4.2 Article

Arthropod abundance, canopy structure, and microclimate in a Bornean lowland tropical rain forest

Journal

BIOTROPICA
Volume 38, Issue 5, Pages 643-652

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2006.00181.x

Keywords

arthropod abundance; Borneo; canopy arthropods; canopy microclimate; canopy structure; fogging; leaf area index; lowland tropical rain forest

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study applies a novel, vertically stratified fogging protocol to document arthropod abundance, density, and biomass across a vertical gradient in a primary, lowland dipterocarp forest canopy in Borneo. We fogged arthropods at 5 m vertical intervals and 20 m horizontal intervals along six full-canopy transects and measured leaf surface areas along the same transects. The results show that arthropod biomass in the aboveground regions was 23.6 kg/ha, the abundance was 23.9 million individuals/ha, and the density on leaf surfaces was 280 individuals/m(2) leaf area. All three numbers are five to ten times higher than estimated by previous surveys of tropical lowland rain forest canopies using mass-collection techniques. Arthropod abundance and biomass were analyzed in relation to canopy structure, composition, vapor pressure deficit (VPD), photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD), and height. Using stepwise regression we found that 13 of 14 arthropod groups had significant positive relationships with one-sided leaf area, 11 had significant negative relationships with VPD, 3 had significant relationships with height, and none showed positive relationships with light. Classifying the 14 taxa based on their responses to leaf area and VPD created three groups that corresponded roughly to the biology of these taxa. This study suggests that the biomass and abundance, and perhaps therefore-by extrapolation-the biodiversity, of tropical canopy arthropods may be very much higher than previously estimated.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available