Interactions with Other Organisms

Zotz, Gerhard

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39237-0_8

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 119 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…). Moreover, the colonization of one habitat‐former by another can negatively feedback onto the growth and survivorship of primary habitat‐formers by controlling limited resources (e.g., access to light or nutrients; Benzing and Seemann , Flores‐Palacios , Zotz ), which, in turn, may have strong consequences for the entire cascade. If the loss or removal of an associated community member alters the strength of negative interactions, then the community supported by a facilitation cascade may depart from predictions based solely on positive interactions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Positive and negative interactions control a facilitation cascade

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Facilitation cascades, which enhance the diversity of ecological communities in many ecosystems, have been viewed as the net outcome of positive species' interactions. The strength and direction of these interactions, and thus the realized biodiversity, however, are likely to vary with the density and traits of the habitat-formers and via negative interactions among interacting species. To test this, we manipulated the density and status (alive vs. dead) of a secondary habitat-former, the razor clam Pinna sp., and measured responses by the primary habitat-former, the seagrass Zostera muelleri, associated epifauna and infauna, and fish foraging behavior. At the plot level, for both live and dead clams, the total abundance of epifauna increased with clam density. However, for individual clams, the density of epifauna/cm 2 decreased with increasing clam density. Video image analysis showed higher fish predation of epifauna on dead compared to live clams at high but not low densities and path analysis indicated that these strong negative trophic interactions increased with dead clam density via both direct and indirect pathways. By contrast, an increasing density of live but not dead clams was negatively correlated with seagrass faunal densities. However, seagrass growth and standing biomass were unaffected by clam density or status. Our study illustrates that the realized facilitation cascade is a function of nested negative and positive interactions which change as a function of the density of clams and whether they were dead or alive, and therefore do not represent a collection of hierarchical positive interactions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Positive and negative interactions control a facilitation cascade

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, we do not have information on total soil P reserves of the ANF soil profiles, therefore limiting the scope of our conclusions with regard to correlations among soil P and hemiepiphytes. Most likely, nomadic vines disproportionately benefit from the higher concentration of extractable soil P in sandy soils as, by definition, this functional group maintains soil connections throughout its entire growth program (Rains et al, 2003; Zotz, 2016). This prediction was supported in part by the fact that nomadic vine abundance and extractable soil P were significantly and positively correlated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Plants which use other plants (phorophytes) for support may be classified into different functional groups according to their recruitment substrates, growth pattern and habitat preferences as either holoepiphytes, hemiepiphytes, or nomadic vines (Moffett, 2000; Zotz, 2016). Although a few epiphytic taxa may fit diffusely, a vast majority of taxa is classified, based on life history characteristics, into one of these three groupings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although a few epiphytic taxa may fit diffusely, a vast majority of taxa is classified, based on life history characteristics, into one of these three groupings. One important distinction between hemiepiphytes and nomadic vines compared to holoepiphytes is that members of the first two functional groups rely on shoot and/or adventitious root contact with the soil during growth (Zotz, 2013, 2016; Zotz et al, 2020). As a result, at some point in their growth patterns both hemiepiphytes and nomadic vines typically have contact with, and thus are influenced by, both phorophyte and soil.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such contrasting demographic strategies are subject to different ecological challenges at the most vulnerable demographic phase: seedling recruitment (Mondragón et al, 2015; Silvertown & Charlesworth, 2009). Different life history strategies should indeed result in differential phorophyte and microsite preferences; however, such a prediction has rarely been tested, especially in tropical forests (Zotz, 2016). In summary, hemiepiphyte germination success is putatively influenced by phorophyte plant characteristics such as phorophyte bark quality, micro‐architectural features (e.g., knotholes and bifurcations) (Laman, 1995; Tay et al, 2022; Zotz, Almeda, et al, 2021), and that of nomadic vine is limited by various factors associated with the understory such as solar radiation, leaf litter, and soil quality (Cockle, 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Phorophyte size and soil profiles differentially correlate with community structure among hemiepiphytes and nomadic vines

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tropical non‐self‐supporting plants such as hemiepiphytes and nomadic vines are model organisms for disentangling biotic and environmental correlates which influence their occupancy patterns. We inventoried >4000 individuals from >3000 trees ranging from 1 to 200 cm diameter at breast height (DBH) in a northeastern Amazonian upland forest to address how tree (phorophyte) size, edaphic factors and recruitment strategy influence occupancy, diversity, and compositional patterns of two vascular non‐self‐supporting plant functional groups. Hemiepiphytes germinate on phorophytes prior to establishing soil connections, whereas nomadic vines initiate their life cycle on the forest floor and subsequently climb phorophytes for crown access, abandoning roots replaced by adventitious connections which may reach the ground. Our results show that larger phorophytes (≥30 cm DBH) supported more species for both hemiepiphytes and nomadic vines. However, nomadic vines' occupancy probabilities saturated faster at smaller stem sizes than that of hemiepiphytes indicating differential preferences for stem sizes among the two functional groups. For smaller phorophytes (<30 cm DBH), soil correlations were stronger with nomadic vines than hemiepiphytes, whereas no significant differences were detected among functional groups in relation to edaphic factors for larger (≥ 30 cm DBH) ones. Finally, a small core group of species showed disproportionately greater abundances among large phorophytes suggesting that autogenic processes differentially promote survivability. Such interactions among phorophyte size and edaphic factors may result from the contrasting ecological requirements of hemiepiphytes and nomadic vines at the recruitment stage, demonstrating the necessity for elaborate demographic‐based studies to better understand these complex plant–plant interactions. Abstract in Spanish is available with online material

show abstract

Interactions with Other Organisms

Cited by 2 publications

References 119 publications

Positive and negative interactions control a facilitation cascade

Positive and negative interactions control a facilitation cascade

Phorophyte size and soil profiles differentially correlate with community structure among hemiepiphytes and nomadic vines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About