Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-5zgkz Total loading time: 0.229 Render date: 2021-09-19T12:20:17.532Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Above-ground biomass estimation for a shrubby mistletoe in an Amazonian savanna

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2019

Sarah Rosane M. C. Fadini
Affiliation:
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Recursos Naturais da Amazônia, Universidade Federal do Oeste do Pará, Santarém, PA, Brasil, 68040-255
Reinaldo I. Barbosa
Affiliation:
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia – INPA, Coordenação de Dinâmica Ambiental – CODAM, Núcleo de Pesquisas de Roraima – NPRR. Rua Coronel Pinto, 315, Centro, Boa Vista, RR, Brasil, 69301-150
Rafael Rode
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Sementes Florestais, Universidade Federal do Oeste do Pará, Santarém, PA, Brasil, 68040-255
Viviane Corrêa
Affiliation:
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Recursos Naturais da Amazônia, Universidade Federal do Oeste do Pará, Santarém, PA, Brasil, 68040-255
Rodrigo F. Fadini*
Affiliation:
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Recursos Naturais da Amazônia, Universidade Federal do Oeste do Pará, Santarém, PA, Brasil, 68040-255
*Corresponding
*Author for correspondence: Rodrigo F. Fadini, Email: rfadini@gmail.com

Abstract

Mistletoes are considered keystone species on woodlands and savannas worldwide, providing a food resource for a diversified fauna, as well as a nutrient-enriched litter. Infections can be large (∼1–3 m) and, in some parts of the Amazonian savannas, parasitize up to 70% of hosts locally. Despite these facts, biomass of mistletoes is rarely investigated. Here we constructed allometric models to predict the biomass stock of the shrubby mistletoe Psittacanthus plagiophyllus in an Amazonian savanna. In addition, we determined whether host size could be used as a proxy for mistletoe biomass. Finally, we compared the biomass of mistletoes with that of trees, to evaluate their relative importance. We have shown that: (1) biomass of leaves (46.1% ± 13.5%) are as important as of stems (47.8% ± 13.5%), and relative contribution of stems increases as plant grows; (2) the model including width, breadth and vertical depth was the best (SE = 0.39, R2 = 0.9) for predicting individual mistletoe biomass; (3) mistletoe load and biomass per host had a positive, but weak (R2 = 0.11 and 0.09, respectively), relationship with host size, and thus such host information is a poor predictor of mistletoe biomass; and (4) in comparison with trees, mistletoes constituted less than 0.15% (0.5–22 kg ha−1) of the total above-ground biomass, suggesting that this life-form is irrelevant to the local biomass stock despite its unequivocal biological importance.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aukema, JE and Martínez Del Rio, C (2002) Where does a fruit-eating bird deposit mistletoe seeds? Seed deposition patterns and an experiment. Ecology 83, 34893496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbosa, J, Sebastián-Gonzáles, E, Asner, G, Knapp, D, Anderson, C, Martin, R and Dirzo, R (2016) Hemiparasite – host plant interactions in a fragmented landscape assessed via imaging spectroscopy and LiDAR. Ecological Applications 26, 5566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardgett, RD, Smith, RS, Shiel, RS, Peacock, S, Simkin, JM, Quirk, H and Hobbs, PJ (2006) Parasitic plants indirectly regulate below-ground properties in grassland ecosystems. Nature 439, 969972.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bilgili, E, Ozturk, M, Coskuner, KA, Baysal, I, Serdar, B, Yavuz, H, Eroglu, M and Usta, Y (2018) Quantifying the effect of pine mistletoe on the growth of Scots pine. Forest Pathology 48, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, WD and Mustin, K (2017) The highly threatened and little known Amazonian savannahs. Nature Ecology & Evolution 1, 0100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooney, SJN, Watson, DM and Young, J (2006) Mistletoe nesting in Australian birds: a review. Emu 106, 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dzerefos, CM, Witkowski, ETF and Shackleton, CM (2003) Host-preference and density of woodrose-forming mistletoes (Loranthaceae) on savanna vegetation, South Africa. Plant Ecology 167, 163177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fadini, RF and Lima, AP (2012) Fire and host abundance as determinants of the distribution of three congener and sympatric mistletoes in an Amazonian savanna. Biotropica 44, 2734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fadini, RF, Gonçalves, DCM and Reis, RPF (2010) Consistency in seed-deposition patterns and the distribution of mistletoes among its host trees in an Amazonian savanna. Australian Journal of Botany 57, 640646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehring, C, Park, S and Denich, M (2004) Liana allometric biomass equations for Amazonian primary and secondary forest. Forest Ecology and Management 195, 6983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geils, BW and Hawksworth, FG (2002) Damage, effects, and importance of dwarf mistletoes. In Geils, BW, Cibrián Tovar, J and Moody, B (eds), Mistletoes of North American Conifers. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, pp. 5765.Google Scholar
Hsu, C-C, Horng, F-W and Kuo, C-M (2002) Epiphyte biomass and nutrient capital of a moist subtropical forest in north-eastern Taiwan. Journal of Tropical Ecology 18, 659670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koukoura, Z, Mamolos, AP and Kalburtji, KL (2003) Decomposition of dominant plant species litter in a semi-arid grassland. Applied Soil Ecology 23, 1323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuijt, J (2009) Monograph of Psittacanthus (Loranthaceae). Systematic Botany Monographs. Ann Arbor, MI: The American Society of Plant Taxonomists.Google Scholar
Lloyd, J, Domingues, TF, Schrodt, F, Ishida, FY, Feldpausch, TR, Saiz, G, Quesada, CA, Schwarz, M, Torello-Raventos, M, Gilpin, M, Marimon, BS, Marimon-Junior, BH, Ratter, JA, Grace, J, Nardoto, GB, Veenendaal, E, Arroyo, L, Villarroel, D, Killeen, TJ, Steininger, M and Phillips, OL (2015) Edaphic, structural and physiological contrasts across Amazon Basin forest-savanna ecotones suggest a role for potassium as a key modulator of tropical woody vegetation structure and function. Biogeosciences 12, 65296571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopez-Gonzalez, G, Lewis, SL, Burkitt, M and Phillips, OL (2011) ForestPlots.net: a web application and research tool to manage and analyse tropical forest plot data. Journal of Vegetation Science 22, 610613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López de Buen, L, Ornelas, JF and García-Franco, JG (2002) Mistletoe infection of trees located at fragmented forest edges in the cloud forests of Central Veracruz, Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management 164, 293302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnusson, WE, Lima, AP, Albernaz, ALKM, Sanaiotti, TM and Guillaumet, J-L (2008) Composição florística e cobertura vegetal das savanas na região de Alter do Chão, Santarém ‐ PA. Revista Brasileira de Botânica 31, 165177.Google Scholar
March, WA and Watson, DM (2007) Parasites boost productivity: effects of mistletoe on litterfall dynamics in a temperate Australian forest. Oecologia 154, 339347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellado, A, Hobby, A, Lázaro‐González, A and Watson, DM (2019) Hemiparasites drive heterogeneity in litter arthropods: implications for woodland insectivorous birds. Austral Ecology 44, 777785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, AC, Watling, JR, Overton, IC and Sinclair, R (2003) Does water status of Eucalyptus largiflorens (Myrtaceae) affect infection by the mistletoe Amyema miquelii (Loranthaceae)? Functional Plant Biology 30, 12391247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, I, Schmid, B and Weiner, J (2000). The effect of nutrient availability on biomass allocation patterns in 27 species of herbaceous plants. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 3/2, 115127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musselman, LJ (1980) The biology of Striga, Orobanche, and other root-parasitic weeds. Annual Review of Phytopathology 18, 463489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadkarni, NM (1984) Epiphyte biomass and nutrient capital of a Neotropical elfin forest. Biotropica 16, 249256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ndagurwa, HGT, Ndarevani, P, Muvengwi, J and Maponga, TS (2016) Mistletoes via input of nutrient-rich litter increases nutrient supply and enhance plant species composition and growth in a semi-arid savanna, southwest Zimbabwe. Plant Ecology 217, 10951104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickrent, DL, Malécot, V, Vidal-Russel, R and Der, JP (2010). A revised classification of Santalales. Taxon 59, 538558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nogueira, EM, Fearnside, PM, Nelson, BW, Barbosa, RI and Keizer, EWH (2008) Estimates of forest biomass in the Brazilian Amazon: new allometric equations and adjustments to biomass from wood-volume inventories. Forest Ecology and Management 256, 18531867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, DA, Ladley, JJ and Owen, HJ (1997) Distribution and population structure of the loranthaceous mistletoes Alepis flavida, Peraxilla colensoi, and Peraxilla tetrapetala within two New Zealand Nothofagus forests. New Zealand Journal of Botany 35, 323336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overton, JM (1994) Dispersal and infection in mistletoe metapopulations. Journal of Ecology 82, 711723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patel, RN (1991) Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand Loranthaceae. New Zealand Journal of Botany 29, 429449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennings, SC and Callaway, RM (1996) Impact of a parasitic plant on the structure and dynamics of salt marsh vegetation. Ecology 77, 14101419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennings, SC and Callaway, RM (2002) Parasitic plants: parallels and contrasts with herbivores. Oecologia 131, 479489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Press, MC and Phoenix, GK (2005) Impacts of parasitic plants on natural communities. New Phytologist 166, 737751.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reid, N, Yan, Z and Fittler, J (1994) Impact of mistletoes (Amyema miquelii) on host (Eucalyptus blakelyi and Eucalyptus melliodora) survival and growth in temperate Australia. Forest Ecology and Management 70, 5565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rezende, AV, Vale, AT, Sanquetta, CR, Figueiredo Filho, A and Felfili, JM (2006) Comparação de modelos matemáticos para estimativa do volume, biomassa e estoque de carbono da vegetação lenhosa de um cerrado sensu stricto em Brasília, DF. Scientia Forestalis 71, 6576.Google Scholar
Smith, WB and Brand, GJGJ (1983) Allometric biomass equations for 98 species of herbs, shrubs, and small trees. Research Note NC-299. St. Paul, MN: US Dept. Agric. For. Serv. North Cent. For. Exp. Stn. 299, 1–8.Google Scholar
Vázquez-Collazo, I and Geils, BW (2002) Psittacanthus in Mexico. In Geils, BW, Cibrián Tovar, J and Moody, B (eds), Mistletoes of North American Conifers. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, pp. 917.Google Scholar
Watson, DM (2001) Mistletoe: a keystone resource in forests and woodlands worldwide. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32, 219249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, DM (2009) Parasitic plants as facilitators: more Dryad than Dracula? Journal of Ecology 97, 11511159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Above-ground biomass estimation for a shrubby mistletoe in an Amazonian savanna
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Above-ground biomass estimation for a shrubby mistletoe in an Amazonian savanna
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Above-ground biomass estimation for a shrubby mistletoe in an Amazonian savanna
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *