Review of Selected Literature and Epiphyte Classification
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
--------- -- ---------· 4 CHAPTER 1 REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE AND EPIPHYTE CLASSIFICATION 1.1 Review of Selected, Relevant Literature (p. 5) Several important aspects of epiphyte biology and ecology that are not investigated as part of this work, are reviewed, particularly those published on more. recently. 1.2 Epiphyte Classification and Terminology (p.11) is reviewed and the system used here is outlined and defined. A glossary of terms, as used here, is given. 5 1.1 Review of Selected, Relevant Li.terature Since the main works of Schimper were published (1884, 1888, 1898), particularly Die Epiphytische Vegetation Amerikas (1888), many workers have written on many aspects of epiphyte biology and ecology. Most of these will not be reviewed here because they are not directly relevant to the present study or have been effectively reviewed by others. A few papers that are keys to the earlier literature will be mentioned but most of the review will deal with topics that have not been reviewed separately within the chapters of this project where relevant (i.e. epiphyte classification and terminology, aspects of epiphyte synecology and CAM in the epiphyt~s). Reviewed here are some special problems of epiphytes, particularly water and mineral availability, uptake and cycling, general nutritional strategies and matters related to these. Also, all Australian works of any substance on vascular epiphytes are briefly discussed. some key earlier papers include that of Pessin (1925), an autecology of an epiphytic fern, which investigated a number of factors specifically related to epiphytism; he also reviewed more than 20 papers written from the early 1880 1 s onwards. Oliver (1930) published a thorough general study of the sy~tematics and ecology of New Zealand vascular epiphytes. An important review of ecological life history studies of vascular epiphytes was compiled by Curtis (1952) which included more than 170 references from pre-Schimperian time onwards and covered numerous topics. Richards (1952) included a synopsis of vascular epiphyte biology in his standard textbook on the tropical rainforest. Walter (1971), and Dressler (1981) included similar epiphyte sections in their texts. A relatively brief, but to-the-point review of the ecology of tropical epiphytic orchids was presented by Holttum (1960). Two recent important papers that include large components of survey and review on general epiphyte ecology are those of Johansson (1974) and of Sanford (1974). The systematics and salient features of vascular epiphytes were discussed and reviewed by Madison (1977a). The water relations of epiphytes is an important aspect of their biology vitally related to their ecology and evolution. Gessner (1956) investigated and reviewed water economy and related physiology and anatomy of epiphytes, particularly orchids and bromeliads. He reviewed more than 40 papers. He interpreted the role of the velamen of orchid roots as that of a sponge which absorbs water rapidly by capillary action, but entry into the cortex and stele was much slower, by osmotic processes; Walter (1951) calculated however, that internal uptake rate was still very rapid when compared with 6 loss rates - the amount of water lost by a Vanda plant over a week could be absorbed into the stele within one hour. Such evidence supports the view that the physiological and anatomical devices most important in maintaining favourable water balance in epiphytic orchids are sited in the roots. Dycus & Knudson (1957) interpreted the velamen as an insulation against waterless and mechanical damage and played down the role of uptake of water and minerals. Capesius & Barthlott (1975) presented evidence supporting Wallach's (1939) and Gessners theory of the role of velamen in water (and mineral) uptake and Benzing & Ott (1981) agreed with this interpretation but rather boldly state that the passage cells of the root exodermis operate a 'one-way valve' effect (as do the foliar trichomes of the aerial bromeliads) which circumstantial evidence suggests may be the case. It has been clearly shown that this is true in the bromeliads, e.g. by Schimper (1888) and Mez (1904) but remains to be actually investigated in detail in the orchids - this is still an important need. Wallach (1939) and Dycus & Knudson presented evidence that the velamen was incapable of condensing water and gases from the atmosphere, as had been previously claimed. Sanford &Adanlawo (1973) surveyed velamen and exodermis characters in West African orchids and found a positive correlation between thickness of ve'lamen and aridity of environment. This perhaps supports the 'insulation against waterless' theory but may also relate to temporary storage of water absorbed, e.g. from night mists; the reflective qualities of the velamen surface (Benzing & Ott, 1981) may then,help reduce evaporation by keeping tissue temperature lower. Related to this is the controversy surrounding the evolution of shoot reduction in orchids and root reduction in bromeliads. Benzing & Ott (1981) argue, contrary to Rolfe (1914), that water stress ts of. secondary importance as a selection pressure producing aphylly in the monopodial orchids. However, they do not document the water saving potential of aphylly as has been done in relation to nutrient economy. They do not satisfactorily explain how the effect of the two different problems can be separated, especially since a) water and minerals are absorbed simultaneously, at least sometimes and b) both are limiting in epiphyte microhabitats, especially in the more exposed, outer ones. Also, the prevalence of leaf reduction among plant groups of arid terrestrial communities where nutrients are not limiting, cannot be ignored in this connection. They also argue that i. thick velamen inhibits root photosynthetic ability and, ii. this character correlates with aridity of microhabitat (Sanford & Adanlawo, 1974), and, 7 iii. aphyllous orchids have a thin velamen, thus, iv. aphylly is not an adaptation to water stress. However, these thickly velamen-clad orchids may simply be following a distinctly different adaptive line and thus not be comparable. An example of such a different line of adaptation to similar pressures is found in the genus BuZbophyZZum. All species investigated by the present writer (unpublished observations), have thin roots with a uniseriate veZamen, yet aphylly which has developed in two Australian species inhabiting outer, exposed microhabitats, i.e. B. rrrinutissimum and B. gZobuZifoY'l11(3, has involved transfer of photosynthetic function to tl1e pseudobulbs rather than to the roots. Benzing' s arguments favouring reduction in response to nutrient deficiency are convincing and supported by ample evidence, but the arguments against its cause by water stress ~re not so and the separation of the two influences remains a problem. Further evidence should be sought by researching e.g. rates of water loss and general water thrift of aphyllous orchids, the water status of their microhabitats, as well as their mineral relations. Benzing & Ott (1981) also g:i ve some useful suggestions on further research into the problem. Another hypothesis on the origins and causes of vegetative reduction in epiphytes is put forward by Johansson (1977) supported by evidence from Ruinen (1953) on 'epiphytosis' and briefly, states that the epiphytes are partially dependent on their 'hosts' for water and nutrition and the leaves degenerated and finally became obsolete. This is not widely accepted and is certainly based on circumstantial evidence. Related to this is the controversy surrounding the nature of the relationship between epiphytes, particularly the heliophilous, "extremely aerial", oligotrophic species, and the support tree, in regard to nutrient relations. The classical viewpoint is that typical epiphytes are quite autotrophic and have no deleterious effect on the phorophyte but the evidence of Ruinen (1953) strongly suggests that some, perhaps many epiphytes are epiparasites, using mycorrhizalconnections between themselves and the cortex of the phorophyte ('epiphytosis'). Actual transfer of water and nutrients has not yet been demonstrated to confirm this and for this reason, many workers are sceptical of this theory. Radioactive tracers should be useful in clarifying this matter, though there may be such problems as leaching of salts from phorophyte foliage and their absorption by epiphytes. 8 Another line of (circumstantial) evidence used by Ruinen and later by Johansson (1977) is the decline of the host and frequent death of tree parts which support suspected epiparasitic species of epiphytes. Benzing (1979) offere:3.an alternative explanation for such morbidity and mortality. He reasoned that epiphytes which colonise early in a tree's development will establish on branches and twigs that will later die as a result of the tree's growth and ontogenetic development while the epiphytes may persist on these. However, he does not explain why the epiphytes do not also decline because of microenvironmental changes brought about by tree ontogeny, e.g. increased shading and descreased throughfall. Benzing & Seemann (1978) investigate general decline of phorophytes with heavy epiphyte loads in environments of very poor nutrient status and put forward the theory of 'nutritional piracy'. This states that oligotrophic epiphytes are very efficient at scavenging and retaining nutrients and they effectively block the cycle and deprive the phorophyte of minerals. This seems a plausible argument but needs more direct