4.0 Article

Effects of forest fragmentation on the recruitment success of the tropical tree Poulsenia armata at Los Tuxtlas, Veracruz, Mexico

期刊

JOURNAL OF TROPICAL ECOLOGY
卷 30, 期 -, 页码 209-218

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0266467414000108

关键词

abiotic condition; dispersal limitation; negative density dependence; recruitment limitation; tropical rain forest

类别

资金

  1. NSF [DEB 0516259]
  2. University of Illinois at Chicago
  3. Rufford Foundation
  4. Idea Wild
  5. Sigma Xi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recruitment success of individual plants is limited by an array of biotic and abiotic factors. Seedling survival may experience high mortality due to negative density dependence or altered microclimatic conditions. This study reports regeneration of Poulsenia armata (Moraceae), in the fragmented landscape of the Los Tuxtlas region in southeastern Mexico. Density, survival and growth of seedlings (<1 y) and juveniles (<150 cm height) of P. armata were predicted to be significantly lower in forest fragments compared with extensive continuous forest. Contrary to expectation, density did not vary between habitats; however, we found twice the number of seedlings (n = 82) in forest fragments than in the continuous forest (n = 35). Forest fragments were associated with higher seedling densities close to adult trees. Unexpectedly, we found no evidence for negative density dependence in plant survival or growth. Survival and growth of P. armata were negatively impacted in forest fragments, with desiccation by warmer daily temperatures likely the cause of mortality, independent of density. Of the 111 individuals recorded in 2010 in forest fragments, 38% died over 2 y of census (n = 42), while 9% (n = 12) of the 127 individuals from the continuous forest died. Higher rates of mortality suggest that conditions in forest fragments are detrimental to seedling cohorts over time. Low juvenile recruitment jeopardizes persistence of P. armata, in fragmented populations of this rain-forest tree.

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