4.5 Article

Influence of aboveground vegetation on seed bank composition and distribution in a Great Basin Desert sagebrush community

期刊

JOURNAL OF ARID ENVIRONMENTS
卷 88, 期 -, 页码 113-120

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.08.013

关键词

Aboveground vegetation; Great Basin Desert; Microhabitat; Seed bank; Shrub; Similarity

资金

  1. Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP) [05-S-08]
  2. Utah Agricultural Experiment Station (UAES)
  3. Utah State University Ecology Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The quantity, composition, and spatial dispersion of seed banks can greatly affect community dynamics. While seed banks of hot deserts have been studied extensively, little is known about seed banks in cold deserts, in particular the relationship between the seed bank and the aboveground vegetation. We investigated the relationship between the seed bank and aboveground vegetation and the effect of microhabitat (shrub interspace or beneath shrub) and aboveground community phase (high or low perennial bunchgrass cover) on the seed bank of a Great Basin Desert sagebrush community. The seed bank and aboveground vegetation differed in their most dominant species, resulting in moderately dissimilar species compositions as determined by Sorensen's similarity index and Bray-Curtis distance. In contrast, comparing the seed bank species composition to the aboveground vegetation structure (functional groups) using non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) revealed a correspondence between the two communities. Shrub seed densities were higher beneath shrubs. Neither microhabitat nor community phase explained variation in total seed density or species richness. Therefore, our measures of the aboveground vegetation did not influence seed density across functional groups or species richness, and the similarity between the seed bank and aboveground vegetation varied depending on the aboveground organizational level used in comparisons. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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