@phdthesis{Schmidt2000,
  author    = {Schmidt, Gerold},
  title     = {Plant size and intraspecific variability in vascular epiphytes},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-2000},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg},
  year      = {2000},
  abstract  = {A central objective of many ecophysiological investigations is the establishment of mechanistic explanations for plant distributions in time and space. The important, albeit mostly ignored, question arises as to the nature of the organisms that should be used as representative in pertinent experiments. I suggest that it is essential to use a "demographic approach" in physiological ecology, because physiological parameters such as photosynthetic capacity (PC, determined under non-limiting conditions with the oxygen electrode) may change considerably with plant size. Moreover, as shown for nine epiphyte species covering the most important taxonomic groups, the intraspecific variability in PC was almost always higher than the interspecific variability when comparing only large individuals. In situ studies with the epiphytic bromeliad V. sanguinolenta revealed that besides physiological parameters (such as PC) almost all morphological, anatomical and other physiological leaf parameters studied changed with plant size as well. Likewise, important processes proved to be size-dependent on whole-plant level. For example, long-term water availability was clearly improved in large specimens compared to smaller conspecifics due to the increased efficiency of the tanks to bridge rainless periods. As model calculations on whole-plant level for V. sanguinolenta under natural conditions have shown photosynthetic leaf carbon gain as well as respiratory losses of heterotrophic plant parts scaled with plant size. The resulting area related annual carbon balances were similar for plants of varying size, which corresponded to observations of size-independent (and low) relative growth rates in situ. Under favorable conditions in the greenhouse, however, small V. sanguinolenta exhibited surprisingly high relative growth rates, similar to annuals, which clearly contradicts the prevalent, but barely tested notion of epiphytes as inherently slow growing plants and simultaneously illustrates the profound resource limitations that epiphytes are subjected to in the canopy of a seasonal rain forest. From habitat conditions it seems that size-related differences in water availability are the driving force behind the observed size-dependent ecophysiological changes: the larger an epiphyte grows the more independent it is with regard to precipitation patterns. In conclusion, the results strongly emphasize the need to treat plant size as an important source of intraspecific variability and thus urge researchers to consider plant size in the design of ecophysiological experiments with vascular epiphytes.},
  subject      = {Gef{\"a}ßpflanzen},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Stuntz2001,
  author    = {Stuntz, Sabine},
  title     = {The influence of epiphytes on arthropods in the tropical forest canopy},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-1179126},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg},
  year      = {2001},
  abstract  = {The understanding of the mechanisms underlying the establishment and maintenance of the extraordinary biodiversity in tropical forests is a major challenge for modern biology. In this context, epiphytes are presumed to play an important role. To investigate the biological reality of this persistent yet insufficiently investigated notion, I conducted the present study. The main questions I intended to clarify were: (1) do epiphytes affect arthropod abundance and diversity in tropical tree crowns? and (2) what might be the driving forces behind this potential influence? I studied the arthropod fauna of 25 tree crowns bearing different epiphyte assemblages, and the resident fauna of 90 individual epiphytes. I also quantified the mitigating influence of epiphytes on the microclimate in tree crowns. In total, more than 277,000 arthropods were collected and about 700 morphospecies determined. Epiphytes had a significant moderating influence on canopy microclimate (Chapter 3), both at various microsites within a tree crown and among tree crowns with different epiphyte growth. On hot dry season days, they provided microsites with lower temperatures and reduced evaporative water loss compared to epiphyte-free spaces within the same tree crown. Quantitative sampling of the arthropods inhabiting three different epiphyte species provided compelling evidence for the specificity of epiphyte-associated faunas (Chapter 4). Epiphytes proved to be microhabitats for a diverse and numerous arthropod fauna, and different epiphyte species fostered both taxonomically and ecologically very distinct arthropod assemblages: among epiphyte hosts, the inhabitant faunas showed remarkably little species overlap, and guild composition differed strongly. In the subsequent chapters I investigated if this pronounced effect scaled up to the level of entire tree crowns. Arthropods were captured with three different trap types to obtain an ample spectrum of the canopy fauna (Chapter 2). Four tree categories were classified, three of which were dominated by a different species of epiphyte, and an epiphyte-free control group. On a higher taxonomic level, there were no detectable effects of epiphytes on the fauna: the ordinal composition was similar among tree categories and indifferent of the amount of epiphytes in a tree crown (Chapter 5). I examined three focal groups (ants, beetles and spiders) on species level. The diversity and abundance of ants was not influenced by the epiphyte load of the study trees (Chapter 6). Although many species readily used the epiphytes as nesting site and shelter, they seemed to be highly opportunistic with respect to their host plants. Likewise, the species richness and abundance of beetles, as well as their guild composition were entirely unaffected by the presence of epiphytes in the study trees (Chapter 7). Focusing on herbivorous beetles did not alter these results. Spiders, however, were strongly influenced by the epiphyte assemblages of the host trees (Chapter 8). Overall spider abundance and species richness did not differ among trees, but particular families and guilds exhibited marked differences in abundance between the tree categories. Most remarkable were the substantial differences in spider species composition across trees with different epiphyte assemblages. Conclusion Thus, the prevalent notion that epiphytes positively influence arthropod diversity in tropical canopies seems justified, but not without reservation. Whether an influence of epiphytes on the fauna was discernible depended greatly on (1) the scale of the investigated system: clear faunal distinctions at the microhabitat level were absent or much more subtle at the level of tree crowns. (2) the focal taxa: different arthropod orders allowed for completely different statements concerning the importance of epiphytes for canopy fauna. I therefore recommend a multitaxon approach for the investigation of large-scale ecological questions. In conclusion, I resume that epiphytes are associated with a species-specific inhabiting fauna,and that epiphytes impose an influence on certain, but not all, taxa even at the level of entire tree crowns. Although I could only hypothesize about the potential causes for this influence, this study provided the first comprehensive investigation of the role of epiphytes in determining arthropod abundance and diversity in tropical tree crowns.},
  subject      = {Tropischer Regenwald},
  language  = {en}
}