Herbivore‐Free Time? Damage to New Leaves of Woody Plants after Hurricane Andrew¹

Abstract

All broadleaf woody plants of pinelands and hammocks (upland areas) in the northern parts of Everglades National Park were defoliated by the strong winds of Hurricane Andrew in August 1992. Most plants re‐leafed within two months of the storm, at which time we tagged newly produced leaves of eight species (five species in two hardwood hammocks and four in two pineland sites; one species was studied in both habitats), and monitored individual leaf area lost or damaged monthly for three months. We marked a second cohort of new leaves on the same individuals four months later and monitored these for three months. Herbivory rates in leaves of the first cohort were lower than observed in pre‐hurricane studies on two of the species, and lower in the first cohort than in the second cohort in six of the eight species studied, indicating that most insect herbivores were virtually absent for the first few months after the storm. Additionally, most species produced significantly larger leaves in the first cohort than the second cohort, and leaves of the second cohort were not significantly different in size from pre‐hurricane leaves in one species for which pre‐hurricane data were available. The large disturbance of the hurricane defoliated and reduced the above‐ground biomass of the plants, but apparently also eliminated most herbivores and competition for light, facilitating the recovery of the plants.

Natural and human disturbances affect natural regeneration of Swietenia macrophylla: Implications for rainforest management

“…The higher mortality induced by desiccation is explained by the fact that in WH sites the canopy was severely damaged and seedlings were more exposed to direct sunlight (Grogan et al, 2005). Our result showed an increase in herbivory and contrasts with observed in other tropical sites, where hurricanes seems to locally eliminate herbivores reducing the damage in plants (Koptur et al, 2002;Angulo-Sandoval et al, 2004;Horvitz et al, 2005).…”

“…On one hand, in our study, a not yet identified lepidopteran larva (probably a moth) was found within big-leaf mahogany seeds contributing with about 60% of the total seed predation in areas hit by hurricane Dean. Other studies have documented changes in insect community after hurricanes (Koptur et al, 2002;Pascarella, 1998;Torres, 1992). For example, Torres (1992) reported lepidoptera outbreaks and the spread toward new host plants of some lepidoptera larvae.…”

“…The most common hurricane impacts are the breaking of big branches, the defoliation of tree crowns, and the falling of trees as a result of strong winds and lightning strikes, which create canopy openings promoting the regeneration within the gap (Meléndez-Ackerman et al, 2003;Teh et al, 2009). Nonetheless, natural disturbances not only cause plant injuries, it also affects fauna and probably the interactions between them (Horvitz et al, 2005;Koptur et al, 2002). The evidence on the response of seed removal and herbivory to hurricanes is still limited and presents opposite results (Angulo-Sandoval et al, 2004;Horvitz et al, 2005;Koptur et al, 2002;Schowalter, 1994;Spiller and Schoener, 2007).…”

“…Human and natural disturbances have the potential to individually disrupt ecological processes such as seed removal and herbivory (Guariguata et al, 2002;Horvitz et al, 2005;Koptur et al, 2002;Lambert et al, 2005;Rathcke, 2000;Spiller and Schoener, 2007). Interestingly, there has not been an attempt to measure these effects neither as a continuous process from seed removal to early recruitment nor and its whole consequences on the plant recruitment limitation, despite their applicability in tropical forest management.…”

“…Nonetheless, natural disturbances not only cause plant injuries, it also affects fauna and probably the interactions between them (Horvitz et al, 2005;Koptur et al, 2002). The evidence on the response of seed removal and herbivory to hurricanes is still limited and presents opposite results (Angulo-Sandoval et al, 2004;Horvitz et al, 2005;Koptur et al, 2002;Schowalter, 1994;Spiller and Schoener, 2007).…”