4.0 Article

Population dynamics of canopy trees in New Caledonian rain forests: are monodominant Nothofagus (Nothofagaceae) forests successional to mixed rain forests?

期刊

JOURNAL OF TROPICAL ECOLOGY
卷 29, 期 -, 页码 485-499

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0266467413000576

关键词

forest dynamics; monodominance; New Caledonia; population size structures; regeneration; succession; tropical rain forest

类别

资金

  1. Australian Research Council
  2. Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres (France)
  3. IRD
  4. Monash University
  5. Air Calin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In New Caledonia, rain forests with an upper canopy dominated by single species of Nothofagus occur next to mixed-canopy forests, without discernible environmental cause. A potential explanation is that they are different successional stages. To test this hypothesis and predict long-term change in canopy dominance, population size structures of 61 canopy species were analysed in six Nothofagus-dominated forests and three adjacent mixed rain forests. Weibull analysis suggests that these Nothofagus forests are secondary forests, with recruitment insufficient to maintain monodominance, except at a high-altitude site. At low-to mid-altitudes the Nothofagus canopy is predicted to develop into a mixed canopy, unless moderate to severe disturbance occurs within its reproductive lifespan. However, adjacent mixed rain forests are also secondary, with 85% of analysed species showing no evidence of continuous regeneration. Fifteen species from both forest types showed reverse-J curves suggesting continuous regeneration, but only Calophyllum caledonicum did so consistently. Since few canopy species showed evidence of high shade tolerance and persistence, a small number of shade-tolerant species is predicted to dominate both forests in the long term, in the hypothetical absence of disturbance. Hence, temporal factors associated with disturbances play a key role in determining dominance in these forests.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据