Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T02:10:00.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Increased female reproduction favours the large-seeded palm Attalea humilis in small Atlantic Forest fragments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2012

Cecilia S. Andreazzi
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Ecologia e Conservação de Populações, Departamento de Ecologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. CP 68020, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 21941-902, Brazil Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, CP 68020, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 21941-902, Brazil
Alexandra S. Pires
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Ecologia e Conservação de Populações, Departamento de Ecologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. CP 68020, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 21941-902, Brazil Laboratório de Estudo e Conservação de Florestas, Departamento de Ciências Ambientais, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro. Rodovia BR 465, Km 07, Seropédica, RJ, 23890-000, Brazil
Clarissa S. Pimenta
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Ecologia e Conservação de Populações, Departamento de Ecologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. CP 68020, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 21941-902, Brazil
Fernando A. S. Fernandez*
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Ecologia e Conservação de Populações, Departamento de Ecologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. CP 68020, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 21941-902, Brazil
*
1Corresponding author. Email: rodentia@biologia.ufrj.br
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Palms are important components of tropical forest plant communities, due both to their abundance (Henderson et al. 2000) and to the network of interactions with their pollinators and dispersers (Henderson 2002, Zona & Henderson 1989). Forest fragmentation alters the biotic and abiotic conditions of habitats (Ewers & Didham 2006, Fahrig 2003) and it has been observed that Attalea palms increase their densities in disturbed sites (Aguiar & Tabarelli 2009, Andreazzi et al. 2012, Lorenzi et al. 2004). Increased light availability (Salm 2005, Souza & Martins 2004), changes in seed dispersal and predation patterns (Andreazzi et al. 2012, Pimentel & Tabarelli 2004, Wright et al. 2000), and ability to recover after disturbance (Souza & Martins 2004) are among the main mechanisms that have been proposed to explain enhanced palm densities. However, how altered conditions following disturbances influence the dynamics of flower and fruit production is still little understood.

Type
Short Communication
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Palms are important components of tropical forest plant communities, due both to their abundance (Henderson et al. Reference HENDERSON, FISCHER, SCARIOT, WHITAKER PACHECO and PARDINI2000) and to the network of interactions with their pollinators and dispersers (Henderson Reference HENDERSON2002, Zona & Henderson Reference ZONA and HENDERSON1989). Forest fragmentation alters the biotic and abiotic conditions of habitats (Ewers & Didham Reference EWERS and DIDHAM2006, Fahrig Reference FAHRIG2003) and it has been observed that Attalea palms increase their densities in disturbed sites (Aguiar & Tabarelli Reference AGUIAR and TABARELLI2009, Andreazzi et al. Reference ANDREAZZI, PIMENTA, PIRES, FERNANDEZ, OLIVEIRA-SANTOS and MENEZES2012, Lorenzi et al. Reference LORENZI, SOUZA, MEDEIROS-COSTA, CERQUEIRA and FERREIRA2004). Increased light availability (Salm Reference SALM2005, Souza & Martins Reference SOUZA and MARTINS2004), changes in seed dispersal and predation patterns (Andreazzi et al. Reference ANDREAZZI, PIMENTA, PIRES, FERNANDEZ, OLIVEIRA-SANTOS and MENEZES2012, Pimentel & Tabarelli Reference PIMENTEL and TABARELLI2004, Wright et al. Reference WRIGHT, ZEBALLOS, DOMÍNGUEZ, GALLARDO, MORENO and IBAÑEZ2000), and ability to recover after disturbance (Souza & Martins Reference SOUZA and MARTINS2004) are among the main mechanisms that have been proposed to explain enhanced palm densities. However, how altered conditions following disturbances influence the dynamics of flower and fruit production is still little understood.

Attalea palms have a complex reproductive system in which male, female and mixed inflorescences are produced according to the size and age of the adult individuals (Henderson Reference HENDERSON2002). Temporal differentiation in the expression of unisexual flowers affects the reproductive output and can result in phenological differences in space and time (Henderson et al. Reference HENDERSON, FISCHER, SCARIOT, WHITAKER PACHECO and PARDINI2000). Forest fragmentation modifies most of the proximate environmental cues (e.g. water stress, radiation) that regulate plant phenology and reproductive patterns (Laurance et al. Reference LAURANCE, RANKIN-DE MERONA, ANDRADE, LAURANCE, D'ANGELO, LOVEJOY and VASCONCELOS2003). Increased light availability, higher temperatures and reduced humidity are usually found in small fragments, mostly due to edge effects and reduced canopy height and cover (Brothers & Spingarn Reference BROTHERS and SPINGARN1992, Murcia Reference MURCIA1995). For this reason we may expect that small forest fragments should present distinct phenological patterns as compared with larger undisturbed sites.

Attalea humilis Mart. ex. Spreng. (Arecaceae) is a monoecious and solitary palm, endemic to the central-south-eastern region of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest (Lorenzi et al. Reference LORENZI, SOUZA, MEDEIROS-COSTA, CERQUEIRA and FERREIRA2004). Populations of this large-seeded palm seem to be favoured in small forest fragments (< 60 ha) in south-east Brazil due to the higher fruit production per individual, associated with reduced seed predation (Andreazzi et al. Reference ANDREAZZI, PIMENTA, PIRES, FERNANDEZ, OLIVEIRA-SANTOS and MENEZES2012). In the present study we analysed the reproductive phenology of A. humilis in the same sites sampled by Andreazzi et al. (Reference ANDREAZZI, PIMENTA, PIRES, FERNANDEZ, OLIVEIRA-SANTOS and MENEZES2012) in order to investigate which mechanisms could explain the differences in productivity between small and large fragments. We expected that the mean dates of flowering and fruiting should not differ between the two classes of fragments because the timing of these events should be influenced by macroclimatic factors such as rainfall and photoperiod (Haman Reference HAMAN2004, van Schaik et al. Reference VAN SCHAIK, TERBORGH and WRIGHT1993) which vary at larger spatial scales. However, the duration of flowering and the production of female inflorescences should be higher for palms in small fragments, resulting in a greater fruit production.

The study was carried out at two large (> 2000 ha) and two small (< 60 ha), lowland Atlantic Forest remnants located in south-eastern Brazil. The climate is tropical humid, with mean annual temperature 25.5 °C. Mean annual precipitation is 1995 mm and there is a moderate seasonality in rainfall with a less rainy period from April to September. All areas sampled are within a 30-km radius and located on small hills, mostly with clay soils, at low elevations (< 100 m). Additional information about them can be found in Andreazzi et al. (Reference ANDREAZZI, PIMENTA, PIRES, FERNANDEZ, OLIVEIRA-SANTOS and MENEZES2012).

The reproductive phenology of A. humilis was evaluated in each fragment along a pre-existing 1-km linear transect, in which 20 adult palms (individuals that were reproducing or had signs of previous reproductive events) were marked and checked from March 2006 to February 2008. Every month the numbers of spathes, male and female inflorescences, immature and mature infructescences and fruits were directly counted.

The proportion of flowering and fruiting palms was compared between small and large fragments using chi-square tests. Deviations from the expected ratio of 1:1 in the number of male and female inflorescences observed in small and large fragments were tested using the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test for paired samples. The seasonality of the reproductive events was analysed using circular statistics. For each circular histogram, a mean vector length (r) was calculated which represents the concentration of the phenological events around the mean angle; the vector length varies from 0 to 1, zero indicating absence of seasonality (Zar Reference ZAR1999). The mean dates of male and female flowering and fruit branches maturation and the concentration of these events around the mean were calculated for small and large fragments.

The Rayleigh test was used to test the hypothesis that flowering and fruiting in each fragment class were uniformly distributed over the year. When seasonality of a phenological event was detected for both fragment classes, the Watson–Williams test for two samples (Fww) was used to test if it differed between large and small fragments (Zar Reference ZAR1999). Analyses were performed using the software package ORIANA (Kovach Computing Services, Pentraeth, UK).

Small fragments had higher proportions of palms producing inflorescences of both sexes (χ2 = 4.94, df = 1, P = 0.03) and infructescences (χ2 = 17.3, df = 1, P < 0.0001). Inflorescence development time – from the emergence of inflorescence buds to flower anthesis – ranged from 2 to 6 mo (3.69 ± 1.32 mo; n = 39) and did not differ between small and large fragments (Welch's t = −0.739, df = 37, P = 0.467). Male inflorescences were more frequent in both large (Wilcoxon signed-ranks test rank sums for positive and negative differences: T+ = 213, T− = −18.0, P = 0.0002) and small fragments (T+ = 383, T− = −112, P = 0.0062), but this bias was more marked in large ones (Figure 1). Inflorescences of this sex were more frequent in the wet season (Table 1, Figure 1) and the mean date of this phenophase did not differ between fragment classes (Fww = 0.043, P = 0.836). Female inflorescences corresponded to 30% of the total in small fragments, but only to 18% in large ones (Table 1). In small fragments female inflorescences were produced throughout the year without difference between seasons (P = 0.084), while in large fragments flowering was observed only during the wet season (Table 1, Figure 1).

Table 1. Mean dates, lengths of the mean vectors (r), concentration and Rayleigh test results for Attalea humilis male and female inflorescences and ripe fruit branches in small and large Atlantic Forest fragments in northern Rio de Janeiro. N is the number of reproductive events recorded (infructescences or inflorescences).

Figure 1. Circular histograms of Attalea humilis male (a, b) and female inflorescences (c, d) and ripe fruit branches (e, f) from March 2006 to February 2008 in small and large Atlantic Forest fragments in northern Rio de Janeiro. The arrow represents the length of mean vector. The wet season is from October to March.

Green fruits took 3–9 mo (6.87 ± 1.60 mo; n = 15) to mature, independent of fragment size (Welch's t = 0.363, df = 13, P = 0.731). Infructescences harbouring ripe fruits showed no seasonal pattern in any fragment (Table 1), but they were more frequent and abundant in small fragments (Figure 1). Besides, branches had four times more fruits in small fragments, resulting in the 16-fold increase in fruit production reported by Andreazzi et al. (Reference ANDREAZZI, PIMENTA, PIRES, FERNANDEZ, OLIVEIRA-SANTOS and MENEZES2012).

Reproduction of A. humilis was recorded throughout the year, inflorescences were produced more often in the warmer and wettest months in both fragment classes, as observed in other studies on Attalea (Almeida & Galetti Reference ALMEIDA and GALETTI2007, De Steven et al. Reference DE STEVEN, WINDSOR, PUTZ and DE LEON1987, Henderson et al. Reference HENDERSON, FISCHER, SCARIOT, WHITAKER PACHECO and PARDINI2000, Voeks Reference VOEKS2002). Although the number of records in large fragments was not large enough to warrant firm conclusions, the main difference between small and large fragments in our study was that in dry months female flowers were produced only in small ones. As the canopy is more open in these fragments (Carvalho et al. Reference CARVALHO, NASCIMENTO and BRAGA2006, Reference CARVALHO, NASCIMENTO and OLIVEIRA-FILHO2008) and palms are closer to forest edges, light incidence would be enough to allow female flower production even with the shorter photoperiod of the dry season, whereas, in large ones, female flower production could be afforded only in the months with most light. In fact, other studies have shown that palm individuals exposed to higher light incidence produce more female flowers (Barot et al. Reference BAROT, MITJA, MIRANDA, MEIJA and GRIMALDI2005, Berry & Gorchov Reference BERRY and GORCHOV2006, Cunningham Reference CUNNINGHAM1997, Scariot et al. Reference SCARIOT, LLERAS and HAY1995, Voeks Reference VOEKS1988, Reference VOEKS2002). The production of male inflorescences, however, is possible in all fragments even in the months with shorter photoperiod because pollen is cheaper to produce than fruits.

Our results indicate that forest fragmentation can have a great influence on palm reproductive dynamics. The altered abiotic conditions of small fragments resulted in increased and longer female flowering, which boost the reproductive output of A. humilis in these places. This explains the increased A. humilis densities in the small fragments studied here (Andreazzi et al. Reference ANDREAZZI, PIMENTA, PIRES, FERNANDEZ, OLIVEIRA-SANTOS and MENEZES2012) and could favour this palm in other disturbed sites. The same process can occur with other palm species which become dominant in altered landscapes (Lorenzi et al. Reference LORENZI, SOUZA, MEDEIROS-COSTA, CERQUEIRA and FERREIRA2004) or in natural palm patches (Aguiar & Tabarelli Reference AGUIAR and TABARELLI2009, Barot et al. Reference BAROT, MITJA, MIRANDA, MEIJA and GRIMALDI2005, Fragoso Reference FRAGOSO, Burslem, Pinard and Hartley2005). Studies suggested that some forest tree species can also increase their reproductive output following disturbance (Cunningham Reference CUNNINGHAM2000), thus similar results could be found for other plant families. These findings are important for understanding changes in plant species composition and abundance following fragmentation. Most studies on this subject have focused on the disruption of animal–plant interactions, especially seed dispersal and pollination, in small fragments. However, our results show that the importance of abiotic factors cannot be neglected when investigating the net effects of fragmentation on plant regeneration. Therefore, changes in plant abundance in small fragments can be better understood as the result of a complex interplay of the whole set of factors, both biotic and abiotic, in which a fragment differs from the original forest.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank ICMBio and farm landowners for allowing us to work at the study areas and providing many facilities there. We thank all colleagues who helped in fieldwork and Idea Wild for the donation of field equipments. We also thank Leandro Freitas and Marco Aurélio Pizo for their comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Financial support and personal grants were provided by FAPESP, FAPERJ and CNPq.

References

LITERATURE CITED

AGUIAR, A. V. & TABARELLI, M. 2009. Edge effects and seedling bank depletion: the role played by the early successional palm Attalea oleifera (Arecaceae) in the Atlantic Forest. Biotropica 42:158166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ALMEIDA, L. B. & GALETTI, M. 2007. Seed dispersal and spatial distribution of Attalea geraensis (Arecaceae) in two remnants of Cerrado in Southeastern Brazil. Acta Oecologica 32:180187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ANDREAZZI, C. S., PIMENTA, C. S., PIRES, A. S., FERNANDEZ, F. A. S., OLIVEIRA-SANTOS, L. G. & MENEZES, J. F. S. 2012. Increased productivity and reduced seed predation favor a large-seeded palm in small Atlantic Forest fragments. Biotropica 44:237245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BAROT, S., MITJA, D., MIRANDA, I., MEIJA, G. D. & GRIMALDI, M. 2005. Reproductive plasticity in an Amazonian palm. Evolutionary Ecology Research 7:10511065.Google Scholar
BERRY, E. J. & GORCHOV, D. L. 2006. Female fecundity is dependent on substrate, rather than male abundance, in the wind-pollinated, dioecious understory palm Chamaedorea radicalis. Biotropica 39:186194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BROTHERS, T. S. & SPINGARN, A. 1992. Forest fragmentation and alien plant invasion of central Indiana old-growth forests. Conservation Biology 6:91100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CARVALHO, F. A., NASCIMENTO, M. T. & BRAGA, J. M. A. 2006. Composição e riqueza florística do componente arbóreo da Floresta Atlântica submontana na região de Imbaú, Município de Silva Jardim, RJ. Acta Botanica Brasilica 20:727740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CARVALHO, F. A., NASCIMENTO, M. T. & OLIVEIRA-FILHO, A. T. 2008. Composição, riqueza e heterogeneidade da flora arbórea da bacia do Rio São João, RJ, Brasil. Acta Botanica Brasilica 22:929940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CUNNINGHAM, S. A. 1997. The effect of light environment, leaf area, and stored carbohydrates on inflorescence production by a rain forest understory palm. Oecologia 111:3644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CUNNINGHAM, S. A. 2000. Effects of habitat fragmentation on the reproductive ecology of four plant species in Mallee Woodland. Conservation Biology 14:758768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DE STEVEN, D., WINDSOR, D. M., PUTZ, F. E. & DE LEON, B. 1987. Vegetative and reproductive phenologies of a palm assemblage in Panama. Biotropica 19:342356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EWERS, R. M. & DIDHAM, R. K. 2006. Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biological Reviews 81:117142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FAHRIG, L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 34:487515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FRAGOSO, J. M. V. 2005. The role of trophic interactions in community initiation, maintenance and degradation. Pp. 311327 in Burslem, D. F. R. P., Pinard, M. A. & Hartley, S. E. (eds.). Biotic interactions in the tropics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
HAMAN, A. 2004. Flowering and fruiting phenology of a Philippine submontane rain forest: climate factors as proximate and ultimate causes. Journal of Ecology 92:2431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HENDERSON, A. 2002. Evolution and ecology of palms. New YorkBotanical Garden Press, Bronx.Google Scholar
HENDERSON, A., FISCHER, B., SCARIOT, A., WHITAKER PACHECO, M. A. & PARDINI, R. 2000. Flowering phenology of a palm community in a central Amazon forest. Brittonia 52:149159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LAURANCE, W. F., RANKIN-DE MERONA, J. M., ANDRADE, A., LAURANCE, S. G., D'ANGELO, S., LOVEJOY, T. E. & VASCONCELOS, H. L. 2003. Rain-forest fragmentation and the phenology of Amazonian tree communities. Journal of Tropical Ecology 19:343347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LORENZI, H., SOUZA, H. M., MEDEIROS-COSTA, J. T., CERQUEIRA, L. S. C. & FERREIRA, E. 2004. Palmeiras Brasileiras e Exóticas Cultivadas. Plantarum, Nova Odessa. 432 pp.Google Scholar
MURCIA, C. 1995. Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10:5062.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
PIMENTEL, D. S. & TABARELLI, M. 2004. Seed dispersal of the palm Attalea oleifera in a remnant of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Biotropica 36:7484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SALM, R. 2005. The importance of forest disturbance for the recruitment of the large arborescent palm Attalea maripa in a seasonally-dry Amazonian forest. Biota Neotropica 5 (n1) – BN00305012005.Google Scholar
SCARIOT, A., LLERAS, E. & HAY, J. D. 1995. Flowering and fruiting phenologies of the palm Acrocomia aculeata: patterns and consequences. Biotropica 27:168173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SOUZA, A. E. & MARTINS, F. R. 2004. Population structure and dynamics of a neotropical palm in fire-impacted fragments of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Biodiversity and Conservation 13:16111632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VAN SCHAIK, C. P., TERBORGH, J. W. & WRIGHT, S. J. 1993. The phenology of tropical forests: adaptive significance and consequence for primary consumers. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 24:353377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VOEKS, R. A. 1988. Changing sexual expression of a Brazilian rain forest palm (Attalea funifera Mart.) Biotropica 20:107113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VOEKS, R. A. 2002. Reproductive ecology of the piassava palm (Attalea funifera) of Bahia, Brazil. Journal of Tropical Ecology 18:121136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WRIGHT, S. J., ZEBALLOS, H., DOMÍNGUEZ, I., GALLARDO, M. M., MORENO, M. C. & IBAÑEZ, R. 2000. Poachers alter mammal abundance, seed dispersal, and seed predation in a Neotropical forest. Conservation Biology 14:227239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ZAR, J. H. 1999. Biostatistical analysis. (Fourth edition). Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. 662 pp.Google Scholar
ZONA, S. & HENDERSON, A. 1989. A review of animal-mediated seed dispersal of palms. Selbyana 11:621.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Mean dates, lengths of the mean vectors (r), concentration and Rayleigh test results for Attalea humilis male and female inflorescences and ripe fruit branches in small and large Atlantic Forest fragments in northern Rio de Janeiro. N is the number of reproductive events recorded (infructescences or inflorescences).

Figure 1

Figure 1. Circular histograms of Attalea humilis male (a, b) and female inflorescences (c, d) and ripe fruit branches (e, f) from March 2006 to February 2008 in small and large Atlantic Forest fragments in northern Rio de Janeiro. The arrow represents the length of mean vector. The wet season is from October to March.