suspended soil (en)distribución horizontal, efecto del árbol hospedero, Orchidaceae, neotrópico, suelo suspendido (es)
Descargas
Archivos adicionales
Despite their perilous status, cloud forests boast a remarkable flora, with vascular epiphytes playing a pivotal role, especially in the northern Andes. These forests are crucial for preserving biodiversity. Our study focused on the El Centello Nature Reserve, located in the western cordillera of the northern Andes, home to some of the region’s last remnants of cloud forests. We explore the drivers of epiphytic species’ local distribution patterns by analyzing the horizontal distribution of functional groups and the influence of host tree characteristics. Specifically, we evaluate how tree size and the spatial arrangement of host trees shape epiphyte richness, abundance, biomass, and community composition. We recorded 131 species, 25 families, and 2280 individuals over 0.25 ha using the SVERA methodology. Orchids, anthuriums, and bromeliads represent over 40 % of the abundance and are the most diverse taxa. Our findings reveal that larger and, thus, older trees harbor more diverse and abundant epiphytic and nomadic communities. Species composition was significantly related to structural variables and geographic distances of host trees. This research underscores the importance of host tree characteristics in shaping epiphyte communities and highlights the need for conservation strategies to preserve cloud forests’ plant structural diversity. Understanding these distribution patterns is essential for directing conservation plans to protect this vital component of the Andean ecosystem.
A pesar de las amenazas que enfrentan, los bosques de niebla mantienen una flora diversa en la que las epífitas vasculares cumplen un papel central, especialmente en el norte de los Andes. Estos bosques son áreas clave para la conservación de la biodiversidad. Nuestro estudio se realizó en la Reserva Natural El Centello, ubicada en la cordillera occidental del norte de los Andes, uno de los últimos remanentes de bosque nublado en la región. Analizamos los factores que determinan los patrones de distribución local de las epífitas vasculares, examinando la distribución horizontal de los grupos funcionales y la influencia de las características de los árboles hospederos. En particular, evaluamos cómo el tamaño y la disposición espacial de los árboles afectan la riqueza, abundancia, biomasa y composición de la comunidad epífita. Mediante la metodología SVERA registramos 131 especies pertenecientes a 25 familias y 2280 individuos en una parcela de 0,25 ha. Orchidaceae, Araceae y Bromeliaceae representaron más del 40 % de la abundancia y fueron los grupos más diversos. Nuestros resultados indican que los árboles más grandes —y por tanto más antiguos— sostienen comunidades epífitas y nómadas más diversas y abundantes. La composición de especies mostró una relación significativa con variables estructurales y con las distancias geográficas entre los árboles hospederos. Este estudio destaca el papel de las características del árbol hospedero en la estructura de las comunidades de epífitas y subraya la importancia de conservar la diversidad estructural de los bosques de niebla.
Referencias
Agudelo CM, Benavides AM, Tyeen T, Feeley KJ, and Duque A. 2019. Functional Composition of Epiphyte Communities in the Colombian Andes. Ecology. 100(12):e02858. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2858
Aguilar-Cruz Y, García-Franco JG, and Zotz G. 2022. Litter-trapping Tank Bromeliads in Five Different Forests: Carbon and Nutrient Pools and Fluxes. Biotropica. 54(1):170–180. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.13048.
Bax V, Francesconi W. 2019. Conservation Gaps and Priorities in the Tropical Andes Biodiversity Hotspot: Implications for the Expansion of Protected Areas. J Env Manage. 232(15):387–396. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.086.
Benavides AM, Zuleta D, Benavides JC, Carmona-Higuita MJ. 2019. Proceedings of the 22nd World Orchid Conference. In: Pridgeon AM, Arosemena A, editors. Epiphyte Biomass in Northern Andean Forest. Ecuador: Asociación Ecuatoriana de Orquideología. p. 524–535.
Benzing DH. 1980. The Biology of the Bromeliads. Eureka, CA: Mad River Press.
Benzing DH, Seemann J. 1978. Nutritional Piracy and Host Decline: A New Perspective on the Epiphyte-Host Relationship. Selbyana. 5(2):133–148. doi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41759456
Bruijnzeel LA, Kappelle M, Mulligan M, Scatena FN. 2011. Tropical Montane Cloud Forests: Science for Conservation and Management. 1st ed. In: Bruijnzeel LA, Scatena FN, Hamilton LS, editors. Tropical Montane Cloud Forests: State of Knowledge and Sustainability Perspectives in a Changing World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 691–740. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511778384.074.
Calderón J, Benavies AM. 2021. Deforestación y Fragmentación En Las Áreas Más Biodiversas de La Cordillera Occidental de Antioquia (Colombia). Biota Colomb. 23(1):e942. doi: https://doi.org/10.21068/2539200X.942.
Ragan C, Reinhart K, Moore G, Moore D, Pennings S. 2002. Epiphyte Host Preferences and Host Traits: Mechanisms for Species-Specific Interactions. Oecologia. 132(2):221–230. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-002-0943-3
Cardelus CL, Chazdon RL. 2005. Inner-Crown Microenvironments of Two Emergent Tree Species in a Lowland Wet Forest. Biotropica. 37(2):238–244. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2005.00032.x
Carmona-Higuita MJ. 2014. Patterns of Distribution of Vascular Epiphytes in the Colombian Andes. [Thesis]. [Medellín]: University of Antioquia.
Clemente-Arenas ER, Trujillo-Rodriguez LR, Hilário RR, Irume MV, Zartman CE, De Toledo JJ. 2023. Phorophyte Size and Soil Profiles Differentially Correlate with Community Structure among Hemiepiphytes and Nomadic Vines. Biotropica. 55(2):368–381. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.13191
Einzmann HJR, Beyschlag J, Hofhansl F, Wanek W, Zotz G. 2015. Host Tree Phenology Affects Vascular Epiphytes at the Physiological, Demographic and Community Level. AoB PLANTS. 7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plu073
Foster P. 2001. The Potential Negative Impacts of Global Climate Change on Tropical Montane Cloud Forests. Earth-Sci Rev. 55(1–2):73–106. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-8252(01)00056-3
Freiberg M, Freiberg E. 2000. Epiphyte Diversity and Biomass in the Canopy of Lowland and Montane Forests in Ecuador. J Trop Ecol. 16(5):673–688. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467400001644
Frenzke L, Scheiris E, Pino G, Symmank L, Goetghebeur P, Neinhuis C, Wanke S, Samain MS. 2015. A Revised Infrageneric Classification of the Genus Peperomia (Piperaceae). Taxon. 64(3):424–444. doi: https://doi.org/10.12705/643.4
Gentry AH, Dodson CH. 1987. Diversity and Biogeography of Neotropical Vascular Epiphytes. Ann Mo Bot Gard. 74(2):205–233. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2399395
González-Caro S, Quintero-Vallejo E, Moreno N, Sanclemente G, Benavides AM. 2017. Bosques andinos: estado actual y retos para su conservación en Antioquia. 1st ed. Medellín (Colombia): Fundación Jardín Botánico de Medellín Joaquín Antonio Uribe, Programa Bosques Andinos (ECOSUDE). Capítulo 4, Hacia un observatorio, Observatorio de Bosques de Antioquia (OBA); p. 341–354.
Hietz P. 1997. Population Dynamics of Epiphytes in a Mexican Humid Montane. J Ecol. 85(6):767–775. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2960600
Hofstede RGM, Wolf JHD, Benzing DH. 1993. Epiphytic Mass and Nutrient Status of an Upper Montane Rain Forest. Selbyana. 14:37–45.
Holdridge LR. 1967. Life Zone Ecology. Costa Rica: Tropical Science Center.
Horsley TWB, Bicknell JE, Lim BK, Ammerman LK. 2015. Seed Dispersal by Frugivorous Bats in Central Guyana and a Description of Previously Unknown Plant-Animal Interactions. Acta Chiropterol. 17(2):331–36. doi: https://doi.org/10.3161/15081109ACC2015.17.2.008.
Hostettler S. 2002. Tropical Montane Cloud Forests: A Challenge for Conservation. Bois For Trop. 274(4):19–31.
Janzen DH, Ataroff M, Farinas M, Reyes S, Rincon N, Soler A, Soriano P, Vera M. 1976. Changes in the Arthropod Community along an Elevational Transect in the Venezuelan Andes. Biotropica. 8:193–203.
Janzen DH. 1973. Sweep Samples of Tropical Foliage Insects: Effects of Seasons, Vegetation Types, Elevation, Time of Day, and Insularity. Ecology. 54:687–708.
Johansson D. 1974. Ecology of Vascular Epiphytes in West African Rain Forest. Uppsala: Uppsala University.
Kelly DL, Tanner EVJ, Nic Lughadha EM, Kapos V. 1994. Floristics and biogeography of a rain forest in the Venezuelan Andes. J Biogeogr. 21(4):421–440.
Kress WJ. 1986. The systematic distribution of vascular epiphytes: an update. Selbyana. 9(1):2–22.
Legendre P, Legendre L. 1998. Numerical ecology. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V.
Legendre P, Legendre L. 1998. Numerical ecology. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V.
Mendieta-Leiva G, Ramos FN, Elias JPC, Zotz G, Acuña-Tarazona M, Seehaber Alvim F, Barbosa DEF, Basílio GA, Batke SP, Benavides AM, Blum CT, Boelter CR, Brancalion PHS, Carmona MJ, Carvalho LP, de la Rosa-Manzano E, Einzmann HJR, Fernández M, Furtado SG, de Gasper AL, Guzmán-Jacob V, Hietz P, Irume MV, Jiménez-López DA, Kessler M, Kreft H, Krömer T, Machado GMO, Martínez-Meléndez N, Martins PLSS, de Macêdo Mello R, Mendes AF, Menini Neto L, Mortara SR, Nardy C, de Paula Oliveira R, Pereira ACA, Pillaca L, Quaresma AC, Rodríguez Quiel C, Soto Medina E, Taylor A, Vega MS, Wagner K, Werneck MS, Werner FA, Wolf JHD, Zartman CE, Zuleta D, Jiménez-Alfaro B. 2020. EpIG-DB: a database of vascular epiphyte assemblages in the neotropics. J Veg Sci. 31(3):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12867
Mittermeier RA, Turner WR, Larsen FW, Brooks TM, Gascon C. 2011. Global biodiversity conservation: the critical role of hotspots. In: Zachos FE, Habel JC, editors. Biodiversity hotspots. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. p. 3–22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_1.
Nadkarni NM. 1984. Epiphyte biomass and nutrient capital of a neotropical elfin forest. Biotropica. 16(4):249–256.
R Core Team. c2024. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/
Richardson BA, Rogers C, Richardson MJ. 2000. Nutrients, diversity, and community structure of two phytotelm systems in a lower montane forest, Puerto Rico: nutrients and phytotelm community structure. Ecol Entomol. 25(3):348–356. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2311.2000.00255.x.
Scott NJ. 1976. The abundance and diversity of the herpetofauna of tropical forest litter. Biotropica. 8:41–58.
Snow DW. 1981. Tropical frugivorous birds and their food plants: a world survey. Biotropica. 13:1–14.
Sorensen AE. 1986. Seed dispersal by adhesion. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 17(1):443–463. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.17.110186.002303
Stadtmüller T. 1987. Cloud forests in the humid tropics: a bibliographic review. Tokyo: United Nations University.
Stanton DE, Huallpa Chávez J, Villegas L, Villasante F, Armesto J, Hedin LO, Horn H. 2014. Epiphytes improve host plant water use by microenvironment modification. Funct Ecol. 28(5):1274–1283. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12249.
Stuntz S, Ziegler C, Simon U, Zotz G. 2002. Diversity and structure of the arthropod fauna within three canopy epiphyte species in central Panama. J Trop Ecol. 18(2):161–176. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467402002110.
Sugden AM, Robins RJ. 1979. Aspects of the ecology of vascular epiphytes in Colombian cloud forests, I. The distribution of the epiphytic flora. Biotropica. 11(3):173–188.
Tay JYL, Zotz G, Einzmann HJR. 2023. Smoothing out the misconceptions of the role of bark roughness in vascular epiphyte attachment. New Phytol. 238(3):983–994. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18811.
Taylor A, Zotz G, Weigelt P, Cai L, Karger DN, König C, Kreft H. 2021. Vascular epiphytes contribute disproportionately to global centres of plant diversity. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 31(1):62–74. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13411.
Toledo-Aceves T, Meave JA, González-Espinosa M, Ramírez-Marcial N. 2011. Tropical montane cloud forests: current threats and opportunities for their conservation and sustainable management in Mexico. J Environ Manage. 92(3):974–981. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.11.007.
Wagner K, Mendieta-Leiva G, Zotz G. 2015. Host specificity in vascular epiphytes: a review of methodology, empirical evidence and potential mechanisms. AoB Plants. 7:plu092.
Wagner K, Zotz G. 2019. Including dynamics in the equation: tree growth rates and host specificity of vascular epiphytes. J Ecol. 108(2):761–773. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13333.
Wang X, Long W, Schamp BS, Yang X, Kang Y, Xie Z, Xiong M. 2016. Vascular epiphyte diversity differs with host crown zone and diameter, but not orientation in a tropical cloud forest. PLOS ONE. 11(7):e0158548. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158548.
Wolf JHD. 1994. Factors controlling the distribution of vascular and non-vascular epiphytes in the northern Andes. Vegetatio. 112:15–28.
Wolf JHD, Flamenco-S A. 2003. Patterns in species richness and distribution of vascular epiphytes in Chiapas, Mexico. J Biogeogr. 30:1689–1707.
Wolf JHD, Gradstein SR, Nadkarni NM. 2009. A protocol for sampling vascular epiphyte richness and abundance. J Trop Ecol. 25:107–121. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467408005786.
Woods CL, Cardelús CL, DeWalt SJ. 2015. Microhabitat associations of vascular epiphytes in a wet tropical forest canopy. J Ecol. 103(2):421–430.
Zárate-García AM, Noguera-Savelli E, Andrade-Canto SB, Zavaleta-Mancera HA, Gauthier A, Alatorre-Cobos F. 2020. Bark water storage capacity influences epiphytic orchid preference for host trees. Am J Bot. 107(5):726–734. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajb2.1470.
Zotz G. 2016. Plants on plants – the biology of vascular epiphytes. Switzerland: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39237-0_1.
Zotz G, Almeda F, Bautista-Bello AP, Eskov A, Giraldo-Cañas D, Hammel B, Harrison R, Köster N, Krömer T, Lowry PP, Moran RC, Plunkett GM, Weichgrebe L. 2021a. Hemiepiphytes revisited. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst. 51:125620. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2021.125620.
Zotz G, Bogusch W, Hietz P, Ketteler N. 2010. Growth of epiphytic bromeliads in a changing world: the effects of CO2, water and nutrient supply. Acta Oecol. 36(6):659–665. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2010.10.003.
Zotz G, Weigelt P, Kessler M, Kreft H, Taylor A. 2021b. EpiList 1.0: a global checklist of vascular epiphytes. Ecology. 102(6):e03326. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3326.
Zuleta D, Benavides AM, López-Ríos V, Duque A. 2016. Local and regional determinants of vascular epiphyte mortality in the Andean mountains of Colombia. J Ecol. 104(3):841–849.
Cómo citar
APA
ACM
ACS
ABNT
Chicago
Harvard
IEEE
MLA
Turabian
Vancouver
Descargar cita
Licencia
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Aquellos autores/as que tengan publicaciones con esta revista, aceptan los términos siguientes:
- Los autores/as conservarán sus derechos de autor y garantizarán a la revista el derecho de primera publicación de su obra, el cual estará simultáneamente sujeto a la Licencia de reconocimiento de Creative Commons que permite a terceros compartir la obra siempre que se indique su autor y su primera publicación esta revista.
- Los autores/as podrán adoptar otros acuerdos de licencia no exclusiva de distribución de la versión de la obra publicada (p. ej.: depositarla en un archivo telemático institucional o publicarla en un volumen monográfico) siempre que se indique la publicación inicial en esta revista.
- Se permite y recomienda a los autores/as difundir su obra a través de Internet (p. ej.: en archivos telemáticos institucionales o en su página web) antes y durante el proceso de envío, lo cual puede producir intercambios interesantes y aumentar las citas de la obra publicada. (Véase El efecto del acceso abierto).
