Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:53:23.246Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The contribution of epiphytes to the abundance and species richness of canopy insects in a Mexican coffee plantation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2009

Andrea Cruz-Angón ,
Martha L. Baena  and
Russell Greenberg
Andrea Cruz-Angón
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ecología, A.C. Departamento de Ecología Funcional. Km 2.5 antigua carretera a Coatepec, No. 315. 91070, Xalapa, Veracruz, México
Martha L. Baena
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ecología, A.C. Departamento de Ecología Funcional. Km 2.5 antigua carretera a Coatepec, No. 315. 91070, Xalapa, Veracruz, México
Russell Greenberg*
Affiliation:
Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center, National Zoological Park, Washington, DC 20008, USA
*
2Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

The abundance of epiphytes has been assumed to be important in explaining the high diversity of tropical canopy arthropods. In this study we assessed the possible role that the presence of epiphytes may have on the diversity and abundance of canopy insects in an experimental study conducted in a coffee plantation in Coatepec, Veracruz, Mexico. Epiphytes were removed from trees in one of two plots in two sites of the coffee plantation. In each plot we collected insects from three Inga jinicuil trees by knockdown insecticide fogging. Insects were sorted to morphospecies, counted and measured. Trees with epiphytes had significantly higher numbers of species and individuals and insects larger than 5 mm were also more species-rich and abundant in trees with epiphytes. The magnitude of the enhancement was surprisingly large with the epiphyte plot samples having on average 90% more individuals and 22% more species than plots without epiphytes. These differences were even greater for large (>5 mm) insects (184% and 113% respectively). Our results support the tenet that epiphytes provide valuable resources to arthropods, which we have illustrated for canopy insects in shade trees of coffee plantations.

Keywords

bromeliadscanopy insectscommunity structureInga jinicuilMexicorichnessshade coffeevascular epiphytes
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 25 , Issue 5 , September 2009 , pp. 453 - 463
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

LITERATURE CITED

ARMBRUSTER, P., HUTCHINSON, R. A. & COTGREAVE, P. 2002. Factors influencing community structure in a South American tank bromeliad fauna. Oikos 96:225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BASSET, Y. & KITCHING, R. L. 1991. Species number, species abundance and body length of arboreal arthropods associated with an Australian rainforest tree. Ecological Entomology 16:391–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BASSET, Y., SAMUELSON, G. A., ALLISON, A. & MILLER, S. E. 1996. How many species of host-specific insects feed on a species of tropical tree. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 59:201–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BASSET, Y., SPRINGATE, N. D., ABERLENC, H. P. & DELVARE, G. 1997. A review of methods for the sampling arthropods in the tree canopies. Pp. 27–52 in Stork, N. E., Adis, J. & Didham, R. K. (eds.). Canopy arthropods. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
BASSET, Y., NOVOTNY, V., MILLER, S. E. & KITCHING, R. L. 2003. Canopy entomology, and expanding field of natural science. Pp. 4–6 in Basset, Y., Novotny, V., Miller, S. E. & Kitching, R. L. (eds.) Arthropods of tropical forests. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
BENZING, D. H. 1990. Vascular epiphytes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 354 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BENZING, D. H. 1994. How much is known about Bromeliaceae in 1994? Selbyana 15:1–7.Google Scholar
BOS, M. M., STEFFAN-DEWENTER, I. & TSCHARNTKE, T. 2007. The contribution of cacao agroforests to the conservation of lower canopy ant and beetle diversity in Indonesia. Biodiversity and Conservation 16:2429–2444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CHAN, L. M. 2003. Seasonality, microhabitat and cryptic variation in tropical salamander reproductive cycles. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 78:489–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CLARKE, K. R. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18:117–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CLARKE, K. R. & GORLEY, R. N. 2001. Primer v5: user manual/tutorial. Primer-E Ltd. Plymouth. 91 pp.Google Scholar
COLWELL, R. K. & CODDINGTON, J. A. 1994. Estimating the extent of terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 345:101–118.Google Scholar
COTGRAVE, P., HILL, M. J. & MIDDLETOWN, D. A. 1993. The relationship between body size and population size in bromeliad tank faunas. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 49:367–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CRUZ-ANGÓN, A. & GREENBERG, R. 2005. Are epiphytes important for birds in coffee plantations? An experimental assessment. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:150–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CRUZ-ANGÓN, A., SILLETT, T. S. & GREENBERG, R. 2008. An experimental study of habitat selection by birds in a coffee plantation. Ecology 89:921–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DAVIES, J. G., STORK, N. E., BRENDELL, M. J. D. & HINE, S. J. 1997. Beetle species diversity and faunal similarity in Venezuelan rainforest tree canopies. Pp. 85–103 in Stork, N. E., Adis, J. & Didham, R. K. (eds.). Canopy arthropods. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
DEJEAN, A., OLMSTED, I. & SNELLING, R. R. 1995. Tree-epiphyte-ants relationship in the low inundated forest of Sian Ka'an biosphere reserve, Quintana Roo, Mexico. Biotropica 27:57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DIAL, R. & ROUGHGARDEN, J. 1995. Experimental removal of insectivores from rain forest canopy: direct and indirect effects. Ecology 76:1821–1834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DUDLEY, R. 2000. The biomechanics of insect flight: form, function, evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 476 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ELLWOOD, M. D. F., JONES, D. T. & FOSTER, W. A. 2002. Canopy ferns in lowland dipterocarp rainforest support a prolific abundance of ants, termites and other invertebrates. Biotropica 34:575–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ERWIN, T. L. 1982. Tropical forests: their richness in Coleoptera and other arthropod species. The Coleopterists Bulletin 36:74–75.Google Scholar
ERWIN, T. L. 1983. Tropical forests canopies: the last biotic. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 11:14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ERWIN, T. L. 1991. How many species are there?: revisited. Conservation Biology 5:330–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ERWIN, T. L. & SCOTT, J. C. 1980. Seasonal and size patterns, trophic structure, and richness of Coleoptera in the tropical arboreal ecosystem: the fauna of the tree Luehua seemannii (Triana and Planch) trees sampled in the canal zone of Panama. The Coleopterists Bulletin 34:305–322.Google Scholar
FLOREN, A. & LINSENMAIR, K. E. 1997. Diversity and recolonization dynamics of selected arthropod groups on different tree species in lowland rainforest in Sabah, Malaysia with special reference to Formicidae. Pp. 245–381 in Stork, N. E., Adis, J. & Didham, R. K. (eds.). Canopy arthropods. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
FLOREN, A. & LINSENMAIR, K. E. 1998. Non-equilibrium communities of Coleoptera in trees in a lowland rain forest of Borneo. Ecotropica 4:55–67.Google Scholar
GASTON, K. J. 1991. Estimates of the near-imponderable: a reply to Erwin. Conservation Biology 5:564–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GASTON, K. J., BLACKBURN, T. M., HAMMOND, P. M. & STORK, N. E. 1993. Relationships between abundance and body size: where do tourists fit? Ecological Entomology 18:310–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GENTRY, A. H. & DODSON, C. H. 1987. Diversity and biogeography of neotropical vascular epiphytes. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 74:205–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GOTELLI, N. J. & COLWELL, R. K. 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters 4:379–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GREENBERG, R., BICHIER, P., CRUZ-ANGON, A., MACVEAN, C., PEREZ, R. & CANO, E. 2000. The impact of avian insectivory on arthropods and leaf damage in some Guatemalan coffee plantations. Ecology 81:1750–1755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HUXLEY, C. 1980. Symbiosis between ants and epiphytes. Biological Reviews 55:321–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JANZEN, D. H. 1974. Epiphytic myrmecophytes in Sarawak: mutualism through the feeding of plants by ants. Biotropica 6:237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KITCHING, R. L., MITCHEL, H., MORSE, G. & THEBAUD, C. 1997. Determinants of species richness in assemblages of canopy arthropods in rainforest. Pp. 131–150 in Stork, N. E., Adis, J. & Didham, R. K. (eds.). Canopy arthropods. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
KRESS, W. J. 1986. The systematic distribution of vascular epiphytes: an update. Selbyana 9:2–22.Google Scholar
LONGINO, J. T. & NADKARNI, N. M. 1990. A comparison of ground and canopy leaf litter ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in a Neotropical montane forest. Psyche 97:81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LUCKY, A., ERWIN, T. L. & WITMAN, J. D. 2002. Temporal and spatial diversity and the distribution of arboreal Carabidae (Coleoptera) in a Western Amazonian rain forest. Biotropica 34:376–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MAJER, J. D. & DELABIE, J. H. C. 1993. An evaluation of Brazilian cocoa farm ants as potential biological control. Journal of Plant Protection in the Tropics 10:43–49.Google Scholar
MAY, R. M. 1978. The dynamics and diversity of insect faunas. Pp. 188–204 in Mound, L. A. & Waloff, N. (eds.). Diversity of insect faunas. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.Google Scholar
MOGUEL, P. & TOLEDO, V. M. 1999. Biodiversity conservation in traditional coffee systems in Mexico. Conservation Biology 13:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MORSE, D. R., STORK, N. E. & LAWTON, J. H. 1988. Species number, species abundance and body length relationships of arboreal beetles in Bornean lowland rain forest trees. Ecological Entomology 13:25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NADKARNI, N. M. 1994. Diversity of species and interactions in the upper tree canopy of forest ecosystems. American Zoologist 34:70–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NADKARNI, N. M. & MATELSON, T. J. 1989. Bird use of epiphyte resources in Neotropical trees. Condor 91:891–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NOVOTNÝ, V. & BASSET, Y. 2000. Rare species in communities of tropical insect herbivores: pondering the mystery of singletons. Oikos 89:564–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ØDEGAARD, F. 2000. The relative importance of trees versus lianas as hosts for phytophagous beetles (Coleoptera) in tropical forests. Journal of Biogeography 27:283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PAOLETTI, M. G., TAYLOR, R. A. J., STINNER, D. H., STINNER, B. R. & BENZING, D. H. 1991. Diversity of soil fauna in the canopy and forest floor of Venezuelan cloud forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 7:373–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PERFECTO, I., VANDERMEER, J., HANSON, P. & CARTÍN, V. 1997. Arthropod biodiversity loss and the transformation of a tropical agro-ecosystem. Biodiversity and Conservation 6:935–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RABOY, B. E., CHRISTMAN, M. C. & DIETZ, J. M. 2004. The use of degraded and shade cocoa forest by endangered golden-headed lion tamarins Leontopithecus chrysomelas. Oryx 138:75–83.Google Scholar
RICHARDSON, B. A. 1999. The bromeliad microcosm and the assessment of faunal diversity in a Neotropical forest. Biotropica 31:321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RICHARDSON, B. J., BURGIN, S., AZARBAYJANI, F. F. & LUTUBULA, S. 1997. Distinguishing the woods from the trees. Pp. 497–509 in Stork, N. E., Adis, J. & Didham, R. K. (eds.). Canopy arthropods. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
RICHARDSON, B. A., RICHARDSON, M. J, SCATENA, F. N. & MCDOWELL, W. H. 2000. Effects of nutrient availability and other elevational changes on bromeliad populations and their invertebrate communities in a humid tropical forest in Puerto Rico. Journal of Tropical Ecology 16:167–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ROMERO-ALVARADO, Y., SOTO-PINTO, L., GARCÍA-BARRIOS, L. E. & BARRERA-GAYTAN, J. K. 2002. Coffee yields and soil nutrients under the shades of Inga sp. vs. multiple species in Chiapas México. Agroforestry Systems 54:215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ROSKOSKI, J. P. 1981. Nodulation and nitrogen fixation by Inga jinicuil, a woody legume in coffee plantations. I. Measurements of nodule biomass and field acetylene reduction rates. Plant Soil 59:201–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ROSKOSKI, J. P. 1982. Nitrogen fixation in a Mexican coffee plantation (Inga jinicuil). Plant and Soil 67:283–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RUSEK, J. 1998. Biodiversity of Collembola and their functional role in the ecosystem. Biodiversity and Conservation 7:1207–1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAHAI, H. & AGEEL, M. I. 2000. The Analysis of Variance: fixed random and mixed models. Birkhäuser, Boston. 742 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SANTOYO-CORTÉS, V. H., DÍAZ-CÁRDENAS, S. & RODRÍGUEZ-PADRÓN, B. 1994. Sistema agroindustrial café en México. Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, México. 176 pp.Google Scholar
SCHMIDT, G. & ZOTZ, G. 2000. Herbivory in the epiphyte, Vriesea sanguinolenta Cogn. & Marchal (Bromeliaceae). Journal of Tropical Ecology 16:829–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SILLETT, T. S. 1996. Foraging ecology of epiphyte-searching insectivorous birds in Costa Rica. Condor 96:866–877.Google Scholar
STORK, N. E. 1987. Arthropod faunal similarity of Bornean rain forest trees. Ecological Entomology 12:219–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STORK, N. E. 1991. The composition of the arthropod fauna of Bornean lowland forest trees. Journal of Tropical Ecology 7:161–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STORK, N. E. & BLACKBURN, T. M. 1993. Abundance, body size and biomass of arthropods in tropical forest. Oikos 67: 487–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STORK, N. E. & HAMMOND, P. M. 1997. Sampling arthropods from tree-crowns by fogging with knockdown insecticides: lessons from studies of oak tree beetle assemblages in Richmond Park (UK). Pp. 3–26 in Stork, N. E., Adis, J. & Didham, R. K. (eds.). Canopy arthropods. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
STUNTZ, S. 2001. The influence of epiphytes on arthropods in the tropical forest canopy. PhD Dissertation. Würzburg University, Germany. 111 pp.Google Scholar
STUNTZ, S., ZIEGLER, C., SIMON, U. & STOTZ, G. 2002a. Rainforest air-conditioning: the moderating influence of epiphytes on the microclimate in tropical tree crowns. International Journal of Biometeorology 46:53–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
STUNTZ, S., ZIEGLER, C., SIMON, U. & STOTZ, G. 2002b. Diversity and structure of the arthropod fauna within three canopy epiphyte species in Central Panama. Journal of Tropical Ecology 18:161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STUNTZ, S., SIMON, U. & ZOTZ, G. 2003. Arthropods seasonality in tree crowns with different epiphyte loads. Pp. 176–185 in Basset, Y., Novotny, V., Miller, S. E. & Kitching, R. L. (eds.). Arthropods of tropical forests. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
THOMPSON, J. N. 1981. Reversed animal-plan interactions: the evolution of insectivorous and ant-fed plants. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 16:147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WILKENS, R. T., VANDERKLEIN, D. W. & LEMKE, R. W. 2005. Plant architecture and leaf damage in bear oak: insect usage patterns. Northeastern Naturalist 12:153–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WITTMAN, P. K. 2000. The animal community associated with canopy bromeliads of the lowland Peruvian Amazon rain forest. Selbyana 21:48–51.Google Scholar
YANOVIAK, S. P., NADKARNI, N. M. & GERING, J. 2003. Arthropods in epiphytes: a diversity component that is not effectively sampled by canopy fogging. Biodiversity and Conservation 12:731–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
YANOVIAK, S. P., NADKARNI, N. M. & SOLANO, J. R. 2006. Arthropod assemblages in epiphyte mats of Costa Rican cloud forests. Biotropica 36:202–210.Google Scholar
ZAR, J. H. 1999. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River. 662 pp.Google Scholar