4.1 Article

The tree-shrub vegetation in rocky outcrop cerrado areas in Goias State, Brazil

期刊

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
卷 35, 期 3, 页码 281-294

出版社

SOC BOTANICA SAO PAULO
DOI: 10.1590/S1806-99592012000300007

关键词

biodiversity; Cerrado biome; floristic composition; floristic similarity; rocky outcrops

资金

  1. Fundacao Grupo Boticario de Protecao a Natureza [0651/20051, 0765/20072]
  2. Capes
  3. CNPq/Procad UnB/Unemat

向作者/读者索取更多资源

(The tree-shrub vegetation in rocky outcrop cerrado areas in Goias State, Brazil). We describe the floristic composition of the tree-shrub vegetation in 10 areas of rocky outcrop cerrado in Goias State, Brazil. Ten 20 x 50 m plots (totaling 1 ha) were established and all of the individuals with diameters at 30 cm above soil level (DB30) >= 5 cm were included in the sampling. Comparative analyses of the flora were realized using similarity indices (Sorensen and Czekanowski), classification analysis (TWINSPAN), and the Mantel test. A total of 13,041 tree-shrub individuals were sampled, distributed among 219 species, 129 genera and 55 families. Fabaceae was the most well-represented family, followed by Myrtaceae, Melastomataceae, Vochysiaceae, Malphigiaceae, and Rubiaceae. Fully 42.3% of the comparisons evaluated by the Sorensen index were > 0.50, while all the values were < 0.50 for the Czekanowski index, with the exception of Jaragua and Mara Rosa areas. The TWINSPAN classification generated four divisions and, in general, only the differences in the size of the population were responsible for the groupings. The Mantel test indicated that there was no relationship between floristic similarity and the distances between the areas (r = 0.32, P = 0.05). It therefore appears that the areas of rocky outcrop cerrado in Goias State are relatively floristically homogeneous and that they are principally distinguished by the differences in the sizes of the populations of their dominant species, and the presence of exclusive species in certain areas.

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

4.1
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