Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T14:50:29.196Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

27 - Epiphyte biomass in Costa Rican old-growth and secondary montane rain forests and its hydrological significance

from Part III - Hydrometeorology of tropical montane cloud forest

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 May 2011

By
L. Köhler ,
D. Hölscher ,
L. A. Bruijnzeel  and
C. Leuschner
Edited by
L. A. Bruijnzeel ,
F. N. Scatena  and
L. S. Hamilton
L. Köhler
Affiliation:
University of Göttingen, Germany
D. Hölscher
Affiliation:
University of Göttingen, Germany
L. A. Bruijnzeel
Affiliation:
VU University, the Netherlands
C. Leuschner
Affiliation:
University of Göttingen, Germany
L. A. Bruijnzeel
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
F. N. Scatena
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
L. S. Hamilton
Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Get access

Summary

ABSTRACT

Epiphyte biomass and associated canopy water storage capacity may vary greatly in tropical montane forests depending on climate, forest structure, and stand age. This study compares old-growth and secondary forests in the upper montane belt of the Cordillera de Talamanca (Costa Rica) with respect to biomass of non-vascular and vascular epiphytes and their effect on water fluxes in the canopies of an old-growth forest, an early-successional stand (10–15 years of age), and a mid-successional stand (c. 40 years). Irrespective of stand age, epiphyte communities were strongly dominated by non-vascular plants (70–99% of total epiphytic biomass). Epiphyte biomass in the old-growth forest (3400 kg ha−1) was more than 20 times that of the youngest stand (160 kg ha−1) and more than six times that of the intermediate stand (520 kg ha−1). Consequently, the water storage capacity of non-vascular epiphytes and canopy humus increased from 0.06 mm in the early-successional, via 0.18 mm in the mid-successional, to 0.97 mm in the old-growth stand. Thus, the recolonization by epiphytes of tropical successional forests after clear-cutting, and the restoration of epiphytic water storage capacity will require many decades if not centuries.

Type
Chapter
Information
Tropical Montane Cloud Forests
Science for Conservation and Management
 , pp. 268 - 274
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

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

Ataroff, M., and Rada, F. (2000). Deforestation impact on water dynamics in a Venezuelan Andean cloud forest. Ambio 29: 440–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benzing, D. H. (1998). Vulnerabilities of tropical forests to climate change: the significance of resident epiphytes. Climatic Change 39: 519–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coxson, D. S., and Nadkarni, N. M. (1995). Ecological roles of epiphytes in nutrient cycles of forest ecosystems. In Forest Canopies, eds. Lowman, M. D. and Nadkarni, N. M., pp. 495–543. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, P. J., and Grubb, P. J. (1977). Studies of mineral cycling in a montane rain forest in New Guinea. I. The distribution of organic matter in the vegetation and soil. Journal of Ecology 65: 943–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frahm, J. P. (1987). Which factors control the growth of epiphytic bryophytes in tropical rainforest?Symposia Biologica Hungarica 35: 639–648.Google Scholar
Frahm, J. P. (1990). The ecology of epiphytic bryophytes on Mt. Kinabalu, Sabah (Malaysia). Nova Hedwigia 51: 121–132.Google Scholar
Frahm, J. P., and Gradstein, S. R. (1991). An altitudinal zonation of tropical rain forests using bryophytes. Journal of Biogeography 18: 669–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freiberg, M., and Freiberg, E. (2000). Epiphyte diversity and biomass in the canopy of lowland and montane forests in Ecuador. Journal of Tropical Ecology 16: 673–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-Santos, G. (2007). An ecohydrological and soils study in a montane cloud forest in the National Park of Garajonay, La Gomera (Canary Islands, Spain). PhD Thesis, VU University Ámsterdam, Ámsterdam, The Netherlands. [http://www.falw.vu.nl/nl/onderzoek/earth-sciences/geo-environmental-science-and-hydrology/hydrology-dissertations/index.asp].
Giambelluca, T. W. (2002). Hydrology of altered tropical forest. Hydrological Processes 16: 1665–1669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helmer, E. H. (2000). The landscape ecology of tropical secondary forest in montane Costa Rica. Ecosystems 3: 98–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstede, R. G. M., Wolf, J. H. D., and Benzing, D. H. (1993). Epiphytic biomass and nutrient status of a Colombian upper montane rain forest. Selbyana 14: 37–45.Google Scholar
Hölscher, D., Köhler, L., Dijk, A. I. J. M., and Bruijnzeel, L. A. (2004). The importance of epiphytes to total rainfall interception by a tropical montane rain forest in Costa Rica. Journal of Hydrology 292: 308–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holz, I., Gradstein, S. R., Heinrichs, J., and Kappelle, M. (2002). Bryophyte diversity, microhabitat differentiation and distribution of life forms in Costa Rican upper montane Quercus forest. The Bryologist 105: 334–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingram, S. W., and Nadkarni, N. M. (1993). Composition and distribution of epiphytic organic matter in a neotropical cloud forest, Costa Rica. Biotropica 25: 370–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nacional, Instituto Meteórologico (1988). Catastro de las series de precipitaciones medidas en Costa Rica. San José, Costa Rica: Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energía y Minas.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, N. H. G. (1978). An investigation into the ecology and productivity of epiphytic mosses. South African Journal of Botany 44: 297–312.Google Scholar
Jetten, V. G. (1996). Interception of tropical rain forest: performance of a canopy water balance model. Hydrological Processes 10: 671–685.3.0.CO;2-A>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, D. (1974). Ecology of vascular epiphytes in West African rain forest. Acta Phytogeographica Suedica 59: 1–136.Google Scholar
Kappelle, M., Kennis, P. A., and Vries, R. A. J. (1995). Changes in diversity along a successional gradient in a Costa Rican upper montane Quercus forest. Biodiversity and Conservation 4: 10–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kappelle, M., Geuze, T., Leal, M. E., and Cleef, A. M. (1996). Successional age and forest structure in a Costa Rican upper montane Quercus forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 12: 681–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köhler, L. (2002). Die Bedeutung der Epiphyten im ökosystemaren Wasser- und Nährstoffumsatz verschiedener Altersstadien eines Bergregenwaldes in Costa Rica, Berichte des Forschungszentrums Waldökosysteme, Series A, Vol. 181. Göttingen, Germany: University of Göttingen.Google Scholar
Köhler, L., Hölscher, D., and Leuschner, C h. (2006). Above-ground water and nutrient fluxes in three successional stages of Costa Rican montane oak forest with contrasting of epiphyte abundance. In Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Montane Oak Forests, ed. Kappelle, M., pp. 271–282. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köhler, L., Tobón, C., Frumau, K. F. A., and Bruijnzeel, L. A. (2007). Biomass and water storage of epiphytes in old-growth and secondary montane rain forest stands in Costa Rica. Plant Ecology 193: 171–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunz, M. (2000). Diversität epiphytischer Kryptogamen in der Strauchschicht montaner Eichenwälder Costa Ricas. M.Sc. thesis, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.Google Scholar
Nadkarni, N. M. (1984). Epiphyte biomass and nutrient capital of a neotropical elfin forest. Biotropica 16: 249–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadkarni, N. M., Schaefer, D., Matelson, T. J., and Solano, R. (2004). Biomass and nutrient pools of canopy and terrestrial components in a primary and a secondary montane cloud forest, Costa Rica. Forest Ecology and Management 198: 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, D. R. (1978). A method of access into the crowns of emergent and canopy trees. Biotropica 10: 155–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pócs, T. (1980). The epiphytic biomass and its effect on the water balance of two rain forest types in the Uluguru Mountains (Tanzania, East Africa). Acta Botanica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 26: 143–167.Google Scholar
Tanner, E. V. J. (1980). Studies on the biomass and productivity in a series of montane rain forest in Jamaica. Journal of Ecology 68: 573–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanner, E. V. J. (1985). Jamaican montane forests: nutrient capital and cost of growth. Journal of Ecology 73: 553–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reenen, G. B. A., and Gradstein, S. R. (1983). A transect analysis of the bryophyte vegetation along an altitudinal gradient on the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia. Acta Botanica Neerlandica 32: 163–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reenen, G. B. A., and Gradstein, S. R. (1984). An investigation of bryophyte distribution and ecology along an altitudinal gradient in the Andes of Colombia. Journal of Hattori Botanical Laboratory 56: 79–84.Google Scholar
Veneklaas, E., and Ek, R. (1990). Rainfall interception in two tropical montane rain forests, Colombia. Hydrological Processes 4: 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veneklaas, E. J., Zagt, R. J., Leerdam, A., et al. (1990). Hydrological properties of the epiphyte mass of a montane tropical rain forest, Colombia. Vegetatio 89: 183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, P. L. (1972). Cloud moisture interception in the Luquillo Mountains of Puerto Rico. Caribbean Journal of Science 12: 129–144.Google Scholar
West, G. B., Brown, J. H., and Enquist, B. J. (1999). A general model for the structure and allometry of plant vascular systems. Nature 400: 664–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, J. H. D. (1993). Diversity patterns and biomass of epiphytic bryophytes and lichens along an altitudinal gradient in the northern Andes. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 80: 928–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×