‘Hemiepiphyte’: a confusing term and its history
Author(s) -
Gerhard Zotz
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
annals of botany
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.567
H-Index - 176
eISSN - 1095-8290
pISSN - 0305-7364
DOI - 10.1093/aob/mct085
Subject(s) - biology , term (time) , evolutionary biology , computational biology , quantum mechanics , physics
Over more than 120 years of scientific study since Schimper's seminal work, the recognized categories of structurally dependent plants have changed several times. Currently, ignoring parasitic mistletoes, it is usual to distinguish four functional groups: (1) true epiphytes; (2) primary hemiepiphytes; (3) secondary hemiepiphytes; and (4) climbing plants, i.e. lianas and vines. In this Viewpoint, it is argued that the term secondary hemiepiphytes (SHs) is misleading, that its definition is hard to impossible to apply in the field and, possibly causally related to this conceptual problem, that the use of this category in field studies is inconsistent, which now hampers interpretation and generalization.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom