In tropical lowland rain forests monocots have tougher leaves than dicots, and include a new kind of tough leaf.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There has been little previous work on the toughness of the laminae of monocots in tropical lowland rain forest (TLRF) despite the potential importance of greater toughness in inhibiting herbivory by invertebrates. Of 15 monocot families with >100 species in TLRF, eight have notably high densities of fibres in the lamina so that high values for toughness are expected. METHODS: In north-eastern Australia punch strength was determined with a penetrometer for both immature leaves (approx. 30 % final area on average) and fully expanded, fully toughened leaves. In Singapore and Panama, fracture toughness was determined with an automated scissors apparatus using fully toughened leaves only. KEY RESULTS: In Australia punch strength was, on average, 7x greater in shade-tolerant monocots than in neighbouring dicots at the immature stage, and 3x greater at the mature stage. In Singapore, shade-tolerant monocots had, on average, 1.3x higher values for fracture toughness than neighbouring dicots. In Panama, both shade-tolerant and gap-demanding monocots were tested; they did not differ in fracture toughness. The monocots had markedly higher values than the dicots whether shade-tolerant or gap-demanding species were considered. CONCLUSIONS: It is predicted that monocots will be found to experience lower rates of herbivory by invertebrates than dicots. The tough monocot leaves include both stiff leaves containing relatively little water at saturation (e.g. palms), and leaves which lack stiffness, are rich in water at saturation and roll readily during dry weather or even in bright sun around midday (e.g. gingers, heliconias and marants). Monocot leaves also show that it is possible for leaves to be notably tough throughout the expansion phase of development, something never recorded for dicots. The need to broaden the botanist's mental picture of a 'tough leaf' is emphasized.

Monocot leaves are eaten less than dicot leaves in tropical lowland rain forests: correlations with toughness and leaf presentation.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In tropical lowland rain forest (TLRF) the leaves of most monocots differ from those of most dicots in two ways that may reduce attack by herbivores. Firstly, they are tougher. Secondly, the immature leaves are tightly folded or rolled until 50-100 % of their final length. It was hypothesized that (a) losses of leaf area to herbivorous invertebrates are generally greatest during leaf expansion and smaller for monocots than for dicots, and (b) where losses after expansion are appreciable any difference between monocots and dicots then is smaller than that found during expansion. METHODS: At six sites on four continents, estimates were made of lamina area loss from the four most recently mature leaves of focal monocots and of the nearest dicot shoot. Measurements of leaf mass per unit area, and the concentrations of water and nitrogen were made for many of the species. In Panama, the losses from monocots (palms) and dicots were also measured after placing fully expanded palm leaflets and whole dicot leaves on trails of leaf-cutter ants. KEY RESULTS: At five of six sites monocots experienced significantly smaller leaf area loss than dicots. The results were not explicable in terms of leaf mass per unit area, or concentrations of water or nitrogen. At only one site was the increase in loss from first to fourth mature leaf significant (also large and the same in monocots and dicots), but the losses sustained during expansion were much smaller in the monocots. In the leaf-cutter ant experiment, losses were much smaller for palms than for dicots. CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between toughness and herbivory is complex; despite the negative findings of some recent authors for dicots we hypothesize that either greater toughness or late folding can protect monocot leaves against herbivorous insects in tropical lowland rain forest, and that the relative importance varies widely with species. The difficulties of establishing unequivocally the roles of leaf toughness and leaf folding or rolling in a given case are discussed.