4.2 Article

Strangler figs in a stand of dry rainforest in the lower Hunter Valley, NSW

Journal

AUSTRALIAN GEOGRAPHER
Volume 31, Issue 2, Pages 251-264

Publisher

CARFAX PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1080/713612244

Keywords

hemi-epiphytes; strangler fig; Moreton Bay fig; dry rainforest; Hunter Valley; Ficus macrophylla; Fiscus superba

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A complete census was conducted of all hemi-epiphytic Ficus individuals within a single stand of dry rainforest. Substrate analyses were conducted on the material front potential hemi-epiphyte germination sires in an attempt to understand the factors influencing the distribution of hemi-epiphytic Ficus individuals within the stand. In all, 191 individuals of Ficus macrophylla ssp. macrophylla (Moreton Bay fig) and 65 individuals of Ficus superba oar. henneana (deciduous fig) were found within the stand, providing a mean hemi-epiphyte density of 13.5/ha. Clear host preferences were shown for both fig species with two species, Olea paniculata (native olive) and Drypetes deplanchei (yellow tulip), shown to host 60 per cent and 21 per cent, respectively, of all hemi-epiphytes within the stand These host trees are characterised by humus pockets that accumulate in depressions on their branches and trunk, as well as in brunch axils. Their host potential is thought to be enhanced by the increased visitation of birds that feed On the fruit from both the hemi-epiphytes and these potential host trees. Substrate analyses revealed that while the highly organic epiphytic and rock-surface substrates had a high field capacity their moisture holding capacity was low. The pending of water and the reduced desiccation afforded by the microtopography of the germination sites ensures that these sites are more likely to maintain a viable moisture content. It appears that desiccation of the germination substrate could be the major cause of the high rate of juvenile hemi-epiphytic Ficus mortality.

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