4.0 Article

Types and causes of tree mortality in a tropical montane cloud forest of Tamaulipas, Mexico

Journal

JOURNAL OF TROPICAL ECOLOGY
Volume 16, Issue -, Pages 623-636

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0266467400001619

Keywords

hurricanes; insects; oaks; sprouts; tropical montane cloud forest; types of death

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The types and causes of death of canopy and subcanopy trees were characterized for the tropical montane cloud forest of Tamaulipas, Mexico. Field work was carried out at the Biosphere Reserve 'El Cielo', located on the eastern slope of the Sierra Madre Oriental. Three study plots, each of 2 ha, were selected within the forest differing in their degree of exposure to wind. Results indicate that the tropical montane cloud forest presents a differential treefall regime derived from the great hurricane activity to which this mountain range is exposed. This effect is illustrated by the great number of fallen logs (545 trees in 6 ha) and the high percentage of uprooted (48.3%) and snapped off (37.6%) trees. Other treefall factors included the rocky and shallow soils and weakness of the dominant trees from insect attack. A differential disturbance level was obtained between zones. The disturbance was higher for the exposed zone, where the crown cover of emergent trees was not closed. Species composition of the dead material was related to the abundance of the overstorey species as standing vegetation. Ten of the 20 recorded species were able to sprout and just 7.5% of the 545 fallen trees were sprouting. Quercus germana, Q. sartorii, Clethra pringlei, Lipuidambar styraciflua and Ceris canadensis, accounted for 78.5% of the gap-forming species. The type of treefall differed between species of the same genera: Q. germana was generally found uprooted, while Q. sartorii died standing probably because of previous weakening from dipterous insects.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available