4.3 Article

Are modern pollen data representative of west African vegetation?

Journal

REVIEW OF PALAEOBOTANY AND PALYNOLOGY
Volume 156, Issue 3-4, Pages 265-276

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.revpalbo.2009.02.001

Keywords

West Africa; modern pollen samples; biomisation; plant functional types; correspondence analyses

Funding

  1. African Pollen Database (APD)
  2. Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de I'Environnement [3142]
  3. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
  4. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Vegetation reconstructions are proposed in central Atlantic and north-west Africa from modern pollen data derived from an original data set of 452 samples and 1075 pollen taxa along a north-south transect from Congo to Egypt. We use multivariate statistical methods to link pollen samples to vegetation types, climate parameters (both annual and seasonal) and biomes. Analysis is based on a precise relationship between pollen assemblages and vegetation types and a re-assessment of Plant Functional Types and biomes at a subcontinental scale. The results show that the 13 main vegetation types described in western Africa are correctly defined by pollen data (both main pollen types and percentages) and both annual and seasonal climate parameters can be assigned to each of them. This includes distinction between the northern and southern types of dry rain forest from Cameroon and Congo and between tropical and non-tropical desert areas. Biomes are correctly reconstructed for all the vegetation types except for the tropical dry forest (TDFO) in the Sudanian vegetation zone (probably due to the strong anthropogenic disturbance of the natural landscape) and the tropical rain forest (TRFO) near the Equator (due to the highly complex biology of the rain forest, still poorly studied). (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available