| Literature DB >> 23741346 |
Pei-Yu Jian1, Feng Sheng Hu, Chiao Ping Wang, Jyh-Min Chiang, Teng-Chiu Lin.
Abstract
Positive species interactions (facilitation) play an important role in shaping the structures and species diversity of ecological communities, particularly under stressful environmental conditions. Epiphytes in rainforests often grow in multiple-species clumps, suggesting interspecies facilitation. However, little is known about the patterns and mechanisms of epiphyte co-occurrence. We assessed the interactions of two widespread epiphyte species,Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23741346 PMCID: PMC3669308 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064599
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Co-occurring Asplenium antiquum and Haplopteris zosterifolia.
Co-occurring Asplenium antiquum and Haplopteris zosterifolia.
Figure 2Size class frequency of Asplenium antiquum and Haplopteris zosterifolia co-occurring with different epiphyte species.
Size class frequency of a) 100 Asplenium antiquum and b) 100 Haplopteris zosterifolia co-occurring with different epiphyte species. Size class of A. antiquum was determined by the crown size. 1: <50 cm, 2∶50–100 cm, 3∶101 -150 cm, 4∶151–200 cm, 5>200. Size class of H. zosterifolia was determined by the maximum length of fronds. 1∶40–80 cm, 2∶81–120 cm, 3∶121–160 cm, 4: >161 cm.
Figure 3Light indices before and after removal treatment above and below Asplenium antiquum.
Light indices of a) ISF, and b) DSF before and after removal treatment above and below Asplenium antiquum. ISF and DSF are the proportion of direct and indirect light, respectively, at the point of measurement relative to the levels above tree canopies. Error bars represent ±1 S.E.
Figure 4Relative frond number and length after removal treatment.
The relative frond number and length (as compared to pre-removal measurements) of a) A. antiquum and b) H. zosterifolia in different treatments. Error bars represent ±1 S.E. Numbers in parentheses are actual frond number and frond length for October.
Figure 5Element content and C/N ratio of fronds of A. antiquum.
Element content and C/N ratio of fronds of A. antiquum between January and August 2010. Error bars represent ±1 S.E.
Figure 6Element content and C/N ratio of fronds of H. zosterifolia.
Element content and C/N ratio of fronds of H. zosterifolia between January and August 2010. Error bars represent ±1 S.E.
Figure 7Weight change with the progression of drought treatment.
Proportion of weight remaining (relative weight to day 0) with the progression of drought treatment for Asplenium antiquum with fronds unclipped (5 replicates) and fronds clipped (5 replicates). The differences between the treatments were mostly significant with the exceptions of days 1, 2, 14, 15, 16, and 19.
Figure 8The potential quantum yield of Asplenium antiquum with the progression of drought treatment.
The potential quantum yield (Fv/Fm) of Asplenium antiquum fronds with the progression of drought treatment. Error bars represent ±1 S.E.
Figure 9δ13C and δ15N of Asplenium antiquum and Haplopteris zosterifolia.
Mean δ13C and δ15N of Asplenium antiquum and Haplopteris zosterifolia. Error bars represent ±1 S.E.