Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:08:42.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of exposure to sea water on germination and vegetative growth of an epiphytic bromeliad

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

Gerhard Zotz  and
Norman Reuter
Gerhard Zotz*
Affiliation:
Universität Oldenburg, Institute of Biology and Environmental Sciences, AG Functional Ecology, Box 2503, D-26111 Oldenburg, Germany Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Apartado Postal 0843-03092, Balboa, Ancon, Panamá, República de Panamá
Norman Reuter
Affiliation:
Universität Oldenburg, Institute of Biology and Environmental Sciences, AG Functional Ecology, Box 2503, D-26111 Oldenburg, Germany
*
1Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Vascular epiphytes can be quite abundant in vegetation close to the ocean surf, where they are exposed to a more or less continuous input of salt spray. The ecophysiological basis of their occurrence, i.e. salt tolerance or avoidance, is unresolved, because all previous studies were observational and conclusions thus circumstantial. Here, the effect of varying concentrations of salt water on germination, and growth and survival of seedlings and established plants was investigated in a growth cabinet study under controlled conditions. Seeds (1500), seedlings (750) and small tank plants (336) were from four populations of Werauhia sanguinolenta that were growing either close to the sea or inland in Panama. Changes of Na+ and K+ concentrations in plant tissue were also determined. No differences in the sensitivity to salt were found among populations, nor among life stages. External concentrations (Cext) of up to 15% sea water (c. 0.5% Na+) allowed complete germination as well as positive growth and survival in both seedlings and established plants over short periods (8–10 wk). After longer exposure (12 wk) of established plants visible damage and increased mortality were observed at lower Cext, but critical tissue Na+ levels were similar: c. 50 mg gDW−1. It is concluded that this common epiphyte does not meet the definition of a halophyte, but still possesses a rather high tolerance to sodium.

Keywords

Bromeliaceaeepiphytesglycophytehalophyteheteroblastymangrovenutrient limitationPanamaRGRseedsWerauhia sanguinolenta
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , May 2009 , pp. 311 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

ALLEN, S. E. (ed.) 2008. Chemical analysis of ecological materials. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford. 565 pp.Google Scholar
BENZING, D. H. 1978. Germination and early establishment of Tillandsia circinnata Schlecht. (Bromeliaceae) on some of its hosts and other supports in Southern Florida. Selbyana 5:95–106.Google Scholar
BENZING, D. H. 1990. Vascular epiphytes. General biology and related biota. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 354 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BENZING, D. H. 2000. Bromeliaceae – profile of an adaptive radiation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 690 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BENZING, D. H. & RENFROW, A. 1971. The biology of the atmospheric bromeliad Tillandsia circinnata Schlecht. I. The nutrient status of populations in South Florida. American Journal of Botany 58:867–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BENZING, D. H. & RENFROW, A. 1974. The nutritional status of Encyclia tampense and Tillandsia circinnata on Taxodium ascendens and the availability of nutrients to epiphytes on this host in South Florida. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 101:191–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CROAT, T. B. 1978. Flora of Barro Colorado Island. Stanford University Press, Stanford. 943 pp.Google Scholar
EVANS, G. C. 1972. The quantitative analysis of plant growth. University of California Press, Berkeley. 734 pp.Google Scholar
GÓMEZ, M. A. & WINKLER, S. 1991. Bromelias en manglares del Pacífico de Guatemala. Revista de Biología Tropical 39:207–214.Google Scholar
GRAHAM, E. A. & ANDRADE, J. L. 2004. Drought tolerance associated with vertical stratification of two co-occurring epiphytic bromeliads in a tropical dry forest. American Journal of Botany 91:699–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GREENWAY, H. & MUNNS, R. 1980. Mechanisms of salt tolerance in non-halophytes. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 31:149–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GRIFFITHS, H., SMITH, J. A. C., LÜTTGE, U., POPP, M., CRAM, W. J., DIAZ, M. A., LEE, H. S. L., MEDINA, E., SCHÄFER, C. & STIMMEL, K. H. 1989. Ecophysiology of xerophytic and halophytic vegetation of a coastal alluvial plain in northern Venezuela. IV. Tillandsia flexuosa Sw. and Schomburgkia humboldtiana Reichb., epiphytic CAM plants. New Phytologist 111:273–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
KÖHL, K. I. 1997. The effect of NaCl on growth, dry matter allocation and ion uptake in salt marsh and inland populations of Armeria maritima. New Phytologist 135:213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LAMBERS, H., CHAPIN, F. S. & PONS, T. L. 1998. Plant physiological ecology. Springer, New York. 540 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LECK, M. A., PARKER, V. T. & SIMPSON, R. L. (eds.) 2008. Seedling ecology and evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 514 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MAYER, A. M. & POLJAKOFF-MAYBER, A. 1963. The germination of seeds. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York. 192 pp.Google Scholar
SCHMIDT, G. & ZOTZ, G. 2002. Inherently slow growth in two Caribbean epiphytic species: a demographic approach. Journal of Vegetation Science 13:527–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SHACKLETTE, H. T. & CONNOR, J. J. 1973. Airborne chemical elements in Spanish moss. Pp. 1–46. Geological Survey Professional Paper 574 – E. United States Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SUBBARAO, G. V., ITO, O., BERRY, W. L. & WHEELER, R. M. 2003. Sodium – a functional plant nutrient. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 22:391–416.Google Scholar
UNGAR, I. A. 1991. Ecophysiology of vascular halophytes. CRC Press, Boca Raton. 209 pp.Google Scholar
WATKINS, C. B., BROWN, J. M. A. & DROMGOOLE, F. I. 1988. Salt-tolerance of the coastal plant, Tetragonia trigyna Banks et Sol ex Hook (climbing New-Zealand spinach). New Zealand Journal of Botany 26:153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ZOTZ, G. 2005. Differences in vital demographic rates in three populations of the epiphytic bromeliad, Werauhia sanguinolenta. Acta Oecologica 28:306–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ZOTZ, G., LAUBE, S. & SCHMIDT, G. 2005. Long-term population dynamics of the epiphytic bromeliad, Werauhia sanguinolenta. Ecography 28:806–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar