Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Spatial Distribution of Vascular Epiphytes (Including Hemiepiphytes) in a Lowland Amazonian Rain Forest (Surumoni Crane Plot) of Southern Venezuela

Jurgen Nieder, Stefan Engwald, Martin Klawun and Wilhelm Barthlott
Biotropica
Vol. 32, No. 3 (Sep., 2000), pp. 385-396
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2663871
Page Count: 12
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Spatial Distribution of Vascular Epiphytes (Including Hemiepiphytes) in a Lowland Amazonian Rain Forest (Surumoni Crane Plot) of Southern Venezuela
Preview not available

Abstract

The mobile crane of the Surumoni project allowed for the first time ever a complete inventory and spatial description of the epiphytic vegetation of a tropical lowland rain forest plot (1.5 ha), at La Esmeralda on the upper Orinoco River, Venezuela. A total of 778 individual vascular epiphytes of 53 species was found, dominated by 19 orchid species and 14 species of Araceae. Fifty percent of all individual plants were obligate ant-garden epiphytes. The distribution of epiphytes was highly clumped and not random. The clumped occurrence of holoepiphytes (complete life cycle on host tree) was the consequence of the rarity of suitable phorophytes (host trees; e.g., size and age) in the plot and the preference of ants for gaps where most of the ant-garden epiphytes were found. In comparison, hemiepiphytes were distributed more evenly because of greater independence from tree suitability. The dispersal modes of epiphytes did not explain their distribution patterns. There was no consistent difference in distribution between anemochorous and zoochorous epiphytes, presumably because availability of suitable substrate is the more important factor for epiphyte establishment and growth. Whereas the vertical distribution of epiphytes could be attributed largely to deterministic factors such as physiological adaptation and requirements, horizontal distribution appeared to be governed by suitable substrate, which in turn seemed to be governed by stochastic gap formation.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
385
    385
  • Thumbnail: Page 
386
    386
  • Thumbnail: Page 
387
    387
  • Thumbnail: Page 
388
    388
  • Thumbnail: Page 
389
    389
  • Thumbnail: Page 
390
    390
  • Thumbnail: Page 
391
    391
  • Thumbnail: Page 
392
    392
  • Thumbnail: Page 
393
    393
  • Thumbnail: Page 
394
    394
  • Thumbnail: Page 
395
    395
  • Thumbnail: Page 
396
    396