4.7 Article

Assessing limitations on population growth in two critically endangered Acacia taxa

Journal

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
Volume 108, Issue 1, Pages 13-26

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00084-8

Keywords

Acacia; rare; weeds; population constraints; fire; threatened species; regeneration niche

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Flowering phenology, soil seedbank and the impact of fire, weeds and grazing were investigated in two rare Acacia taxa restricted to the agricultural district north of Perth Western Australia. Acacia aprica is known from six extant populations and one extinct population. Five of the extant populations are restricted to linear road reserves with the sixth population located in a small native vegetation remnant. Acacia cochlocarpa ssp. cochlocarpa is known from a single population also situated on a road verge. Size class structure, levels of canopy death and an absence of juveniles indicated that all populations are in decline. Flowering intensity and success varied between populations and years in A. aprica and between years in A. cochlocarpa ssp. cochlocarpa. Seed bank analysis indicated that seeds were patchily distributed while experimental fires demonstrated that such events could break seed dormancy and promote germination. Both taxa have similar germination physiologies and showed increased germination after seeds were exposed to heat. Following emergence, however, competition with annual weeds had a negative impact on seedling growth and survival in both taxa. While vertebrate grazing had some influence, weeds were the major inhibitory influence on recruitment. Reduced fire frequencies since fragmentation may be responsible for population decline in both taxa but other site specific factors such as weeds and grazing may affect the establishment of seedlings following fire. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available