Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-nx7b4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-08T09:36:15.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dynamics of herbivory in Belizean mangal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Elizabeth J. Farnsworth  and
Aaron M. Ellison
Elizabeth J. Farnsworth
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, 120 Marsh Life Sciences Building, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont 05405, USA
Aaron M. Ellison
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Clapp Laboratory, Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, Massachusetts 01075, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We report long-term observations on leaf herbivory in the mangroves Rhizophora mangle and Avicennia germinans, on the Placencia Peninsula of Belize. We labelled and traced leaves and recorded the amount of damage appearing over a period of 310 days. Herbivores had damaged 1–4% of total mean leaf area within the first 10 days, but damage rates levelled off thereafter, to a final total of 4–10% damage. Herbivores did not concentrate on leaves of younger age classes. Rhizophora mangle growing in the high tidal zone (HHW) exhibited the highest initial and total attack rates at all but the final sampling dates. We also documented the dynamics of injury expansion and necrosis following artificial injury to seedling and tree leaves. Artificial holes in leaves were associated with higher subsequent rates of herbivory that varied among leaf age classes, and particular damage types were more prevalent in previously injured leaves. Artificial holes expanded significantly more in young leaves of both species. Holes in young leaves of both species expanded by up to 45.1% in area over 50 days, consistent with a similar study in Australia. Substantial necrotic areas developed around the injury site; a secondary effect of damage not often considered in herbivory studies. We discuss the implications of hole expansion and necrosis in estimating error in herbivory measurements. Temporally dynamic studies of herbivory are especially needed in tropical systems that show non-deciduous phenologies and long-lived leaves.

Keywords

Avicennia germinansBelizebiomassherbivoryleaf growthmangrovesRhizophora mangle

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , November 1993 , pp. 435 - 453
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

LITERATURE CITED

Bazzaz, F. A., Chiariello, N. R., Coley, P. D. & Pitelka, L. F. 1987. Allocating resources to reproduction and defense. Bio Science 37:58–67.Google Scholar
Beever, J. W. D., Simberloff, D. & King, L. L. 1979. Herbivory and predation by the mangrove tree crab, Aratus pisonii. Oecologia (Berl.) 43:317–328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhaskaran, R. & Kandaswamy, T. K. 1978. Phenol metabolisms of sunflower leaves as influenced by Alternaria heliathi infection. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection 85:108–112.Google Scholar
Bowman, H. H. M. 1917. Ecology and physiology of the red mangrove. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 61:589–672.Google Scholar
Bryant, J. P. 1981. Phytochemical deterrence of snowshoe hare browsing by adventitious shoots of four Alaskan trees. Science 213:889–890.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Camilleri, J. 1989. Leaf choice by crustaceans in a mangrove forest in Queensland. Marine Biology 102:453–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coley, P. D. 1983. Intraspecific variation in herbivory on two tropical tree species. Ecology 64:426–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coley, P. D., Bryant, J. P. & IIIChapin, F. S. 1985. Resource availability and plant antiherbivore defense. Science 230:895–899.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crawley, M. J. 1983. Herbivory, the dynamics of animal-plant interactions. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
Edwards, P. J. & Wratten, S. D. 1983. Wound-induced defenses in plants and their consequences for patterns of insect grazing. Oecologia (Berl.) 59:88–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellison, A. M. & Farnsworth, E. J. 1990. The ecology of Belizean mangrove-root fouling communities. I. Epibenthic fauna are barriers to isopod attack of red mangrove roots. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 142:91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernest, K. A. 1989. Insect herbivory on a tropical understory tree: effects of leaf age and habitat. Biotropica 21:194–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farnsworth, E. J. & Ellison, A. M. 1991. Patterns of herbivory in Belizean mangrove swamps. Biotropica 23:555–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghosh, A., Misra, S., Dutta, A. K. & Choudhury, A. 1985. Pentacyclic triterpenoids and sterols from seven species of mangrove. Phytochemistry 24:1725–1727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, T. R. & Ryan, C. A. 1972. Wound-induced proteinase inhibitor in plant leaves: a possible defense mechanism against insects. Science 175:776–777.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haukioja, E. & Niemela, P. 1979. Birch leaves as a resource for herbivores: seasonal occurrence of increased resistance in foliage after mechanical damage of adjacent leaves. Oecologia (Berl.) 39:151–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hillis, W. E. & Inoue, T. 1968. The formation of polyphenols in trees. IV. The polyphenols formed in Pinus radiata after Sirex attack. Phytochemistry 7:13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, R. W. & Gillian, . 1984. Fatty acids, sterols, and hydrocarbons in the leaves from eleven species of mangrove. Phytochemistry 23:93–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, I. M. 1981. Consumption of leaves by herbivores in mixed mangrove stands. Biotropica 13:252–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacerda, L. D., José, D. M. V. & Francisco, M. C. F. 1988. Nutritional status and chemical composition of mangrove seedlings during development. Revista Brasiliera de Biologia 48:401–405.Google Scholar
Lacerda, L. D., José, D. V., de Rezende, C. E., Francisco, M. C. F., Wasserman, J. C. & Martins, J. C. 1986. Leaf chemical characteristics affecting herbivory in a New World mangrove forest. Biotropica 18:350–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowman, M. D. 1984. An assessment of techniques for measuring herbivory: is rain forest defoliation more intense than we thought? Biotropica 16:264–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lugo, A. E. & Snedaker, S. C. 1974. The ecology of mangroves. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematic 5:39–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattson, R. A. 1982. Feeding ecology of the mangrove tree crab, Aratus pisonii (Milne Edwards): selection of older leaves for herbivory. Abstract. Florida Scientist 45 (Suppl):26.Google Scholar
MacNae, W. 1967. Zonation within mangroves associated with estuaries in North Queensland. Pp. 432–441 in Lauf, G. H. (ed.). Estuaries. AAAS Publication 83. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Neilson, M. J., Giddins, R. L. & Richards, G. N. 1986. Effect of tannins on the payability of mangrove leaves to the tropical sesarmid crab Neosarmatium smithi. Marine Ecology Progress Series 34:186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newbery, D. McC. 1980. Infestation of the coccid, Icerya seychellarum (Westw.) on the mangrove Avicennia marina (Forsk.) Vierh. on Aldabra Atoll, with special reference to tree age. Oecologia (Berl.) 45:325–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielson, B. O. 1978. Above ground food resources and herbivory in a beech forest ecosystem. Oikos 31:273–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odum, W. E. 1971. Pathways of energy flow in a south Florida estuary. University of Miami Sea Grant Bulletin 7:1–162.Google Scholar
Odum, W. E. & Heald, E. J. 1972. Trophic analysis of an estuarine mangrove community. Bulletin of Marine Science of the Gulf and Caribbean 22:671–738.Google Scholar
Onuf, C. P., Teal, J. M. & Valiela, I. 1977. Interactions of nutrients, plant growth and herbivory in a mangrove ecosystem. Ecology 58:514–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, D. M. 1988. Effects of associated fauna on growth and productivity in the red mangrove. Ecology 69:1066–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehm, A. & Humm, H. J. 1973. Sphaeroma terebrans: a threat to the mangroves of southwestern Florida. Science 182:173–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichle, D. E., Goldstein, R. A., Van Hook, R. I. & Dodson, G. J. 1973. Analysis of insect consumption in a forest canopy. Ecology 54:1076–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A. I. & Duke, N. C. 1987. Insect herbivory on mangrove leaves in North Queensland. Australian Journal of Ecology 12:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rollet, R. 1981. Bibliography on mangrove research 1600–1975. UNESCO, Paris.Google Scholar
Rutzler, K. & MacIntyre, I. G. 1982. The Atlantic barrier reef ecosystem at Carrie Bow Cay, Belize. I. Structure and communities. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Ryan, C. A. 1978. Proteinase inhibitors in plant leaves: a biochemical model for pest-induced natural plant protection. Trends in Biochemical Sciences 3:148–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoener, T. W. 1988. Leaf damage in island buttonwood, Conocarpus erectus: correlations with pubescence, island area, isolation and the distribution of major carnivores. Oikos 53:253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, J. C. & Baldwin, I. T. 1982. Oak leaf quality declines in response to defoliation by gypsy moth larvae. Science 217:149–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simberloff, D., Brown, B. J. & Lowrie, S. 1978. Isopod and insect root borers may benefit Florida, USA mangroves. Science 201:630–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IIISmith, T. J. 1987. Seed predation in relation to tree dominance and distribution in mangrove forests. Ecology 68:266–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IIISmith, T. J., Chan, H. T., McIvor, C. C. & Robblee, M. B. 1989. Comparison of seed predation in tropical tidal forests from three continents. Ecology 70:146–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R. R. & Rohlf, F. J. 1981. Biometry. Second edition. W. H. Freeman and Co., New York.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, P. B. 1986. The botany of mangroves. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar