JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Missouri Botanical Garden Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden.

While Amazonian forests are extraordinarily diverse, the abundance of trees is skewed strongly towards relatively few ‘hyperdominant' species. In addition to their diversity, Amazonian trees are a key component of the global carbon cycle, assimilating and storing more carbon than any other ecosystem on Earth. Here we ask, using a unique data set of 530 forest plots, if the functions of storing and producing woody carbon are concentrated in a small number of tree species, whether the most abundant species also dominate carbon cycling, and whether dominant species are characterized by specific functional traits. We find that dominance of forest function is even more concentrated in a few species than is dominance of tree abundance, with only ≈1% of Amazon tree species responsible for 50% of carbon storage and productivity. Although those species that contribute most to biomass and productivity are often abundant, species maximum size is also influential, while the identity and ranking of dominant species varies by function and by region.

A recent increase in published studies of lianas has been paralleled by a proliferation of protocols for censusing lianas. This article seeks to increase uniformity in liana inventories by providing specific recommendations for the determination of which taxa to include, the location of diameter measurement points on individual stems, the setting of minimum stem diameter cutoffs, the treatment of multiple‐stemmed and rooted clonal groups, and the measurement of noncylindrical stems. Use of more uniform liana censusing protocols may facilitate comparison of independently collected data sets and further our understanding of global patterns in liana abundance, diversity, biomass, and dynamics.

Extant neotropical rainforest biomes are characterized by a high diversity and abundance of angiosperm trees and vines, high proportions of entire-margined leaves, high proportions of large leaves (larger than 4500 mm 2 ), high abundance of drip tips and a suite of characteristic dominant families: Sapotaceae, Lauraceae, Leguminosae (Fabaceae), Melastomataceae and Palmae (Arecaceae). Our aim is to define parameters of extant rainforests that will allow their recognition in the fossil record of South America and to evaluate all known South American plant fossil assemblages for first evidence and continued presence of those parameters. We ask when did these critical rainforest characters arise? When did vegetative parameters reach the level of abundance that we see in neotropical forests? Also, when do specific lineages become common in neotropical forests?Our review indicates that evidence of neotropical rainforest is exceedingly rare and equivocal before the Palaeocene. Even in the Palaeocene, the only evidence for tropical rainforest in South America is the appearance of moderately high pollen diversity. By contrast, North American sites provide evidence that rainforest leaf physiognomy was established early in the Palaeocene. By the Eocene in South America, several lines of evidence suggest that neotropical rainforests were diverse, physiognomically recognizable as rainforest and taxonomically allied to modern neotropical rainforests. A mismatch of evidence regarding the age of origin between sites of palaeobotanical high diversity and sites of predicted tropical climates should be reconciled with intensified collecting efforts in South America. We identify several lines of promising research that will help to coalesce previously disparate approaches to the origin, longevity and maintenance of high diversity floras of South America.

We test the hypotheses proposed by Gentry and Schnitzer that liana density and basal area in tropical forests vary negatively with mean annual precipitation (MAP) and positively with seasonality. Previous studies correlating liana abundance with these climatic variables have produced conflicting results, warranting a new analysis of drivers of liana abundance based on a different dataset. We compiled a pan-tropical dataset containing 28,953 lianas (Z2.5 cm diam.) from studies conducted at 13 Neotropical and 11 Paleotropical dry to wet lowland tropical forests. The ranges in MAP and dry season length (DSL) (number of months with mean rainfall o 100 mm) represented by these datasets were 860-7250 mm/yr and 0-7 mo, respectively. Pan-tropically, liana density and basal area decreased significantly with increasing annual rainfall and increased with increasing DSL, supporting the hypotheses of Gentry and Schnitzer. Our results suggest that much of the variation in liana density and basal area in the tropics can be accounted for by the relatively simple metrics of MAP and DSL.Abstract in Spanish is available at

Leaf margin characters are strong predictors of mean annual temperature (MAT) in modern plant communities and widely used tools for reconstructing paleoclimates from fossil floras. However, the frequency of nonentire-margined species may vary dramatically between different habitats of the same forest. In this paper we explore the potential for this habitat variation to introduce error into temperature reconstructions, based on field data from a modern lowland forest in Amazonian Ecuador.The data show that the provenance of leaves can influence temperature estimates to an important degree and in a consistent direction. Woody plants growing along lakes and rivers underestimated MAT by 2.5°-5°C, while those in closed-canopy forest provided very accurate predictions. The high proportion of liana species with toothed leaves in lakeside and riverside samples appears to be responsible for a large part of the bias. Samples from closed-canopy forest that included both lianas and trees, however, were more accurate than tree-only or liana-only samples.We conclude that paleotemperature reconstructions based on leaf margin characters will be misleading to the extent that fossilization provides a better record of certain habitats than others. The preponderance of lake and river deposits in the angiosperm fossil record suggests that underestimation of mean annual paleotemperature may be common.

No abstract

No abstract