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-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T06:30:33.781Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

68 - Embracing epiphytes in sustainable forest management: a pilot study from the Highlands of Chiapas, Mexico

from Part VII - Cloud forest conservation, restoration, and management issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 May 2011

By
J. H. D. Wolf
Edited by
L. A. Bruijnzeel ,
F. N. Scatena  and
L. S. Hamilton
J. H. D. Wolf
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
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

Vascular epiphyte biomass and species richness were investigated in 16 anthropogenically disturbed pine–oak forests within an area of ~400 km2 in the Highlands of Chiapas, southern Mexico. Epiphyte biomass on 35 host oak trees in six diameter classes varied from 0.8 to 243 kg dry-weight and comprised 13–34 species. The observed variation in epiphytes could be attributed to type and intensity of past forest disturbance as it affects present-day stand structure, as well as to site position within the landscape. To help preserve the diverse regional epiphyte vegetation it is recommended to abstain from cyclic clear-cutting, to spare a sufficient number of large “rescue” trees, and to consider epiphyte conservation at a large spatial scale. As an alternative to logging, various prerequisites are proposed for the sustainable harvesting of bromeliads from natural populations.

INTRODUCTION

In the footsteps of early explorers, successive epiphyte researchers have concentrated primarily on old-growth forests. From these studies it is evident that in pristine wet mountain forests epiphytes may contribute up to more than half of the vascular plant diversity and green biomass in the forest (Hofstede et al., 1993; Wolf and Flamenco-Sandoval, 2003; cf. Köhler et al., 2007; Gradstein 2008). Thus, epiphytes are possibly key to high-mountain forest ecosystem functioning.

Type
Chapter
Information
Tropical Montane Cloud Forests
Science for Conservation and Management
 , pp. 652 - 658
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

Barthlott, W., Schmit-Neuerburg, V., Nieder, J., and Engwald, S. (2001). Diversity and abundance of vascular epiphytes: a comparison of secondary vegetation and primary montane rain forest in the Venezuelan Andes. Plant Ecology 152: 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benzing, D. H. (1978). The population dynamics of Tillandsia circinnata (Bromeliaceae): cypress crown colonies in southern Florida. Selbyana 5: 256–263.Google Scholar
Borcard, D., Legendre, P., and Drapeau, P. (1992). Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology 73: 1045–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breedlove, D. E. (1978). The phytogeography and vegetation of Chiapas (Mexico). In Vegetation and Vegetational History of Northern Latin America, ed Graham, A., pp. 149–165. San Francisco, CA: California Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Casgrain, P., and Legendre, P. (2001). The R-Package for Multivariate and Spatial Analysis, version 4.0 d5, User's Manual. Montréal, Canada: Département de Sciences Biologiques, University of Montréal. Also available at www.fas.umontreal.ca/BIOL/legendre/.Google Scholar
Castro-Hernández, J. C., Wolf, J. H. D., García-Franco, J. G., and González-Espinosa, M. (1999). The influence of humidity, nutrients and light on the establishment of the epiphytic bromeliad Tillandsia guatemalensis in the highlands of Chiapas, Mexico. Revista de Biologia Tropical 47: 763–773.Google Scholar
Cavelier, J., Aide, T. M., Santos, C., Eusse, A. M., and Dupuy, J. M. (1998). The savannization of moist forests in Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia. Journal of Biogeography 25: 901–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cayuela, L., Benayas, J. M. R., and Echevarría, C. 2006 Clearance and fragmentation of tropical montane forests in the Highlands of Chiapas, Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management 226: 206–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cottam, G., and Curtis, J. T.. (1956). The use of distance measures in phytosociological sampling. Ecology 37: 451–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimmitt, M. (2000). Endangered Bromeliaceae. In Bromeliaceae: Profile of an Adaptive Radiation, ed. Benzing, D. H., pp. 609–620. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
García-Franco, J. G., and Gray, V. R. (1988). Experiments on seed dispersal and deposition patterns of epiphytes: the case of Tillandsia deppeana Steudel (Bromeliaceae). Phytologia 65: 73–79.Google Scholar
Gradstein, S. R. (2008). Epiphytes of tropical montane forests: impacts of deforestation and climate change. In The Tropical Mountain Forest: Patterns and Processes in a Biodiversity Hotspot, eds. Gradstein, S. R., Homeier, J., and Gansert, D., pp. 51–65. Göttingen, Germany: Göttingen Centre for Biodiversity and Ecology.Google Scholar
Gradstein, S. R., Nadkarni, N. M., Krömer, T., Holz, I., and Nöske, N. (2003). A protocol for rapid and representative sampling of vascular and non-vascular epiphyte diversity in tropical rain forests. Selbyana 24: 105–111.Google Scholar
Hietz-Seifert, U., Hietz, P., and Guevara, S. (1996). Epiphyte vegetation and diversity on remnant trees after forest clearance in southern Veracruz, Mexico. Biology and Conservation 75: 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstede, R. G. M., Wolf, J. H. D., and Benzing, D. H. (1993). Epiphytic mass and nutrient status of an Upper Montane Rain Forest. Selbyana 14: 37–45.Google Scholar
Hubbell, S. P. (2001). The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Köhler, L., Tobón, C., Frumau, K. F. A., and Bruijnzeel, L. A. (2007). Biomass and water storage dynamics of epiphytes in old-growth and secondary montane cloud forest stands in Costa Rica. Plant Ecology 193: 171–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legendre, P., and Legendre, L. (1998). Numerical Ecology, 2nd edn. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Legendre, P., Borcard, D., and Peres-Neto, P. R. (2005). Analyzing beta diversity: partitioning the spatial variation of community composition data. Ecological Monographs 75: 435–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menges, E. S. (2000). Population viability analyses in plants: challenges and opportunities. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15: 51–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merwin, M. C., Rentmeester, S. A., and Nadkarni, N. M. (2003). The influence of host tree species on the distribution of epiphytic bromeliads in experimental monospecific plantations, La Selva, Costa Rica. Biotropica 35: 37–47.Google Scholar
Mitchell, A. W., Secoy, K., and Jackson, T. (eds.) (2002). The Global Canopy Handbook: Techniques of Access and Study in the Forest Roof. Oxford, UK: Global Canopy Programme.
Muñoz-Villers, L. E., and López-Blanco, J. (2008). Land use/cover changes using Landsat TM/ETM images in a tropical and biodiverse mountainous area of central-eastern Mexico. International Journal of Remote Sensing 29: 71–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nöske, N., Hilt, N., Werner, F., et al. (2008). Disturbance effects on diversity in montane forest of Ecuador: sessile epiphytes versus mobile moths. Basic and Applied Ecology 9: 4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ochoa-Gaona, S., and González-Espinosa, M. (2000). Land use and deforestation in the highlands of Chiapas, Mexico. Applied Geography 20: 17–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramírez-Marcial, N., Gonzalez-Espinosa, M., and Williams-Linera, G. (2001). Anthropogenic disturbance and tree diversity in Montane Rain Forests in Chiapas, Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management 154: 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarmiento, F. (1997). Arrested succession in pastures hinders regeneration of Tropandean forests and shreds mountain landscapes. Environmental Conservation 24: 14–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, M. L. (1981). Minimum population sizes for species conservation. BioScience 31: 131–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soulé, M. E. (1987). Introduction. In Viable Populations for Conservation, ed. Soulé, M. E., pp. 1–10. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braak, C. J. F. (1988). CANOCO: an extension of DECORANA to analyze species–environment relationships. Vegetatio 75: 159–160.Google Scholar
Werner, F., Homeier, J., and Gradstein, S. R. (2005). Diversity of vascular epiphytes on isolated remnant trees in the montane forest belt of southern Ecuador. Ecotropica 11: 21–40.Google Scholar
Williams-Linera, G., Manson, R., and Izunza, E. (2002). La fragmentación del bosque mesófilo de montaña y patrones de uso del suelo en la región oeste de Xalapa, Veracruz, México. Madera y Bosques 8: 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, J. H. D. (2005). The response of epiphytes to anthropogenic disturbance of pine–oak forests in the highlands of Chiapas, Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management 212: 376–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, J. H. D., and Flamenco-Sandoval, A. (2003). Patterns in species richness and distribution of vascular epiphytes in Chiapas, Mexico. Journal of Biogeography 30: 1689–1707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, J. H. D., and Konings, C. J. F. (2001). Toward the sustainable harvesting of epiphytic bromeliads: a pilot study from the highlands of Chiapas, Mexico. Biological Conservation 101: 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, J. H. D., Gradstein, S. R., and Nadkarni, N. M. (2009). A protocol for sampling vascular epiphyte richness and abundance. Journal of Tropical Ecology 25: 107–121.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
×