The behavioural ecology of climbing plants

Abstract

Climbing plants require an external support to grow vertically and thus achieve better access to sunlight. Climbing plants that find a suitable support have greater performance, size and reproduction than those that remain prostrate. Plant behaviour involves rapid morphological or physiological responses to events or environmental changes. Theoretical frameworks from behavioural ecology, traditionally applied to animals, have been successfully used to study plant behaviour. I herein review studies addressing ecological causes and consequences of support finding and use by climbing plants. I also propose the use of behavioural ecology theoretical frameworks to study climbing plant behaviour.

Modeling the impact of liana infestation on the demography and carbon cycle of tropical forests

“…Despite the demand of the scientific community for the inclusion of lianas in models (van der Heijden, Schnitzer, Powers, & Phillips, 2013;Kumar & Scheiter, 2019;McDowell et al, 2018;Phillips et al, 2002) and the increase in liana abundance in the Neotropics, no single dynamic global vegetation model (DGVM) so far includes lianas (Verbeeck & Kearsley, 2015). Given that an increasing amount of data on different aspects of liana ecology has emerged (Gianoli, 2015;Laurance et al, 2014;Schnitzer, 2018;Schnitzer & Bongers, 2011), we argue that now is the time to start building such models (Verbeeck & Kearsley, 2015). Because of the potential impact of lianas on forest succession and carbon sequestration, the development of validated tools to understand their role in forest ecosystems is paramount.…”

A comparison of plants and animals in their responses to risk of consumption

“…Foraging decisions by plants follow predictions of state-dependent models developed for animals [34]. For example, shaded plants allocate resources preferentially towards growth and away from defense [39,40] and light-starved plants are willing to tolerate greater risk of herbivore attack [41].…”

Insects and light interact to mediate vine colonization of fast growing Microberlinia bisulcata tree seedlings in gaps of an African rain forest

“…A long history of removal experiments show that vines negatively affect multiple dimensions of tree regeneration, including hosts’ access to water and light, growth and reproduction, and survival (reviewed by Estrada‐Villegas & Schnitzer, ), but this impact may depend on the local light environment as well as the shade tolerance and species identity of hosts (Perez‐Salicrup, ; Schnitzer & Carson, ; Toledo‐Aceves & Swaine, , ). From a young vine's perspective, locating a suitable support—one that increases its probability of survival or its growth rate—is arguably critical for its recruitment (Gianoli, ), so colonizing taller, vigorously growing tree seedlings and saplings in gaps should be favored, because these hosts would offer more stable support and access to more light resources than slower growing ones. Conspicuously missing, however, from this burgeoning research on vine–tree interactions is the involvement of herbivores, especially invertebrates.…”

“…Secondly, leaf herbivory can differentially suppress and limit the stature of potential host tree species (in height or leaf area), especially if they lack sufficient resistance, or fail to compensate for eaten tissues, or cannot escape discovery by density dependent natural enemies (Pearson, Burslem, Goeriz, & Dalling, ; Marquis, ; Massey, Massey, Press, & Hartley, ; Norghauer, Malcolm, & Zimmerman, ; Norghauer & Newbery, ; Lemoine, Burkepile, & Parker, ). If vines can distinguish among and grow toward dark, shaded areas cast by very small stems (<1 cm) of taller seedlings with more leaves, not unlike the skototropism demonstrated for root climbers of buttressed tropical trees (Strong & Ray, ) and other hosts (Gianoli, ), then herbivory could reduce host susceptibility to vine colonization in gaps. Thirdly, although vines can compete with their hosts for light and belowground resources (Schnitzer, Kuzee, & Bongers, ; Toledo‐Aceves & Swaine, ; Toledo‐Aceves & Swaine, ; Alvarez‐Cansino, Schnitzer, Reid, & Powers, ), there is evidence from temperate systems of associational effects benefiting the fitness of the vine (Gonzalez‐Tueber & Gianoli, ) or host plant (Sasal & Suarez, ).…”