Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T01:49:25.501Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do epiphytes affect the fitness of their phorophytes? The case of Tillandsia recurvata on Bursera copallifera

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2024

Carmen Agglael Vergara-Torres ,
Susana Valencia-Díaz ,
José Guadalupe García-Franco  and
Alejandro Flores-Palacios Open the ORCID record for Alejandro Flores-Palacios [Opens in a new window]
Carmen Agglael Vergara-Torres
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigación en Biotecnología (CEIB), Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos, Morelos, Mexico
Susana Valencia-Díaz
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigación en Biotecnología (CEIB), Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos, Morelos, Mexico
José Guadalupe García-Franco
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ecología, A. C. Carretera Antigua a Coatepec No. 351, El Haya, Xalapa, Veracruz 91070, Mexico
Alejandro Flores-Palacios*
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Conservación (CIβγC), Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos, Morelos, Mexico
*
Corresponding author: Alejandro Flores-Palacios; Email: alejandro.florez@uaem.mx
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The studies about the negative effect of epiphytes on their phorophytes show contradictory results and are based on limited variables (e.g., shoot survival). On branches of Bursera copallifera, we experimented with the transplantation/removal of Tillandsia recurvata and artificial tussocks, measuring shoot survival, growth, generation of new shoots, and production of inflorescences and fruits. Most single traits did not differ between treatments. The generation of new shoots was lower in the treatments where T. recurvata was present and increased in the branches where it was removed. The lowest shoot survival was in the treatments where T. recurvata was present or was removed. Removing T. recurvata increased plant relative fitness, and it was 43% lower in branches with T. recurvata. Tillandsia recurvata is a structural parasite of B. copallifera. A negative effect of epiphytes on their phorophytes appears counterintuitive since it would not be evolutionarily stable for an epiphyte to shorten the lifespan of its support. Tillandsia recurvata populations are concentrated on B. copallifera branches between 2-4 cm in diameter, while smaller branches are mostly empty, so it is possible that the negative effect of T. recurvata occurs in the smallest branches, explaining why T. recurvata populations are biased to larger branches.

Keywords

Bromeliaceaecommensalismphorophyte-epiphyte relationshipplant-plant interactionsshoot dynamics
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 40 , 2024 , e13
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Aguilar-Rodríguez, S, Terrazas, T, León, EA and Salas, MEH (2007) Modificaciones en la corteza de Prosopis laevigata por el establecimiento de Tillandsia recurvata . Boletín de la Sociedad Botánica de México 81, 27–35.Google Scholar
Aguilar-Rodríguez, S, Terrazas, T, Huidobro-Salas, ME and Aguirre-León, E (2016) Anatomical and histochemical bark changes due to growth of Tillandsia recurvata (ball moss). Botanical Sciences 94, 551–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartoli, CG, Beltrano, J, Fernández, LV and Caldiz, DO (1993) Control of the epiphytic weeds Tillandsia recurvata and Tillandsia aeränthos with different herbicides. Forest Ecology and Management 59, 289−294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D, Maechler, M, Bolker, B and Walker, S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67, 1−48.Google Scholar
Benzing, DH (1990) Vascular Epiphytes. General Biology and Related Biota. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press, pp 376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benzing, DH and Seemann, J (1978) Nutritional piracy and host decline: a new perspective on the epiphyte-host relationship. Selbyana 2, 133−148.Google Scholar
Calvente, A, Zappi, DC, Forest, F and Lohmann, LG (2011) Molecular phylogeny, evolution, and biogeography of South American epiphytic cacti. International Journal of Plant Sciences 172, 902–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comtois, D (2022) Summarytools: Tools to quickly and neatly summarize data_. R package version 1.0.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=summarytools Google Scholar
Cortes-Anzures, BO, Corona-López, AM, Toledo-Hernández, VH, Valencia-Díaz, S and Flores-Palacios, A (2017) Branch mortality influences phorophyte quality for vascular epiphytes. Botany 95, 697–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Queiroga, MA., De Andrade, LM, Florencio, KC, De Fátima, M, Da Silva, MS, Barbosa-Filho, JM and Vasconcelos, E (2004) Chemical constituents from Tillandsia recurvata . Fitoterapia 75, 423–425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Einzmann, H, Zotz, G and Tay, J (2022) What happens to epiphytic bromeliads in a windy spot? Journal of Tropical Ecology 38, 158–163.Google Scholar
Flores-Palacios, A (2016) Does structural parasitism by epiphytes exist? A case study between Tillandsia recurvata and Parkinsonia praecox. Plant Biology 18, 463–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flores-Palacios, A, Barbosa-Duchateau, CL, Valencia-Díaz, S, Capistrán-Barradas, A and García-Franco, JG (2014) Direct and indirect effects of Tillandsia recurvata on Prosopis laevigata in the Chihuahua desert scrubland of San Luis Potosi, Mexico. Journal of Arid Environments 104, 88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flores-Palacios, A, García-Franco, JG and Capistrán-Barradas, A (2015) Biomass, phorophyte specificity and distribution of Tillandsia recurvata (L.) L. in a tropical semi-desert environment (Chihuahuan Desert, Mexico). Plant Ecology and Evolution 148, 68–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsman, JT, Seppänen, JT and Mönkkönen, M (2002) Positive fitness consequences of interspecific interaction with a potential competitor. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 269, 1619–1623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Futuyma, DJ (2013) Evolution. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, pp 659.Google Scholar
Gotsch, S, Nadkarni, N and Amici, A (2016) The functional roles of epiphytes and arboreal soils in tropical montane cloud forests. Journal of Tropical Ecology 32, 455–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haberman, SJ (1973) The analysis of residual in cross-classified tables. Biometrics 29, 205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kassambara, A, Kosinski, M and Biecek, P (2021) Survminer: drawing survival curves using ‘ggplot2’_. R package version 0.4.9. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survminer>>Google Scholar
Kleinbaum, DG and Klein, M (2005) Survival Analysis. New York: Springer, pp 700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montaña, C, Dirzo, R and Flores, A (1997) Structural parasitism of an epiphytic bromeliad upon Cercidium praecox in an intertropical semiarid ecosystem. Biotropica 29, 517–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadkarni, NM (1981) Canopy roots: Converged evolution in rainforest nutrient cycles. Science 214, 1023–1024.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orozco-Ibarrola, OA, Flores-Hernández, PS, Victoriano-Romero, E, Corona-López, AM and Flores-Palacios, A (2015) Are breeding system and florivory associated with the abundance of Tillandsia species (Bromeliaceae)? Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 177, 50–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Páez-Gerardo, LE, Aguilar-Rodríguez, S, Terrazas, T, Huidobro-Salas, ME and Aguirre-León, E (2005) Anatomical changes in the crust of Parkinsonia praecox (Ruiz et Pavon) Hawkins caused by epiphyte Tillandsia recurvata L. (Bromeriaceae). Botanical Sciences 77, 59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Noyola, FJ, Flores, J, Yáñez-Espinosa, L, Jurado, E, González-Salvatierra, C and Badano, E (2021) Is ball moss (Tillandsia recurvata) a structural parasite of mesquite (Prosopis laevigata)? Anatomical and ecophysiological evidence. Trees 35, 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2022) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
Ruinen, J (1953) Epiphytosis: a second view on epiphytism. Annales Bogorienses 1, 101–157.Google Scholar
Ruiz-Cordova, JP, Toledo-Hernández, VH and Flores-Palacios, A (2014) The effect of substrate abundance in the vertical stratification of bromeliad epiphytes in a tropical dry forest (Mexico). Flora 209, 375–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, S and Castellan, NJ (2005) Estadística no paramétrica aplicada a las ciencias de la conducta. Ciudad de México: Editorial Trillas, pp 437.Google Scholar
Soria, NF, Torres, C and Galetto, L (2014) Experimental evidence of an increased leaf production in Prosopis after removal of epiphytes (Tillandsia). Flora 209, 580–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanton, DE, Huallpa-Chávez, J, Villegas, L, Villasante, F, Armesto, J, Hedin, LO and Horn, H (2014) Epiphytes improve host plant water use by microenvironmental modification. Functional Ecology 28, 1274–1283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuntz, S, Simon, U and Zotz, G (2002) Rainforest air-conditioning: the moderating influence of epiphytes on the microclimate in tropical tree crowns. International Journal of Biometeorology 46, 53–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Testo, W and Sundue, M (2014) Primary hemiepiphytism in Colysis amplia (Polypodiaceae) provides new insight into the evolution of growth habit in ferns. International Journal of Plant Sciences 75, 526–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Therneau, T (2022) A package for survival analysis in R_. R package version 3.4-0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survival> >Google Scholar
Thompson, JN (1988) Variation in interespecific interactions. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 19, 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valencia-Díaz, S, Flores-Palacios, A, Rodríguez-López, V and Jiménez-Aparicio, AR (2012) Effects of Tillandsia recurvata extracts on the seed germination of Tillandsia spp. Allelopathy Journal 29, 125–136.Google Scholar
Valverde, T and Bernal, R (2010) ¿Hay asincronía demográfica entre poblaciones locales de Tillandsia recurvata? Evidencias de su funcionamiento metapoblacional. Boletín de la Sociedad Botánica de México 86, 23–36.Google Scholar
Vergara-Torres, CA, Pacheco-Álvarez, MC and Flores-Palacios, A (2010) Host preference and host limitation of vascular epiphytes in a tropical dry forest of central Mexico. Journal of Tropical Ecology 26, 563–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Victoriano-Romero, E, Valencia-Díaz, S, Toledo-Hernández, VH and Flores-Palacios, A (2017) Dispersal limitation of Tillandsia species correlates with rain and host structure in a central Mexican tropical dry forest. PLoS ONE 12, e0171614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Victoriano-Romero, E, Valencia-Díaz, S, García-Franco, JG, Mehltreter, K, Toledo-Hernández, VH and Flores-Palacios, A (2023) Interactions between epiphytes during canopy soil formation: an experiment in a lower montane cloud forest of southeastern Mexico. Plant Biology 25, 468–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickham, H (2016) Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp 260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zar, JH (2010) Biostatistical Analysis. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc, pp 944.Google Scholar
Zotz, G (1998) Demography of the epiphytic orchid Dimerandra emarginata . Journal of Tropical Ecology 14, 725–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Vergara-Torres et al. supplementary material

Vergara-Torres et al. supplementary material
Download Vergara-Torres et al. supplementary material(File)
File 483.1 KB