| Literature DB >> 33194368 |
Philip W Rundel1, Arielle M Cooley2, Katharine L Gerst3, Erin C Riordan4, M Rasoul Sharifi1, Jennifer W Sun1, J Alexandra Tower5.
Abstract
Broad-leaved monocot herbs are widespread and dominant components of the shaded understories of wet neotropical forests. These understory habitats are characterized by light limitation and a constant threat of falling branches. Many shaded understory herb species have close relatives that occupy forest edges and gaps, where light availability is higher and defoliation threat is lower, creating an opportunity for comparative analysis of functional traits in order to better understand the evolutionary adaptations associated with this habitat transition. We documented ecological, morphological and ecophysiological traits of multiple herb species in six monocot families from each of these two habitats in the wet tropical rainforest at the La Selva Biological Station, Costa Rica. We found that a mixture of phylogenetic canalization and ecological selection for specific habitats helped explain patterns of functional traits. Understory herbs were significantly shorter and had smaller leaves than forest edge species. Although the mean number of leaves per plant and specific leaf area did not differ between the two groups, the larger leaf size of forest edge species gave them more than three times the mean plant leaf area. Measures of leaf water content and nitrogen content varied within both groups and mean values were not significantly different. Despite the high leaf nitrogen contents, the maximum photosynthetic rates of understory herbs were quite low. Measures of δ 13C as an analog of water use efficiency found significantly lower (more negative) values in understory herbs compared to forest edge species. Clonality was strongly developed in several species but did not show strong phylogenetic patterns. This study highlights many functional traits that differ between broad-leaved monocot species characteristic of understory and forest edge habitats, as well as traits that vary primarily by phylogenetic relatedness. Overall, plant functional traits do not provide a simple explanation for the relative differences in abundance for individual understory and forest edge species with some occurring in great abundance while others are relatively rare. ©2020 Rundel et al.Entities:
Keywords: Araceae; Costaceae; Cyclanthaceae; Forest edge; Marantaceae; Tropical forest; Understory; Zingiberaceae
Year: 2020 PMID: 33194368 PMCID: PMC7597634 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.9958
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1La Selva climate diagram.
(A) Mean daily maximum (closed circles) and minimum (open circles) air temperatures, and (B) total monthly precipitation (vertical bars) and mean daily minimum relative humidity (open triangles) (B) for the La Selva Biological Station, Costa Rica. Values are means ± standard errors for each month for data collected hourly from 1957 to 2003 for precipitation, from 1982 to 2003 for temperature, and from 1992 to 2003 for relative humidity. Graph courtesy of Eric Graham.
Figure 2Understory herbs.
Understory monocot herbs. (A) Philodendron grandipes (Araceae); (B) Costus scaber (Costaceae); (C) Asplundia uncinata (Cyclanthaceae); (D) Heliconia irrasa (Heliconiaceae); (E) Goeppertia leucostachys (Marantaceae); and (F) Renealmia pluriplicata (Zingiberaceae). Photos by Jennifer Sun.
Figure 3Forest edge herbs.
Forest edge monocot herbs. (A) Spathiphyllum friedrichsthallii (Araceae); (B) Costus malortieanus (Costaceae); (C) Carludovica sulcata (Cyclanthaceae): (D) Heliconia pogonantha (Heliconiaceae); (E) Calathea crotalifera (Marantaceae); and (F) Goeppertia inocephala (Marantaceae). Photos by Jennifer Sun.
Morphological and canopy traits by species.
Habitat, occurrence, and means of canopy and leaf morphological traits of understory and forest edge broad-leaved monocot herbs at the La Selva Biological Station, Costa Rica. Comparative data on understory palms are added at the end of the table.
| Understory | Occurrence | Habitat specialization | Leaf arrangement | Height (m) | No. of leaves | Leaf area (cm2) | Canopy leaf area (m2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alluvial/wet | Basal | 0.77 | 3.6 | 856 | 0.31 | ||
| A | Alluvial/wet | Basal | 1.81 | 8.0 | 1968 | 1.57 | |
| LC | Alluvial/wet | Basal | 0.77 | 7.8 | 492 | 0.38 | |
| A | Alluvial/wet | Basal | 0.64 | 8.0 | 675 | 0.54 | |
| A | Basal | 0.76 | 9.3 | 436 | 0.41 | ||
| I | Basal | 0.74 | 11.8 | 233 | 0.27 | ||
| I | Basal | 1.64 | 13.8 | 1280 | 1.77 | ||
| LC | Alluvial/wet | Basal | 0.79 | 16.5 | 785 | 1.30 | |
| A | Cauline | 1.87 | 79.7 | 172 | 1.37 | ||
| I | Basal | 1.87 | 14.2 | 3353 | 4.72 | ||
| A | Basal | 1.13 | 10.8 | 1346 | 1.45 | ||
| A | Basal | 1.14 | 6.9 | 370 | 0.25 | ||
| I | Basal | 1.98 | 12.7 | 1027 | 1.30 | ||
| A | Alluvial/wet | Basal | 0.48 | 6.1 | 344 | 0.21 | |
| LC | Basal | 1.43 | 31.4 | 1080 | 3.39 | ||
| LC | Basal | 0.54 | 12.1 | 434 | 0.52 | ||
| A | Basal | 0.40 | 11.6 | 11 | 0.01 | ||
| I | Cauline | 1.13 | 20.3 | 291 | 0.59 | ||
| I | Branched | 1.84 | 38.9 | 638 | 2.48 | ||
| A | Cauline | 2.20 | 74.9 | 242 | 1.81 | ||
| I | Cauline | 1.18 | 25.6 | 484 | 1.24 | ||
| LC | Open bog | Basal | 1.55 | 7.2 | 937 | 0.67 | |
| A | Cauline | 0.76 | 5.4 | 264 | 0.14 | ||
| LC | Alluvial soils | Cauline | 4.58 | 148 | 610 | 9.02 | |
| A | Basal | 3.50 | 5.6 | 259 | 2.98 | ||
| A | Basal | 2.12 | 8.5 | 2235 | 1.90 | ||
| LC | Rheophyte | Basal | 0.84 | 14.4 | 270 | 0.39 | |
| A | Basal (S) | 5.25 | 11.1 | 8054 | 8.94 | ||
| A | Alluvial/wet | Basal (S) | 3.97 | 9.5 | 3454 | 4.49 | |
| A | Cauline | 3.65 | 34.0 | 781 | 2.66 | ||
| LC | Basal (S) | 4.62 | 13.6 | 6957 | 9.46 | ||
| R | Basal (S) | 2.20 | 21.0 | 1704 | 3.58 | ||
| LC | Basal (S) | 3.71 | 13.6 | 4354 | 5.92 | ||
| LC | Basal (S) | 3.64 | 16.2 | 3862 | 6.26 | ||
| I | Basal (S) | 1.03 | 14.0 | 580 | 0.81 | ||
| LC | Basal (S) | 3.72 | 26.6 | 4628 | 12.31 | ||
| R | Alluvial soils | Basal (S) | 2.85 | 14.5 | 3114 | 4.52 | |
| LC | Basal | 2.88 | 23.9 | 2990 | 7.15 | ||
| A | Cauline | 1.52 | 11.6 | 440 | 0.51 | ||
| A | Alluvial soils | Basal(S) | 3.20 | 9.00 | 2326 | 2.09 | |
| 4.41 | |||||||
| A | Basal | 1.50 | 21.3 | 1412 | 3 | ||
| A | Basal | 5.67 | 9.00 | 1917 | 1.72 | ||
| A | Basal | 1.17 | 11.1 | 1261 | 1.4 |
Notes.
abundant
locally common
infrequent
rare
Ecophysiological traits by species.
Mean values of ecophysiological and reproductive traits of understory and forest edge broad-leaved monocot herbs at the La Selva Biological Station, Costa Rica. Comparative data on understory palms are added at the end of the table.
| Leaf water content (g g-1) | Specific leaf area (cm2 g-1) | Nitrogen (%) | N specific weight (mg m-2) | d13C (o/oo) | Pmax (umol m-2 s-1) | Vegetative reproduction | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 233 | 3.94 | 1.51 | −34.4 | ||||
| 4.96 | 157 | 3.65 | 2.32 | −34.4 | 2.03 | Clonal | |
| 8.25 | 205 | 3.88 | 1.89 | −32.7 | Clonal | ||
| 6.54 | 273 | 3.79 | 1.39 | −36.0 | 2.06 | Clonal | |
| 4.99 | 191 | 4.65 | 2.43 | −37.3 | 2.80 | ||
| 4.24 | 191 | 4.33 | 2.27 | −37.1 | |||
| 5.68 | 266 | 4.14 | 1.56 | −38.6 | 2.81 | ||
| 6.73 | 196 | 3.79 | 1.93 | −38.5 | 2.89 | ||
| 5.84 | 185 | 2.45 | 1.32 | −34.8 | 1.60 | Clonal | |
| 4.32 | 169 | 3.08 | 1.82 | −38.2 | |||
| 4.71 | 166 | 2.31 | 1.39 | −38.3 | 2.17 | Clonal | |
| 4.90 | 260 | 2.62 | 1.01 | −34.7 | 3.18 | Clonal | |
| 5.39 | 243 | 3.87 | 1.59 | −34.1 | 2.93 | ||
| 6.08 | 296 | 3.59 | 1.21 | −35.9 | |||
| 5.93 | 223 | 3.34 | 1.50 | −34.2 | |||
| 10.43 | 260 | 2.42 | 0.93 | −33.9 | |||
| 5.47 | 413 | 3.08 | 0.75 | −37.3 | Clonal | ||
| 8.72 | 312 | 3.21 | 1.03 | −37.0 | Clonal, nodal | ||
| 3.73 | 241 | 2.57 | 1.07 | −35.8 | Nodal rooting | ||
| 4.04 | 165 | 2.88 | 1.75 | −35.4 | |||
| 4.75 | 212 | 2.12 | 1.00 | −36.6 | 1.40 | ||
| 5.78 | 200 | 4.44 | 2.22 | −35.8 | 7.11 | Clonal | |
| 12.83 | 240 | 2.39 | 1.00 | −34.8 | Clonal | ||
| 5.16 | 93 | Clonal | |||||
| 3.97 | 186 | 3.40 | 1.83 | −36.4 | Clonal | ||
| 4.80 | 189 | 3.12 | 1.65 | −36.2 | |||
| 4.97 | 186 | 3.04 | 1.63 | −32.2 | Clonal | ||
| 4.07 | 180 | 3.00 | 1.67 | −32.3 | Clonal | ||
| 4.26 | 206 | 4.15 | 2.01 | −31.3 | 14.06 | Clonal | |
| 4.21 | 189 | 3.36 | 1.78 | −34.2 | 8.21 | Clonal | |
| 3.34 | 143 | 3.22 | 2.25 | −28.4 | Clonal | ||
| 4.37 | 255 | 3.37 | 1.32 | −35.5 | Semi-clonal | ||
| 1.84 | 93 | 3.25 | 3.49 | −28.5 | Clonal | ||
| 3,23 | 168 | 3.02 | 1.80 | −30.7 | |||
| 3.67 | 241 | 3.33 | 1.38 | 4.35 | |||
| 3.34 | 177 | 2.92 | 1.65 | −29.5 | 8.10 | Clonal | |
| 4.32 | 285 | 2.24 | 0.79 | −36.4 | 6.85 | ||
| 4.33 | 200 | 2.70 | 1.35 | −34.2 | |||
| 5.56 | 311 | 3.26 | 1.05 | −33.1 | Nodal rooting | ||
| 3.85 | 210 | 3.25 | 1.55 | −32.8 | Clonal | ||
| 2.05 | −36.0 | 3.09 | |||||
| 2.02 | −34.3 |
Figure 4Trait comparisons.
Habitat, abundance, canopy and leaf morphological traits (A, B, C, D) and ecophysiological traits (E, F, G, H, I and J) of understory and forest edge broad-leaved monocot herbs at the La Selva Biological Station, Costa Rica. Box graphs show the mean trait value, lowest and highest value, distribution of the minimum values (25th percentiles, lower boundary of box) and maximum value of the traits (75th percentiles upper boundary of box).
Figure 5Morphological traits relatioships.
Relationship of plant height to number of mature canopy leaves (A) and total canopy leaf area (B) for understory (orange symbols) and forest edge (green symbols) broad-leaved monocot herbs . Species families are identified by symbols as follows: triangle—Araceae, square—Costaceae, oval—Cyclanthaceae, diamond—Heliconiaceae, star—Marantaceae, x—Zingiberaceae.
Figure 6Ecophysiological trait comparisons.
Relationship of mean maximum rate of assimilation to leaf nitrogen content (A) and specific leaf area (SLA) (B) for understory and forest edge broad-leaved monocot herbs. Species families are identified by symbols as follows:triangle—Araceae, square—Costaceae, oval—Cyclanthaceae, diamond—Heliconiaceae, star—Marantaceae, x—Zingiberaceae.