, Volume 72, Issue 2, pp 153–157 | Cite as

Strangler figs may support their host trees during severe storms

  • Leora S. RichardEmail author
  • Sylvia L. Halkin
Short Communication


While strangler figs in the genus Ficus have been assumed to have only epiphytic and parasitic relationships with the host trees on which they grow, we suggest that a mutualistic relationship may also exist that benefits host trees during severe storms. Twenty-nine months after a cyclone, uprooted and standing trees in Lamington National Park, Queensland, Australia were compared for the presence of attached strangler figs. A significantly smaller percentage of uprooted (12.8%) than standing trees (58.5%) had large attached strangler figs. Strangler figs might provide four different mechanisms that make it less likely that their host trees will be uprooted in storms. Aerial roots may provide two distinct mechanisms, first through attachments to surrounding vegetation, and second through attachments to rooting points in the ground. The canopy closure added by strangler fig canopies may provide shielding from winds. Anastomosing root networks adhering to host tree trunks may also provide scaffolding support.


Ficus mutualism Tree wind resistance Lamington National Park Strangler fig Semitropical rainforest Hemiepiphyte 



We thank Michael (Mick) OReilly and the O’Reilly’s staff for logistical assistance, information, and advice; Daniel S. Miller for statistical advice and testing; David Richardson and an anonymous reviewer for helpful ideas and suggestions; Francis E. Putz, Robert E. Cook, Thomas Mione and Douglas Carter for helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript; and Dale Dixon, Barbara J. Nicholson, and George C. Elliott for useful discussions.


  1. Australia’s Virtual Herbarium, Council of Heads of Australasian Herbaria (2015) Accessed 11 Oct 2016
  2. Australian Emergency Management Knowledge Hub: Cyclone Oswald, Queensland & New South Wales (2013) Accessed 27 March 2017
  3. Compton SG, Musgrave MK (1993) Host relationships of Ficus burtt-davyi when growing as a strangler fig. S Afr J Bot 59(4):425–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dawkins R, Krebs JR (1979) Arms races between and within species. Proc R Soc Lond B 205:489–511CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Kariuki M, Rolfe M, Smith RGB, Vanclay JK, Kooyman RM (2006) Diameter growth performance varies with species functional-group and habitat characteristics in subtropical rainforests. For Ecol Manag 225:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Male TD, Roberts GE (2005) Host associations of the strangler fig Ficus watkinsiana in a subtropical Queensland rain forest. Austral Ecology 30:229–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. McDonald WJF, Thomas MB (1990) The flora of Lamington National Park: a preliminary checklist of the vascular plant species, 2nd edn. Department of Primary Industries, Queensland Government, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  8. O'Reilly's Rainforest Retreat staff (2015) Accessed 21 Dec 2015
  9. Putz FE (1984) How trees avoid and shed lianas. Biotropica 16(1):19–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Putz FE (1991) Silvicultural effects of lianas. Ch. 18. In: Putz FE, Mooney HA (eds) The biology of vines. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 494Google Scholar
  11. Putz FE (2012) Vine ecology. ECOLOGY.INFO 24. Online review. Accessed 14 July 2016
  12. Richards PW (1996) The tropical rain forest: an ecological study, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 126, 134Google Scholar
  13. Schnitzer SA, Putz FE, Bongers F, Kroening K (2015) The past, present, and future of liana ecology. Ch. 1. In: Schnitzer SA, Bongers F, Burnham RJ, Putz FE (eds) Ecology of lianas. Wiley Blackwell, West SussexCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Smith AP (1973) Stratification of temperate and tropical forests. Am Nat 107(957):671–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Van Valen L (1973) A new evolutionary law. Evolutionary Theory 1:1–30Google Scholar
  16. Vanclay JK (1991) Aggregating tree species to develop diameter increment equations for tropical rainforests. For Ecol Manag 42:143–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Williams-Linera G, Lawton RO (1995) The ecology of hemiepiphytes in forest canopies. Ch. 12. In: Lowman MD, Nadkarni NM (eds) Forest canopies. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 255–283Google Scholar
  18. Wyse SV, Burns BR (2011) Do host bark traits influence trunk epiphyte communities? N Z J Ecol 35(3):296–301Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biology DepartmentCentral Connecticut State UniversityNew BritainUSA

Personalised recommendations