4.3 Article

A conceptual model of sprouting responses in relation to fire damage: an example with cork oak (Quercus suber L.) trees in Southern Portugal

期刊

PLANT ECOLOGY
卷 201, 期 1, 页码 77-85

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11258-008-9476-0

关键词

Apical dominance; Mediterranean; Model; Mortality; Resource allocation; Resprouting; Severity

资金

  1. POCI/AGR/58896/ 2004 [POCI/AGR/58896/ 2004]
  2. FFP - Recuperacao de areas ardidas
  3. [INTERREG III-B RECOFORME]
  4. [POCI/AGR/61407/2004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The sprouting response types of 1,151 cork oak (Quercus suber) trees one and half years after a wildfire in southern Portugal were characterised. It was hypothesised that different response types should occur according to the following conceptual model: an increased level of damage (fire severity) on a sprouting tree that suffered a crown fire was expected to be reflected in a sequence of four alternative events, namely (a) resprouting exclusively from crown, (b) simultaneous resprouting from crown and base, (c) resprouting exclusively from base and (d) plant death. To assess whether the level of expected damage was influenced by the level of protection from disturbance, we explored the relationships between response types and tree size, bark thickness and cork stripping, using an information-theoretic approach. The more common response type was crown resprouting (68.8% of the trees), followed by plant death (15.8%), simultaneous resprouting from crown and base (10.1%) and basal resprouting (5.3%). In agreement with the conceptual model, trees which probably suffered a higher level of damage by fire (larger trees with thinner bark; exploited for cork) died or resprouted exclusively from base. On the other hand, trees that were well protected (smaller trees with thicker bark not exploited for cork) were able to rebuild their canopy through crown resprouting. Simultaneous resprouting from the crown and base was determined mainly by tree size, and it was more common in smaller trees.

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

4.3
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