4.5 Article

Effects of chronic human activities on invasion of longleaf pine forests by sand pine

Journal

ECOSYSTEMS
Volume 3, Issue 3, Pages 283-292

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s100210000026

Keywords

land use; pine invasion; sand pine; longleaf pine; Pinus clausa; Pinus palustris; disturbance; chronic human influence; ecological surprises; fire suppression

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Chronic human activities may result in new and permanent successional trajectories in certain ecosystems. Tho invasion of longleaf pine ecosystems by sand pine in the Florida Panhandle is one such change in the landscape. This study examined the spatial pattern of sand pine expansion and explored the natural and anthropogenic disturbances that fostered this invasion. Aerial photographs (1949, 1994) and Geographic Information Systems analyses confirmed sand pine expansion at Eglin Air Force Base. In 1949, there were 8,982 ha of sand pine in the southern portion of the study area near riparian and coastal lowland forests. By 1994, sand pine had expanded further upland and inland, for a total of 17,147 ha in the study area. Sand pine age data showed that this expansion had started by 1920 but increased rapidly in the 1940s. Historical accounts and structural data from stands suggest that land-use activities associated with the extraction of turpentine promoted the invasion by sand pine. Fires were suppressed in longleaf pine forests to protect turpentine trees, resulting in increased vegetation cover and decreased regeneration of longleaf pine. In addition, stands were typically harvested after turpentining, and there was little or no advanced regeneration of longleaf pine. Sand pine age histograms showed that the onset of high establishment rates (1940s) coincided with changes in land ownership and widespread fire suppression. Sand pine is likely to persist in these ecosystems due to its abundant regeneration.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available