1
FOR ONLINE PUBLICATION ONLY
2
Appendix A. Temporal Dynamics of Tillandsia and Oak Litter Fall
3
Figure A1. Rate of Tillandsia small (a), medium (b), and large (c) festoon fall as well as
4
the rate of Tillandsia dry deposition (d) and oak leaf (e) and wood (f) deposition over
5
nine collections spanning 12 months beneath 10 live oaks on Sapelo Island, GA. The
6
identity and Tillandsia canopy cover score (on 0-10 scale) of oaks are noted in legends in
7
panels a and e. The frequency of festoon fall are shown in units of the number of small,
8
medium and large festoons per m2 per day in panels a, b, and c, and the biomass of
9
Tillandsia festoon, oak leaf, and oak wood litter that fell per m2 over the entire
10
monitoring period are shown in panels b, d, and f, respectively. Y-axes are re-scaled for
11
each festoon size class and deposition panel.
12
13
1
14
Figure A2. Wood and acorn deposition beneath each of our 10 monitored oaks per collection
15
period (a,c) and the total wood and acorn deposition per year over the entire year-long
16
monitoring period (b,d). Tillandsia canopy cover for each oak is denoted by the number listed in
17
the legend (score of 0-10 based on Callaway and others 2002), and individual oak trees are
18
distinguished by different colors and symbols.
19
2
Appendix B. Summary of Litter Deposition Analyses
20
21
Table B1. Summary of Best-fit Models Describing the Relationship Between Source
22
Population Size, that is, Tillandsia Canopy Cover, T, and Several Metrics of Festoon
23
Deposition and Oak Leaf, Wood, and Acorn Deposition
Tillandsia canopy cover significance
Best-fit model
T slope
Texponent
Pslope
P exponent
Tillandsia canopy cover = T
Festoon deposition response
24
Small festoons m-2 y-1
Y = 6.54* T
8.09
NA
<0.0001
NA
Medium festoons m-2 y-1
Y = 4.86
NA
NA
NA
NA
Large festoons m-2 y-1
Y = 0.062*T
7.27
NA
<0.0001
NA
g DW festoons m-2 y-1
Y = 6.40*T
11.67
NA
<0.0001
NA
g DW oak leaves m-2 y-1
Y = 72.84
NA
NA
NA
NA
g FW wood m-2 y-1
Y = 143.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
g FW acorn m-2 y-1
Y= 17.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
Best-fit models were selected using AICc (Burnham and Anderson 2002).
25
3
26
Appendix C. Summary of Understory Invertebrate Community Composition
27
Table C1. List of Invertebrate Orders Observed and Surveyed in the Festoon Removal
28
and Festoon Size Experiments and the Number of Plots of Each Treatment (Out of 8
29
Replicate Plots per Treatment and Site) in Which Each Invertebrate Order was Observed
Experiment
Phylum, Class, Order
Festoon removal:
Festoon removal:
Long Tabby
King’s Field
Festoon size experiment
Control
Removal
Control
Removal
Control
Small
Medium
Large
3
0
6
0
0
0
0
5
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
6
6
3
0
0
2
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
8
1
6
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
(common name)
Mollusca, Gastropoda,
Pulmonota (land snails)
Annelida, Oligochaeta,
Megadrilacea (earth worms)
Arthropoda, Insecta, Blattodea
(roaches)
Arthropoda, Insecta,
Lepidoptera (moths,
butterflies)
Arthropoda, Insecta, Diptera
(true flies)
Arthropoda Insecta,
Coleoptera (darkling beetle)
Crustacea, Malacostrea,
Isopoda (pill or sow bugs)
Arthropoda, Insecta,
Phasmatodea (stick bugs)
4
Arthropoda, Insecta,
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Orthoptera (grasshoppers)
Arthropoda, Arachnida,
5
5
4
3
2
0
0
0
7
5
8
5
0
1
3
4
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Araneae (spiders)
Arthropoda, Insecta,
Hymenoptera (ants)
Arthropoda, Insecta,
Embioptera (webspinners)
Arthropoda, Insecta, Blattodea
(termites)
Arthropoda, Myriapoda,
Diplopoda (millipede)
30
31
32
33
5
34
Appendix D. Effects of Festoon Size on Understory Community Structure and
35
Decomposition
36
Table D1. The Effect of Festoon Size on Understory Community Structure and Decomposition
Experimental Treatment
Control
Response Metric
Mycelia
Invertebrates per m2
Small Festoon
Mean
Mean ±
±SE
SE
0.06 ±
0.13 ±
0.06
0.13
0.13 ±
0±0
t or z
0.26
Medium Festoon
P-
Mean ±
value
SE
0.8012
1.0 ±
Mean ±
t or
z|)
SE
z
0.0502
4.5 ±
9.46
<0.0001
-0.01
0.9923
3.6 ±
4.39
<0.0001
0.5 ±
0.20
0.2
3.01 ±
2.56 ±
0.16
0.13
3.09 ±
2.97 ±
0.13
0.15
Prop. Tethered
0.27
0.29 ±
leaves lost
±0.13
0.15
0.00
1.0000
1.8 ±
2.60
0.0092
3.32
4.53
0.0001
2.76
0.0104
3.95
0.0005
0.0009
0.5314
3.19 ±
17.6 ±
6.4
2.21
0.0271
0.3
0.63
P-value
0.54
1.2
0.50 ±
Decomposition,
2.05
Pr(>|t or
0.52
0.13
Invertebrate richness
t or z
Large Festoon
2.0 ±
0.5
-1.56
0.1317
0.15
4.29 ±
0.28
K, after 58 days
Decomposition,
1.16
0.2574
3.54 ±
-0.29
0.7754
0.25
4.17 ±
0.45
K after 112 days
37
38
39
40
41
0.22
0.8291
0.55 ±
0.25
3.09
0.0045
0.63 ±
0.45
The significance of festoon size treatments relative to no festoon, controls on mycelia score, K at
58 and 112 days, proportion of tethered leaves lost was assessed using ANOVA (z and P(>|z|)
shown) and on isopod density and invertebrate richness was assessed using generalized linear
models (t and P (>|t|) shown). For each response, the mean and standard error for eight replicate
plots per treatment are also shown.
42
6
43
44
Appendix E. Festoon Removal Effects on Understory Community Structure and
Decomposition
45
Table E1.Summary of the Effect of Removing Fallen Tillandsia Festoons from the Understory
46
on Community Structure and Litter Decomposition Beneath Oaks at King’s Field and Long
47
Tabby Sites
King’s Field
48
49
50
51
52
Long Tabby
Festoon Treatment
Response
Tillandsia
Tillandsia
Tillandsia
Tillandsia
variable
control
removal
control
removal
Est.
St. Err
z or t
P-value
% plant cover
27.4 ± 11.4
73.4 ± 21.9
26.1 ± 7.9
44.2 ± 4.8
-1.37
0.08
-18
<0.0001
Mycelia score
5.8 1.1
0.5  0.2
7.1  0.3
2.5  0.4
14.5
0.93
15.6
<0.0001
Mush. density
5.1  1.3
2.7  0.9
12 ± 2.4
4.6 ± 1.6
0.86
0.09
9.7
<0.0001
Mush. richness
1.3 ± 0.2
0.6 ± 0.1
1.7 ± 0.2
0.8 ± 0.1
0.72
0.21
3.5
0.0006
Isopod density
3.0  0.5
0.05  0.05
3.5 ± 1.2
0  0.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
<0.0001
Invert. richness
2.8  0.3
1.3  0.2
2.6  0.3
1.1  0.3
0.82
0.16
5.2
<0.0001
Litter depth (cm)
6.2  0.5
2.7  0.3
6.4  0.4
2.7  0.2
3.62
0.36
10.1
<0.0001
K after 65 days
1.6  0.1
1.3  0.09
1.7  0.1
1.4  0.1
0.26
0.10
2.7
0.012
The mean ± standard error of eight replicate plots per Tillandsia treatment are shown for each
response metric at each site. The significance of festoon treatment on percent plant cover,
mycelia score, litter depth K at 65 days, was assessed using ANOVA (z and P(>|z|) values
shown) and on mushroom density, mushroom richness, isopod density, and invertebrate richness
were assessed using generalized linear models (t and P (>|t|) shown).
7