2015
DOI: 10.1093/aobpla/plu092
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Host specificity in vascular epiphytes: a review of methodology, empirical evidence and potential mechanisms

Abstract: A considerable number of plants depend on structural support of other plants. To understand their diversity and ecology, it is essential to know how strongly potential host species differ in their suitability as hosts. This review focuses on vascular epiphytes, i.e. structurally dependent plants that do not parasitize their hosts. Despite a longstanding interest in the topic, our knowledge on the strength of their host specificity is still scanty. This is arguably due to conceptual confusion, but also because … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

7
174
0
13

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 158 publications
(194 citation statements)
references
References 156 publications
7
174
0
13
Order By: Relevance
“…On the whole, the different substrates end up creating some ecological redundancy, with most species being present in multiple substrates and most substrates supporting a wide variety of species, a pattern already reported for the archipelago's bryoflora (Sjögren 2003, Gabriel andBates 2005). This lack of substratum preference was tentatively explained by Sjögren (2003) as the result of optimal habitat conditions in the Azores, with substrate preferences appearing to be more obvious when species occur at the margin of their survival ability (Sjögren 1997, Wagner et al 2015.…”
Section: Substrate Level Beta Diversitymentioning
confidence: 74%
“…On the whole, the different substrates end up creating some ecological redundancy, with most species being present in multiple substrates and most substrates supporting a wide variety of species, a pattern already reported for the archipelago's bryoflora (Sjögren 2003, Gabriel andBates 2005). This lack of substratum preference was tentatively explained by Sjögren (2003) as the result of optimal habitat conditions in the Azores, with substrate preferences appearing to be more obvious when species occur at the margin of their survival ability (Sjögren 1997, Wagner et al 2015.…”
Section: Substrate Level Beta Diversitymentioning
confidence: 74%
“…Many epiphytes show preferences for specific characteristics of the host trees (Benzing 2000, Benavides et al 2011, Wagner et al 2015. Therefore, phylogenetically analogous trees or those that share morphology or functional traits may host similar species of epiphytes (Chaves et al 2016).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, phylogenetically analogous trees or those that share morphology or functional traits may host similar species of epiphytes (Chaves et al 2016). The bark structure of the tree is an important feature that affects the preference of bromeliads, since the bark influences the microclimate near the trunk (Callaway et al 2002, Vergara-Torres et al 2010, Wagner et al 2015. Increased roughness of the bark provides greater capacity of retention of organic matter and humidity, promoting the germination of seeds and the development of epiphytes (Benzing 1990, Laube and Zotz 2006, Tewari et al 2009, Chomba et al 2011, Wagner et al 2015.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This pattern has been attributed to losses during seed dispersal and herbaceous plant competition in the recovery of tree structure after disturbance [65]. Thus, exploring alternative tree features, such as substratum availability [66], and functional traits in phorophytes [67] might be a more comprehensive approach of determining the small scale significance of phorophyte-epiphyte mechanisms that rule orchid distribution. For instance, Ruiz-Cordova et al [66] experimentally demonstrated that substratum availability ruled the vertical stratification of epiphyte bromeliads over microclimatic conditions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%